You are on page 1of 150

ADI 1

Free Trade

Free Trade Core


Free Trade Core.............................................................................................................................1
Uniqueness – Free Trade Strong Now..........................................................................................8
Uniqueness – WTO Weak Now.....................................................................................................9
Uniqueness – WTO Weak Now...................................................................................................10
Uniqueness – Doha Dead.............................................................................................................11
Besides its role in trade liberalisation, the WTO also helps settle trade disputes by helping
governments adjust to trade tensions within an agreed legal system, Hartridge, a former
acting director-general of the WTO, told Reuters....................................................................11
Uniqueness – Doha Not Dead......................................................................................................12
Uniqueness – Foreign Tax Credits Low Now.............................................................................13
Free Trade/Globalization Good – War.......................................................................................14
Free Trade/Globalization Good – War.......................................................................................15
Free Trade/Globalization Good – War.......................................................................................16
Free Trade/Globalization Good – War.......................................................................................17
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Module.............................................................18
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Module.............................................................19
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Ext....................................................................20
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Ext....................................................................21
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Module.........................................................22
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Ext.................................................................23
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Ext.................................................................24
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens............................................25
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens............................................26
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Module................................................................27
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Ext.......................................................................28
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Ext.......................................................................29
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Middle East Instability Module.........................................30
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Terrorism Module...............................................................31
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Poverty.................................................................................32
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Poverty.................................................................................33
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Jobs/Security.......................................................................34
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Chinese Democracy............................................................35
Free Trade/Globalization Good – Collectivism........................................................................36
ADI 2
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Women’s Rights.................................................................37


Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Free Trade Causes War...............................................38
Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Only Big Corps. Benefit..............................................39
Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Outsourcing Bad..........................................................40
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Laundry List..........................................................................41
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Food Shortages Module........................................................42
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Environment Module............................................................43
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Monocultures.........................................................................44
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Genocide ................................................................................45
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Marginalization.....................................................................46
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Workers Backlash.................................................................47
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Elitism ...................................................................................48
Free Trade/Globalization Rhetoric Bad – Hurts The Poor......................................................49
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Good (General)..........................................50
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Solves War...................................................51
Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Solves Economy..........................................52
WTO – Key To Free Trade .........................................................................................................53
WTO – Not Key To Free Trade...................................................................................................54
WTO Good – Corporate Domination........................................................................................55
WTO Bad – Imperialism/Global Governance...........................................................................56
WTO Bad – Imperialism.............................................................................................................57
Doha – Agriculture Subsidies Key..............................................................................................58
Doha – Agriculture Subsidies Key..............................................................................................59
Doha – Alternate Causalities ......................................................................................................61
Doha – Alternate Causalities.......................................................................................................62
Doha – Alternate Causalities.......................................................................................................63
Doha – Key To The Global Economy.........................................................................................64
Doha – Not Key To The Global Economy..................................................................................65
Doha – Key To The WTO............................................................................................................66
Doha – Resiliency.........................................................................................................................67
Doha – Long Timeframe..............................................................................................................68
Doha – AT: Long Timeframe......................................................................................................69
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................70
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................71
ADI 3
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................72


Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................73
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................74
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................75
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................76
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................77
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................78
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................79
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................80
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................81
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad......................................................................................................82
Fourth, RTA critics argue that some accords can set bad precedents for multilateral trade.
Due to economic and political asymmetries in North-South RTAs, developed country
partners can push for the inclusion of origin rules or intellectual property protection that
developing countries may find burdensome to implement and enforce. Others argue that
RTAs cover subjects that are better dealt with outside the trade arena, such as labor and
environment. Of course, many believe that coverage of these areas is crucial – for both
substantive reasons and to bolster domestic political support for the pact in industrial
countries........................................................................................................................................82
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad – Capitalism Kritik Link...........................................................83
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Fail......................................................................................................84
At a time when multilateral negotiations are slowing down, rather than rushing into FTAs,
I suggest that the government instead focus on increasing our country's productivity,
improving governance, and strengthening our institutions.....................................................84
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Leads To Multilateral Free Trade.......................................85
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Leads To Multilateral Free Trade.......................................86
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good....................................................................................................87
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good....................................................................................................88
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good....................................................................................................89
Bilateral/Regional FTA’s Good – AT: Trade Diversion............................................................90
Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Misc........................................................................................91
Multilateral Free Trade Bad.......................................................................................................92
TPA – Key To Laundry List........................................................................................................93
TPA, also known as "fast track," would give President Bush the authority to negotiate new
market-opening trade agreements with other nations. TPA would allow the president to
submit trade agreements to Congress for an up or down vote without amendments, so that
foreign governments would not have to negotiate twice, first with the administration and
then with Congress. Every president since 1974 has been able to pursue trade agreements
ADI 4
Free Trade

under those basic rules. Here are three compelling reasons why President Bush should be
granted that same authority: One, trade expansion promotes American prosperity.
Economic growth in the past decade was the most robust during those years when trade--
both imports and exports--was growing the most rapidly. Trade stimulates competition,
innovation, and efficiency, making U.S. workers more productive and raising real family
incomes. Imports keep prices down at the store, especially for low-income families. During
the recent downturn, trade flows have fallen sharply along with employment and
manufacturing output. Promoting trade would help to stimulate the economy. TPA would
open the door for regional and global trade agreements that would open markets for
America's most competitive exports. At their just-completed meeting in Qatar, the 142
members of the World Trade Organization agreed to pursue a new round of negotiations to
lower barriers to agricultural, industrial, and service exports, including a cut in Europe's
huge farm export subsidies. A recent study by the University of Michigan estimates that
even a one-third cut in tariffs on agriculture, industrial, and service trade would boost
annual global production by $613 billion, including $177 billion in the United States--or
about $1,700 per U.S. household. Two, trade expansion promotes U.S. security. Nations that
trade with one another tend to get along better than nations that shun trade. America's
historic post-war shift away from Depression-era trade wars and toward open trade was
driven as much by foreign policy and security concerns as by economic self-interest. Trade
with Europe, Japan and developing countries cemented the Western alliance against
communism. Free trade within the European Community, an American condition of
Marshall Plan aid, has made another major European war virtually unthinkable today.
Nations open to trade are far more likely to enjoy full civil and political liberties than those
closed to trade. Trade tills the soil for democracy by introducing new ideas, encouraging
tolerance of other cultures, and creating hope for a better life through individual effort.
America's commercial ties with the rest of the world have encouraged diplomatic and
military cooperation from other nations in the war against terrorism. In contrast, none of
the nations most closely linked to terrorism--Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan,
and North Korea--belong to the WTO.......................................................................................93
TPA – Key To Free Trade............................................................................................................94
TPA – Key To Trade Credibility.................................................................................................95
TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership...................................................................................................96
TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership...................................................................................................97
TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership/Agriculture Industry...............................................................98
TPA – Trade Facilitation Outweighs..........................................................................................99
Protectionism Bad......................................................................................................................100
Protectionism Bad......................................................................................................................101
Protectionism Bad......................................................................................................................102
If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace, then protectionism - a retreat
from open trade - raises the chances of war............................................................................102
Outsourcing Good......................................................................................................................103
Outsourcing Good......................................................................................................................104
ADI 5
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good......................................................................................................................105
Outsourcing Good......................................................................................................................106
Outsourcing Good......................................................................................................................107
Outsourcing Bad........................................................................................................................108
Neoliberalism Bad......................................................................................................................109
Neoliberalism Good....................................................................................................................110
Collectivism Bad.........................................................................................................................111
Collectivism Bad ........................................................................................................................112
Economic Nationalism Causes Collectivism...........................................................................113
NAFTA – Key To U.S. Economy...............................................................................................114
SKFTA – Will Pass Now............................................................................................................115
SKFTA – Will Not Pass Now.....................................................................................................116
Administration officials said this month they are unlikely to send the Korea FTA to
Congress this year because there are fewer than 90 legislative days left until the scheduled
adjournment, making it impossible to "force" a vote under the 90-day window prescribed
in presidential trade negotiating authority protocols.............................................................116
SKFTA Good...............................................................................................................................117
It is time Congress set aside partisan differences and worked for the common good of the
American public. .......................................................................................................................117
SKFTA Good...............................................................................................................................118
SKFTA Good..............................................................................................................................120
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................121
AT: Trade Deficits impact.........................................................................................................122
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................123
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................124
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................125
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................126
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................127
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................128
AT: Trade Deficits impact.........................................................................................................130
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................131
AT: Trade Deficits Impact.........................................................................................................132
Trade Deficits Good ..................................................................................................................134
Elections – Free Trade Key Issue..............................................................................................135
Elections – Obama Pro WTO/Anti FTAs.................................................................................136
ADI 6
Free Trade

Elections – McCain Pro Free Trade.........................................................................................137


Agriculture As A Percentage Of GDP......................................................................................138
All Boxes Are The Same............................................................................................................139
SSM Good/SAS Bad...................................................................................................................140
"Those trade-distorting subsidies of the developed members will still continue to pollute
the international markets including ours in the billions of dollars as they will not be
eliminated in this round. We need a more developing country-friendly SSM," Agriculture
Undersecretary Segfredo R. Serrano said. ............................................................................140
Laissez-Faire Good...................................................................................................................141
Laissez-Faire Good....................................................................................................................142
Comparative Advantage Good..................................................................................................143
Corporate Domination Good....................................................................................................144
Corporate Domination Good....................................................................................................146
High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization...................................................................................147
High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization...................................................................................148
Technology Bad..........................................................................................................................149
Labor Adaptability Key.............................................................................................................150
ADI 7
Free Trade

Uniqueness – Free Trade Weak Now

Free Trade is weak now—trading agreements prove


Block 7/31/08 (John, "Free Trade", Agweb, Accessed 7/31/08 @
http://www.agweb.com/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?src=JohnBlockReportsFromWashington&PID=0f00991e-e085-4ad0-
abd2-dd8386e5074a)
Free trade agreements have become a hard sell in recent years. We have three right now that have
been negotiated and are ready to be voted on by the Congress – Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.
President Bush wants them passed, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are not going
to let it happen.

No such thing as free trade—market regulations exist now


Greising 7/31/08 (David, Free Trade an Elusive Concept, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-world-trade-jul31,0,3483975.story)
Cary business owner Douglas Bartlett doesn't need to sort through the minutia of the Doha Round of trade
talks to gauge his reaction to the surprise breakdown in negotiations. He has his own data points to measure.
Bartlett Manufacturing Co., a maker of computer circuit boards, has lost 75 percent of its sales in the last
decade. Employee head count has fallen by 65 percent. And Bartlett said he believes lax enforcement of
World Trade Organization rules has helped China dominate the circuit board business and grab market share
from his and hundreds of other U.S. firms.
Based on what he saw of the trade treaty under discussion in Geneva over the last week, Bartlett said he
feared it might only get worse. In particular, he said he worried any new treaty would do nothing to force
China to raise the value of its currency, which many economists say gives Chinese companies a competitive
advantage against U.S. firms because the yuan is underpriced by nearly 30 percent against the dollar.
"I was happy to hear the Doha Round failed," Bartlett said. "Free trade is a great concept. I don't
know a businessman who is against it. But what's going on right now conceptually is not free trade."
Bartlett's concern is real, and his point about free trade is both more nuanced and more powerful than
even he might realize. Despite all the rhetoric about free trade, no government truly believes in the
concept. What they believe in is managed trade—managed with an effort toward more open markets,
but managed so that their farmers, factory workers and consumers do not take too much of a hit.
When talks that had gained surprising momentum during 12 days of negotiations broke down abruptly
Tuesday in Geneva, most experts pointed to disputes over two sticking points. Agricultural subsidies topped
the list. Second was a dispute over "Special Safeguard Mechanisms," duties less-developed countries could
impose if they find their markets swamped with foreign agricultural products.
But to focus on the arcane negotiating disputes is to miss the bigger picture. Power politics is the real plotline
at global trade talks, perhaps never more so than this year.
ADI 8
Free Trade

Uniqueness – Free Trade Strong Now

Free Trade Strong Now


Even after the collapse of Doha Free Trade has stayed resilient
Ikenson July 30 08 (Daniel [associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C], Greasing the World Economy Without Doha, http://www.freetrade.org/node/904)
As Doha negotiations sputtered for seven years, the WTO reports that annual global trade flows have
increased 70%, to $14 trillion. UNCTAD reports that annual foreign direct investment flows are up 25%, to
$1.5 trillion. And the IMF notes that the global economy has expanded by 30%, to $54.4 trillion. These
positive trends should continue if governments unilaterally ramp up their own "trade facilitation" efforts.
Trade facilitation is about streamlining the administrative and physical procedures involved in actually
moving goods across borders. These sorts of reforms have contributed heavily to the increase in global trade,
investment and output.
Leading global economists, including Simeon Djankov and John Wilson of the World Bank, note that
trade facilitation could do more to increase global trade flows than further reductions in tariff rates.
While reduced tariffs are important, they will not improve trade flows if bureaucratic customs
procedures and shoddy logistics and communications systems are still in place.
ADI 9
Free Trade

Uniqueness – WTO Weak Now

Collapse of Doha talks crushed the credibility of the WTO


Wall Street Journal 7/31/08 (Free Trade: Rest in Peace,
http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/31235037/Free-trade-Rest-In-Peace.html?h=B)
So, is it too much to mourn the loss of a deal? Yes. Global trade is not mere statistics. It is about better
opportunities for all. With uniform, rule-based, trade in agricultural commodities nowhere in sight, poor
nations will be the biggest losers. India too will lose opportunities. As an aspiring economic power, it cannot
propel ahead in the absence of new markets.
India and other countries will now have to adapt to a harsher world, one that increasingly believes in
bilateral and regional trade agreements. At the end of the Uruguay trade round in 1994, there were 80
bilateral free-trade agreements. By 2010, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates, this number
will rise to 400. While not protectionist, such agreements allow ample scope for domestic lobbies to get
away with what they want.
The patchwork nature of these deals when coupled with a tide of protectionism is likely to cause two
developments. One, the authority of WTO will be eroded and its ability to settle trade disputes whittled
down greatly. Two, the ability of trade to dampen country-specific macroeconomic problems, for example,
due to high food prices, will be greatly reduced. Will the world think again in favour of such an agreement?
Not so long as protectionism has respectability.
ADI 10
Free Trade

Uniqueness – WTO Weak Now

FAILURE OF DOHA ENSURES PROLIFERATION OF BILATERAL AND REGIONAL


TRADE DEALS NOW
Madelaine Drohan, 08/01/08 [Business and Economics Correspondent for Globe and Mail and The Economist,
“World Trade Talks: The Aftermath”, Globe and Mail, Reportonbusiness.com,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080731.wdrohan0801/BNStory/Business]

We are unlikely to remain there long. What happened in Geneva will not stay in Geneva. The failure of the talks
will sour broader relations between rich countries and the developing world, especially the emerging giants of
China and India. And it will speed the already rapid proliferation of bilateral and regional trade deals, which
undermine the global system, despite all professions to the contrary. So while the short-term political outlook
for ministers Mr. Fortier and Mr. Ritz has not darkened, that of the world and especially that of small, open
economies that depend on trade (i.e., Canada) is a lot gloomier today than it was a week ago.
ADI 11
Free Trade

Uniqueness – Doha Dead


DOHA IN A STALEMATE NOW—NO RESOLVE COMING ANYTIME SOON
Lynn in 2008 (Jonathan, WTO to focus on dispute role after Doha blow, Jul 30, Reuters,
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-34738320080730?sp=true)
GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) will focus on its role resolving disputes after
the latest efforts to strike a new global trade pact collapsed on Tuesday.
Ministers leaving 9 days of abortive talks seeking a breakthrough in the WTO's Doha round reaffirmed
their commitment to the multilateral trading system umpired by the WTO.
But many admitted that for the time being it will be easier to seek bilateral or regional arrangements.
And many acknowledged it would be some time before the Doha negotiations -- already in their seventh
year -- could be revived, even though their current offers remain on the table.
"The WTO doesn't become less relevant or important because the Doha round goes down -- the Doha
round is not the WTO," said David Hartridge, a senior counsellor at GLOBAL law firm White and Case.
Besides its role in trade liberalisation, the WTO also helps settle trade disputes by helping governments
adjust to trade tensions within an agreed legal system, Hartridge, a former acting director-general of the
WTO, told Reuters.
ADI 12
Free Trade

Uniqueness – Doha Not Dead


This round of talks may be over but countries are still searching for resolve similar to
DOHA talks
O'Neil July 30 08 (Peter, "Doha trade talks hit roadblock", Calgary Herald,
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=9a90078c-7f12-4ae8-bbeb-
6f9a33024588)
Lamy and some of the 35 trade ministers here, including Canada's Michael Fortier, said advances here
during talks this month could build the basis for a possible future breakthrough in the current Doha
round of trade negotiations.
Fortier told the Canadian media that Canada, like other countries, will now push for bilateral trade deals
and hopes to begin talks with the European Union later this year on an agreement.
"Unfortunately, it is a failure," Fortier said. "I am very disappointed."
Fortier dismissed criticism from some farm groups that Canada's negotiating position at the talks here was
hurt because of a mixed message from Ottawa.
The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, representing export-oriented sectors primarily in Western Canada,
said Ottawa was aggressively defending protectionist policies that help dairy, poultry and egg farmers based
primarily, though not exclusively, in Ontario and Quebec. Those tariffs are well in excess of 200 per cent.
The negotiations for a global deal trade began in 2001. WTO members initially set a goal to finish the Doha
round of talks by Jan. 1, 2005.
ADI 13
Free Trade

Uniqueness – Foreign Tax Credits Low Now

Foreign corporate tax rates are low and continuing to decrease


Franc ’07 [Michael Franc, Vice President of Government Relations for the Heritage Foundation,
“Strengthening Free Enterprise,” Heritage Foundation, 01/24/2007,
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012407e.cfm>]
First, it's instructive, and exceedingly sobering, to look at our corporate tax policies and compare them to
those of our top trading partners. In its annual survey of corporate tax rates around the world, KPMG
International found a "consistent and dramatic" reduction in corporate tax rates since 1993. The pattern is
clear: "Once one major industrialized economy cuts its rates, others seem compelled to do the same, in a
process of international tax competition that continues and intensifies over time."
Indeed, KPMG's researchers found that the average corporate tax rate in the 86 countries it surveyed has
fallen from 38% in 1993 to 27% today.
ADI 14
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – War

Free trade stops global nuke war

Copley News Service in 99


For decades, many children inAmerica and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear
war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists
protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting inSeattle apparently have forgotten that threat.
The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own
prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the
threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle
protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War
protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is
environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle
are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand
Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations
to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would
probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in
the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and
their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's
why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important .As exports to the United
States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the
goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only
multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt.
That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies
that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San
Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom
overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose
their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic
product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the
specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the
singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be
protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
ADI 15
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – War

FREE TRADE SOLVES NUCLEAR WAR

Spicer, 1996 economist; member of the British Parliament,


[Michael, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 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, or of
attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative
production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will
ensure that the consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More
fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and
inflamed. 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. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a
free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade
is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two
a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

Free trade and investment solves war


Boudreaux ’06 [Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason
University,”Want world peace? Support free trade.” Christian Science Monitor, November 20, 2006 <
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html>]

Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promote
peace.
During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York at
Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the topic,
he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade, war,
and peace.
They find that "the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign
investment. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more that Americans
invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those countries with which it has
investment relationships.
Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "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."
ADI 16
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – War


Market interests ensure protection from war
Bandow in 2005 (Doug [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute], Spreading Capitalism is Good for Peace, 11/15
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193 )
In a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks: What causes peace? Many people,
including U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that spreading democracy will discourage war. But new
research suggests that expanding free markets is a far more important factor, leading to what
Columbia University's Erik Gartzke calls a "capitalist peace." It's a reason for even the left to support free
markets.
The capitalist peace theory isn't new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britain's classical liberals,
such as Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism.
But World War I demonstrated that increased trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent
rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and security fears from trumping the power of markets.
An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully, World War II left war essentially unthinkable among
leading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that
republics are less warlike than other systems.
Today's corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce conflict. This contention animated some
support outside as well as inside the United States for the invasion of Iraq.
But Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political
freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states.
Thus, while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic
Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contribute
directly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor.
The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets
generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer
provides the best path to riches.
Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together
and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic
prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.

Economic interests prevent war to keep markets open


Bandow in 2005 (Doug [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute], Spreading Capitalism is Good for Peace, 11/15
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193 )

If market critics don't realize the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets - prosperity and
freedom - they should appreciate the unintended peace dividend. Trade encourages prosperity and
stability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of conquest; globalization creates
economic interdependence, increasing the cost of war.
Nothing is certain in life, and people are motivated by far more than economics. But it turns out that
peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace.
ADI 17
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – War


Armed conflicts and total causalities are decreasing due to free trade- states don’t go to war
because trade means they have more to lose.
Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
The Peace Dividend of Globalization
The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated but encouraging fact: The world has
somehow become a more peaceful place.
A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline
for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report
found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.
The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has
fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions,
meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in
1951 during the Korean War.
Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization
appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a
forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would
argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.
First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to
globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's
true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to
democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.
A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national
economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a
globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment
ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of
war.

The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political
science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic
freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric
analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes,
the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free."
By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a
countries propensity to go to war than democracy.

Trade Solves War- Allows resource acquisition without conflict and dematerializes wealth
making conquest ineffective.
Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and
exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in
terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In
contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service
economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can
acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the
development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.
ADI 18
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Module

FREE TRADE IS KEY TO DEMOCRACY

Griswold 2k4
(Daniel T., Griswold, Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trading Tyranny for
Freedom: How Open Markets Till the Soil for Democracy, January 6, Trade Policy Analysis, no. 26)
In a November 6, 2003, speech on the need to promote democracy in the Muslim world, President George W. Bush
explicitly drew the connection between economic and political freedoms: Historians will note that in many nations,
the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their
own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control—and marvel at the
power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.1
In an April 2002 speech in which President Bush urged Congress to grant him trade promotion authority, he argued that trade is about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of
freedom,” the president said, and those habits “begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that are open to commerce across their
borders are more open to democracy within their borders.”2 Other administration officials have taken that reasoning a step further, arguing that the democracy and respect for human rights that
trade can foster would create a more peaceful world, reducing the frustration and resentment that can breed radicalism and terrorism.
There is a great deal of research on the economic impact of trade, but much less on its political impact. Do the assertions that expanding trade and international commerce promote
democracy and human rights make sense in theory, and do they stand up to empirical scrutiny? The evidence from this study strongly suggests that those assertions rest on solid ground and
deserve to be considered as Congress and the administration shape our international economic and trade policy. Theory: How Free Markets
Foster Political Freedoms
Economic openness and the commercial competition and contact it brings can directly and indirectly promote civil
and political freedoms within countries. Trade can influence the political system directly by increasing the contact a
nation’s citizens experience with the rest of the world, through face-to-face meetings, and electronic
communications, including telephone, fax, and the Internet. Commercial communication can bring a sharing of ideas and exposure to new
ways of thinking, doing business, and organizing civil society. Along with the flow of consumer and industrial goods often come books, magazines, and other
media with political and social content. Foreign investment and services trade create opportunities for foreign travel and study,
allowing citizens to experience first-hand the civil liberties and more representative political institutions of other
nations.
Economic freedom and trade provide a counterweight to governmental power. A free market diffuses
economic decisionmaking among millions of producers and consumers rather than leaving it in the hands of a few
centralized government actors who could, and often do, use that power to suppress or marginalize political
opposition. Milton Friedman, the Nobel-prize-winning economist, noted the connection between economic and political freedom in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom: Viewed as a
means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides
competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power
economic freedom directly, namely
from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.3
ADI 19
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Module

DEMOCRACY STOPS NUCLEAR WAR


MURAVCHIK ’01 Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute [Joshua, “Democracy and Nuclear Peace,” 7-11-
01, Presented before the NPEC/IGCC Summer Faculty Seminar, UC-San Diego, www.npec-web.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm]

Moreover, while the criteria for judging a state democratic vary, the statistic that 45 percent of states were
democratic in 1990 corresponds with Freedom House's count of "democratic" polities (as opposed to its smaller count of
"free" countries, a more demanding criterion). But by this same count, Freedom House now says that the proportion of democracies has grown to
62.5 percent. In other words, the "third wave" has not abated.
< waxing. is democracy for yearning the Islam radical of cradle in even that suggests 2001 victory election landslide second Khatami="s"
President Iranian And these. majority a assent won not has and Moslems to only definition by appeals it but world, parts alternative an offer still
may Radical democracy. challenge ideological universalist ended also War; Cold Communism fall The>
That Freedom House could count 120 freely elected governments by early 2001 (out of a total of 192 independent
states) bespeaks a vast transformation in human governance within the span of 225 years. In 1775, the number of
democracies was zero. In 1776, the birth of the United States of America brought the total up to one. Since then, democracy has spread at an
accelerating pace, most of the growth having occurred within the twentieth century, with greatest momentum since 1974.
That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the
most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that
there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and starts
rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful and
clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before.
This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced
almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the
world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of
democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear
arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.
ADI 20
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Ext.

Empirical studies prove free trade has brought democracy to 700 million people.
Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
First, I examined the broad global trends in both trade and political liberty during the past three decades. Since the early 1970s, cross-border flows of trade, investment, and
currency have increased dramatically, and far faster than output itself. Trade barriers have fallen unilaterally and through multilateral and
regional trade agreements in Latin America, in the former Soviet bloc nations, in East Asia, including China, and in more developed nations as well. During that
same period, political and civil liberties have been spreading around the world. Thirty years ago democracies were
the exception in Latin America, while today they are the rule. Many former communist states from the old Soviet Union and its empire have successfully transformed
themselves into functioning democracies that protect basic civil and political freedoms. In East Asia, democracy and respect for human rights have replaced authoritarian rule in South Korea,
Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
Freedom House, a human rights think tank in New York, measures the political and civil freedom each year in every country in the world. It classifies countries into three
categories: "Free"--meaning countries where citizens enjoy the freedom to vote as well as full freedom of the press, speech, religion and independent civic life; "Partly Free"--those countries "in
which there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties"; and "Not Free"--"where basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied."
According to the most recent Freedom House survey, political and civil freedoms have expanded dramatically along
with the spread of globalization and freer trade. In 1973, 35 percent of the world's population lived in countries that
were "Free." Today that share has increased to 46 percent. In 1973, almost half of the people in the world, 47 percent, lived in countries that were "Not
Free." Today that share has mercifully fallen to 36 percent. The share of people living in countries that are "Partly Free" is the same, 18 percent.
In other words, in the past three decades, more than one-tenth of humanity has escaped the darkest tyranny for the
bright sunlight of civil and political freedom. That represents 700 million people who once suffered under the jack boot of oppression who
now enjoy the same civil and political liberties that we all take for granted.
ADI 21
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Democracy Ext.


The best studies indicate a strong causal relationship between free trade and democracy.
Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
Next, I examined the relationship between economic openness in individual countries today and their record of human rights and democracy. To make this comparison, I combined the Freedom
House ratings with the ratings for economic freedom contained in the Economic Freedom of the World Report. That study rates more than 120 countries according to the freedom to trade and
invest internationally, to engage in business, access to sound money, property rights, and the size of government . The study is jointly sponsored by 50 think tanks
around the world, including the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute in Canada, and Norway's own Center for Business
and Society Incorporated, or Civita. When we compare political and civil freedoms to economic freedom, we find
that nations with open and free economies are far more likely to enjoy full political and civil liberties than those with
closed and state-dominated economies. Of the 25 rated countries in the top quintile of economic openness, 21 are rated "Free" by Freedom House and only one is rated
"Not Free." In contrast, among the quintile of countries that are the least open economically, only seven are rated "Free" and nine are rated "Not Free." In other words, the most
economically open countries are three times more likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are
economically closed. Those that are closed are nine times more likely to completely suppress civil and political
freedoms as those that are open.
The percentage of countries rated as "Free" rises in each quintile as the freedom to exchange with foreigners rises, while the percentage rated as "Not Free" falls. In fact, 17 of the
20 countries rated as "Not Free" are found in the bottom two quintiles of economic openness, and only three in the top three quintiles. The percentage of nations rated as "Partly Free" also drops
precipitously in the top two quintiles of economic openness.
A more formal statistical comparison shows a significant, positive correlation between economic freedom, including the freedom to engage in international commerce, and political
The statistical correlation remains strong even when controlling for a nation's per capita gross domestic
and civil freedom.
product, consistent with the theory that economic openness reinforces political liberty directly and independently of
its effect on growth and income levels. One unmistakable lesson from the cross-country data is that governments that grant their citizens a large measure of freedom to
engage in international commerce find it dauntingly difficult to deprive them of political and civil liberties. A corollary lesson is that governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff walls
and other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny those same liberties.
Even when we look at reform within individual countries, we see a connection. A statistical analysis of those
countries shows a significant and positive correlation between the expansion of the freedom to exchange with
foreigners over the past three decades in individual countries and an expansion of political and civil freedoms in the
same country during the same period. Countries that have most aggressively followed those twin tracks of reform--reflected in their improved scores during the past two
decades in the indexes for freedom of exchange and combined political and civil freedom--include Chile, Ghana, Hungary, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Portugal, and Tanzania. Twenty years
ago, both South Korea and Taiwan were essentially one-party states without free elections or full civil liberties. Today, due in large measure to economic liberalization, trade reform, and the
economic growth they spurred, both are thriving democracies where a large and well-educated middle class enjoys the full range of civil liberties. In both countries, opposition parties have
gained political power against long-time ruling parties.
Our best hope for political reform countries that are "Not Free" will not come from confrontation and economic sanctions. In Cuba, for example, expanded trade with the United States would be a
far more promising policy to bring an end to the Castro era than the failed, four-decades-old economic embargo. Based experience elsewhere, the U.S. government could more effectively
promote political and civil freedom in Cuba by allowing more trade and travel than by maintaining the embargo. The folly of imposing trade sanctions in the name of promoting human rights
abroad is that sanctions deprive people in the target countries of the technological tools and economic opportunities that nurture political freedom.
ADI 22
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Module


FREE TRADE IS KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Taylor Et al in 01 (Scott [Prof of Econ @ U of Calgary, Research Associate NBER, Canada Research Chair I],
Werner Antweiler [Sauder School of Business @ University of British Columbia] and Brian R. Copeland [Prof of
Econ @ U of B.C.], "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment", accessed online 7/30/08 @
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=taylor)
This paper investigates how ”openness” to international markets affects pollution levels to assess the
environmental consequences of international trade. We develop a theoretical model to divide trade’s
impact on pollution into scale, technique and composition effects and then examine this theory using
data on sulfur dioxide concentrations from the Global Environment Monitoring Project. The
decomposition of trade’s effect into scale, technique and composition effects has proven useful in other
contexts [see Grossman and Krueger (1993), Copeland and Taylor (1994, 1995)] and here we move one step
forward to provide estimates of their magnitude. We find that international trade creates relatively small
changes in sulfur dioxide concentra tions when it alters the composition, and hence the pollution
intensity, of national output. Combining this result with our estimates of scale and technique effects
yields a somewhat surprising conclusion: if trade liberalization raises GDP per person by 1 percent,
then pollution concentrations fall by about 1 percent. Free trade is good for the environment.1 We
obtain this conclusion by estimating a very simple model highlighting the interaction of factor
endowments and income differences in determining the pattern of trade. Our approach, while relatively
straightforward, is novel in four respects. First, by exploiting the panel structure of our data set, we are
able to distinguish empirically between the negative environmental consequences of scalar increases in
economic activity—the scale effect—and the positive environmental consequences of increases in
income that call for cleaner production methods—the technique effect. This distinction is important for
many reasons.2 Grossman and Krueger (1993) interpret their hump-shaped ”Kuznets curve” as reflecting the
relative strength of scale versus technique effects, but they do not provide separate estimates of their
magnitude. Our estimates indicate that a 1 percent increase in the scale of economic activity raises
pollution concentrations by 0.25 to 0.5 percent for an average country in our sample, but the
accompanying increase in income drives concentrations down by 1.25–1.5 percent via a technique
effect.

Environmental destruction leads to extinction.


Diner, 1994 (Major David N, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, 143 Mil.
L. Rev. 161, l/n)

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions
of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
ADI 23
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Ext.

Recent study indicates free trade helps the environment


Venkat ‘4
(Kumar, works in Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts of
technology and globalization, Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?, The national environmental and
training foundation, January 8th, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-10.htm)

One of the most contentious issues surrounding globalization is the concern that free trade hurts the environment,
both locally and globally. The classic argument for free global trade is that it is efficient for countries to specialize in
producing goods where they have a comparative advantage, which they can then exchange for other goods. But
skeptics like ecological economist Herman Daly have questioned this on the grounds that the real costs of trade --
including depletion of natural resources and pollution -- are hidden and routinely ignored.
In the new book “Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence,” economists Brian Copeland and Scott Taylor
attempt to replace some of the rhetoric in this debate with systematically produced results. Based on a study of
sulfur dioxide concentrations in over 100 cities around the world from 1971 to 1996, they reach the surprising and
provocative conclusion that free trade can actually be good for the environment.
ADI 24
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Environment Ext.


Free Trade spreads environmental norms, technology, and policy strategies that are better
for the environment than a protectionist strategy.
Shin ‘4
(Sangbum, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Economic
Globalization and the Environment in China: A Comparative Case Study of Shenyang and Dalian, Journal of
Environment and Development, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2004 263-294)
This article attempts to test the key hypothesis mentioned above by comparing two cases based on the most
similar system design. It hypothesizes that global environmental norms are more likely to be empowered and
converted into effective policy practices in a relatively open economy. To examine if the economic openness
facilitates the norm diffusion process and, therefore, brings a higher level of environmental
institutionalization and better policy performance, this article selects two cities in China based on the
variation in the economic openness. Except for the economic openness, the two cities are similar in most
aspects that can affect the different outcomes, among which the most critical factor is the income level. Not only is their
income level similar, but also both cities are located at the same east coastal zone in China, political structure of the local government is
same, and the inputs from society, such as the role of environmental NGOs, are negligible in both cities. Therefore, the two cases fit into
the most similar system design in the sense that they are similar in most factors except the economic openness, which becomes an
explanatory variable.
Based on the comparative case study of Shenyang and Dalian, this article concludes that the environmental consequences of
global economic integration do not amount to a race to the bottom. On the contrary, economic openness has
provided a favorable condition for effective diffusion of global environmental norms and thus helped local
governments to strengthen their environmental protection efforts. In Dalian, the level of environmental
institutions—organizational strength of major environmental agency, comprehensiveness and thoroughness
of environmental legislative framework, and the scope of utilizable policy instruments—is much higher than
Shenyang, and the actual environmental performance measured by major pollution is much better in Dalian
than in Shenyang because of the opportunities and necessities that the high degree of economic openness has
generated (see Table 3). Exposed to the international market and international practice of environmental
protection much earlier than Shenyang, Dalian has developed the second set of organizations much earlier
than Shenyang because of the roles played by foreign actors, which has been critical in Dalian’s
environmental protection process. It has also developed stringent environmental regulations on FDI to
prevent possible environmental damages driven by foreign firms. Finally, it has been able to utilize various
new and effective policy instruments because of the high openness.
This article suggested, in the earlier section, three major opportunities and four major necessities as
mechanisms that positively connect economic openness to environmental institutionalization. In terms of the
three major opportunities—foreign technology transfer, exposure to environmental practices of advanced
countries, and learning/adopting new policy instruments, all three mechanisms worked effectively in Dalian
(and Shenyang to a less extent). In the case of the four major necessities, on the other hand, the most important mechanism found in
Dalian was the FDI-induced policy changes as a responding strategy of the city government to cope with possible environmental
damages because of FDI. However, because other mechanisms—standard upgrade because of green barriers, environmental
requirements of multilateral trade agreements, and international environmental treaties that use a trade ban approach—have become
increasingly important in China (at the national level), they will also play a significant role in the environmental politics of the two cities
in the near future.
As environmental issues are growingly intertwined with global economic issues, the environmental impact of trade and
investment liberalization has become one of the critical concerns particularly for the developing countries. On one hand, this article
emphasizes the normative dimension of the relationship between economic openness and the environmental protection, which has been
relatively underestimated in structural and rational approaches. It demonstrates how norms of reciprocity and mutual trust can be
developed between local government agencies and foreign firms and how they affect their course of actions. On the other hand, this
research suggests policy implications that might be useful for other developing countries beyond China:
Foreign business connections, as well as environmental NGOs network, can be an effective mechanism to strengthen the environmental
protection efforts of local governments in the developing countries if the local governments and other domestic actors are cognizant of
the possible environmental perils as well as benefits of further trade and investment liberalization, and thus able to develop their own
responding strategies.
ADI 25
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens


Companies won’t relocate to avoid regulation- compliance is cheap and overall price
differentials are minimal
Wheeler 2k1
(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT, Racing to the Bottom? Foreign
Investment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries, Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-
245, September)
These results strongly contradict the race-to-the-bottom model. Instead of racing toward the bottom, major urban
areas in China, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States have all experienced significant improvements in air quality.
The improvements in Los Angeles and Mexico City are particularly noteworthy because they are the dominant industrial centers in the region most strongly affected by NAFTA. The
race-to-the-bottom model’s basic assumptions must be flawed, because its predictions are inconsistent with urban air
pollution trends in three of the developing world’s major industrial powers. In fact, empirical research has undermined all of these assumptions.
Pollution control is not a critical cost factor for most private firms. Research in both high- and low-income countries
suggests that pollution control does not impose high costs on business firms. Jaffe et al. (1995) and others have
shown that compliance costs for OECD industries are surprisingly small, despite the use of command-and-control
regulations that are economically inefficient. These results suggest that differential pollution control costs do not
provideOECDfirms with strong incentives to move offshore. Firms in developing countries frequently have even lower costs because the labor and
materials used for pollution control are less costly than in the OECD economies. Big polluters also have subject to scale economies. Figure 6 displays recent econometric estimates of control
costs for sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution in large Chinese factories (Dasgupta,Wang,&Wheeler, 1997).4 For non-state-owned enterprises, costs of a few dollars per ton are typical until control
rates rise above 70%. As Figure 6 shows, state-owned enterprises have much higher costs because they are operated less efficiently. The average cost of pollution control has therefore declined as
China has moved away from state ownership during the era of liberalization. In Colombia, a new pollution charge program has sharply reduced organic water pollution by large factories.
Colombian factory managers have found that cleaning up is cheaper than paying charges, even when they are set at relatively low levels. No participating factory seems to have experienced
financial difficulties in the process (Wheeler, 1999). Similar conclusions have emerged from studies of regulation and control costs in Malaysia (Jha, Markandya, & Vossenaar, 1999; Khalid &
Braden, 1993).

Pollution Havens won’t happen- community backlash.


Wheeler 2k1
(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT, Racing to the Bottom? Foreign
Investment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries, Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-
245, September)
Low-income communities penalize dangerous polluters, even when formal regulation is weak or absent. Abundant evidence from Asia and Latin America
shows that neighboring communities can strongly influence factories’ environmental performance (see Dasgupta,
Lucas,&Wheeler, 1998; Hartman, Huq, & Wheeler, 1997; Hettige, Dasgupta, & Wheeler, 2000; Hettige, Huq, Pargal, & Wheeler, 1996; Huq & Wheeler, 1992; Pargal & Wheeler, 1996). Where
Where regulators are absent or ineffective,
formal regulators are present, communities use the political process to influence the strictness of enforcement.
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups (including religious institutions, social organizations, citizens’ movements, and
politicians) pursue informal regulation based on convincing polluters to conform to social norms. Although these groups vary from
region to region, the pattern everywhere is similar: Factories negotiate directly with local actors in response to threats of social, political,
or physical sanctions if they fail to compensate the community or reduce emissions.
Indeed, communities sometimes resort to extreme measures when sufficiently provoked. In the Asian
Survey, Robert Cribb (1990) recounted an Indonesian incident “reported from Banjaran near Jakarta in 1980 when
local farmers burned a government-owned chemical factory that had been polluting their irrigation channels.” In a
similar vein, Mark Clifford (1990) reported in the Far Eastern Economic Review that community action prevented the opening of a chemical complex in South Korea until appropriate pollution
control equipment was installed.
When factories respond directly to communities, the results may bear little resemblance to the dictates of formal regulation. For example, Cribb (1990) also cited the case of a cement factory in
Jakarta, Indonesia, that, without admitting liability for the dust it generates, “compensates local people with an ex gratia payment of Rp. 5,000 and a tin of evaporated milk every month.”
Agarwal, Chopra, and Sharma (1982) described a situation in India where, confronted by community complaints, an Indian paper mill installed pollution abatement equipment, and to compensate
If all else fails, community action can also trigger the physical removal
residents for remaining damage, the mill also constructed a Hindu temple.
of the problem. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for example, a neighborhood association protest against a polluting tannery led managers to relocate it to the city’s outskirts (Stotz, 1991).
ADI 26
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens

Protectionism can’t stop pollution havens- they harm high quality factories just as much as
polluting ones.
Wheeler 2k1
(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT, Racing to the Bottom? Foreign
Investment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries, Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-
245, September)
Rejection of trade and aid sanctions as levers to force closure of the regulatory gap between low- and high-income
countries. First, such sanctions are unjust because they fail to discriminate between clean and dirty firms in the
affected countries. Numerous studies have shown that factories with world-class standards are operating even in the
poorest countries (Afsah& Vincent, 1997; Hartman et al., 1997; Huq & Wheeler, 1992; Wheeler et al., 1999).
Second, such blunt instruments will inevitably penalize workers in poor countries by reducing opportunities for jobs
and higher wages. Finally, they will not work anyway. As noted in previous sections of this article, poor countries
have weaker regulations and higher pollution intensities for a host of reasons. Governments of low-income countries
could not deliver on promises of OECD-level regulation, even if they were willing to make them.

Pollution haven hypothesis=false.


Venkat ‘4
(Kumar, works in Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts of
technology and globalization, Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?, The national environmental and
training foundation, January 8th, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-10.htm)
Copeland and Taylor find no evidence for the “pollution haven” hypothesis, which states that free trade will prompt
polluting industries to move to poor countries where environmental regulations are lax. Their results suggest that
rich countries have a comparative advantage in capital-intensive polluting industries, so these industries are likely to
stay in rich countries even if environmental regulations are tighter.
For these developed countries, the right environmental policy can produce a net good for the environment.
Pollution policy, in the form of regulation or taxes, can lead to cleaner production methods by encouraging better
technologies. The message to developing countries is that environmental problems can be exacerbated if trade
liberalization outpaces environmental policy -- as we will see shortly, therein lies one of the conflicts between trade
and the environment.

The complexity of the subject becomes evident as the book leaves a host of questions unanswered. The authors limit
their focus to local pollution caused by production of goods, while ignoring other significant environmental impacts
of trade.
ADI 27
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Module


FREE TRADE PREVENTS NATIONAL AND GLOBAL RECESSIONS
Griswold in 2008 (David [director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington],
Worried About a Recession? Don't Blame Free Trade, June 3, accessed 7/30/08 @
http://www.freetrade.org/node/879]
Speculation is growing that the U.S. economy may have already slipped into recession. If the past is any
guide, politicians on the campaign trail will be tempted to blame trade and globalization for the passing
pain of the business cycle. But an analysis of previous recessions and expansions shows that
international trade and investment are not to blame for downturns in the economy and may, in fact, be
moderating the business cycle.
In recent decades, as foreign trade and investment have been rising as a share of the U.S. economy,
recessions have actually become milder and less frequent. The softening of the business cycle has become
so striking that economists now refer to it as "The Great Moderation." The more benign trend appears to date
from the mid-1980s.
The Great Moderation means that Americans are spending more of their time earning a living in a
growing economy and less in a contracting economy. Our economy has been in recession a total of 16
months in the past 25 years, or 5.3 percent of the time. In comparison, between 1945 and 1983, the
nation suffered through nine recessions totaling 96 months, or 21.1 percent of that time period.
America's recent experience of a more globalized and less volatile economy has not been unique in the
world. Other countries that have opened themselves to global markets have been less vulnerable to
financial and economic shocks. Countries that put all their economic eggs in the domestic basket lack the
diversification that a more globally integrated economy can fall back on to weather a slowdown. A country
that increases trade as a share of its gross domestic product by 10 percentage points is actually about one-
third less likely to suffer sudden economic slowdowns or other crises than if it were less open to trade. As the
authors of this study concluded:
Some may find this counterintuitive: trade protectionism does not "shield" countries from the volatility
of world markets as proponents might hope. On the contrary...economies that trade less with other
countries are more prone to sudden stops and to currency crises.

Nuclear War
MEAD ’92 Fellow, Council of Foreign Relations
[New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p.28, walter Russell]

But what if it can’t? What we will face


if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case a new period of

international conflict Russia, China, India with their


: South against North, rich against poor. – these countries billions of people and

nuclear weapons will pose a great danger to world order


their much er than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30’s.
ADI 28
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Ext.


Globalization prevents national recession by creating diversified and flexible economies—
the slow down no is not evident to globalization—the U.S. if preparing for long term
growth
Griswold in 2008 (David [director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington],
Worried About a Recession? Don't Blame Free Trade, June 3, accessed 7/30/08 @
http://www.freetrade.org/node/879]
Globalization is not the only possible cause behind the moderation of the business cycle. Improved
monetary policy, fewer external shocks (what some economists call "good luck"), and other structural
changes in the economy may have all played a role. For example, the decline in unionization and the
resulting increase in labor-market flexibility have allowed wages and employment patterns to adjust
more readily to changing market conditions, mitigating spikes in unemployment. Better inventory
management through just-in-time delivery has reduced the cyclical overhangs that can disrupt production.
Combined with those other factors, expanding trade and globalization have helped to moderate swings
in national output by blessing us with a more diversified and flexible economy. Exports can take up slack
when domestic demand sags, and imports can satisfy demand when domestic productive capacity is reaching
its short-term limits. Access to foreign capital markets can allow domestic producers and consumers
alike to more easily borrow to tide themselves over during difficult times.
A weakening dollar has helped to boost exports and earnings abroad, but the main driver of success
overseas has been strong growth and lower trade barriers outside the United States. American
companies have been earning a larger and larger share of their profits overseas for decades now.
According to economist Ed Yardeni, the share of profits that U.S. companies earn abroad has increased
steadily from about 5 percent in the 1960s to about a quarter of all profits today.
If the U.S. economy does tip into recession this year, free trade and globalization will be among the
likely scapegoats. The pain of recession will be real for millions of American households, but raising
barriers to foreign trade and investment will provide no relief for most affected workers. In fact,
reverting to protectionism would only reduce the capacity of our economy to regain its footing and
resume its long-term pattern of growth.
ADI 29
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Economy Ext.


INCREASED FREE TRADE IS KEY TO PREVENT INCREASES IN OVERSEAS COMPETITION FOR
JOBS AND STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY.
Businessweek, 2008 (Chris Farrell, “Two Cheers for Free Trade”, 3/21,
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2008/pi20080327_636230.htm)

Remember the "giant sucking sound"? That was 1992 Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful auditory description of how
multitudes of Americans would lose their jobs to low-wage competitors in Mexico. Well, it's more than a decade and a half later,
and Perot's bête noir, the Nafta agreement, is once again the subject of heated debate in a campaign for the White House.
Democratic Presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) have both criticized the
agreement (BusinessWeek, 3/19/08). But the regional fears Nafta inspired in 1992 have gone global in 2008. In addition to
Mexico, most of the world's dynamic emerging markets, including China, India, and Brazil, have become strong players in
the global economic arena. Americans worry about competition from overseas companies and workers from other lands
emigrating to the U.S., especially with the economy faltering amid falling home prices, tottering financial markets, and shaky
consumer confidence. The case for freer trade and open markets is overwhelming. Economic evidence and economic history
alike support the view that freer trade over time invigorates economic growth by encouraging the spread of new
commercial ideas, new technologies, and new ways of organizing everyday life. Consumers enjoy lower prices and greater
choice. Competition from overseas rivals encourages corporate efficiency and innovation. THE POLITICS OF TRADE To
be sure, free trade is a powerful economic medicine that can have some unpleasant side effects, and policymakers could do a
better job of ameliorating attendant job losses and other economic dislocations. But the problems associated with free trade are
manageable compared to those caused by closed economic borders. (Just ask Messrs. Smoot and Hawley.) Yet many
economists worry that election-year pressure from voters to "do something" about income inequality, stagnant wages, and pink
slips is pushing Washington toward protectionism. Invoking the Harry Potter books, Greg Mankiw, Harvard University
economist and former head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, writes in a recent New York Times opinion piece
that "no issue divides economists and mere Muggles more than the debate over globalization and international trade." Mankiw
sees the crux of the problem as this: "Where the high priests of the dismal science see opportunity through the magic of the
market's invisible hand, Joe Sixpack sees a threat to his livelihood." With all respect to Mankiw, a terrific economist with a best-
selling textbook, that's nonsense. First of all, give Joe Sixpack credit. The knowledge gap between the "high priests" and
ordinary Americans is exaggerated. It seems to me most voters have a pretty good grasp of the gains from freer trade with
the rest of the world. Protectionists and immigrant-bashers garner plenty of media attention, yet voters have handed over
relatively little power to the apostles of protectionism over the past three decades or so. Just ask free-trade opponents Ross
Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Tom Tancredo, each of whom failed in a Presidential bid. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton and George H.W.
Bush each pushed through a number of free-trade agreements during their Presidencies. Yes, the politics of trade is often a
dance with two steps forward and one step back. Yet at the end of the day the embrace of globalization is strong.
KEEPING THE FAITH Even more important, it's not Joe Sixpack who is at fault. It's economists such as Mankiw who bear
much of the blame for the current backlash in many quarters against international competition. As everyone who took Economics
101 knows, the gains from trade are dispersed throughout the economy while the costs are highly concentrated. Too many
employees in recent years have felt the downside of "creative destruction." Thanks to the routine corporate restructurings,
downsizings, reengineerings—pick your favorite euphemism—in Corporate America, there's little job security and stagnant
wages. Yet the economic priesthood continues to devote enormous intellectual firepower to making the case for freer trade
and writing op-ed pieces extolling the benefits while ignoring the downside and dismissing the losers. "They have been
quick to denounce opponents of this [free trade] agenda as 'protectionists' who should not be allowed in polite circles," writes
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research in the latest issue of the Real-World Economics Review.
"Yet, they rarely acknowledge the unavoidable implication of trade theory—that a large segment of the U.S. workforce
will have to endure lower living standards as a result of the current course of trade liberalization." In the battle of public-
policy ideas, American economists do wield influence. It's time to claim victory in the free-trade debate. But if economists
want Washington and the general public to keep the free-trade faith they need to get more involved in helping out the
"losers." And it doesn't matter whether the culprit is international competition, deregulation, technological innovation, or some
combination of the three. No, protectionism is not the answer. Let's all agree on that, and move on. But preserving the
economy's dynamism calls for the considerable brainpower of the economic profession to help come up with ways that
offer workers better security in an era marked by rising fears of wage stagnation, job turmoil, long-term unemployment,
and underemployment, unaffordable or unavailable health insurance, and increasingly at-risk pension plans. Now that's a
challenge worth taking up.
ADI 30
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Middle East Instability Module

Free Trade is key to create stability in the Middle East.


Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
Much of the political violence that remains in the world today is concentrated in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan
Africa--the two regions of the world that are the least integrated into the global economy. Efforts to bring peace to
those regions must include lowering their high barriers to trade, foreign investment, and entrepreneurship.

MID EAST conflict risks GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR – involving ALL –


including RUSSIA

STEINBACH 02 D.C. Iraq Coalition – Centre for Research on


Globalisation –
[John, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat of Peace,” Global Peace, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html]

Meanwhile, 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, and even the threat of nuclear war.
Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire

missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major)
target of Israeli nukes. 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.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at

the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very
least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and

dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney,
"... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East

conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)


ADI 31
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Terrorism Module


FREE TRADE ADDRESSES THE ROOT CAUSE OF TERRORISM
O’Driscoll, 2003 (Gerald, senior fellow at CATO, “Trade Brings Security” February 24, http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-24-
03.html)

The evidence has become so strong that President Bush has used it to show why a liberal trade policy is a
necessary part of a strong national defense. The latest "National Security Strategy of the United States of
America" says free trade and open markets can be as important to securing the peace for the long run as
robust military funding. The document represents new thinking in the government that U.S. security depends on
economic success in other countries, that economic and political repression breed poverty, frustration and
resentment, and that open markets -- as well as open governments and open societies -- can alleviate the causes of
the terrorist threat
against the West. It is not that poverty causes terrorism. The 19 hijackers of Sept. 11 were chiefly middle class in
origin, with 15 coming from oil-rich Saudi Arabia. But the conditions that produce poverty -- lack of economic
freedom -- also produce the sense of hopelessness and despair that breeds resentment. Terrorist organizations
exploit the situation to recruit new members. Meanwhile, the leaders of these countries blame the United
States rather than accept responsibility for the policies impoverishing their own people. As the Bush
administration put it in its National Security Strategy document, "economic growth supported by free trade
and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs
economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty." Helping
the poor of the world prosper and reinforcing "the habits of liberty" certainly is an attractive alternative to a
permanent war against radical Islam. And it would be far less costly.

Terrorism will cause global nuke war and extinction


Beres 87, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University [Louis René,
Terrorism and Global Security: The Nuclear Threat, p. 42-3] jh

Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale war between states. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of
nuclear-conflict
possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. 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. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the
1990s, Israel and its Arab-state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty
between Israel and Egypt already many years old, only the interests of the Palestinians—as defined by the PLO—seem to have been left out. On
the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement, half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli
cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousands dead ands maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public
mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria
retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered
unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. 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 ensure, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear-
weapons state on the planet. What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human, the
consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. 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. Any nuclear war would have
effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, such a war
would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile
imaginations.
ADI 32
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Poverty


Trade liberalization through globalization has cut global poverty in half in the past 25
years while helping the American economy stay resilient
Griswold in 2008 (David T. [Director, Center For Trade Policy Studies @ Cato] "Congressional Testimony:
Opening the World of Export Opportunity to U.S. Small Business" June 19, accessed online 7/30/08 @
http://www.freetrade.org/node/885)
Globalization is a fact of life in 21st century America, and America's small businesses should be allowed
to take full advantage of its opportunities. Since 1990, the share of U.S. GDP that Americans have earned
abroad though exports of goods and services and earnings on foreign investment has jumped from 12
percent to 17.4 percent. That is the highest ratio of exports to GDP in our history. Americans have never
earned or spent a higher share of our income in the global economy than we do today. Three quarters of the
world's spending power and 96 percent of its people live outside the United States. This represents a huge
potential market for U.S. producers in general and hundreds of thousands of American small businesses in
particular.
Our growing engagement in global markets is one of the bright spots in the U.S. economy today. As the
housing and financial sectors have tanked, exports and earnings on foreign investment are booming.
While the economy as a whole has slowed dramatically, exports of goods and services jumped by 12.6
percent last year, and earnings on U.S. investments abroad soared by 20 percent. The healthy growth in
exports has continued into the first quarter of this year, according Commerce Department data released just
this week. That expanding opportunity to serve foreign markets has allowed U.S. companies, including
small businesses, to better weather the current slowdown.
Driving this increase in demand for U.S. exports has been strong growth abroad, especially in emerging
markets. The global poverty rate has been cut by more than half since 1981, with much of the credit is
due to market-reforms in developing countries, including unilateral trade liberalization. Hundreds of
millions of people have joined the rising middle class in China, India and the more reform-minded
countries elsewhere in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. American companies and workers
are reaping the benefits of expanding global trade and development.
ADI 33
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Poverty


TRADE LIBERALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE BOOSTS THE INCOME OF POOR PEOPLE
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Berg and Kruger 2002 (Andrew, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, and Anne Krueger, Deputy
Division Chief of the Financial Studies Division of the IMF's Research Department, "Lifting All Boats: Why Openness
Helps Curb Poverty," Finance & Development: A Quarterly Magazine of the IMF, September 2002, Volume 39,
Number 3, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/09/berg.htm)

Now we turn to the question of whether the usual strong association between growth and poverty reduction is
somehow modified by openness. Openness and the poor There are strong reasons to suppose that
trade liberalization will benefit the poor at least as much as it benefits the
average person. Trade liberalization tends to reduce monopoly rents and the value of
connections to bureaucratic and political power. In developing countries, it may
be expected to increase the relative wage of low-skilled workers, who are likely to be
scarcer in the more developed world economy than at home. Liberalization of agriculture may
increase (relatively low) rural incomes. If, nonetheless, trade liberalization worsens the income distribution
enough, then it is possible that it is not, after all, good for poverty reduction, despite its positive overall effect on
growth. After examining the cross-country evidence and reviewing some of the vast
microeconomic literature on the effects of trade liberalization on income
distribution, we find that there is no systematic relationship between openness and the income of the
poorest, beyond the positive effect of openness on overall growth. The aggregate evidence shows that the
income of the poorest tends to grow one-for-one with average income. Of course, in
some countries, the poor sometimes do better than average, and sometimes they do worse. But, as Dollar and
Kraay have shown, openness does not help explain which of these outcomes occurs. On the question of whether the
poor benefit more or less than others, no clear pattern emerges from the numerous studies of individual
liberalization episodes. This is not surprising, as any particular liberalization will change relative prices and
incentives throughout the economy in idiosyncratic ways.
ADI 34
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Jobs/Security


NAFTA Proves Free Trade Creates Jobs And Provides Security
Block 7/31/08 (John, "Free Trade", Agweb, Accessed 7/31/08 @
http://www.agweb.com/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?src=JohnBlockReportsFromWashington&PID=0f00991e-e085-4ad0-
abd2-dd8386e5074a)
In 1994, President Clinton and the Congress created the North American Free Trade Zone. Millions of
new jobs have been created by allowing U.S., Canada, and Mexico to trade freely based on
comparative advantage.
Countries all over the world are writing bilateral free trade agreements with each other.
All the while, we are sitting on our hands doing nothing.
In addition to providing economic value to the citizens from countries that are trading freely, trade
strengthens security. Countries usually find a way to solve their differences peacefully if they are
important trading partners.
It is time the trade critics in Congress quit playing politics and cozying up to the labor unions and
passed the trade agreements that have been negotiated.
ADI 35
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Chinese Democracy

Economic openness is already triggering reforms in China- more free trade could trigger a
democratic transition.
Griswold ‘7
(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace:
The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A More Democratic China?
In China, the link between trade and political reform offers the best hope for encouraging democracy and greater
respect for human rights in the world's most populous nation. After two decades of reform and rapid growth, an expanding middle class is experiencing
for the first time the independence of home ownership, travel abroad, and cooperation with others in economic enterprise free of government control. The number of telephone lines, mobile
phones, and Internet users has risen exponentially in the past decade. Tens of thousands of Chinese students are studying abroad each year.
China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 has only accelerated those trends.
So far, the people of mainland China have seen only marginal improvements in civil liberties and none in political liberties. But the people of China are
undeniably less oppressed than they were during the tumult of the Cultural Revolution under Mao Tse-Tung. And China is reaching the stage of
development where countries tend to shed oppressive forms of government for more benign and democratic
systems. China's per capita GDP has reached about $7,600 per in terms of purchasing power parity. That puts China
in the upper half of the world's countries and in an income neighborhood where more people live in political and
civil freedom and fewer under tyranny. Among countries with lower per capita incomes than China, only 27 percent
are free. Among those with higher incomes, 72 percent are free. Only 16 percent are not free, and almost all of those
are wealthier than China not because of greater economic freedom but because of oil.
ADI 36
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Collectivism


Free trade solves collectivism and creates individualism that raises the standard of living
for all nations
Binswanger ’03 [Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn
Rand Institute, “'Buy American' is UN-American,” Capitalism Magazine, 09/05/2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=576>]
But individualism recognizes that wealth is produced, not merely appropriated, and that man's rise from the
cave to the skyscraper demonstrates that life is not a zero-sum game -- not where men are free to seek
progress.

Accordingly, individualism holds that the interests of men do not conflict -- provided we are speaking of self-
supporting individuals who pay for what they get. Where there is free trade, the exchange of value for value,
one man's gain is another man's gain.

The same harmony of men's interests applies in the international arena. One nation's enrichment raises the
standard of living of all other nations with which it trades. Which nation adds more to your standard of
living: Japan or Bangladesh? And how would you fare if Japan were suddenly reduced to the economic level
of Bangladesh?
ADI 37
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – Women’s Rights


FREE TRADE COMPETITION BRINGS EXTENSION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND RIGHTS
FOR OTHER OPPRESSED GROUPS.
Norberg 2003 (Johan, M.A. in History of Ideas, Stockholm University, a fellow at the Swedish think tank Timbro,
author of In Defence of Global Capitalism which won the Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award by the
Atlas Economic Research Foundation; "Poor Man's Hero: Controversial writer Johan Norberg champions
globalization as the best hope for the developing world," Reason Magazine, December,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28968.html)

Globalization has also helped extend rights to women that had long been confined to men. These
include being able to go into business, get an education, inherit money, and so on. One reason for
this is simple economics. In a globalized, competitive economy, women are a potential resource.
They are able to have new ideas, to produce, and to work. If you discriminate against women – or
anyone else -- you lose opportunities as a society or as an employer. Take the discussion that's going
on now in Saudi Arabia about whether women should be allowed to drive, which they can't legally
do now. While it's unlikely the situation there will change anytime soon, it's progress just to have
the discussion. People are saying it's extremely costly to hire drivers, often from other countries, to
drive women around. You can see how basic economics, basic capitalism, creates the incentive to
give women more rights. A second reason is that all the goods, ideas, and people that cross borders
under globalization allow people to see more alternatives, to see other ways of living. When women
and other oppressed groups in poor countries see how their counterparts in Western societies are
treated, they begin to have ideas about how they want to be treated. Globalization is a great
influence because people everywhere get all sorts of new ideas. They say, "Wow, things can be very
different than I'm used to."
ADI 38
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Free Trade Causes War


FREE TRADE ESTABLISHES A BUFFER BETWEEN DIPLOMACY AND WAR BY
EXPANDING THE LADDER OF ESCALATION --- PROTECTIONIST COUNTRIES HAVE NO
RESORT BUT TO TURN TO VIOLENCE
Blaum, 2001 (Paul, economics department at Penn State, http://www.psu.edu/ur/2001/economictieswar.html)

University Park, Pa. -- Countries that maintain in-depth financial and economic ties with each other are less
likely to engage in military conflict, according to a Penn State study. "Political analysts have observed for
several centuries that international trade inhibits interstate war between countries by raising the cost of
military violence," says Dr. Quan Li, assistant professor of political science. [continues] "Interdependent
countries are in a better position to test the resolve of economic partners because they can more effectively
exert non-violent (i.e. economic) pressure, and then observe the consequences," Li notes. "By taking
commercial measures that represent both a clear and credible threat, a state can signal to economic partners
that it is prepared to make considerable sacrifices. If, however, these sacrifices are too critical, the country
could lose bargaining power in future conflicts. "In the event of a serious dispute, countries that are autarkic
or economically isolated are most at risk of war, because they have no financial bargaining chips. All they can
do is fall back on bluff and `cheap talk.' Should that fail, their only option is to fight," says Li. The Suez crisis of 1956 is an
example of how economic interdependence allows countries to compete financially rather than through force. On July 26 of that year, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the
Suez Canal, prompting protests from Great Britain and France. When negotiations failed to resolve the crisis, British and French forces invaded Egypt on Oct. 31. Despite a U.N. General
Assembly resolution ordering a cease-fire and vocal opposition from the United States, Britain and France persisted in their attempts to occupy the canal and overthrow Nasser. On Nov. 5, the
United States, which then represented 45 percent of the world economy, decided to take action against its traditional allies, Britain and France. Rather than employing military force, the U.S.
government started selling off its supply of British pounds sterling, compelling the central bankers in Britain either to buy pounds on the market or face a devaluation of their currency relative to
the dollar, the international benchmark at that time. This caused British reserves to fall 15 percent within a month. "U.S. Treasury Secretary George Humphrey informed Britain that, unless it
obeyed the U.N. resolution and withdrew from Suez, the United States would continue to sell pounds and block British access to International Monetary Fund reserves," Li notes. "The United
States, by far the biggest contributor to the IMF in those days, could block loans from the IMF by simply refusing to lend it the money. U.S. control of the IMF assured that Britain remained in an
economic predicament that the United States had created. This strategy had the desired effect. On Nov. 6, Britain ordered a cease-fire, in effect forcing the French to end military operations as
well." The increasing economic openness of China might have just helped in preventing a military contest between China, Taiwan and the United States during the wake of Taiwan's 2000
presidential election. The admission of China to the World Trade Organization will foreseeably generate the positive political externality of promoting peace, the researchers say. In contrast, the
economically isolated Afghanistan appears to serve as an example of the effect of economic autarky.

WARS ARE NEVER FOUGHT BETWEEN COUNTRIES ENGAGED IN FREE TRADE


Griswold, 98 (Daniel, senior fellow at CATO, “Peace on Earth, Free Trade For Men”, December 31,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-31-98.html)

History demonstrates the peaceful influence of trade. The century of relative world peace from 1815 to 1914
was marked by a dramatic expansion of international trade, investment and human migration, illuminated by
the example of Great Britain. In contrast, the rise of protectionism and the downward spiral of global trade in
the 1930s aggravated the underlying hostilities that propelled Germany and Japan to make war on their
neighbors. In the more than half a century since the end of World War II, no wars have been fought between two
nations that were outwardly oriented in their trade policies. In every one of the two dozen or so wars between
nations fought since 1945, at least one side was dominated by a nation or nations that did not pursue a policy of free
trade. In the recurring Middle East wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, dating back to 1948-49, none
of the direct participants were what could be described as open economies at the time of conflict, with the
Arab countries enforcing a virtual boycott of trade with Israel. Saddam Hussein, the instigator of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, could be described
in many ways, but not as a free trader. Wars have been fought between members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but only when at least one of the warring sides was protectionist
in its trade policies. For example, India and Pakistan were both members of GATT during their 1965 and 1971 conflicts, but they were also both committed to protection as a trade policy. Great
Britain and Argentina were members of GATT when they fought over the Falklands in 1982, but Argentina, the aggressor in that conflict, was at the time still under the protectionist spell of
Peronism. After the nightmare of two world wars, the United States encouraged the nations of Western Europe to form a free-trade area not only to promote economic development but also to
reduce international rivalries. Decades of trade liberalization have helped to make war among members of the European Union virtually unthinkable today or in the foreseeable future. A growing
web of international investment has also strengthened peace among nations. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has pointed out what he calls the Big Mac thesis: that no two nations
with McDonald's franchises have ever gone to war. A nation open enough and developed enough to be a profitable home for an established international franchise such as McDonald's will
generally find war an unattractive foreign policy option.
ADI 39
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Only Big Corps. Benefit


Free Trade no longer benefits major corporations a majority of the companies that export
products are small and medium-sized enterprises
Griswold in 2008 (David T. [Director, Center For Trade Policy Studies @ Cato] "Congressional Testimony:
Opening the World of Export Opportunity to U.S. Small Business" June 19, accessed online 7/30/08 @
http://www.freetrade.org/node/885)
Opponents of free trade dismiss it as a policy that only favors Fortune 500 companies. That claim is
becoming more false every day. A quarter of a million U.S. companies export to foreign markets, the
large majority of them small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that employ 500 or fewer workers.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 230,000 SMEs now account for nearly 30
percent of U.S. merchandise exports. The number of such companies exporting has more than doubled
since 1992.
This growth has been propelled not only by the expansion of global trade generally but also by
technological developments especially favorable to smaller exporters. On the cutting edge of this
development has been the spread of the Internet and e-commerce. There are now more than 1.3 billion
Internet users in the world today, and the number is growing rapidly. Of those, 85 percent shop online.
With the assistance of delivery services such as FedEx and UPS, small businesses are able to reach global
markets without the daunting expense of establishing sales teams and distribution networks in foreign
countries. The Internet has also facilitated the slicing up of global supply chains, creating more opportunities
for smaller U.S. companies to find profitable niches as suppliers for larger multinationals.
One of the most important and fastest growing markets for America’s small-business exporters is
China. Last year, Americans exported $65 billion worth of goods to China, making it our third largest
customer for U.S. goods in the world, behind only our NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico. Since China’s
entry into the WTO in 2001, U.S. goods exports to China have grown at an annual compound rate of 22.6
percent. That is triple the growth rate of U.S. exports to the rest of the world. China is now a major market
not only for U.S. agricultural products, but also for plastic materials, chemicals, industrial machines,
semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and computer accessories.
Small and medium-sized U.S. companies are basking in this export success. In 2004 (according to the most
recent figures we have), 19,210 SMEs in the United States were exporting to China. That is more than
six times the number that were exporting in 1992. The share of U.S. companies exporting to China that are
small or medium-sized enterprises has grown during that time from about three-quarters to more than 90
percent. SMEs accounted for 35 percent of U.S. merchandise exports to China in 2004, a higher share than
their 29 percent share of exports overall. Board any flight from the United States bound for China and you
will probably be sitting near somebody representing a small-sized U.S. company heading off to buy and sell
in the world’s fastest growing major market.
Despite loud complaints from certain U.S. producers, the undervalued yuan does not appear to have
dampened the ability of U.S. companies to sell in China’s expanding market. If Congress enacts legislation
that ignites a trade war with China, small U.S. exporters will be among the front-line casualties.
ADI 40
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good – AT: Outsourcing Bad


The vast majority of job loss is due to the elimination of unneeded jobs, not outsourcing.
Ghate ’04 [Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute with a PhD in philosophy, "To Outsource or
to Stagnate?”, Capitalism Magazine, July 26, 2004, < http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3812>]
The opponents of "outsourcing" white-collar jobs eagerly present it as an unprecedented, catastrophic
phenomenon. The facts belie this. Economists estimate that roughly 100,000 white-collar jobs "move"
offshore annually. This figure excludes new jobs created in the United States because of the increased
economic efficiency and is in the context of a U.S. economy of some 140 million jobs, in which 15 million
unneeded jobs are eliminated annually, with even more created. Moreover, for decades U.S. companies (and
the U.S. economy) have thrived by hiring manufacturing and agricultural workers abroad. We are witnessing
but a normal evolution of specialization and trade, cornerstones of American prosperity.

Attempts to restrict outsourcing leads to a decrease of insourcing


Sowell ’04 [Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution Stanford
University, “"Outsourcing" and "Saving Jobs"”, Capitalism Magazine, 03/16/2004 <
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3565>]
Does anyone seriously believe that, if we begin creating international trade restrictions to limit the
outsourcing of American jobs, other countries will not pass similar restrictions on the outsourcing of their
jobs to America?

Yes, we can stop some jobs of computer programmers from going overseas. But what if Japan, for example,
restricts the outsourcing of jobs to the United States, and Americans working for Toyota and Honda start
getting laid off? What about Americans working for other foreign-owned companies operating in the United
States?
ADI 41
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Laundry List


FREE TRADE VISA-VI CAPITALISM CAUSES OTHERIZATION, POVERTY, AND
ULTIMATELY NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION
Webb in 2004 (Sam [National Chairman, Communist Party USA], “War, Capitalism, and George W. Bush.” 4-
20, http://www.pww.org/article/view/ 4967/1/207/O)
Capitalism was never a warm, cuddly, stable social system. It came into the world dripping with blood from
every pore, as Marx described it, laying waste to old forms of production and ways of life in favor of new, more
efficient manufacturing. Since then it has combined nearly uninterrupted transformation of the
instruments of production with immense wealth for a few and unrelieved exploitation, insecurity,
misery, and racial and gender inequality for the many, along with periodic wars, and a vast zone of
countries imprisoned in a seemingly inescapable web of abject poverty. Yet as bad as that record is, its
most destructive effects on our world could still be ahead. Why do I say that? Because capitalism, with
its imperatives of capital accumulation, profit maximization and competition, is the cause of new global
problems that threaten the prospects and lives of billions of people worldwide, and, more importantly,
it is also a formidable barrier to humankind’s ability to solve these problems. Foremost among these, in
addition to ecological degradation, economic crises, population pressures, and endemic diseases, is the threat of nuclear mass
annihilation. With the end of the Cold War, most of us thought that the threat of nuclear war would fade and with it the stockpiles
of nuclear weapons. But those hopes were dashed. Rather than easing, the nuclear threat is more palpable in some ways
and caches of nuclear weapons are growing. And our own government possesses the biggest stockpiles
by far. Much like previous administrations, the Bush administration has continued to develop more powerful nuclear weapons, but
with a twist: it insists on its singular right to employ nuclear weapons preemptively in a range of military situations. This is a major
departure from earlier U.S. policy – the stated policy of all previous administrations was that nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort
to be used only in circumstances in which our nation is under severe attack. Meanwhile, today’s White House bullies demonize, impose
sanctions, and make or threaten war on states that are considering developing a nuclear weapons capability. Bush tells us that this policy
of arming ourselves while disarming others should cause no anxiety because, he says, his administration desires only peace and has no
imperial ambitions. Not surprisingly, people greet his rhetorical assurances skeptically, especially as it becomes more and more obvious
that his administration’s political objective is not world peace, but world domination, cunningly couched in the language of “fighting
terrorism.” It is well that millions of peace-minded people distrust Bush’s rhetoric. The hyper-aggressive gang in the Oval
Office and Pentagon and the absolutely lethal nature of modern weapons of mass destruction make for
a highly unstable and explosive situation that could cascade out of control. War has a logic of its own.
But skepticism alone is not enough. It has to be combined with a sustained mobilization of the world community – the other superpower
in this unipolar world – if the hand of the warmakers in the White House and Pentagon is to be stayed. A heavy responsibility rests on
the American people. For we have the opportunity to defeat Bush and his counterparts in Congress in the November elections. Such a
defeat will be a body blow to the policies of preemption, regime change, and saber rattling, and a people’s mandate for peace,
disarmament, cooperation, and mutual security. The world will become a safer place. In the longer run, however, it is necessary to
replace the system of capitalism. With its expansionary logic to accumulate capital globally and its
competitive rivalries, capitalism has an undeniable structural tendency to militarism and war. This
doesn’t mean that nuclear war is inevitable. But it does suggest that nuclear war is a latent, ever-present
possibility in a world in which global capital is king. Whether that occurs depends in large measure on
the outcome of political struggle within and between classes and social movements at the national and
international level.
ADI 42
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Food Shortages Module

TRADE LIBERALIZATION CAUSES CYCLES OF FOOD SHORTAGES


Seedling, 1996 (“The World Food Summit: Free Trade Versus Food Security”, October,
http://www.grain.org/publications/oct961-en.cfm)

In the South, the different elements of trade liberalisation often translate directly
into food insecurity. Among these elements the following have the most severe
impacts on peoples livelihood. In addition they easily result in internal migration,
urban growth and environmental destruction: * undoing land reform and allowing
concentration of land ownership * privatising water * introducing monopoly
control on seeds through IPRs * diverting land from food to cash crops for exports
* diverting food from local to global markets Volatile prices and globalisation are
creating an unstable, insecure and costly food system and undermine the
ecological security of agriculture, the livelihood security of farmers and the food
security of both poor and affluent consumers. "We in the South Asian
subcontinent have more than the World Bank indices as our guide. We have our
history", says Vandana Shiva. "India's worst famines took place when India's
economy was most integrated though the globalisation of the colonial period."

WORLD WAR THREE

CALVIN, 1998 (NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, JANUARY)

THE POPULATION-CRASH SCENARIO IS SURELY THE MOST APPALLING. PLUMMETING CROP YIELDS WOULD CAUSE SOME POWERFUL
COUNTRIES TO TRY TO TAKE OVER THEIR NEIGHBORS OR DISTANT LANDS – IF ONLY BECAUSE THEIR ARMIES, UNPAID AND LACKING
FOOD, WOULD GO MARAUDING, BOTH AT HOME AND ACROSS THE BORDERS. THE BETTER-ORGANIZED COUNTRIES WOULD ATTEMPT
TO USE THEIR ARMIES, BEFORE THEY FELL APART ENTIRELY, TO TAKE OVER COUNTRIES WITH SIGNIFICANT REMAINING RESOURCES,
DRIVING OUT OR STARVING THEIR INHABITANTS IF NOT USING MODERN WEAPONS TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME END: ELIMINATING
COMPETITORS FOR THE REMAINING FOOD. THIS WOULD BE A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM – AND COULD LEAD TO A THIRD WORLD
WAR – BUT EUROPE’S VULNERABILITY IS PARTICULARLY EASY TO ANALYZE.
ADI 43
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Environment Module


FREE TRADE KILLS THE ENVIRONMENT
Venkat ‘4
(Kumar, works in Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts of
technology and globalization, Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?, The national environmental and
training foundation, January 8th, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-10.htm)
If a car is manufactured in Japan and then shipped to the U.S., there would be some local pollution in Japan
due to the manufacturing process. Some natural resources -- both local and imported -- would also be used up
in manufacturing the car. There would be additional resource use and pollution from transporting the car to
the U.S., and even more from driving that car year after year.
Pollution from transportation and consumption of goods, as well as resource use throughout the life cycles of
products, are all potentially major avenues through which global trade can damage the environment. When
all these effects are combined with production-driven pollution, the final outcome could easily reverse the
optimistic result that trade benefits the environment.
The argument that polluting industries will stay in capital-rich developed countries also loses steam when
capital itself is highly mobile. China, for example, received $44 billion in direct foreign investment in 2001.
Even if companies are investing in China to take advantage of its cheap labor, an indirect consequence of
concentrating an increasing part of the world’s manufacturing in China will be heavy resource use and
pollution locally.
A more direct instance of the “pollution haven” effect is the routine transfer of e-waste -- used computers and
other electronic appliances that contain highly toxic chemicals -- from the U.S. to countries like India, China
and the Philippines. Low-paid workers in these countries work under hazardous conditions to salvage valuable materials from this fast-growing waste stream, while
polluting the soil, air and water in the process.
t developing countries, where the bulk of the world’s population lives, may be
These recent examples heighten the concern tha
unprepared for the environmental consequences of global trade.
Studies of air quality show that it deteriorates in the early stages of economic growth, and then starts improving when per-capita income exceeds $5000 per year. If this holds for most
kinds of pollution and resource depletion, then incomes will have to increase by a factor of five to ten in large developing countries like China and India before there is sufficient local
demand for environmental protection. Assuming that free trade can eventually deliver this income growth, a big unknown is whether it will result in income-induced policy changes
before the cost of cleaning up the environment becomes prohibitively high.
Equally troublesome is the issue of trans-boundary pollution such as greenhouse-gas emissions, where countries with widely different income levels will have to come together with a
unified policy response. Between 1973 and 2001, a period in which many domestic economies were turned inside out by globalization, annual carbon-dioxide emissions from
worldwide fuel combustion increased by 50 percent. By 2030, these emissions are projected to be 60 percent higher than in 2001 if no new policies are adopted. Power generation and
transportation -- two sectors crucial to trade -- will account for three-quarters of this increase.
the evidence we have so far suggests that free
A great deal of uncertainty remains about the long-term environmental impacts of globalization. But
trade unconstrained by environmental protection could be a recipe for disaster.
Kumar Venkat works in Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts of technology and globalization.
Copyright © The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation

Environmental destruction leads to extinction.


Diner, 1994 (Major David N, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, 143 Mil.
L. Rev. 161, l/n)

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions
of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
ADI 44
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Monocultures


DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE THE FINAL FRONTIER OF AGROBIODIVERSITY-
FREE TRADE FORCES THESE FARMERS TO SWITCH TO BIOTECH CROPS
TURNING ALL THE WORLD FARMS INTO MONOCULTURES.
Thicke, 2004 (Francis, former National Program Leader for Soil Science for the USDA-Extension Service in
Washington, D.C, July 6, http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040706/OPINION01/407060301/1001/NEWS)
The Register fed into fallacies of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that endorses
biotechnology for poor farmers in developing countries ("Breakthrough on Biotech," May 19). As the report
acknowledges, biotechnology efforts are focused on commercial production in the developed world. That is
because biotechnology development seeks the greatest profit potentials. Is it reasonable to expect this high-cost
technology to be developed for low-value crops of subsistence farmers? Is biotechnology the best approach for
advancing agriculture in Third World countries? Contrary to the view expressed in the report, there is considerable
evidence that the Green Revolution primarily benefited large and moderate-sized farms and shifted
agriculture toward monoculture and export production. This has displaced traditional subsistence crops and
poor farmers, resulting in increased food dependency, soil degradation, loss of agrobiodiversity, aquifer
depletion, salinization and increasing social inequality. How can we expect expensive, high-tech silver bullets of
the "gene revolution" to be any more effective in solving the problems of the world's poor farmers who cannot
afford the necessary investment? The likely outcome would be that poor farmers would find themselves in a
position of even greater disadvantage.

FREE TRADE FORCES MONOCULTURES


Frawley, 2001, (Dr. David, Founder and Director of the American Institute for Vedic Studies,
“Western Monoculture and Indic Pluralism,”
http://www.hssworld.org/homepage/html/boudhik/articles/vamadev1.html)

Monoculture does quite well with free trade and the spread of global
consumerism, which is monoculture economics. Other economic systems are not
allowed and are systematically undermined. The economic might of the monoculture
levels any economic diversity, moving towards a single financial standard or currency
worldwide. A uniform world economy destroys local economies and their rich
diversity of expression and interactions based on an organic dependency. The rule
of multinational businesses takes the place of local economies. Global corporate
solutions are applied to local management issues, often with disastrous results.
Corporate agriculture, the new agricultural monoculture, for example, is advertising its
ability to feed the world and end world hunger, portraying itself in the benefic aspect of the
church or a socialist government selflessly aiding the poor. What it is really doing is
undermining the most basic of human rights, the right to feed oneself and to
control one’s food sources. What the global agribusiness envisions is control of
the world food market, so that it can force entire countries to bow down before it,
who cannot even eat without its favor. Among its tools are genetically engineered crops,
including terminator seeds that destroy local plant varieties, fertilizers that weaken the soils
and breed dependency, and patents on plants that afford corporate ownership to nature’s
bounty. Meanwhile, those who oppose the global food business are deemed
backwards, causing hunger and starvation in the world, as if apart from the
agribusiness no one could feed themselves!
ADI 45
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Genocide

THE SPREAD OF US TRADE AGREEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPING


WORLD WILL RESULT IN NEOCOLONIAL WARS AND GENOCIDE.
Maria Mies 9/27/2000 (http://www.ecn.cz/gaia/gb/life.pdf)

The economic progress in Europe is to a large extent the result of colonial looting. Nowadays large groupings
(NAFTA, EU, MERCOSUR etc.) supposedly removed the causes of wars among rich countries; however, the global
system of world trade promoted by WB, IMF and WTO ignites all over the world a new type of wars,
particularly in thirdworld countries, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and, unfortunately, even in
Europe. Since 1990, inequality among the nations and within individual nations has been growing more than ever
before. As Michel Chossudowsky and Silvia Federici showed – the new wars constitute the direct result of
structural adjustments, as carried out by the WB together with the IMF. When such wars broke out in Africa
(Somalia, Rwanda, Congo, Mozambique), they were labeled as civil wars due to old tribal dissensions, when they
broke out in Russia (Chechnya) or Bosnia and Yugoslavia (Kosovo) they were labeled as the result of ethnic or
religious conflicts and the efforts of minorities to become independent. Chossudowsky demonstrated convincingly
how the policy of the WB and IMF really prepared the ground for these wars: it imposed neoliberal reforms
which did not respect the identity of given countries, applied pressure to reduce government spending on social,
health or educational programs. Moreover, a massive support for the import of goods from the West and
devaluation of the currency led to the increase of prices of the bare necessities of life, the fall of real wages and
the ruin of agricultural production in these countries. No wonder that the most affected states being
ethnically mixed, instead of distinguishing their real enemies, turned against their neighbors and began to
murder one another. Similarly, the last war in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo showed that the nationalist
conflict between Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs had nothing in common with an honest effort aimed at
national independence. This war was previously prepared by the destabilization of the Yugoslav economy by
means of all kinds of economic embargoes justified politically. It was done to set up globalized free trade in
Kosovo under the protectorate controlled by the EU and USA. Chossudowsky called that the re-colonizing of the
Balkans. Such neocolonial wars may break out wherever the neoliberal global system has the upper hand.
Parallel to the present phase of the WB, IMF and WTO policy, the next phase is being prepared - the so-called
ongoing primitive accumulation. This phase provides the economies of EU and NATO member countries with new
markets, cheap labor, possibilities to export advantageously environmentally unsuitable technologies and
productions. This leads to the growth of the military-industrial complex which has a particular interest in
igniting ethnic unrest and, in return, further enrichment of the already wealthy member states.
ADI 46
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Marginalization


IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION WE HAVE ALL BECOME MARGINALIZED BY
GLOBAL CAPITAL—FOOD PRODUCTION IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE—
TERRITORY BECOMES COLONIZED IN ORDER
May in 95 (Roy. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n1_v47/ai_16892071/print?tag=artBody;col1
Globalization, as Arthur MacEwan explains (MR, April 1994), "is a very destructive and painful process,"
especially so for Latin American peasants. Indeed, MacEwan may be correct in his conclusion that NAFTA is
likely to mean the "final extinction" of Mexican peasants as a class, "as they are driven off the land by
competition from large-scale U.S. grain producers." They certainly will be driven off their land and
increasingly marginalized from effective participation in the national economy. Still, the more likely scenario
may not be extinction, but rather precarious survival at ever deepening levels of pauperization and misery.
This is not specific to Mexico. Pressured by modern capitalist agriculture and an ever increasing de-emphasis
on food production for the domestic market, the extinction and complete proletarization of Latin American
peasantries have long been predicted. Neoliberal economic policies have forced many to become part of a
genuine rural proletariat, working on plantations and other large estates. Others have migrated to the cities
and joined the informal sector of the economy. Free trade will only accentuate this break up of peasantries.
The ejido has somewhat protected Mexican peasants, but even there economic policy has hardly been
peasant-friendly. Logical prediction points to the disappearance of peasants as a class. NAFTA and "free
trade agriculture" are simply the crystallization of policies that have undermined Latin American peasantries
for years. Yet peasants have not disappeared.
Peasants or campesinos are survivors. First of all, their sheer numbers are constantly increasing. Between
1950 and 1980, the campesino population grew by 44 percent to around 130 million people--in spite of
exploding urbanization. Furthermore, they do not easily give up being campesinos. They take jobs as peons
on the big estates, but still work their own tiny farms. The women seek employment on nearby flower and
ornamental plant plantations, but keep up the household (and still tend the animals!). A son or daughter earns
cash in the city but shares it with the family back on the farm. If campesinos have some land of their own,
they will wall off part and work a smaller parcel or plant corn and beans in the ditches along highways. If
they lose their last garden plot, they will "invade" an unused piece of land on a nearby cattle ranch or banana
plantation, or push into national parks and nature reserves. The point is that peasants resort to a myriad of
tactics to survive as peasants. They will do almost anything to hang on to a piece of land (or to get another if
they lose it) because land is their final security. Even full-time agricultural workers frequently have a parcel
somewhere. Someone in the family--probably a woman--is always a farmer who provides for the others.
Indeed, the role of women may be the key to the persistent survival of campesinos. The men are the most
likely to go looking for a cash-paying job, leaving the farming to the women. The feminization of rural work,
either as agricultural workers, especially seasonal, or as cultivators, is evident in many parts of Latin
America. Maquila and other industry located in rural areas tend to employ large numbers of women. The
physical proximity between their remunerated work and peasant household permits women to continue
working the family land and therefore maintain and reproduce the peasant sector.
Certainly this peasantry is not the idyllic, traditional peasant family tilling the soil for a nice subsistence
living. But neither is it incorporated into the capitalist sector as a proletariat completely severed from the
land. Indeed, its economic logic continues to be family reproduction, not the accumulation of surplus. It is a
battered, fragmented, and increasingly impoverished peasantry ever adapting to whatever survival demands.
Globalization may mean the extinction of Latin American peasants, but I believe that survival is more likely.
That is not necessarily encouraging. Class extinction might be preferable to ever increasing pauperization.
ADI 47
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Workers Backlash


Free trade hurts low-skilled workers and leads to backlash
Leong ’07 [Doreen Leong, Economics Watch: Indicators & Trends, The Edge Malaysia 06/25/2007 <L/N>
Accessed 07/31/08]
Offshoring and inexpensive imports may be hurting low-skilled workers in the US and Europe to the extent
that free trade and open markets could become increasingly difficult for politicians to sell to their
constituents, according to one of the world's leading economic institutes.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a staunch believer in free trade,
which most economists believe makes all countries richer overall, including those with high wages. But in its
annual labour study, published on June 19, the OECD acknowledges growing unease about globalisation and
frets about a popular backlash if governments fail to ensure that lesser-skilled workers share the benefits.
A growing number of economists are expressing concern about the number of losers from globalisation.
Despite strong economic growth, these economists note, many workers in developed countries are struggling
to find well-paid work amid a combination of cheap imports, the relocation of factories and offices to low-
wage countries, and changing technology.
ADI 48
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – Elitism


Free trade only benefits a small group at the top while hurting low-skilled workers
Sasseen ’08 [Jane Sasseen, Washington bureau chief for BusinessWeek, ECONOMISTS
RETHINK FREE TRADE; It's no wholesale repudiation, to be sure, but something
momentous is happening as doubts begin to creep in, BusinessWeek, February 11, 2008,
<L/N> Accessed 07/29/08]
No one is suggesting that trade is bad for the U.S. overall. According to estimates by the Peterson Institute
and others, trade and investment liberalization over the past decades have added $500 billion to $1 trillion to
annual income in the U.S.
Yet concern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. For
the vast majority of Americans, Dartmouth's Slaughter points out, income growth has all but disappeared in
recent years. And it's not just the low-skilled who are getting slammed. Inflation-adjusted earnings have
fallen in every educational category other than the 4% who hold doctorates or professional degrees. Such
numbers, Slaughter argues, suggest the share of Americans who aren't included in the gains from trade may
be very big. "[That's] a very important change from earlier generations, and it should give pause to people
who say they know what's going on," he says.
ADI 49
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Rhetoric Bad – Hurts The Poor


Free trade rhetoric promises opportunity for all but the same countries that claim to
support that rhetoric have subsidies that destroy competition and hurt the poor
Dale ’03 [Helle Dale, deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
“Trading Insults: The WTO's Cancun Free For All”, Capitalism Magazine, September 21, 2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3113>]

"We are told that free trade brings opportunity for all people, not just a fortunate few," U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan said at the opening Wednesday of a five-day meeting of the 146 member nations of the
World Trade Organization. "Sadly, the reality of the international trading system today doesn't match the
rhetoric. Instead of open markets there are too many barriers that stunt, stifle and starve. Instead of fair
competition, there are subsidies by rich countries that tilt the playing field against the poor."
ADI 50
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Good (General)


FREE TRADE CANNOT BE SUCCESSFUL WITH SUBSIDIES, TARIFFS, AND OTHER EXCESSIVE
MEANS OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT DOMINATING THE TRADE LANDSCAPE.
Paul, 2001 (Ron, U.S. Congressman – Texas 14th District, “Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No
Subsidies”, July 30, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst073001.htm)

Congress recently considered several trade-related measures containing massive subsidies for American corporations that sell their products
overseas. For example, the Export-Import bank received more than $750 million in appropriations funding last week. The biggest beneficiary of
this money is China, which has used Ex-Im funds to build nuclear power plants, expand its state-run airline, and even build steel factories that
compete directly with our own struggling domestic steel industry. Undoubtedly the American companies who benefit from contracts with China
are happy with these trade subsidies, but American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for corporate welfare that simply benefits some
politically favored interests. I introduced an amendment to completely defund the Ex-Im bank, because true free trade cannot
flourish when subsidies interfere with healthy market competition. Unfortunately, however, the
debate in Washington tends to focus on which nations and companies should be subsidized, rather
than whether American taxpayers should pay for trade subsidies at all. I focus on the Constitution
when voting on trade issues. This approach leads me to always oppose trade subsidies, as there is no
enumerated power that gives Congress authority to send your money abroad to help big
corporations sell their products. The current system allows the most powerful interests, with the
largest political lobbies, to prevail in the Congressional pork subsidy game. So the biggest
corporations tend to get bigger, while smaller competitors face a very uneven playing field. This is
not free trade, but rather government-mangaged trade epitomized by international bodies like
NAFTA and the WTO. As noted Austrian economist Murray Rothbard explained, we don't need
government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free
trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-
managed trade always means political favoritism. Merit, rather than politics, should determine which
companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out of
the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans. The same
free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are
taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for
the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes- I want to get the federal government out of your
pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by
stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose.
Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better
served by purchasing an imported item. When Congress attempts to punish certain nations by imposing tariffs on their
products, it really simply punishes average Americans who end up paying more for the goods they buy every day. Tariffs especially harm the
poorest American families, who spend roughly half of their income on just two things: food and clothes. These basic necessities are the most
highly-taxed items imported into the United States. Of course many families don't realize that they pay very high import tariffs, because the taxes
are buried in the cost of everyday items. Yet estimates show that most poor families pay $1,100 annually because of import taxes. So while it's
easy for Congress to impose self-righteous tariffs as a political statement, we forget that our own poorest citizens pay the real price. Finally, I
always oppose trade sanctions against foreign nations. Sanctions are terribly ineffective foreign policy tools that
harm the people, rather than the governments, of nations we hold in disfavor. Sanctions also hurt
American exporters, including Texas farmers, who are prohibited from selling their products overseas.
China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm
products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed sanctions that prevent our farmers from
selling to the billions of people in those nations. Given our status as one of the world's largest
agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of
our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I recently voted to against continued trade sanctions
against Iran and Libya, and I have introduced legislation to end our trade embargo against Cuba. All
Americans benefit from both sides of the free trade equation, and Congress should not interfere
with exports any more than it should tax imports.
ADI 51
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Solves War


THE THREAT OF WAR IS A TOOL OF CAPITALISM – IT INSISTS ON FEAR
KNOWING THAT IT WILL DIFFUSE CONFLICT
Hardt & Negri in 2000 (Michael & Antonio, Empire, http://www.infoshop.org/texts/empire.pdf)
Imperial control operates through three global and absolute means: the bomb, money, and ether. The
panoply of thermonuclear weapons, effectively gathered at the pinnacle of Empire, represents the continuous
possibility of the destruction of life itself. This is an operation of absolute violence, a new metaphysical
horizon, which completely changes the conception whereby the sovereign state had a monopoly of
legitimate physical force. At one time, in modernity, this monopoly was legitimated either as the expropriation of
weapons from the violent and anarchic mob, the disordered mass of individuals who tend to slaughter one another, or as
the instrument of def ense against the enemy, that is, against other peoples organized in states. Both these means of
legitimation were oriented finally toward the survival of the population. Today they are no longer effective. The
expropriation of the means of violence from a supposedly self- destructive population tends to become merely
administrative and police operations aimed at maintaining the segmentations of productive territories. The second
justification becomes less effective too as nuclear war between state powers becomes increasingly unthinkable. The
development of nuclear technologies and their imperial concentration have limited the sovereignty of most of the
countries of the world insofar as it has taken away from them the power to make decisions over war and peace, which is a
primary element of the traditional definition of sovereignty. Furthermore, the ultimate threat of the imperial bomb
has reduced every war to a limited conflict, a civil war, a dirty war, and so forth. It has made every war the
exclusive domain of administrative and police power. From no other standpoint is the passage from modernity to
postmodernity and from modern sovereignty to Empire more evident than it is from the standpoint of the bomb. Empire
is defined here in the final instance as the "non-place" of life, or, in other words, as the absolute
capacity for destruction. Empire is the ultimate form of biopower insofar as it is the absolute inversion of the power
of life.

SCARES OF WAR FUNCTION TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT CAPITALIST


AGENDA
Hardt & Negri in 2000 (Michael & Antonio, Empire, http://www.infoshop.org/texts/empire.pdf)
The society of the spectacle rules by wielding an age-old weapon. Hobbes recognized long ago that for
effective domination “the Passion to be reckoned upon, is Fear.” For Hobbes, fear is what binds and
ensures social order, and still today fear is the primary mechanism of control that fills the society of the
spectacle. Although the spectacle seems to function through desire and pleasure (desire for commodities and pleasure
of consumption), it really works through the communication of fear—or rather, spectacle creates forms of desire
and pleasure that are intimately wedded to fear. In the vernacular of early modern European philosophy, the
communication of fear was called superstition. And indeed the politics of fear has always been spread through a kind of
superstition. What has changed are the forms and mechanisms of the superstitions that communicate fear.
The spectacle of fear that holds together the postmodern, hybrid constitution and the media
manipulation of the public and politics certainly takes the ground away from a struggle over the
imperial constitution. It seems as if there is no place left to stand, no weight to any possible resistance,
but only an implacable machine of power.
ADI 52
Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Bad – AT: Free Trade Solves Economy


Trade liberalization destroys more than a quarter of current U.S. jobs including skilled
workers
Sasseen ’08 [Jane Sasseen, Washington bureau chief for BusinessWeek, ECONOMISTS
RETHINK FREE TRADE; It's no wholesale repudiation, to be sure, but something
momentous is happening as doubts begin to creep in, BusinessWeek, 02/11/2008, <L/N>
Accessed 07/29/08]
Blinder warns the pain may just be starting. He estimates that eventually up to 40 million service jobs in the
U.S. could face competition from workers in India and other low-wage nations. That's more than a quarter of
the 140 million employed in the U.S. today. Many of the newly vulnerable will be in skilled fields, such as
accounting or research--jobs U.S. companies will be able to move offshore in ever greater numbers. "It will
be a messy process of adjustment, with a lot of victims along the way," Blinder says.

Free trade leads to offshoring which destroy 40 million U.S. jobs


Blinder ’07 [Alan S. Blinder, professor of economics at Princeton University, vice chairman
of Promontory Interfinancial Network and vice chairman of the G7 Group, “Free Trade's
Great, but Offshoring Rattles Me,” Washington Post, 5-6-07 <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402555.html>]
We economists assure folks that things will be all right in the end. Both Americans and Indians will be better
off. I think that's right. The basic principles of free trade that Adam Smith and David Ricardo taught us two
centuries ago remain valid today: Just like people, nations benefit by specializing in the tasks they do best
and trading with other nations for the rest. There's nothing new here theoretically.
But I would argue that there's something new about the coming transition to service offshoring. Those two
powerful forces mentioned earlier -- technological advancement and the rise of China and India -- suggest
that this particular transition will be large, lengthy and painful.
It's going to be lengthy because the technology for moving information across the world will continue to
improve for decades, if not forever. So, for those who earn their living performing tasks that are (or will
become) deliverable electronically, this is no fleeting problem.
It's also going to be large. How large? In some recent research, I estimated that 30 million to 40 million U.S.
jobs are potentially offshorable. These include scientists, mathematicians and editors on the high end and
telephone operators, clerks and typists on the low end. Obviously, not all of these jobs are going to India,
China or elsewhere. But many will.
ADI 53
Free Trade

WTO – Key To Free Trade


WTO CREATES THE POLITICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL FREE
TRADE
Norberg 2003 (Johan, M.A. in History of Ideas, Stockholm University, a fellow at the Swedish think tank Timbro,
author of In Defence of Global Capitalism which won the Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award by the
Atlas Economic Research Foundation; "Poor Man's Hero: Controversial writer Johan Norberg champions
globalization as the best hope for the developing world," Reason Magazine, December,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28968.html)
Reason: The WTO is meeting in Cancun as we're talking. What do you think of the WTO, which is a major target both
of anti-globalizers and many free market advocates? Norberg: It's a good thing that it exists, but it's rightlybeen
called the free traders' deal with the devil. The best solution for all of us would be unilateral free trade: Just open
our borders. We don't need protection from cheap goods; they're exactly what we want!
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and in that case I think that the WTO is important for two
reasons. One is that it's hard to combat the special interests that are against
opening up market access for other countries. But if we do it in multilateral
negotiations, we can face the special interests and say: "OK, we might lose jobs in
those sectors that we open up to competition. But in exchange we get access to
new markets over here." That helps convince people in the export business. It
helps get, say, unions on our side for free trade, and that's a good thing. The other
reason that the WTO is important is that helps create a rule of law in the
international trade system. We lock in free trade reform so that politicians can't
backtrack every time there's a failure or a downturn in their national or local
economy.
ADI 54
Free Trade

WTO – Not Key To Free Trade


WTO doesn’t encourage free trade

BusinessWorld, 8/17/07 [“Trade Tripper; Some Myths About the WTO”, LexisNexis [Accessed
8/1/08]]
One of the easiest targets to lay criticism on is the World Trade Organization. NGOs and left-leaning
organizations love blaming the WTO for all existing poverty. This despite the fact that it is actually their
advocacies, to paraphrase Thomas Friedman, that "keep the poor in being poor." Governments find in the
WTO a convenient scapegoat, placing responsibility on the latter for the consequences of what is actually
government policies or measures.
In truth, the WTO is a highly beneficial, albeit misunderstood, body whose purpose is to improve the lives of
many of the world's poor. The following is a short discussion on some myths (and there are many
peddled around) about the WTO.
WTO demands "free trade." This is a myth spread by governments (trying to shift responsibility for
probable consequences of trade liberalization policies) and anti-globalization NGOs (for anything
wrong with this world). What is to be remembered is this: the WTO never imposed free trade or
aspired for free markets. If one studies the 492 pages that make up the Marrakesh Agreement and its
Annexes, one would see that not once do the words "free trade" appear. Instead, one finds that the goals
of the WTO are more inclusive and real: "raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and ...
growing volume of real income and...expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, ...the
optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development...." Nothing
objectionable there.
WTO forced us to lower tariffs. The WTO, 12 years after it came into being, is still being blamed for
present levels of Philippine tariffs. This is wrong. To understand, one first must make a distinction between
"bound" and "applied" rates. To bind means to commit to a certain level of tariffs for which a country may
not impose in excess of, the so-called "bound" rates. The binding is our WTO commitment. Thus, if the
Philippines decides to bind its tariffs on, say, widgets, at 80%, then the Philippines may impose tariff rates
from anywhere from 0% to 80% but not to exceed 80%. The actual tariff rate imposed by the Philippines
within the bound rate is the "applied" rate.
The current "simple average final bound rate" for the Philippines is 25.6% (with agriculture at a high 34.7
and non-agri products at 23.4%). Thus, to use the averages as an example, we could have rates from 0% to
25.6%. The Philippines, on its own, voluntarily and without being required by the WTO, has a "simple
average mfn applied rate" of 6.3% (with agri products at 9.6%, non-agri products at 5.8%). Some of our
bound rate commitments are actually quite high (sugar is at 80%) and with some products having no bound
rate commitments at all (e.g., cement, ceramics) and thus technically could be raised to any level we want.
Our tariffs are at such levels because our own internal policies make it so. This is not to dispute the merit
of such policies. The point is that the WTO rules were framed in such a way that countries have a great
leeway in formulating their domestic rules that ensure they get the most out of WTO membership. WTO
rules have enough safety provisions that can be used in cases where trade becomes unduly harmful (i.e., trade
remedies such as safeguards and anti-dumping measures).
ADI 55
Free Trade

WTO Good – Corporate Domination


A collapse in the WTO gives more power to corporations to dominate marginalized
countries leading to worse forms of poverty and unchecked corporate power
Legrain in 2000 (Phillipe [WTO Advisor to DG and Trade rep. at Economist], "Should the WTO be abolished?",
The Ecologist, Dec accessed 7/30/08 @
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_9_30/ai_68742882/pg_2)
A convincing case for the WTO's abolition must show two things. First, that the world would be better off
without the WTO. Second, that the WTO's abolition is preferable to any politically feasible reform. You fail
to show either.
Abolishing the WTO would not destroy globalisation, capitalism, or US corporate power. But it would
wipe out a forum for governments to negotiate multilateral trade rules and a mechanism for holding
them to those rules. That would make every country worse off, but the biggest losers would be the poor and
the weak.
One benefit of rules is that they apply to big, rich countries as well as small, poor ones. When America
blocked imports of Costa Rican underwear, Costa Rica appealed to the WTO. It won, and America
lifted its restrictions. Do you honestly think Costa Rica would have such clout in Washington without
the WTO? Granted, the dispute-settlement mechanism is not perfect: America has a battery of lawyers to
fight its corner, whereas small countries scrimp. It should be improved. But it is already much better than the
alternative: the law of the jungle, where might makes right.Another merit of WTO rules is that they tie
governments' hands. Once countries open their markets to foreign trade and investment, they cannot
close them again at whim. Without this stability, companies would be reluctant to invest abroad,
particularly in developing countries with a protectionist or politically unstable record. Abolishing the
WTO would further marginalise developing countries.
ADI 56
Free Trade

WTO Bad – Imperialism/Global Governance


The WTO paves the way for imperial sovereignty – international institutions aimed at the
easing of trade create a global form of sovereignty
Hardt and Negri in 2004 (Michael [prof. @ duke] and Antonio [prof. @ universities of Padua and Paris]
Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. The Penguin Press. Pg. 171-172)
At a second level we find that nation-states provide a more substantial notion of global governance,
which introduces stronger elements of authority. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements between
and among nation-states are one way in which relations of authority and force are codified and
institutionalized on a higher, more general level. International trade agreements have long existed, but
now they are tending to create truly global forms of authority. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
is perhaps the most visible example of such a global institution. The WTO is a real forum for the global
aristocracy, in which we see expressed clearly all the antagonisms and contradictions among nation-
states, including their conflicting interests, their unequal powers, and their tendency to align along
north-south divisions. This second level is the realm in which we can recognize most clearly the
interregnum halfway on the path from national and international law to global or imperial law, where a
new global governance is supported by a vast array of legal authorities, normative systems, and procedures.
In the contradictory new global economic order that is emerging through international agreements, there are
woven together both globalizing tendencies and resurgent nationalist elements, both liberal proposals and
self-interested perversions of liberal ideals, both regional political solidarities and neocolonial operations of
commercial and financial domination. We can recognize the resurgent economic nationalism, for example, in
the way the most powerful countries impose protectionist measures as soon as an important sector of their
own national economy, such as steel production or agriculture, is affected adversely by global markets. The
self-interested perversions of liberal ideals can be seen in the way that antitrust laws, adopted by the most
dominant countries, aimed at defending competition in the national economy are weakened and subverted in
order to allow monopoly practices and destroy competition on the international level. With regard to
financial domination, one need only look at the restrictive monetary policies imposed on various
regions, such as those dictated by the euro in Eastern Europe and by the Latin American currency
boards that link national currencies to the dollar. Despite the coexistence of these contradictory
elements, the tendency toward the formation of a global economic order is irreversible. Precisely in this
regard, some scholars have recognized that the transformations of sovereignty imposed by
globalization have given rise not to a simple subtraction of power from the nation-states but rather a
global sovereignty that is more "complex. "86
ADI 57
Free Trade

WTO Bad – Imperialism


Food Aid funneled through the WTO increases hunger and poverty because it only benefits
farmers of developed countries, while keeping the developing countries dependent.
Mittal, 2005, (Anuradha, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, a research and educational institute, Inter
Press Service Columnist Service. “Food Aid or Food Sovereignty? Ending World Hunger in Our Time”,
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/224)

In a study conducted by the Oakland Institute this year (Food Aid or Food Sovereignty: Ending World Hunger in
Our Time), we have concluded that this position overlooks two fundamental elements: Food trade is largely
dominated by developed countries and a few developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa, who are
affected by the displacement of commercial imports. In addition, increased food trade, controlled by international
agribusinesses and large-scale farmers, will not provide market access and benefit the poorest countries and
their small farmers.
World hunger will be again at stake at the December WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong. WTO, as the agency to
regulate food aid, will not address world hunger and will serve the interests of competing food exporting
countries. Furthermore, developed countries are putting pressure on developing countries to dismantle tariffs
and open their markets to increased dumping of agricultural commodities by agribusiness cartels. Any
additional cuts to the agricultural tariff in developing countries, the only instrument available for protecting
farmers who have no subsidies to offset the effects of low commodity prices, would unleash more hunger and
destitution. For example, India has reduced its tariff rate to almost 65% lower than the average applied rate in 1990-
91, and is reeling from depressed global prices. Home to some 221.1 million food-insecure people, India is faced
with rampant suicide rates among farmers, and the National Sample Survey Organization reports that nearly 48.6
percent of the 90 million farm households are caught in a debt trap.
What the hungry really need is an enforcement mechanism that ensures the human right to food. This would require
support for national policies that protect and restore the livelihoods of small farmers and increase national food
availability. After all, examples from hunger crises around the world clearly prove that policies that help countries
develop their own agricultural sector and strengthen their small-scale farmers, actually help feed more people
in the long run.
ADI 58
Free Trade

Doha – Agriculture Subsidies Key


Cutting Subsidies key to finish the Doha talks—developing countries and developed
countries will both be willing to work out differences
The Globe and Mail in 2008 (Down to the wire for Doha round, Reuters, REPORT ON BUSINESS:
INTERNATIONAL; GLOBAL TRADE TALKS; Pg. B9, July 24, lexis)

Ministers are seeking "modalities" - or the parameters of an agreement - in talks over reducing barriers
to trade in agricultural and industrial goods. This would include the formulas for cutting tariffs and
subsidies on goods like cotton, rice, shoes, and cars, and designations of what products can be shielded
from cuts. Those exceptions are especially important for developing countries. Diplomats have agreed on
the shape of the formulas. Ministers are discussing the numbers to go into them. Agreement in the core
areas of farming and manufactured goods would open the door for deals in other parts of the Doha
round, including cross-border services.
DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING CALCULATIONS
Once the formulas for agriculture and industry are agreed, officials will have to calculate their impact
on thousands of different products or "tariff lines." This detailed, painstaking process, which would
take months, is known as scheduling. Only when those calculations are complete - and the WTO's 153
members can see what their partners' future import duties will look like - will it be possible to sign off
on a deal. So agreement among ministers on when that scheduling should be finished would set an
important milestone for the Doha round, and give negotiators in services a clear target to aim for.
ADI 59
Free Trade

Doha – Agriculture Subsidies Key


AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES BY THE U.S. WILL THREATEN THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF A
REVIVAL OF THE DOHA ROUND.
New Strait Times, August 1 (Hardev Kaur, “Agricultural subsidies imperil future of Doha round” 8/1/08,
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Columns/2308238/Article/index_html)
IT has been a roller-coaster ride for the Doha Development Round since its launch seven years ago. It has been put on the back
burner, then in cold storage, missing several self-imposed deadlines. Progress has been painfully slow. The divisions between the
rich and poor remain and in their latest attempt in Geneva, the negotiators failed to reach an agreement after nine gruelling days.
The Doha Round, which was to focus on and address the concerns of the developing countries, has seen
developed-country negotiators asking for more than their "pound of flesh" from the developing nations. Some
observers have remarked that the demands of the developed nations make it more to benefit the rich. The position adopted by the
developed nations in wanting to extract maximum concessions from developing countries went against the spirit and mandate of
the Doha Round. When it was launched in the Qatari capital in 2001, there was a definite commitment from the developed world
to deal with the inequities of the previous round. They must remain true to the commitment that the Doha Round is a
development round, and help correct distortions in trade adversely affecting poor countries. Developing countries need help
and developed nations should not "take, take and take more" as they appear to be doing. Agriculture, which
is heavily subsidised in the developed nations (the United States, European Union and Japan), has been a major
obstacle and a contentious issue in the negotiations. The rich and politically powerful farmers in the developed
countries benefit from the handouts, while the poor and subsistence farmers in developing countries continue
to suffer and pay a heavy price for the trade-distorting policies of the rich. The plight of the poor is made
worse by the dumping of subsidised farm produce from developed nations. Distortions in agricultural trade have
been "in place" for more than 50 years and continue to this day. The US and EU were not in favour of agricultural trade being
"regulated" by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, WTO's (World Trade Organisation) predecessor. WTO director-
general Pascal Lamy said last Friday that developed nations would make major cuts to their agricultural subsidies in return for
more access to developing countries' industrial and services sectors. Lamy's proposal, which some called "skeletal", called for
cutting the limit on European farm subsidies by 80 per cent and US payments by 70 per cent to about US$14.5 billion (RM50
billion). However, this is well above the amount actually spent last year, which was closer to US$7 billion. The proposal would
not have resulted in actual cuts in spending by the US in support of its wealthy farmers. How can higher spending on trade-
distorting agricultural subsidies be a concession from the major developed nation?A Chinese official pointed out that "the
extremely high subsidies by the US have caused serious damage to cotton farmers in developing countries,
including those in Africa and 150 million in China". He added: "We believe that the US is not in a position to
discuss with developing (countries) members cotton tariffs until they eliminate their cotton subsidies. "Lamy's
proposal had also come under fire in his own home country, France. The devil was in the details. One of the sticking points in the proposal was
the treatment of certain luxury produce, such as cheese and wine, which the French believe ought to be protected by trademarks. Meanwhile, two
US senators, Robert C. Byrd and Russell D. Feingold, both Democrats, questioned US Trade Representative Susan Schwab's authority in
negotiating to finalise an agreement at the WTO. In a letter dated July 23, to President George W. Bush, the senators pointed out that the US Fast
Track Promotion Authority had expired on June 30, last year and that Congress had refused to provide the US government further authority. The
agriculture talks had also been undermined by the five-year programme of subsidies recently passed by the
US Congress, which Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, described as "one of the most reactionary farm
bills in the history of the US".In the end, it was agriculture and the dispute over protection for farmers in
developing countries that led to the ministers packing up. The draft text envisaged a "special safeguard mechanism" --
a right for developing countries to raise tariffs to protect their farmers against a surge of imports. The US wanted the import
volume that triggered the mechanism set relatively high; India wanted it low. There was no agreement.Kamal Nath, India's
Minister for Commerce and Industry, in defending his position is reported as saying: "I come from a country where 300 million
people live on US$1 a day and 700 million people live on US$2 a day. So it is natural for me, and in fact incumbent upon me, to
see that our agricultural interests are not compromised. You don't require rocket science to decide between
livelihood security and commercial interests."And Indonesia's Trade Minister Mari Pangestu lamented that "a reasonable request"
had been blocked because the US "is not going to show flexibility".Differences remain. There was no agreement. The talks failed. The
negotiations also reflected the failure of rich nations to deal with the growing influence of emerging nations -- China, India and Brazil -- in the
global economy. As Nath said: "It's unfortunate that in a development round we couldn't agree to an issue of
livelihood and security".The large developed countries, he said, were "looking for commercial interests and
enhancing prosperity rather than looking for content which reduces poverty". From the developing countries'
perspective, no deal is better than a bad deal. With the US presidential elections due in November and with pending changes at the European
Commission, the chances of completing the round this year appear unlikely. The failure in Geneva does not mean that global trade flows will
stop. Nor does it mean the end of the rules-based trading regime. Talks in some form, if not at the ministerial level, will continue. As former
ADI 60
Free Trade

Canadian trade minister John Crosbie said after the Uruguay Round talks failed in 1990: "She's dead but she won't lie down." Four years later,
that round was completed.
ADI 61
Free Trade

Doha – Alternate Causalities


Increased globalization and Chinese competition are undermining the DOHA round- they
put too much competitive pressure on governments.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State., The
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
First, and most important, the global economic and political environment has become increasingly unsettled over the
course of the Doha Round due to both adjustment pressures emanating from globalization (including growing
competition from China) and new security requirements that complicate and raise the cost of international
commerce. Globalization pressures make policymakers more cautious about taking on additional adjustments via the
Doha Round when they are already having a hard time coping with existing competition. However, they also recognize that they must
adapt quickly to changing conditions in world markets or fall sharply behind in the global competition for market shares and investment resources, so protection is not a long-term option. On
balance, this “globalization imperative” has made WTO members more risk averse to multilateral trade reform in the
Doha Round (though some countries have pursued more targeted liberalization via RTAs).

Resource constraints on the part of developing countries create a forced choice that cause
them to participate in RTA’s instead of the WTO. Insufficient trade facilitation only
exacerbates the problem.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Second, there is a sizeable gap in the ability of countries to participate actively in WTO deliberations. Resource
constraints are real, and many developing countries allocate their representation to regional bodies that offer more
immediate pay-offs in terms of unilateral trade preferences. Unfortunately, this leads to foot-dragging in the WTO. Furthermore,
developing countries have been unsure whether they could take advantage of new trading opportunities in the Doha
Round due to infrastructure and human capital constraints. These legitimate concerns underscore the need to follow
through on trade facilitation reforms in the Doha Round and complementary commitments to “Aid for Trade” to
strengthen economic infrastructure and administrative capabilities.3 Trade and integration arrangements should also be part of the policy response
and integrally linked with a country’s development strategy (though not necessarily the main driver of that strategy).

Friction over Iraq, Chinese Competition, energy security and nuclear proliferation
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Third, the foreign policy imperative to work together – which solidified global support to
start the Doha Round two months after the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 –
has frayed amid frictions over US policy in Iraq, increasing competitive pressures from
China, and renewed concerns about energy security and nuclear proliferation. The cooperative
spirit of Doha, forged by the crisis of the moment, seems to be a fading memory. In its place, trade officials offer a
cacophony of diplomatic rhetoric known in Geneva as “the blame game.”
ADI 62
Free Trade

Doha – Alternate Causalities


China Bashing causes tit for tat trade retaliation that prevents conclusion of the DOHA
round.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Sixth, policymakers in the United States and Europe face growing resistance to new trade liberalization. US trade
politics is dominated by China bashing; several bills have been introduced in Congress to respond and counter the
undervaluation of the renminbi, including invoking WTO dispute settlement under GATT Article XV, and to impose antidumping and countervailing duties with more
intensity against imports from China. In Europe, member states continue to grapple with the impact and adjustment pressures generated by enlargement, and with implementing the structural
Antidumping measures are being deployed with increasing frequency to blunt import growth
reforms of the Lisbon Agenda.
from East Asia, particularly in the areas of textiles, apparel, and footwear. Investment policies are being contorted to develop national champions
– and some member states seem to only want competition among national champions when it comes to the football pitch!
On both sides of the pond, China bashing has become allied with renewed calls for economic nationalism, the blood
brother of trade protectionism. In the United States, public outcries doomed both the Chinese purchase of UNOCAL and Dubai Ports World’s planned investment in East
Coast seaports. It’s not hard to see how the current clamor could turn into calls for national ownership of strategic assets, and in turn provide a political excuse to block reforms involving
establishment in goods and services industries. Investments by sovereign wealth funds, especially those from the Middle East and East Asia, could provoke nationalistic outbursts reminiscent of
the Dubai Ports World saga of 2006 (see Graham / Marchick 2006). China already has faced this challenge in the energy sector. My fear is that other sectors will be classified as “strategic” and
targeted for protection – including information technology and telecommunications as well as energy production and distribution.
Rampant China bashing in both the United States and Europe could provoke tit-for-tat trade retaliation,
which in turn could disrupt the Doha Round. While existing WTO obligations constrain the use of traditional forms of trade protection like tariffs and quotas, the
protectionist backlash could surface in more subtle ways such as clawing back of prior reform via new regulatory policies. We already have seen some examples in restrictions blocking trade in
genetically modified foods and in security-related investment restrictions.

RTA’s spur competition and check inflation- in the face of a stagnating WTO the
alternative is protectionism which drives out investment vital to economic growth.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
For developing countries, RTAs have become increasingly important, especially given the low expectations that the Doha Round can fulfill its
development objectives. Given the lackluster pace of the WTO talks, and the ongoing challenges posed by globalization and competition from China and India,
many developing countries have turned to RTAs to complement and often propel domestic economic reforms. If
properly crafted, RTAs can contribute to economic growth by spurring competition in domestic markets and
dampening inflation – which in turn helps create a more stable and attractive environment for investment. Indeed,
competition for investment drives many of the RTAs to which developing countries participate. If a country
maintains high levels of protection, costly regulations, or discriminatory standards, investors generally will opt to locate in other
countries that have policies more conducive to production and investment. Note that the access to trade preferences is generally not an important
driver, particularly in North-South RTAs where industrial countries maintain only a few albeit significant border barriers to developing country exports. Preferential access is important for some
products (e. g., agriculture; autos; apparel), but RTAs often limit or exempt those products from free trade commitments. Moreover, preferences are depreciating assets whose value declines as
WTO negotiations and/or other RTAs are concluded.
ADI 63
Free Trade

Doha – Alternate Causalities


CHINA AND INDIA ARE TO BLAME FOR THE DOHA HOLD UP BECAUSE OF
THEIR PUSH TOWARDS DEREGULATON
Elliot in 2008 (Larry, [Economics Editor @ The Guardian], “WTO: China throws up barrier to Doha agreement:
WTO faces fight before ending trade stalemate Europe to agree 80% cut in some CAP subsidies”, The Guardia, July
28, Lexis)

Last-ditch talks to secure a new global free-trade agreement were entering a second fraught
week in Geneva today as China became the latest stumbling block to ending almost seven
years of marathon negotiations. Pascal Lamy, the director general of the World Trade Organisation,
tabled new proposals last night in the hope of securing a deal by the middle of the week that would
liberalise international trade in agriculture, manufactured goods and services.WTO sources said Lamy
was confident of a final breakthrough after a cabal of the organisation's 150 members - the US, the
European Union, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia and China - agreed a deal late last week that would
see cuts in farm protection in the west in return for easier access to the industrial markets of
developing countries. But over the weekend India expressed concern about some of the details of
the agreement and was insisting on extra safeguards for its farmers, while China angered
other developing nations by demanding that some of its key manufacturing sectors - such as
chemical and machinery - be excluded.A source from one of the key players at the talks said last
night: "Up until now the big hold-out has been India. But in the last 24 hours China has started
to emerge as a big stick-in-the-mud. Lamy is going to have a fight on his hands."
ADI 64
Free Trade

Doha – Key To The Global Economy


Resolve must come before the end of 08 on Doha if not progress will never be made leading
to a collapse of the global economy
The Economist in 2008 (Defrosting Doha; World Trade, Briefs, July 19, Lexis)
But if Mr Bush leaves him with a lot of work still to finish, the new president may well conclude that he
has better things to do. By 2010 such momentum as there is for a Doha round agreement may have
been lost. "If it’s not concluded this year, it won’t be concluded next year and by 2010 the caravans will
have moved on elsewhere," said Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, at the World
Economic Forum in January. "Not only will the caravans have moved on in different directions of trade
negotiations, but what has already been on the table will have been put into deep freeze." The consequences
of putting the Doha round into cold storage come in two parts. The more nebulous, but arguably more
important, is the long-term effect on the future of trade and the world economy. You might suppose that
it would not matter much. Despite all Doha’s difficulties, world trade has been growing nicely without it (see
chart). Developed countries’ tariffs on industrial goods, at least, are already low. Developing countries have
been opening up too, cutting tariffs to levels well below the ceilings negotiated at the WTO. Trade in
services has been getting freer, although many countries’ WTO commitments are still patchy. And countries
have become much more welcoming to foreign investment, which the Doha round does not even address.
ADI 65
Free Trade

Doha – Not Key To The Global Economy


DOHA is not key to the global economy—the internal links that would trigger their impacts
have already happened—proves they have no impact
The Economist in 2008 (Defrosting Doha; World Trade, Briefs, July 19, Lexis)
Granted, if the Doha round fails, the world will not end. Nevertheless, it would be wrong--and
complacent--to suppose that failure would be costless. For a start, the world economy is troubled. Doha
will not repair housing markets or ease credit constraints. But in difficult times calls for trade protection
get louder, and may be heard favourably by politicians. This would be a bad moment, therefore, to turn away
from further liberalisation. And the WTO as an institution would be damaged. The chances of another go at
liberalisation soon, after an abject failure, would be slim.
Already there are some signs of rising hostility to trade. The plainest are the taxes or bans imposed by
some countries on food exports in response to the rapid increase in prices. This is not protection as
usually practised--in the Doha round, countries have been negotiating to end subsidies, not taxes, on farm
exports. But had the negotiations been starting now, such gross impediments to trade might well have been
on the agenda.
ADI 66
Free Trade

Doha – Key To The WTO


COLLAPSE OF DOHA LEADS TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTO
Lynn in 2008 (Jonathan, WTO to focus on dispute role after Doha blow, Jul 30, Reuters,
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-34738320080730?sp=true)
"I see it as the great success of the system in keeping what could be a very damaging conflict between two
great trading powers within the bounds of law and good sense," he said.
The collapse of the Doha talks must not be allowed to weaken the trading system represented by the
WTO, said the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the most influential U.S. business lobbies.
"We must prepare ourselves for the onslaught of those pronouncing this to be the end of the WTO.
That is nonsense. The WTO is the arbiter of the rules-based trading system and will continue to be the
venue for future broad or specific negotiations," it said in a statement.
ADI 67
Free Trade

Doha – Resiliency
THE WTO IS RESILIANT—COLLAPSE OF DOHA DOES NOTHING TO WEAKEN IT
Lynn in 2008 (Jonathan, WTO to focus on dispute role after Doha blow, Jul 30, Reuters,
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-34738320080730?sp=true )
For Lamy, the opening offered by Doha would have strengthened the world's insurance policy against
protectionism.
"My hope is that given the resilience of the system, it will be able to resist the bumpy road ahead of
us," he said.
That bumpy road, many trade experts believe, could express itself in one way in an increase in litigation,
as rows over bananas, cotton and import pricing that would have been dealt with in a Doha deal
continue to fester.
But that is where the WTO comes in.
"If the Doha round fails it is a lost opportunity, that's for sure, but the WTO will continue to be used to
resolve disputes where its integrity is intact," said David Woods of World Trade Agenda Consultants,
and a former spokesman of the WTO's predecessor, the GATT.
ADI 68
Free Trade

Doha – Long Timeframe


Even if plan passes it will take months for DOHA to do anything about it
The Globe and Mail in 2008 (Down to the wire for Doha round, Reuters, REPORT ON BUSINESS:
INTERNATIONAL; GLOBAL TRADE TALKS; Pg. B9, July 24, lexis)

Ministers are seeking "modalities" - or the parameters of an agreement - in talks over reducing barriers
to trade in agricultural and industrial goods. This would include the formulas for cutting tariffs and
subsidies on goods like cotton, rice, shoes, and cars, and designations of what products can be shielded
from cuts. Those exceptions are especially important for developing countries. Diplomats have agreed on
the shape of the formulas. Ministers are discussing the numbers to go into them. Agreement in the core
areas of farming and manufactured goods would open the door for deals in other parts of the Doha
round, including cross-border services.
DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING CALCULATIONS
Once the formulas for agriculture and industry are agreed, officials will have to calculate their impact
on thousands of different products or "tariff lines." This detailed, painstaking process, which would
take months, is known as scheduling. Only when those calculations are complete - and the WTO's 153
members can see what their partners' future import duties will look like - will it be possible to sign off
on a deal. So agreement among ministers on when that scheduling should be finished would set an
important milestone for the Doha round, and give negotiators in services a clear target to aim for.

Passing plan does nothing to Doha it will take months of negotiations post plan to even
have a chance to create change
The Economist in 2008 (Defrosting Doha; World Trade, Briefs, July 19, Lexis)
Even if ministers reach agreement in Geneva, officials will still have lots to sort out. The deal?s basic
formulae will have to be converted into tariff schedules for thousands of products, controversial rules on anti-
dumping must be thrashed out, and the services negotiations must catch up. And success is far from
guaranteed. Talks have centred on two main areas: trade in farm goods and industrial products (non-agricultural
market access, or NAMA, in WTO jargon). The ambassadors who chair the WTO?s agriculture and NAMA
negotiations have smoothed out a lot of rough areas, but would still have liked to leave ministers with less work to
do. Talks on NAMA have continued this week.
Broadly speaking, Europe and India are under attack for wanting to spare too many farm products from
deeper tariff cuts; some developing countries are being asked to reduce industrial tariffs further and faster;
and America is under pressure to do more to cap trade-distorting subsidies to its farmers.
ADI 69
Free Trade

Doha – AT: Long Timeframe


Must pass plan before the election to please other countries and gurantee strength for the
WTO
The Economist in 2008 (Defrosting Doha; World Trade, Briefs, July 19, Lexis)
The chief reason for urgency is to complete a deal before George Bush leaves office. This may seem
curious, because he is in no position to get a Doha deal through Congress. He lacks "trade promotion
authority" (TPA)--the right to negotiate a trade agreement and present a bill to lawmakers for a straight yes-
or-no vote without amendment--and will not get it now. Congress is in no mood to give it to him, and time
is running out.
The best hope instead is to pass a finished, or nearly finished, agreement on to John McCain or Barack
Obama. It is possible that the new president may dislike the deal so much that he seeks to renegotiate it or
rejects it altogether. But renegotiation would be time-consuming at best, impossible at worst. Rejection would
wreck the WTO for years, perhaps for good.
ADI 70
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


There Are Too Many Barriers For Bilateralism To Work—They Prevent Multilateral
Routes From Solving Dooming The Global Economy
Wade in 2007 (Matt, Multilateral deals the best answer, delegates told; APEC SEPTEMBER 2-9,2007 –
BARRIERS, Sydney Morning Herald, NEWS AND FEATURES; P. 10, 9/7/07, lexis)
BILATERAL trade agreements such as the Australia-US free trade deal can never overcome some of
the biggest barriers to trade, delegates at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum were told
yesterday.
The director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, said multilateral trade agreements,
like the stalled Doha round of negotiations, were the only way to overcome barriers such as trade
subsidies and "clever regulation. Most of that can only be addressed multilaterally," he said. "You are
not going to address your problem with farm subsidies in a bilateral trade deal." That meant there was
something "irreplaceable" about the World Trade Organisation, Mr Lamy said.
Most speakers at the summit, held at the Sydney Opera House, stressed the importance of a successful
conclusion to the Doha round of trade negotiations.
Delegates were warned that there is no guarantee the global economy will continue to deliver the
benefits of the past few years. "We cannot assume the forces of globalisation are inexorable,"
Singapore's Foreign Minister, George Yong-Boon Yeo, said.
ADI 71
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


AMERICAN TRADE POLICES SHOULD AVOID BILATERAL FTA’S AND TARGET LARGE
MARKET ECONOMIES IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE U.S. ECONOMY.
Reuters, July 9, 2008 (Doug Palmer, “Democratic group urges shift in U.S. trade policy”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0939092920080709)

The next U.S. president should shift American trade policy away from an emphasis on bilateral free
trade agreements to bigger accords with the world's leading economic powers, a new report from a
centrist Democratic policy group said on Wednesday. "The United States needs a new trade and
financial strategy that reflects America's commercial interests," the Democratic Leadership Council
said in "Winning in the World Economy (II)," a follow-up to the group's 1985 policy paper on the same
topic. "It should shift away from the FTA-focused approach of the Bush era, and focus instead on
multilateral policy, targeting the largest markets and the growth sectors likely to lead America's
economy in the 2010s and the 2020s," the DLC said. The report comes as many supporters of
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama are calling for a moratorium on new trade deals until
what they view as problems with previous trade agreements are fixed. Groups such as the AFL-CIO labor
federation, the Teamsters union and the United Steelworkers, as well as many small and medium-sized
manufacturers, blame trade agreements for millions of lost U.S. manufacturing jobs. Obama has promised
to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to include stronger labor and environmental
provisions, and has opposed Bush administration free trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and
Panama. However, the first-term Illinois senator has not articulated a clear outline of what types of trade
agreements he would pursue if elected president. In contrast, Republican presidential candidate John
McCain has warned of the risks of reopening NAFTA and embraced the Bush administration's bilateral
free trade agenda. The DLC urged whoever is elected president to push for approval next year of the
Colombia, South Korea and Panama deals, with "clear and appropriate benchmarks" for addressing
congressional concerns about anti-labor violence in Colombia and auto market openness in South Korea.
The next administration's No. 1 priority should be the successful conclusion of the long-running Doha
round of world trade talks, now in their seventh year, the group said. But whether or not a Doha deal is
concluded, the United States should shift from President George W. Bush's emphasis on bilateral free
trade pacts with mostly small countries to a multilateral approach with big economies such as the
European Union, China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, India, Russia and the Middle East, the DLC
recommended. Those negotiations should also be focused in areas that represent the best growth
opportunities for U.S. exports such as high-tech manufacturing, services and newly invented
technologies, the group said. The DLC report faulted the Bush administration for failing to aggressively
challenge unfair foreign trade practices at the World Trade Organization and urged the next president to
take a more vigorous approach. It also called for abolishing tariffs on selected goods such as olive oil,
clothes, textiles, leather and ceramics made in "major Muslim countries cooperating in the campaign
against terror," as well as expanding trade benefits and other assistance for least-developed countries.
Congress should unilaterally eliminate tariffs on shoes, clothes, luggage and other products no longer
made in America to save consumers billions of dollar per year, the DLC said.
ADI 72
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad

Bilateral agreements bad – lead to increased costs


for business and undermine negotiating power of
developing nations
Euractive 7-30-08. World trade talks failure: The Endgame?
http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/world-trade-talks-failure-
endgame/article-174637

Despite protests from farmers and certain industries about the deal that was
on the table, most major business federations believed the negotiations to
be crucial in boosting the global economy, especially in the framework of the
current oil and food crises. NGOs such as Oxfam also say a "trade reform
that puts poor countries first is desperately needed in the face of rising food
and fuel prices and global economic insecurity".
A return towards bilateralism would cut up markets leading to a
complex "spaghetti bowl" of trade rules that raises operating costs
for businesses. A shift to bilateral free trade agreements is also bad
news for developing countries, which are more likely to see
themselves strong-armed into big concessions.
ADI 73
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad

European Bilat agreements increase third world poverty and food insecurity in
favor of European corporations
World Development Movement, 04/21/08 [“Beware Bilateral Trade Deals with the EU”,
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/bewarebilateraltradedeals21042008.htm]
EU trade deals are unfair to developing countries and can lead to increased poverty warns a
new report, ‘Raw Deal’, released today by the World Development Movement. According to the report the
benefits of signing a free trade deal with the EU sit firmly with European businesses, rather than developing
countries. The launch coincides with the UN conference on trade and development (UNCTAD), held in Accra,
Ghana (commences 21 April).
Assessing the development impacts of two existing EU bilateral trade agreements, with South Africa and
Mexico, the new report ‘Raw Deal’ shows how one-sided these deals have been in favour of the EU.
Key findings include:
An almost 50 per cent increase in South African food and drink imports from Europe. In particular: dairy
products, cereals and processed food and drink. The reduction of tariffs on European sweets in South Africa has
resulted in a 25 per cent fall of employment in the South African sweet making industry.
Mexico can no longer regulate the proportion of foreign shareholdings in banks. This has meant that the
Mexican banking sector has become dominated by a few foreign banks, which has led to higher interest rates
and reduced access to credit for small and medium sized companies and small farmers.
World Development Movement trade policy officer Vicky Cann is attending the UNCTAD meeting to present these
findings to developing countries that are on the EU’s hit list of future trade deals.
Vicky Cann, trade policy officer of the World Development Movement said: “Highlighting the damaging impacts
of EU bilateral trade agreements is critical at a time when the EU is pushing to open markets in over 100
developing countries with these deals. The evidence is stark; the EU’s trade deals are unfair and hurt the
poor. The aim is to open up developing countries’ markets for the benefit of European multinational
companies, which hinders rather than helps the development of poor countries. In this time of rocketing
world food prices, it is hard to believe that Europe seeks to open up developing countries’ markets to heavily
subsidised Europeans exports, putting their own farmers out of business and undermining food security.”
Recently campaigners from all over the world who are fighting Europe’s push to open markets in their countries
raised the issue at a public meeting in the European Parliament: Norma Maldonado, of the International Gender and
Trade Network Central America said: “The European Union wants to impose things on us which they don’t
impose on themselves, like demanding access to our agriculture markets even though they still have huge
subsidies on their own agricultural goods. We are not against trade; we have a culture of trade but we are
against the type of trade rules that the WTO, US and EU impose. And that is why we say no to European
pirates! And we do not want to see a new form of colonialism in the 21st century where Europeans take our
natural wealth and our people and we are left poorer.” Charles Santiago, MP for the Democratic Action Party in
Malaysia said: “This is a re-writing of trade rules, in favour of European corporations. To other developing
countries I say keep away from FTAs – they do not work in your interest! “Europe’s plans have been thwarted
at the World Trade Organisation by developing countries, so now it is targeting countries individually to reap the
rewards it couldn’t get at the WTO because countries were standing up and saying no together.”
John Ochola, of Econews in Kenya said: “This battle against European trade deals goes to the heart of African
and European society. We need a chance for our industries and our farmers to grow and then we link
production of our sectors holistically. Without this it will be difficult to see how Africa can develop.
Europeans must stand up to their governments and tell them not to make the poor poorer.”
Impacts highlighted by the new report, ‘Raw Deal’, include: balance of payment problems; decreased tax
revenue; decreased access to credit for farmers; decreased ability to effectively regulate foreign investors; and
increased unemployment and poverty. Examples include: A projected fall in government revenue of 7.5 per
cent of GDP in Namibia (which is required to implement the same trade rules as South Africa under the Southern
African Customs Union). An equivalent fall of revenue in the UK would amount to the UK government’s entire
expenditure on education. South Africa’s growing trade deficit with the EU has made the country more
vulnerable to international debt, particularly destabilising short-term capital flows. Mexico can no longer
favour domestic companies for government procurement contracts, which amounts to six per cent of GDP.
UNCTAD has said that favouring domestic companies is a ‘vital tool of development’ but under this deal, this
tool is no longer open to the Mexican government.
ADI 74
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Bilateral trade benefits only rich nations, and prevents global pacts
Madelaine Drohan, 08/01/08 [Business and Economics Correspondent for Globe and Mail and The Economist,
“World Trade Talks: The Aftermath”, Globe and Mail, Reportonbusiness.com,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080731.wdrohan0801/BNStory/Business]

Where the next battle will erupt between rich and developing countries is impossible to predict. Globalization
has forged so many connections between countries that there is a wealth of possibilities.
While ministers Mr. Fortier and Mr. Ritz expressed somewhat rote disappointment about the failure of the talks, they
spoke with enthusiasm about their plans to pursue yet more bilateral trade deals. Canada's on a “dual track,”
explained Mr. Fortier. We are exploring bilateral deals while remaining committed to multilateral talks. This is called
having your cake and eating it too. The world doesn't work that way.
Bilateral deals undermine the global trade system by setting up separate and often contradictory regimes that
favour the few and exclude everyone else. The effort and energy governments expend on negotiating these
deals necessarily reduces the amount of time or interest they have in seeking a broader deal. And when a deal
is struck between a powerful, rich country and a poorer, developing country anxious to attract new trade and
investment, you can guess whose interests are protected.
Proponents say bilateral and regional deals, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement, can act as
building blocks for a global pact. Critics say they are stumbling blocks, creating powerful vested interests that
are loath to lose the protection and benefits they receive from being inside protective walls. The critics have
the more realistic view. One reason why so many countries were prepared to walk away from the negotiating
table in Geneva is that they knew they had these bilateral and regional deals in their back pocket.
Yet this is where we now are heading. Canada is far from the only country looking to sew up bilateral and
regional deals. The U.S. is doing the same thing, as are India, China and many others. Following this path to
its logical conclusion leads to a world of powerful trade blocs, vying with each other for advantage.
ADI 75
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS HURT THE POOR
Third World Network, 2006 [Kenyon Minister Warns Against Bilateral Trade Deals”, October
2006, http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=6282]
The Kenyan Trade Minister, Mukhisha Kituyi, today spoke up against the danger of countries running
to negotiate bilateral and regional trade deals with the impasse of the Doha negotiations at the World
Trade Organisation.
"If we face hard decisions in the WTO, we should not run from there by going after bilateral deals," he
said in a presentation at the Mid-Term Review session at UNCTAD.
At the same panel, Brazilian Ambassador Clodoaldo Hugueney reiterated the need for resumption of the
Doha negotiations but added that "you can’t have a successful Round without dealing with development." He
said that agriculture and development are at the centre of the Round, for the first time.
Kituyi, who also currently chairs the African Union Ministers of Trade, said that there is a rise of bilateralism
as the Doha Round talks slowed down. Through bilateral and regional agreements, the developed countries
were having the same aims as they had in other fora.
"Though the words change, the targets remain the same," he said. Referring to the latest European
Commission paper on trade policy, he commented that the EU refused to be on the defensive and was
going to go for "more market access."
The Kenyan Minister has on previous occasions spoken up on the imbalances and risks posed to developing
countries in the Economic Partnership Agreements that the European Commission is negotiating with the
ACP Group of countries. However, he did not mention the EPAs in his speech.
He added that many issues of concern to developing countries, such as the need to tackle agricultural
domestic subsidies in developed countries and the use of special and differential treatment for
developing countries, could only be dealt with in the multilateral system.
To go towards bilateral deals would be running away from the multilateral system, which is the only
forum which can deal with these issues, said Kituyi.
Speaking at the session on "globalisation for development", Kituyi said globalisation created opportunities
and challenges that were unequally distributed, and that managing globalisation must deal with this
inequality.
UNCTAD has the opportunity to bridge the divide between global rule making and action. He said a major
challenge was how to translate the UN commitments (such as on the MDGs) into a matrix of global systemic
issues and actions, that can create rules to harmonise opportunities.
Julio Ortega Tous, Minister and Chief Trade Negotiator of the Dominican Republic, said the developing
countries had made all efforts to integrate into the world economy. "We opened our economies,
privatised state companies, cut budget spending and subsidies, and we even dared to sit as equals in
some trade negotiations with developed countries."
However, the developing countries had instead felt the ill effects of globalisation on their economies.
Giving an example, he said that the ACP countries had 3.5% of the total imports into the EU in 1970
but by 2005 the share had dropped significantly.
ADI 76
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Bilateral FTA’s destroy developing countries economies because the one-on-one nature of
the negotiations gives developed countries too much leverage. And your stepping stone
argument is wrong: 1. The multilateral agreements you create will be just as unbalanced,
and 2. Transition costs from shifting tariff’s collapse the economy.
Styglitz and Charlton ‘6
(Joseph E., Professor Of Economics @ Columbia, Research Economist at the Centre for Economic Performance at
the London School of Economics & honorary Fellow of St. Paul's College at Sydney University, Fair Trade for All:
How Trade Can Promote Development, p.164)

With the collapse of the Doha Round, the United States threatened to pursue a set of bilateral and regional trade
agreements. Such agreements are against the spirit of the multilateral trading system, which has been based on most-favored-nation principles. Moreover, developing
countries may be even more disadvantaged in one-on-one bargaining with the united States; a series of such
agreements may leave many developing countries worse off than they would be even with another unfair
multilateral agreement. While in principle, such agreements are only consistent with WTO rules if there is limited trade diversion, in practice, little attention has been paid to this
requirement. The argument that these regional agreements are useful as a step towards improved multilateral agreements
is also suspect. The kind of multilateral agreement to which they may lead may be more unbalanced than one which
would be directly entered into, without the more circuitous route. More to the point, there is a high cost to the
roundabout approach. For to the extent that there is temporary trade diversion, some industries are being temporarily encouraged, only to b
e later discouraged. Adjustment costs are typically high in developing countries; there may be significant costs of
entry and exit, and with a scarcity of capital, the burden on developing countries may be particularly large.

Bilateral and regional trade agreements do not generate any of the benefits of Multilateral
Free Trade- they don’t allow for necessary competition.
FurchtGott-Roth 2k8
(Diana, "TERMITES IN THE TRADING SYSTEM" ECONOMIC TREATIES ARE ONLY GOOD IF IT’S A FREE
FOR ALL, New York Post, July 27)
Columbia University economics professor Jagdish Bhagwati, for decades a leading international scholar on trade
theory and practice, has some ideas. And his first one, counterintuitively, is to scrap our free trade agreements like
NAFTA. He argues that these preferential trade agreements, or PTAs, are damaging to our economy.
"Acting like termites, PTAs are eating away at the multilateral trading system relentlessly and
progressively," Bhagwati writes. "To use another analogy appropriate to what is happening, the proliferating PTAs are leading us inexorably to
what might be aptly described as a trade wreck."
Trade policy should instead be run on the basis of multilateral free trade agreements, where countries extend to all other nations the lowest tariff that it has on a product.
Many people have grasped the benefits of free trade, but falsely conclude that the more individual, bilateral
agreements, the better off we are. But this just isn't so. For instance, an American shopper might benefit if she
bought a purse from Argentina, which makes many, less expensive leather goods, rather than from Mexico. But
because of the existence of the North American Free Trade Agreement, purses are cheaper from Mexico, because
tariffs don't apply. So, in 2007, we imported $10.5 million of leather handbags from Mexico, and only $16,000 from
Argentina.
ADI 77
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Regional FTA’s Bad- they create a spaghetti bowl of agreements that destroy trade
efficiency, garnering none of the benefits of free trade.
Irwin 2k8
(Douglas A., Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, July 21, How Free is Free Trade? Bhagwati's 'Termites
in the Trading System, New York Sun, http://www.nysun.com/arts/how-free-is-free-trade-bhagwatis-termites-
in/82251)
Mr. Irwin is professor of economics at Dartmouth College and author of "Free Trade Under Fire."
Jagdish Bhagwati is one of the world's most distinguished economists. Currently a university professor at Columbia, Mr. Bhagwati
is a rare academic who has the great ability to communicate his ideas to a more general audience. In works such as his recent book, "In Defense of Globalization," Mr. Bhagwati has become
Mr. Bhagwati argues that
famous as a persuasive and articulate proponent of expanding world trade to help improve the lot of the poor. In "Termites in the Trading System,"
not all trade deserves our equal support, however, and mounts a brisk and spirited attack on preferential, so-called
"free trade" agreements that are, in his view, leading the world trading system astray.
Wait a minute: Aren't these agreements — such as NAFTA — almost invariably opposed by anti-trade groups precisely because they open up markets? Why is one of the world's staunchest
supporters of free trade protesting so passionately against this method of reducing trade barriers?
The problem, Mr. Bhagwati shows, is that not all trade agreements are created equal. The right way to reduce trade barriers, he explains, is on
a multilateral basis and in a nondiscriminatory way. After World War II, America led the world in creating the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), which did just that, by encouraging the reduction of tariffs and liberalization of other import restrictions. In recent years, however, countries have increasingly bypassed this system.
Now, it is common for two or more countries to agree to eliminate tariffs and reduce other trade barriers for each other, but not for others, as is the case with NAFTA. Such agreements have been
in vogue around the world, particularly with the current Bush administration: Under Bush, America has concluded a major trade agreement with Central American countries (CAFTA) and a
series of bilateral agreements with countries ranging from Oman to Australia, and — most recently and controversially — Colombia.
The main problem with these bilateral and regional agreements is that they exclude other countries. In Mr.
Bhagwati's view, they are more accurately called "preferential" trade agreements because they discriminate against non-participating countries. This is a violation, Mr. Bhagwati suggests, of the
principle of nondiscriminatory trade liberalization that served as the cornerstone of the tremendously successful post-World War II trading system under the GATT (and now the WTO).
By introducing discriminatory treatment into the trading system, the movement toward preferential trade
agreements sacrifices economic efficiency and, perhaps more troublingly, throws the carefully constructed postwar
system into disorder. Instead of having one common multilateral system, we now have a bewildering array of complex and overlapping bilateral and regional agreements, each with
conflicting and contradictory provisions regarding trade in goods and services. Mr. Bhagwati, always quick with an illuminating metaphor, has
referred to this as the "spaghetti bowl" system, in which these agreements create a tangled mess of restrictions and
regulations, ultimately disrupting rather than promoting free trade.

FTA’s harm developing countries economies by forcing regulation concessions as developed


countries have too much leverage.
FurchtGott-Roth 2k8
(Diana, "TERMITES IN THE TRADING SYSTEM" ECONOMIC TREATIES ARE ONLY GOOD IF IT’S A FREE
FOR ALL, New York Post, July 27)
In addition, the United States and Europe harm developing countries through PTA negotiation by pressuring them to
accede to "value-based" demands unrelated to trade. Prime examples are Western environmental regulations and
labor standards, pushed by powerful unions and labor groups. Just because the United States is wealthy enough to
put in place pollution controls and high minimum wages, it's not the case that these same policies are suited for, say,
Indonesia or Brazil.
ADI 78
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Section XXIV of the GATT prevents regional trading blocks from becoming effective
stepping-stones to free trades- it prohibits increased regional tariff’s which are necessary to
strong trading blocs. At the same time, these groups can still become protectionist because
of anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
Dinopoulos et al. ‘2
(Elias, Professor of Business @ University of Florida and Constantinos, Department of Economics and International
Business @ Drexel University, Bilateralism: ‘Stepping Stone’ or ‘Stumbling Block’ to Global Free Trade?, May,
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/dinopoulos/research.html)
But there is another aspect to CUs that deserves special attention and is related to Article XXIV of the
While GATT rules broadly allow for the formation of CUs and FTAs, Article XXIV constrains
GATT.
members not to raise tariffs (on the average) above pre-union levels. At first sight, this might seem to suggest
that the analysis of this paper becomes irrelevant. We suggest that this should not diminish the importance
First, while it may be possible for Article XXIV to deter the
of our insights for (at least) two reasons.
formation of CUs that are stumbling blocks, the possibility also exists that, by undermining CU members’
potential market power, this rule may destroy the possibility of bilateralism being a stepping stone to global
free trade! The second point is that Article XXIV may be ineffective in tempering the appeal of actually
countries’ collective power -- this may be so because countries may use substitute forms of trade intervention
(e.g., anti-dumping and countervailing duties) or because the article itself is too vague to be immune to
manipulation by trade partners that mildly differ in their characteristics and thus in their pre-union tariff
, if bilateralism is successful in centralizing and controlling market power in world
levels. In other words
trade, the potential for its exploitation will be there and while easing the concern that CUs may be stumbling
blocks to multilateral free trade, it may not eliminate it. Similar remarks apply for the case of stepping
stones.

Trading Blocs destroy global free trade agreements by helping countries concentrate
trading leverage in one area which kills negotiations.
Dinopoulos et al. ‘2
(Elias, Professor of Business @ University of Florida and Constantinos, Department of Economics and International
Business @ Drexel University, Bilateralism: ‘Stepping Stone’ or ‘Stumbling Block’ to Global Free Trade?, May,
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/dinopoulos/research.html)
We demonstrate that, in the setting we consider, there always exist circumstances under which a CU
undermines a feasible global free trade agreement (i.e., an agreement that all countries favor over a global
tariff war). A necessary condition for this possibility is that the CU enables its members to exploit their
collective market power vis-a-vis the rest of the world which become precise and operational with the help
of well-defined measures of country size that we propose herein.
ADI 79
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


SUCCESSFUL BILATERAL TRADE DEALS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE –
CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION
Peter Coy, 07/31/08 [Economics Editor for BusinessWeek, “Free Trade: After Doha's Collapse
For U.S. trade negotiators, the breakdown of the Doha round of talks adds urgency to bilateral pacts with South
Korea, Colombia, and Panama”, BusinessWeek,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_32/b4095029338944.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_n
ews+%2B+analysis]

What's next? U.S. trade negotiators will shift to winning congressional approval for pending bilateral free-
trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Levy says such pacts can be "proving grounds" for a
global deal by demonstrating the economic potential of various kinds of trade liberalization.
Not that bilateral deals are a piece of cake, either. Congress has refused to act on free-trade agreements
sought by President George W. Bush. And while McCain is a free trader, his Democratic rival, Senator
Barack Obama (D-Ill.), has been more skeptical.
Still, the U.S. can secure better terms in bilateral deals by promising access to its vast domestic market. Such
small agreements aren't perfect, but they're better than nothing.
The collapse of global trade talks on July 29 proves Voltaire's aphorism that the perfect is the enemy of the good. In
pursuit of the perfect—an international trade deal agreed upon by some 150 countries with vastly different
goals—negotiators wound up with nothing. The way forward is likely to be via bilateral and regional
agreements. A global deal, if one can be reached, may be a package of smaller agreements between subsets of
the full body.
ADI 80
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Bilat deals kill developing economies by only opening up one end of the market sucessfully

John Audley, October 2003 [Former Trade Policy Coordinator for the EPA, “Bad Bilateral
Trade Deals Are No Better Than Bad Multilateral Deals”, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1366&prog=zgp&proj=zted]

Finally, the United States muscling smaller economy countries into accepting trade agreements may actually
be more destructive to development goals than multilateral trade deals. A case in point involves the Central
America trade talks. While Central Americans hope that negotiations will make them more attractive to U.S.
investors, the United States is pressuring them to accept a deal that opens their markets to U.S. products
while doing nothing to ensure that their agriculture and apparel products find markets in the United States.
Central America countries are among the poorest in the world, and most are likely to collapse under this kind
of "beggar-thy-neighbor" deal.
ADI 81
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


Bilateral trade agreements close off possibilities for broader trade reform and destroy trade achievements

Clive Crook, 7/30/08 [Senior Editor of The Atlantic Monthly and commentator for The
Financial Times, http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/]
Multilateral trade liberalization brought the world an awfully long way after 1945, but that era has come to
an end. The trade-reform agenda is unfinished--especially in the developing world--but future progress, if
any, will come from unilateral unreciprocated liberalization, or from discriminatory bilateral (or plurilateral)
agreements, or some blend of the two. There has been a lot of the first lately, which is good. The danger lies with
the second. It is a trend that the United States pioneered with its proliferating (until recently) regional FTAs.
A rationale often offered for that approach was that regional FTAs were building blocks for broader
multilateral liberalization, with the WTO presiding over the subsequent assembly. Skeptics said no: regional
FTAs would complicate the system and create frictions that would make broader trade reform more, not less,
difficult. I'd say the skeptics have been proven right.
The FTA tendency is capable, given an enfeebled WTO, of eventually unwinding some of what has been
achieved over the past half-century. (On this, see Jagdish Bhagwati's new book.) If a growing China, India and
Brazil follow the US example and use their muscle to develop their own hub-and-spoke networks of trade
preference, the eventual costs in forgone trade and income could be great. The logic of trade protection never
sleeps.
ADI 82
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad


RTA’s Harm Multilateral Negotiations- they lower the cost of non-participation in larger
agreements by providing some of the benefits of free trade, thus resulting in fragmented
trading blocs.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State., The
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Third, RTAs can divert attention away from multilateral negotiations for several reasons.
First, countries have limited resources to engage in trade negotiations, and RTAs clearly limit time that can be
spent negotiating multilateral reforms. This problem is particularly acute for developing countries, which usually have

only a few officials for all trade negotiations. But it can also affect developed countries, whose budgets can be inadequate to meet the

extensive demands of a proactive, multifaceted trade agenda (see Ambassador Robert Zoellick’s letter appended to GAO 2004). Second, some developing

countries become less interested in WTO talks after concluding preferential deals with their
key trading partners because they want to preserve their preference margins in partner
countries from erosion due to MFN trade liberalization in WTO negotiations. Third, RTA
critics fear that trade diversion caused by RTAs may indirectly cause disengagement from
multilateral talks. Trade diversion increases the cost of nonparticipation, inciting third
countries to attempt to join RTAs or create their own (Baldwin 1993). This concept, dubbed
“domino regionalism” by Richard Baldwin, could fragment the trading system into blocs or
spur competitive liberalization that complements and reinforces multilateral reforms
(Bergsten 1996).

RTA’s created one sided agreement’s that privilege the global North. This is then modeled
in future multilateral agreements.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State., The
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Fourth, RTA critics argue that some accords can set bad precedents
for multilateral trade. Due to economic and political asymmetries in
North-South RTAs, developed country partners can push for the
inclusion of origin rules or intellectual property protection that
developing countries may find burdensome to implement and
enforce. Others argue that RTAs cover subjects that are better dealt with outside the trade arena, such as labor and environment. Of course, many
believe that coverage of these areas is crucial – for both substantive reasons and to bolster domestic political support for the pact in industrial countries.
ADI 83
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad – Capitalism Kritik Link


Bilateral Trade Agreements Operate To Open New Markets in Developing Countries For
Developed Countries To Privatize While Manipulating Developing Countries Into Other
Agreements
Altman in 2006 (Daniel [the Global Economics Correspondent of the International Herald Tribune], “A new
trade bandwagon: Are rich-poor pacts fair?; MANAGING GLOBALIZATION” International Herald Tribune,
FINANCE; Pg. 12, August 9, Lexis)
Trade diversion occurs when one country manages to steal demand from another, more efficient
producer by lowering its tariffs. That may indeed be happening in Chile, Larrain said, with higher-tariff
countries like neighboring Argentina losing out. But nothing, he said, was preventing others from lowering
their tariffs. ''Chile will have an advantage, but that's part of the rules of the game,'' he said.
Still, there are some critics who consider bilateral agreements to be political tools meant to reward
powerful countries' allies. Matalka noted that Jordan's trade with the United States intensified only
after the country signed a peace treaty with Israel, and was initially predicated on Qualified Industrial
Zones where exporters had to use a combination of Israeli, Jordanian, Palestinian and American
inputs.
A sharper criticism is that bilateral accords can be crowbars for prying open overseas markets that
haven't already been deregulated or privatized. A coalition of nongovernmental organizations has started
a Web site, bilaterals.org, to air its members' complaints about the major trading nations who are marshaling
their officials to push for new deals.
''Developing countries don't come into these talks with a fraction of that power, agenda or machinery,''
said Aziz Choudry, who represents the coalition, in an e-mailed response to questions.
''In fact, while governments such as the U.S. and the EU have a great deal of resources for trade
negotiations, many countries are forced into negotiations fatigue, where a small number of
underresourced officials have to deal with a range of simultaneous trade and investment talks on a
number of fronts.''
Middle-income countries like Singapore, Chile and Jordan don't seem to have suffered this way. But despite
the apparent success of their agreements, Choudry also disputed the economic usefulness of the bilateral
accords.
''While the WTO flounders, bilateral free trade agreements are increasingly pitting more countries,
and therefore producers, into more direct competition to sell the same products to the same markets,''
he said.
But until the World Trade Organization gets its act together, bilateral and regional agreements will be
the only game in town.
ADI 84
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Fail


Regional FTAs fail due to negotiation complexity, multitude of agreements, rules of origin,
and false data
BusinessWorld, 9/14/07 [“Trade Tripper: the Trouble with Free Trade Agreements”, Pg. S1/5,
LexisNexis [Accessed 8/1/08]]
A few days ago, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy expressed concern about the increasing number of free
trade or regional agreements. I have, for several years, been advising caution regarding FTAs. Economists say
there are no free lunches; free trade agreements are not free, either. I've been baffled that business,
academic, or policy leaders who oppose increased trade and the WTO are so enamored of the idea of
FTAs. The problem with that thinking is that it is inconsistent: why worry about increasing obligations
under the WTO but be so gung-ho with regard to the more specific and intricate demands of FTAs? If
people are disturbed by the complexity of the subjects involved in multilateral negotiations, these subjects
(such as market access, tariff reductions, and non-tariff barriers) will be no less demanding in FTA
discussions. In fact, the FTAs that the Philippines has entered into or negotiated involves subjects that are
not even covered by the WTO talks (i.e., competition policy, trade facilitation, government procurement,
and investment). Quite significantly, these FTA discussions are usually done one-on-one, thus
relinquishing the comfort of numbers that multilateral negotiations (such as the Doha Round) brings.
Unfortunately, the complexity doesn't stop at the negotiation stage. My biggest concern about FTAs is what
happens after the negotiations. It is all well and good for government and the academe to seriously push
for FTAs, but once these agreements take effect it will be the ordinary Filipino that will bear the brunt of
the FTA demands. The bureacratic requirements alone of FTAs are immense, for the simple reason that a
country would deal not just with one FTA. To illustrate, the Philippines has already entered into two FTAs
(AFTA and ASEAN-China) and has negotiated or is negotiating around five or so more. The most
apparent difficulty to be brought about by these interlocking agreements have to do with the rules of
origin (ROOs). ROOs are needed to determine whether imported goods, which nowadays normally consist of
materials from different countries, qualify for the preferential treatment under the FTA. ROOs are extremely
complicated and a lack of mastery thereof could result in - on the export side - a failure to take advantage
of the opened market (thereby rendering the FTA inutile for that country) or - on the import side - a
probable increase in "technical smuggling."
The FTAs' bureacratic needs don't stop at ROOs. These go on and on: the overlapping jurisdictions of
dispute settlement systems between the multilateral trading system and the different FTAs, customs
procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, environmental standards,
investment rules, intellectual property protection, and trade remedies. However, after all those complex
procedural rules, the benefits to be expected from FTAs are not guaranteed. Some of the benefits are
theoretical and based merely on economic modeling (and to see how models are not to be completely relied
upon, one only has to look at the subprime investment crises). Other benefits require certain conditions to be
fulfilled (such as for professionals to pass national entrance exams of the host country or sanitary
measures for exported fruits). Another problem is that some of the supposed benefits were culled by our
government from data or studies done by foreign governments. The trouble with making conclusions
based on such data is obvious. Some people argue from the supposed "street smart" perspective of opportunity
cost: that since other countries are entering into FTAs, then so should we. This is not street smarts, this is mere
herd mentality. Countries are different from each other. What worked for Thailand or Singapore (assuming it did
work) may not necessarily work for us. The losses to be borne by our citizens are real and not theoretical.
The leeway that the WTO agreements give to countries is not present in FTAs. FTAs result in much lower
tariffs, which means lower revenue for the government and loss of jobs. These losses are to be set against
the theoretical benefits promised by FTAs. In the case of the 15-year-old ASEAN FTA, the Philippines still
has not fully attained the benefits expected from it.
At a time when multilateral negotiations are slowing down, rather than rushing into FTAs, I
suggest that the government instead focus on increasing our country's productivity, improving
governance, and strengthening our institutions.
ADI 85
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Leads To Multilateral Free Trade


Bilateral Trade Agreements Are The Building Blocks For Multilateralism
Yap in 2008 (Emilyn, Multilateral Trade Faces Big Challenges, The Business Times Singapore, April 5, Lexis)
Speaking after his keynote address at the presentation, Minister of State for Trade and Industry Lee Yi
Shyan reiterated Singapore's support for multilateral trade, but pointed out that bilateral agreements can
also be building blocks for a multilateral agreement later on. 'We are a strong proponent of multilateral
trade, but we see bilateral agreements as a means to a larger end of a multilateral arrangement.' He
added that 'bilateral agreements also can go deeper and wider in creating economic partnership
between two regimes that a multilateral agreement would not be able to achieve in the early phase'. To
bring greater order and coherence to the 'spaghetti bowl' of PTAs around the world, the report recommends
that major industrialised countries refrain from concluding such agreements among themselves. The same
applies to large developing countries with significant shares in world trade.
ADI 86
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Leads To Multilateral Free Trade


BILATERAL TRADE SPURS MULTILATERAL TRADE
Riezman, 98 (Raymond, Professor of Economics at Iowa, “Can Bilateral Trade Agreements Help Induce Free
Trade?”, June 24, http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/faculty/rriezman/papers/mvb12.pdf)

Interestingly, some researchers ... larger trading blocs. Interestingly, some researchers paint
a completely different picture about the implications of bilateral trade agreements:
Nordstrom (1995) finds that regional trade agreements might provide trading
blocs with stronger incentives to pursue multilateral trade liberalization since
establishing these types of agreements allows small countries to more effectively
deal with large trading blocs. Perroni and Whalley (1996) indicate that recent regional
trade agreements generally take the form of Free Trade Associations in which member
countries can choose their external tariff rates freely. In contrast to
Krugman’s findings, this new form of regionalism does not increase the monopoly
power of newly established trading blocs and does not necessarily imply higher
external trade barriers between the emerging trading blocs. They conclude that
increasing regionalism is not a threat to the multilateral trading system. Campa and
Sorenson (1996) also employ Krugman’s framework, but they consider an infinitely repeated
tariff setting game. Their results suggest that global free trade equilibrium can be
sustainable if the small economies form a trading bloc since the integration of
small countries can undermine the market power of the larger trading blocs.
ADI 87
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good


REGIONAL AGREEMENTS DON’T UNDERMINE THE MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM, THEY ARE
CRITICAL TO ADVANCING GLOBAL FREE TRADE FOR SEVERAL REASONS
Griswold, 2003 (Daniel, Director of Trade Policy and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, “Bilateral Deals are
no Threat to Global Trade,” 7/28/03, www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/dg-7-28-03.html)

The belated efforts of the US to sign bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore and a few other small partners
threaten, we are told, to destroy the entire trading system. A "selfish hegemon", as Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind
Panagariya call it (Bilateral trade treaties are a sham, FT, July 14), is conspiring with special interests to distort the
global system. Such arguments themselves distort reality. To begin, the US is hardly treading on new ground. The
multilateral system makes room for free-trade areas through Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. The World Trade Organisation's charter allows customs unions or free-trade agreements between
members, recognising "the desirability of increasing freedom of trade by the development, through voluntary
agreements, of closer integration between the economies of (those) countries". More than 250 such
agreements have been negotiated; if the Chile and Singapore agreements become law, the US will be party to
exactly five. Beyond their economic impact, free-trade agreements of the sort the US are pursuing can benefit
the parties involved, the global trading system, and the world at large in many ways. First, FTAs provide an
important safety valve if multilateral negotiations become stuck - an all-too-real possibility. Since the Kennedy
Round concluded in 1967, only two other comprehensive multilateral agreements have been reached: the Tokyo
Round in 1979 and Uruguay Round in 1994. And because of the need for consensus, it takes only one of the 146
nations in the WTO to scuttle a new agreement. Given the history of multilateral negotiations, it would be
unwise to put all of our eggs in the Doha Round basket. Fears that FTAs will divert attention from the
multilateral track are unfounded. The US government signed pacts with Israel, Canada and Mexico during
the Uruguay Round negotia tions from 1986 to 1994 without reducing its commitment to a final multilateral
agreement. Robert Zoellick, US trade representative, is leading the Doha Round with proposals to liberalise global
trade in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services. FTAs can also level the playing field for US
exporters put at a disadvantage by free-trade agreements that exclude the US. In Chile, for example, US
exporters of wheat, soya beans, corn, paper products, plastics and heating and construction equipment have lost
market share since its government began in 1997 to aggressively pursue free-trade agreements with its non-US
trading partners. FTAs can also help less-developed countries lock in economic reforms. A signed agreement
prevents nations backsliding in times of economic or political duress, assuring foreign investors that reforms
mark a permanent commitment to liberalisation. So FTAs can serve as carrots to encourage the spread of
political and economic freedom abroad. Moreover, FTAs can provide useful templates for broader
negotiations. As membership of the WTO grows, reaching consensus becomes more difficult. Negotiators can
be forced to consider only the lowest common denominator. Negotiating with one nation or a small group of
like-minded countries can allow more meaningful liberalisation in areas such as sanitary and regulations,
technical barriers to trade, service trade and investment, electronic commerce, customs facilitation, labour
and environmental standards and market access for politically sensitive sectors. Those talks can blaze a trail
for wider regional and multilateral negotiations. Finally, FTAs can spur the economic reform and
consolidation within member states cited in Article 24. By encouraging regional integration, they increase
economies of scale and create a more integrated production process. Consolidation may be most pronounced in
more heavily protected service sectors such as telecommunications, financial services and transportation. More
efficient industries and infrastructure can yield dynamic gains year after year, boosting growth, investment, and
demand for imports from FTA partners and the rest of the world. Nafta is one reason why North America has been
an engine of global growth in the past decade. For all those reasons, the Bush administration's FTA agenda is
worth pursuing. Despite their peculiarities and incremental nature, the agreements can serve the cause of
freedom and development by breaking down barriers to trade between nations.
ADI 88
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good


REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS WON’T DETRACT FROM MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS –
THEY ARE CRITICAL TO EXPAND TO U.S. ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
Lindsey, 2003 (Brink, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studiesm, National Review, “Bush as
Trader: Ones step forward, two steps back,” 9/15/03, vLVn17)

The Doha Round is scheduled for completion at the end of 2004 -- but don't hold your breath. Negotiators will have
to sort out a host of contentious issues, none more complicated and politically explosive than agriculture trade
barriers and subsidies. The Bush administration has signaled its willingness to make deep cuts -- in effect, to undo
much of what was signed into law last year -- but only if the E.U. and Japan, whose farm policies are even more
horrendous than ours, agree to cut even deeper. The first outlines of a possible U.S.-E.U. compromise position
emerged recently in preparation for the WTO ministerial meeting in September in Cancun, Mexico. But barring an
unexpected breakthrough in Cancun, the Doha Round is likely to drag on for years past the scheduled deadline.
Although strongly committed to seeking progress at the WTO, the Bush team is not putting all its eggs in that
basket. Instead, it has launched an ambitious new program of "competitive liberalization" -- in other words,
entering into bilateral and regional trade agreements with a growing "coalition of the willing." Singapore and
Chile are the first partners to have signed up; free-trade agreements with those two countries were finalized earlier
this year and recently sailed through Congress. In addition, FTA negotiations are now under way with Australia,
Morocco, five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), and the
five nations of the Southern African Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland);
negotiations will soon commence with Bahrain and the Dominican Republic. Meanwhile, talks for a hemisphere-
wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) continue to putter along, although differences over agriculture
subsidies probably ensure that the FTAA, if it is to happen at all, will have to await the conclusion of the Doha
Round. This flurry of activity for regional and bilateral deals has raised concerns that the United States is
abandoning its traditional commitment to the broader multilateral trading system. Don't lose sleep over that
one: This administration has been quite active at the WTO and is pushing hard for progress there. The fact,
though, is that global trade rounds are few and far between; since the Kennedy Round ended in 1967, only two
other agreements (the Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round) have been concluded over the subsequent three-and-a-
half decades. To its credit, the Bush team isn't content to wait around for the next return of the multilateral comet.
Other administration critics have sniped at the selection of FTA partners. And it's true that the current list of
countries is long on economic lightweights. Nevertheless, as my Cato colleague Dan Griswold has pointed out,
combining Chile, Singapore, and the other countries now negotiating FTAs with us would make for the world's ninth
largest economy and the U.S.'s fourth biggest export market. That's not chump change. Furthermore, trade policy
serves more than purely commercial objectives; it's also a useful instrument of diplomacy. Encouraging
economic reform in Central America and southern Africa through trade agreements is a smart and effective
way to lend a helping hand to people struggling to escape poverty. And expanding U.S. economic engagement
with the Muslim world -- the Bush administration has announced that the planned FTAs with Morocco and Bahrain
(as well as existing ones with Israel and Jordan) will serve as building blocks for an eventual U.S.-Middle East
free trade area -- is a critical adjunct to the larger war on terrorism. Can the Bush administration make good on
its ambitious plans? Time will tell. The achievement of a real and lasting trade legacy will require threading the
needle with often-fractious trading partners and an always demanding Congress. And it will require reelection
in 2004 to get the time needed to finish the job. For now, give the Bush trade record a flawed but promising
"incomplete."
ADI 89
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good


RTA’s set precedents that make creation of multilateral trade agreements easier in the
future.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Second, RTAs often create commitments in areas beyond the scope of existing WTO obligations. These “WTO-
plus” provisions can set useful precedents for future multilateral talks. Indeed, the US-Canada FTA provided useful
precedents for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the US-Chile FTA may provide a template
for a WTO e-commerce provision. More recent US FTAs with Peru and other countries include substantive obligations on labor and the environment – areas where the
WTO footprint has been small but could well expand in the future (see concluding section).7 In these and other WTO-plus areas, discriminatory application of RTA rules is possible. However, the
demands of the marketplace and the costs of applying several different standards push for convergence towards a unified set of regulations.
ADI 90
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTA’s Good – AT: Trade Diversion


RTA’s don’t divert trade, they create it, comprehensive empirical studies prove.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Is there evidence of net trade creation or diversion for RTAs? The results of several studies are summarized below. We find strong evidence
of net trade creation from RTAs and very limited instances of trade and investment diversion. Using a gravity model of trade
and a 30-year data set containing 46 RTAs, DeRosa (2007) found that most RTAs are predominantly trade creating. Some
RTAs in the study were found to be trade diverting, but for the most part these RTAs were minor. The major RTAs
(i.e., NAFTA, the European Union, Mercosur, and the ASEAN) show no signs of trade diversion in the study, providing clear evidence against one of the main
RTA critiques and in favor of a commonly cited RTA benefit.
ADI 91
Free Trade

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good – Misc.

RTA’s provide real world experience that educates trade negotiators- this real world
education is critical to effective agreements in the future.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
In addition to setting precedents, RTAs provide a real world classroom to help educate trade negotiators. Negotiators
learn by doing – it is hard to know the sticking points of a problem until one tries to negotiate a solution for it. Such
education is invaluable for developing countries exposed to the rulemaking puzzles presented in talks on services,
intellectual property, and other new issues on the WTO agenda.

Rta’s provide structural incentives against backsliding into protectionism.


Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Third, RTAs “lock-in” domestic policy reform because they raise the cost of policy reversal, if the change violates
the terms of the agreement and makes the country potentially liable to trade retaliation. In this regard, RTAs help
buffer governments from protectionist demands that may be politically alluring but economically undesirable. In
turn, uncertainty about the business and the regulatory environment is reduced, facilitating investment and
development.

Rta’s Form Closer trade relationships that facilitate agreements in the future.
Schott ‘8
(Jeffery J., Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, visiting lecturer at Princeton University (1994) adjunct professor at Georgetown University (1986–88),
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1982–83), official of the US Treasury Department (1974–82) in international trade and energy policy. During the Tokyo
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, he was a member of the US delegation that negotiated the GATT Subsidies Code. Since January 2003, he has been a member of the Trade and
The
Environment Policy Advisory Committee of the US government. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy of the US Department of State.,
future of the multilateral trading system in a multi-polar world, accessed online,
www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott0608.pdf)
Fourth, RTAs strengthen relationships among partner countries and help build alliances for WTO reforms in areas of
common interest. The launch of the Doha Round in 2001 succeeded in large measure due to the closer trade relations
resulting from US and EU trade initiatives with Latin American and African countries.
ADI 92
Free Trade

Multilateral Free Trade Bad


Multilateralism only functions for Developed Countries to Dominate the Developing
Kaur in 2007 (Hardey, World trade needs clear signs of a `landing', New Straits Times (Malaysia), My
notebook; LOCAL; Pg. 25, February 23, lexis)

The multilateral trade negotiations, which were "sold" to the developing countries, are being held
hostage by the developed countries with focus on their development agenda.
The expiry of the US fast-track authority also means that the Doha Development Agenda, too, will be
subjected to the same scrutiny as the Malaysia-US bilateral agreement, if and when it is concluded.
The window to conclude the multilateral negotiations, for it to be submitted to Congress for approval
before expiry of the fast-track authority, is also closing fast.
ADI 93
Free Trade

TPA – Key To Laundry List


TPA IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY, GLOBAL FREE TRADE, CHECKING MAJOR EUROPEAN WARS,
DEMOCRACY PROMOTION, AND PREVENTING TERRORISM
Griswold 01 (Daniel, Director of Trade Policy and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, “Trade Authority
Promotes America’s Economy and Security”, 11/29/01, www.cato.org/dailys/11-29-01.html)

TPA, also known as "fast track," would give President Bush the authority to negotiate new market-
opening trade agreements with other nations. TPA would allow the president to submit trade agreements
to Congress for an up or down vote without amendments, so that foreign governments would not have to
negotiate twice, first with the administration and then with Congress. Every president since 1974 has
been able to pursue trade agreements under those basic rules. Here are three compelling reasons
why President Bush should be granted that same authority: One, trade expansion promotes
American prosperity. Economic growth in the past decade was the most robust during those
years when trade--both imports and exports--was growing the most rapidly. Trade stimulates
competition, innovation, and efficiency, making U.S. workers more productive and raising real family
incomes. Imports keep prices down at the store, especially for low-income families. During the recent
downturn, trade flows have fallen sharply along with employment and manufacturing output. Promoting
trade would help to stimulate the economy. TPA would open the door for regional and global trade
agreements that would open markets for America's most competitive exports. At their just-
completed meeting in Qatar, the 142 members of the World Trade Organization agreed to pursue a
new round of negotiations to lower barriers to agricultural, industrial, and service exports,
including a cut in Europe's huge farm export subsidies. A recent study by the University of
Michigan estimates that even a one-third cut in tariffs on agriculture, industrial, and service trade
would boost annual global production by $613 billion, including $177 billion in the United States--
or about $1,700 per U.S. household. Two, trade expansion promotes U.S. security. Nations that trade
with one another tend to get along better than nations that shun trade. America's historic post-war shift
away from Depression-era trade wars and toward open trade was driven as much by foreign policy and
security concerns as by economic self-interest. Trade with Europe, Japan and developing countries
cemented the Western alliance against communism. Free trade within the European Community,
an American condition of Marshall Plan aid, has made another major European war virtually
unthinkable today. Nations open to trade are far more likely to enjoy full civil and political liberties
than those closed to trade. Trade tills the soil for democracy by introducing new ideas,
encouraging tolerance of other cultures, and creating hope for a better life through individual
effort. America's commercial ties with the rest of the world have encouraged diplomatic and military
cooperation from other nations in the war against terrorism. In contrast, none of the nations most closely
linked to terrorism--Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea--belong to the WTO.
ADI 94
Free Trade

TPA – Key To Free Trade


TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY IS NECESSARY TO NEGOTIATE TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT
INCREASE FREE TRADE AND PREVENT DEVASTATING TRADE WARS
Griswold, 1997 (Daniel, Director of Trade Policy and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, T. Cato Briefing
Paper No. 34, “The Fast Track to Freer Trade,” 10/30/97, www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/bp-034es.html)

The case for fast-track authority is simple: The most promising approach for advancing free trade in today's
international political economy is through negotiated trade agreements, and those agreements will be difficult
if not impossible to reach if the President of the United States is denied fast-track authority.
Of course, negotiated agreements are not the only way to advance free trade. A strong economic case can be made
for unilateral trade liberalization. By lowering our own barriers to trade regardless of what other countries do, the
United States would make its own economy more efficient and its citizens freer to control the fruits of their own
labor. It would also offer a powerful example to other nations of the benefits of an open economy. [7] Negotiated
trade agreements can also advance economic liberty. By linking lower barriers at home with reciprocal
liberalization abroad, a country's import consumers and export industries can be brought together in a
powerful protrade coalition. Agreements also reduce the chances of a destructive trade war by effectively
locking in lower trade barriers through mutual agreement. Finally, it's hard to argue with success. American
participation in eight rounds of GATT and in free-trade agreements with Canada and Mexico has helped
bring global trade barriers to historic lows and to keep them down.
Fast-track authority is not a gimmick. It allows the president to submit a negotiated trade treaty to Congress for an
up-or-down vote without the possibility of amendment. Without assurance of a fast-track vote, foreign
governments would find it virtually impossible to negotiate with the U.S. executive branch because any treaty
they agreed to could be rewritten by Congress. Negotiations would be pointless. Fast-track authority was first
granted in the Trade Act of 1974. Since then every U.S. president, from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton, has been
granted authority to negotiate trade treaties for an up-or-down, no-amendments vote in Congress. The fast-track
approach to trade has yielded impressive fruit. Four major trade agreements have been implemented since
1979 under fast-track authority: the Tokyo Round of GATT in 1979, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in
1988, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico in 1993, and the Uruguay Round of GATT, signed in
1994. Each of those agreements lowered tariff and nontariff barriers, opening new markets for U.S. exporters
and raising the living standards of U.S. consumers. The agreements have locked the gains of free trade into
place, making it far less likely that the major trading nations of the world will slip into a trade war as they did
in the 1930s. It is almost certain that none of those trade-expanding agreements would have been possible
without the fast-track process.
ADI 95
Free Trade

TPA – Key To Trade Credibility


TPA IS CRITICAL TO U.S. TRADE CREDIBILITY – HELPS PROTECT DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES
Feulner, 2001 (Edwin J., President of The Heritage Foundation, Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum
#788, “Time to Give President Bush Trade Promotion Authority,”, 11/2/01
www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/EM788.cfm)

A cornerstone of President Bush's trade agenda is securing Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Formerly known as
fast-track authority, TPA would limit Congress to a straight up-or-down vote on any trade agreements negotiated by
the Administration. This would accelerate the implementation of trade agreements and enhance U.S. credibility
by assuring foreign countries that there will not be counterproductive amendments to deals they negotiate
with the President. Some Members of Congress are apprehensive about the TPA legislation (H.R. 3005) that is up
for consideration in the House of Representatives due to its provisions dealing with labor and environmental
standards. Although it is warranted to have reservations over including labor and environmental provisions in trade
agreements, these reservations need not be a deterrent to giving President Bush TPA. The key is for Congress to give
President Bush a version of TPA that does not mandate that the United States enforce labor and environmental
standards through economic sanctions. There are other, less draconian tools available to the Administration.
Moreover, the fear that U.S. sovereignty will be eroded by including labor and environmental provisions in trade
agreements is misplaced. Although every President since Gerald Ford has had fast-track authority, the United
States has been without it for the past seven years. Without TPA the United States has been forced to sit on
the sidelines while other countries have been moving ahead and securing free-trade deals. There are 131 trade
and investment agreements in the world, and the U.S. is party to only three of them. U.S. exporters are at a
competitive disadvantage every time another country or region negotiates a free-trade deal. For instance,
according to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), countries that negotiated a free-trade agreement
with Chile since 1997 have seen their market share increase by 8 percentage points, while the U.S. market share has
declined by 6 percentage points. NAM estimates that the decline of U.S. exports to Chile since 1997 represents a
loss of $800 million and 10,000 job opportunities.
ADI 96
Free Trade

TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership


TPA SUSTAINS US TRADE LEADERSHIP UPHOLDING THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM
Grassley 01 (Senator Charles, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, June 20,
http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/releases/2001/p01r6-19b.htm)

The first deals with the benefits of 50 years of continuous United States leadership of the
world trading system. And why trade promotion authority is vital to maintaining this
leadership. The second point is to briefly explain why, if we are serious about maintaining
American leadership in global trade policy, there is no good alternative to renewing the
President's trade promotion authority this year. With regard to American leadership of world
trade, the facts speak for themselves. In 1947, when we helped start the global trading
system, the total value of world trade was around $50 billion. Today, the total value of world
trade is around $ 7 trillion. This huge jump in the total value of world trade is largely due to
the scrapping or reduction of tens of thousands of tariffs, quotas, and other non-tariff trade
barriers in the eight series, or rounds, of global trade negotiations America has led since
1947. Here is another way of expressing this achievement: Trade rules that we helped put in
place today permit world trade in goods and
services to be successfully conducted at the rate of close to $1 billion per hour, every hour
of the day. This is not just a WTO success story. This is an American success story. As a result
of this American-led effort to open world markets, hard-working American consumers make
their paychecks stretch farther, because they have access to more and better competitively
priced goods. And American businesses and farmers have prospered. In my state of Iowa,
our farmers sold $3.2 billion in agricultural products in international markets in 1999, more
than at any time in our history. Why have we been so successful in international trade? Part
of the answer is because we are so efficient and productive. But a major reason is that for
the last 50 years, America has been a leader in breaking down trade barriers. Trade barriers
are a lot like the barnacles that get encrusted on the hull of a ship. They build up overtime.
They slow the ship down. They are hard to scrape off. And that is exactly what we did, over
eight rounds of global trade
negotiations. Scrape away a lot of the trade barriers that slowed the world economy. That
hurt our competitive, export-oriented businesses and farmers. America was able to lead this
effort because we had credibility. Our trading partners believed us when America made
commitments. Without this credibility – the conviction that we mean what we say – our
trading partners have no assurance that our trade negotiators can ever close a deal. Think
about the last time you bought a car. A lot of us have had this experience. You go to the
dealer. You tell the sales person what you want to pay. The sales person goes back to talk to
the sales manager. The sales manager writes down a different number – usually higher. The
sales person gives you the new number. Maybe you agree. If you don't, you're back to
square one. Sometimes, you get so frustrated that you can't close the deal, you walk out.
That's what
negotiating without trade promotion authority is like. Our trade negotiators aren't able to put
their best deal on the table, because they know Congress will change it. Perhaps dozens of
times. Or more. So without trade promotion authority, negotiations just drag on and on.
Negotiators on all sides put off making the crucial offers and compromises that can close the
deal. We should never put our trade negotiators in this difficult position. This leads me to my
last point. If we believe that American leadership in trade is really important, there is no
good alternative to renewing the President's trade promotion authority this year. Some
opponents of trade promotion authority say you can open just as many markets by
negotiating individual free trade agreements, one country, or one region, at a time. But just
look at this chart.
ADI 97
Free Trade

TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership


US trade leadership through TPA is key to soft power and global US leadership
Zoellick, 2001 (Robert, US Trade Representative, “American Trade Leadership: What is at Stake”, September 24,
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/zoellick1001.pdf)

Our enemy’s selection of targets – the White House, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Towers – recognizes that
America’s might and light emanate from our political, security, and economic vitality. Our counteroffensive
must advance U.S. leadership across all these fronts. So in addition to military actions we must thrust
forward the values that define us against our adversary: openness, peaceful exchange, democracy, the rule of
law, compassion, and tolerance. This is, as Chairman Greenspan said to me, a struggle between the producers and the destroyers; between those striving day in and day
out to build better lives for their families and those who only know destruction, tearing down what others have created. On September 11, over 60 countries lost people to the hate of the
; today’s enemies will learn that America is the economic engine
destroyers. 2 Earlier enemies learned that America is the arsenal of democracy
for freedom, opportunity, and development. Economic strength – at home and abroad – is the foundation of
America’s hard and soft power. To that end, U.S. leadership in promoting the international economic and
trading system is vital. Trade is about more than economic efficiency. It promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle. Prior Americans
recognized the role of economic ideas in overcoming international adversity. Congress granted Franklin D. Roosevelt the authority to employ free trade as a cure for the protectionism of the
Throughout the Cold War, Congress empowered Presidents with
Great Depression and then to help Harry Truman revive a devastated world.
trade negotiating authority to open markets, promote private enterprise, and spur liberty around the world –
complementing U.S. alliances and strengthening our nation. Now we face a different danger. As President Bush
explained, the terrorists who attacked the United States did so because they hate our freedoms. They “kill not
merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. . . . They stand against us, because we stand in their way.”
The President called upon Americans to “direct every resource at our command . . . to the disruption and
defeat of the global terror network.” We must prevail because openness is not preordained. Not long ago,
Chairman Greenspan gave a speech in which he pointed out that the degree of openness in the world today is about
what it was a hundred years ago. We only recently attained the level of trade as a percentage of the global
economy that existed in the late 19th century. The figures for capital flows are similar. Global immigration, too, was at a high point a century ago.
Indeed, the world of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was an era of great technological change, much like today. There were new forms of transportation that transformed
economies, such as airplanes and automobiles. There were new forms of communication that linked peoples, such as oceanic cables, the telephone, and the wireless. There were
even great social movements sparked by globalization, although the participants in the revived Olympics of 1896 ran around a track, instead of in the streets, and hurled objects
toward chalk lines, instead of at windows. Yet as Barbara Tuchman's book The Proud Tower vibrantly describes, the years from 1890 to 1914 were also rattled by crashing debates
in the Socialist International and anarchists bent on senseless destruction. As Tuchman recounts, at the turn of the century theorists and thinkers called for a stateless society,
without government and law, without ownership of property, without the ruling class and their despised ally, the bourgeoisie. “Tirades of hate and invective” trumpeted calls for
action. Others were driven to deeds: “These became the Assassins.” Eventually, a terrorist, Gavrilo Princip, who belonged to a shadowy group named the Black Hand, 3 triggered a
cataclysm that began in the Balkans, but spread throughout the world. The point of this brief recollection is to caution that no future is inevitable. The hopeful prospects of 100
years ago – that age of globalization – were overwhelmed by other "isms": dangerous, even terrifying ideas, such as fascism, uthoritarianism, corporatism, communism, a new
mercantilism, isolationism, and protectionism. The world learned anew that not all ideas are good. Bad ideas can lead to cruelties and tragedies: depression, mass starvation,
economic disasters, even wars and genocide. Thus it took American advocacy for openness, growth, and individual liberty over the past 50 years to reverse the disastrous decisions
made in the first half of the 20th century. In the wake of the shock of 13 days ago, many people will struggle to understand why terrorists hate the ideas America has championed
around the world. As Peter Beinart of the New Republic pointed out, it is inevitable that people will wonder if there are intellectual connections with others who have turned to
violence to attack international finance, globalization, and the United States. To put the question in their own words, not mine, can people really think, as does the editor of the
Earth Island Journal, that the terrorist assault “was not an ‘attack on freedom,’” but instead an assault on “U.S. foreign policy,” with the real targets being, “World Trade and U.S.
militarism”? So as professors and students debate these topics in the months and years ahead, I hope they take a serious look at economic and political history. Here's a lesson I
learned from history: Change breeds anxiety. Anxieties can be manipulated to force agendas based on fear, antagonisms, resentments, and hate. And then those who are the
weakest, those with the least influence, are hurt the most by cold and hard people who overrun openness and liberty and the rule of law in the name of ill-defined causes. Let me be
clear where I stand: Erecting new barriers and closing old borders will not help the impoverished. It will not feed hundreds of millions struggling for subsistence. It will not liberate
the persecuted. It will not improve the environment in developing nations or reverse the spread of AIDS. It will not help the railway orphans I visited in India. It will not improve
the livelihoods of the union members I met in Latin America. It will not aid the committed Indonesians I visited who are trying to build a functioning, tolerant democracy in the
largest Muslim nation in the world. And it certainly will not placate terrorists. This President and this Administration will fight for open markets and free trade. We will not be
intimidated by those who have taken to the streets to blame trade – and America – for the world’s ills. The global trading system has demonstrated – from Seoul to Santiago – that
it is a pathway out of poverty and despair. As President Bush stated in July in a speech at the World Bank, the protesters against globalization, largely upper middle class and
affluent young people, are "no friends of the poor." Or as former President Zedillo of Mexico said, the protesters "seem strangely determined to save the developing world from
development." The plural of anecdote is not fact. A recent World Bank study examined developing countries that opened themselves to global competition, and those that did not.
The income per person for globalizing developing countries grew more than five percent a year; non-globalizing countries fell a little over one percent a year. The absolute poverty
rates for globalizing developing countries fell sharply over the past 20 years, and the income levels of the lowest income households grew in line with the overall economy. I was
pleased to see recently that Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Brown, who helped lead an old Labor Party to new thinking – and then to stunning electoral victory – have
Will we, as a global
embraced free trade to help those seeking hope and opportunity. Perhaps others will take heed. And so we find ourselves at a point of decision.
coalition of nations, strengthen and expand development, growth, and openness through trade? Will America
lead this advance? And will the Congress strongly support free trade as a cornerstone of international
leadership, global economic stewardship, and the promotion of our values through granting U.S. Trade
Promotion Authority to the President?
ADI 98
Free Trade

TPA – Key To U.S. Leadership/Agriculture Industry


TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY IS CRITICAL IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN U.S. INTERNATIONAL
TRADE CREDIBILITY AND PROTECT THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY.
Heritage Foundation’s Center for International Trade and Economics, 2001 (WebMemo #60, “12 Reasons for
TPA,” 11/28/01, www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/WM60.cfm)
"[O]pposing trade promotion authority is not a responsible position. The potential gains from trade liberalization -- to Americans and developing countries -- are too large."
The Washington Post, editorial, November 18, 2001 Trade is very important now, because trade is both good economic policy, and good foreign policy. Trade strengthens our allies, engages our potential adversaries, and its absence

harms our enemies. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is another arrow for the president's foreign policy bow.
The Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and Economics has put together a convincing amount of papers -- all with cogent insight and analysis -- to highlight the benefits of TPA.
Economic development: Increasing trade with other countries is clearly in the U.S. interest, as it raises incomes and provides better paying jobs while promoting economic development around the world. For more: Time to Give

"Our failure to grant the President trade promotion authority will play right
President Bush Trade Promotion Authority Economic engagement:

into those hands and those nations that unfortunately are not willing to move forward with a policy of really
economic engagement." For more: A Pragmatic Trade Agenda War on Terrorism:
The terrorists declared war on America: its values, beliefs, culture, and products. By signing new trade agreements with other countries, the United States will show the terrorists that America, which has many allies and business
partners, is undeterred by their actions. There is no better time for Congress to grant the President trade promotion authority and add a strong international economic program to the global fight against terrorism. For more: Fighting for
America's Economy With Free Trade
Negotiating leverage: With TPA, Congress agrees to take a straight up-or-down vote on trade agreements the president negotiates before June 1, 2005. It has been extended to the previous five U.S. presidents and is granted by most of

It is much more difficult for the United States to negotiate significant trade deals without
our trading partners to their heads of state.

an assurance that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions the president
must take back to the negotiating table. Congress hasn't granted TPA for seven years - one reason the United
States is party to only three of the 131 trade and investment agreements in force worldwide. For more: Trade and
Sovereignty
Negotiating leverage II:
The lesson is simple: Without Trade Promotion Authority, the United States won’t be taken seriously as a
prospective trading partner. Being in only three out of 150 trade agreements doesn’t help matters, and it’s made
worse by the reluctance of many countries to enter into negotiations with the United States.
Yes, we are currently negotiating a free trade agreement with Chile. But it took years to convince the Chileans to enter into such talks. We can’t keep doing business that way. For more: Trade Benefits All
Negotiating leverage III: "But here's what throws me: If liberals are so determined to keep America from turning isolationist, why aren't they just as anxious for the president to pursue a vigorous free trade agenda? On that issue, their
impression of Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill suddenly disappears. We see Bush repeatedly asking Congress to give him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, formerly known as "fast track") to negotiate trade deals-- and
repeatedly being rebuffed.
The president wants this authority because he knows other nations are reluctant to enter into trade pacts with the United States if they know Congress can, at a later date, load up the agreements with unwanted amendments. With

(Evidence continued…)
Trade Promotion Authority, our lawmakers can either approve a pact or reject it--but they can't rewrite it.
There's nothing new or unusual about this authority. Both Republican and Democratic presidents held this authority from 1974 until 1994. Today most all of the world's other leaders enjoy this authority." For more: The Democrats
Take The "Fast Track" To Hypocrisy Labor standards: Congress should give President Bush TPA that will allow him to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries without insisting that they adopt labor standards that they may
not be able to implement. If the President has TPA, it is likely that more countries will enter into trade agreements with the United States. Increased trade with the U.S. market will spur economic development in these countries, and
this in turn will increase their labor standards. For more: Raising Labor Standards Through Trade Environmental standards: Efforts to impose stricter environmental standards through trade sanctions or by imposing regulations
through trade agreements are fruitless and counterproductive. Countries in general--but developing countries in particular--are able to protect their environment only if their economies prosper and the standard of living of their citizens
improves. The surest way to promote sustainable environmental policies around the world is to increase economic growth and the standard of living in poor countries. Economic growth is achieved through greater economic
liberalization, including free trade. Therefore, those truly concerned with protecting the environment should support a trade promotion authority that effectively advances free trade. For more: Trade: The Best Way to Protect the
Environment Auto industry: Lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers will increase U.S. automotive exports. Increased exports mean more sales and a larger piece of the global automotive pie for the United States. A larger share of this
global market means more choices and higher-paying jobs for American workers. Free trade has not diminished U.S. dominance in the global automotive market, nor has it taken "hundreds of thousands" of jobs from American
workers. The United States continues to have the lion's share of the global market. Advancing free trade not only will maintain this share, but will increase it. For more: Free Trade Drives the Auto Industry Prosperity for the
agriculture sector:

As Secretary of Agriculture Veneman explains, "the long-term prosperity of the U.S. food and agriculture sector
depends on our ability to stay ahead of the competition in the global economy. One of the most important
tools we have in the struggle to remain competitive is Trade Promotion Authority. Only with TPA can we
continue to create new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products in growing, and competitive,
global markets."
... If the United States is to lead the effort to promote further opening of markets during this meeting round, it is
essential that the President have TPA. Without it, U.S. agricultural products will continue to be
disadvantaged by high tariffs, quotas, and other non-tariff barriers to trade. Build economic and political freedom around the world:
"This is a time to choose. Through the vote on U.S. Trade Promotion Authority, Americans will make a choice between two competing sets of ideas. Will we fight for America's national interests through an open trading system? Will
we continue to help tear down walls to economic and political freedom around the world? Or will we preserve existing walls, erect new ones, and retreat as a nation? In order to succeed, we need a partnership with the Congress.
Wherever I go, whatever progress we make, I am asked the same question: Will the Congress join with the Administration in supporting trade? These are not questions for Democrats or Republicans. They are for Americans.This is not
an abstract debate on trade policy. I'm at the table now--every day--negotiating with countries from around the world. They have the full authority to negotiate for their nations' interest. I need it too. So now it is time. Not next year.
Not later this year. But now." For more: A Time to Choose: Trade and the American Nation
ADI 99
Free Trade

TPA – Trade Facilitation Outweighs

Trade facilitation is a far bigger issue than free trade related issues such as tariff reduction.
Ikenson ‘8
(Daniel, is associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Greasing the world
economy without Doha, July 30 http://freetrade.org/node/904)
that trade facilitation could do more to increase global trade flows than further reductions in tariff rates. While
reduced tariffs are important, they will not improve trade flows if bureaucratic customs procedures and shoddy
logistics and communications systems are still in place.
Yet progress on trade facilitation is being made. In the past three years, according to the World Bank, 55 countries have implemented 68 reforms to help streamline trading procedures. For
example, India introduced an online customs declaration system that allows the customs clearance process to begin before the ship docks and has helped reduce delays for exporters and importers
by seven days. Rwanda partially privatized its customs bonded warehouse facilities, sparking construction of new warehouses and a 40% reduction in storage fees.

Much remains to be done. The World Bank's most recent "Doing Business" survey offers the anecdote of a Yemeni fish exporter, Tarik, whose fortunes are limited by the
persistence of bureaucratic export procedures. Tarik can sell fresh tuna to Germany for $5.20 per kilo or frozen tuna to Pakistan for $1.10 per kilo. But since it takes on average 33 days to get
official clearance to export from Yemen, he sells only 300 fresh tons to Germany and 1,700 frozen tons to Pakistan, at an opportunity cost of about $7 million per year.

Robert Guest, former trade correspondent for the Economist, reported at a recent Cato Institute forum about the process of delivering beer from a port in Cameroon to the country's interior rain
A trip supposed to take less than one day took four because the delivery truck was stopped 47 times at ad hoc
forest.
roadblocks where tolls and other fees were extorted from the truck driver.

Trade increases when barriers fall. Tariffs are barriers, but so are corruption, administrative incompetence,
superfluous paperwork, transportation monopolies, and the use of antiquated technology. Governments are becoming motivated to
reduce these barriers, since the number and quality of companies operating in their countries, employment levels, investment flows, and economic growth are all determined to some degree by
the government's approach to trade facilitation.

a one-day reduction in the average time it takes to move outbound


Stephen Creskoff reported recently in the Global Trade and Customs Journal that
U.S. cargo from a warehouse to a port and inbound cargo from a U.S. port to a domestic warehouse could increase U.S. trade by almost $29 billion per
year. That's more additional annual trade than economists attribute to the pending U.S.-South Korea trade
agreement.
ADI 100
Free Trade

Protectionism Bad
TRADE LIBERALIZATION DECLINING IN THE STATUS QUO. MORE UNILATERAL
PROTECTIONIST POLICIES NOW WOULD SPIRAL TO GLOBAL TRADE WARS.
Ikenson, 2007 (Daniel, Associate Director at Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, “Dark Days Ahead? A
storm is brewing on Capitol Hill over the future of U.S. trade policy,” 8/13/07, http://www.freetrade.org/node/727)
The era of trade liberalization is dead. Yet it could get worse still. Not only have prospects for liberalization
over the next few years been dashed, but Congress is considering legislation that could precipitate a retreat
from the trade policies and institutions that have served U.S. interests for 60 years. These are indeed dark days
for trade. The Democratic Party, which has grown increasingly hostile to trade over the past decade, controls
the legislature. The president’s authority to negotiate trade agreements and present them to Congress for an
up-or-down vote has expired, and will not be renewed. The bilateral trade agreements completed with South
Korea, Colombia, Peru and Panama will likely rot on the vine, as Congress shunts them aside to consider
instead trade legislation that is either antagonistic or protectionist. And for the first time in post-World War
II history, a multilateral trade negotiating round has ended in failure. The era of negotiation and
accommodation may yield to one of confrontation and litigation. One thing that has become clear this year is that
Democratic Party opposition to trade runs much deeper than the leadership has been willing to admit. When
the Democrats assumed control of Congress in January, the party’s leadership whispered assurances that,
notwithstanding the strident anti-trade rhetoric adopted by its rank and file, they understood the importance of
continuity in U.S. trade policy. With some modifications to the U.S. trade agreement template to reflect Democratic
priorities on labor and environmental issues, the Congressional leadership would be able to help the administration
move the agenda forward. A grand bargain was struck in the spring, which was nothing more than a wholesale
capitulation by the administration to Congressional demands for strict, enforceable labor and environmental
provisions in prospective trade agreements, including the four pending congressional consideration. But as
the ink was drying, the Democrats moved the goalposts. The South Korea agreement was deemed unsupportable by
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (DNY) and Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-
MI) because its terms do not condition Korean automobile access to the U.S. market on the performance of U.S. automobile
exporters in the Korean market. Of course, such a provision, which was put forward by Rangel and Levin in the waning days of
the negotiations, would leave the U.S. auto producers in a position to decide just how much competition it wanted from Korean
producers. Accordingly, that provision was a nonstarter. The Colombia agreement was deemed unsupportable because the Uribe
government allegedly has done an inadequate job of finding and prosecuting thugs who have terrorized and killed Colombian
unionists over the years. Thus, Democratic disdain for a right-of-center Latin American government, which also happens to be
one of the few regional governments not openly hostile to U.S. policy, suffices for justification to deprive Colombian citizens of
the opportunity to improve their lots through better trade terms with the United States. Consideration of the Peru agreement was
sidelined until Chairman Rangel and others have a chance to visit Peru, see first hand how its factories are run, and possibly
change the agreement’s terms, again. Democrats have used the labor conditions excuse to camouflage Big Labor’s real motive,
which is to kill trade deals at all costs. At least that truth now has been exposed. But regrettably, the anti-trade objectives of
organized labor and import competing interests have dovetailed conveniently with proliferating misconceptions and myths about
imports, jobs, and manufacturing to produce a phony sense of crisis. Most of the anti-trade legislation introduced this Congress is
premised on the myth of U.S. manufacturing decline at the hands of rising imports, mostly from China. But U.S. manufacturing
is thriving. In 2006 the manufacturing sector achieved record output, record sales, record profits, record profit rates, and record
return on investment. Imports are not a bane for U.S. producers. In fact, there is a strong correlation between manufactured
imports and manufacturing output, as U.S. producers account for more than half of the value of all U.S. imports. When imports
rise, output rises. When imports fall, output falls. In the past quarter century, imports have increased six- fold, while real GDP has
grown by more than 130 percent, creating an average of 1.8 million net new jobs each year. But policymakers fail to
acknowledge this crucial relationship. Instead, too many in Congress view exports as good, imports as bad, and the trade account
as the scoreboard. Given the large and growing U.S. trade deficit, policymakers conclude that we are losing at
trade. And we are losing at trade because our trade partners are cheating. In China’s case the alleged cheating
involves currency manipulation, subsidization of industry, unfair labor practices, hidden market barriers, dumping,
and other transgressions. Some of these allegations may carry a degree of truth, but by and large the trade
relationship has been conducted within the rules and consensually, yielding huge benefits for Americans. In any
event, the proper course for redress for complaints is through the dispute settlement system of the World
Trade Organization. The Bush administration lodged three formal complaints earlier this year, which are working
their way through the process. Congress should allow that process to continue and restrain its urge to be seen doing
something. There is a distinct risk that unilateral, punitive actions on trade could severely damage the trade
relationship and lead to a contagious deterioration of respect for the WTO and its decisions. That, ultimately,
would take us back to the days when tit-for-tat trade wars were common, and uncertainty in trade prevailed.
ADI 101
Free Trade

Protectionism Bad
Protectionist policies destroy freedom, free societies require growth. There is no right to
stagnation.
Ghate ’04 [Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute with a PhD in philosophy, "To Outsource or
to Stagnate?”, Capitalism Magazine, July 26, 2004, < http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3812>]
There are, however, those who resent the growth that a free society demands. Typically, they pursue one of
two courses of action. Either they simply cling to the old way of doing things, like a manufacturer who
claims that if horse buggies were good enough for our forefathers, they should be good enough for us. Or
they cry for governmental protection--and demand that the government restrict the cotton gin, steam engine,
automobile, locomotive, Japanese imports, factory automation, etc.
This last is the opponent of "outsourcing." He does not advance even a semi-cogent economic argument, as
economists have pointed out repeatedly. But he does resent the fact that his life has been or may be disrupted
by the freedom of other people advancing their interests--that others' progress may require him to grow or be
left behind. So in an attempt to freeze reality, the opponent of "outsourcing" demands that the government
forcibly restrain the success of his fellow citizens--by restricting them from dealing abroad.
Unscrupulous politicians then pander to this backward mentality. Thirty-five state legislatures have
introduced "anti-outsourcing" legislation. John Kerry denounces management as "Benedict Arnold CEOs"--
even though the CEOs are being quintessentially American in pursuing their (and their shareholder's)
happiness.
The demands of the "anti-outsourcers" must be rejected; there is no right to stagnation. But there remains
nevertheless one thing to ask of our government.
Some companies are moving offshore because they find greater economic freedom there. Don't demand that
they be prevented from relocating or hiring foreign workers; that would just further restrict freedom in
America. Demand instead that the government rescind the plethora of regulations--from workers'
compensation to Social Security to governmental education to governmental healthcare--that is strangling us.
We need the American solution: to once again fully embrace freedom and the growth it both creates and
requires.
ADI 102
Free Trade

Protectionism Bad

Protectionism destroy the economy and leads to war


Boudreaux ’06 [Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason
University,”Want world peace? Support free trade.” Christian Science Monitor, November 20, 2006 <
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html>]

Protectionists (of whatever party) believe that consumers who buy goods and services from foreigners cause
domestic employment - and wages - to fall. Economists since before Adam Smith have shown that this belief
is mistaken, largely because foreigners sell things to us only because they either want to buy things from us
or invest in our economy.
These activities employ workers here at home and raise their wages. Mountains of empirical evidence show
that protectionism is economically destructive. The facts also show that protectionism is inconsistent with a
desire for peace - a desire admirably expressed by many Democrats during the recent campaigns.
Back in 1748, Baron de Montesquieu observed that "Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who
differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an
interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities."
If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace, then
protectionism - a retreat from open trade - raises the chances of war.
ADI 103
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good
Outsourcing creates a net increase of U.S. jobs in multiple ways
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Remember, those jobs would not be established overseas if there were not some compelling advantage to do
it, probably cost savings. That means the employing company is more profitable. It can pay out those profits
in dividends, which then get reinvested in other opportunities that create US jobs -- opportunities that
wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Or it can reinvest those profits themselves in new US employment, at things that US workers do better. For
example, Delta Airlines outsourced 1,000 call-center jobs to India in 2003, but the $25 million in savings
allowed the airline to add 1,200 positions at home.
And if cheaper foreign labor translates into lower prices of US consumer goods, then US consumers will
have money left over to buy other goods and services that they weren't buying before. And that will create
new jobs.
ADI 104
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good
Outsourcing forecasts are bad guesses made mostly by consultants with records of
incorrect forecasts.
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the volume of offshore outsourcing will increase by 30 to 40
percent a year for the next five years. Forrester Research estimates that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will
move overseas by 2015. Gartner estimates that by the end of this year, 1 out of every 10 IT jobs will be
outsourced overseas. Deloitte Research estimates the outsourcing of 2 million financial-sector jobs by 2009.

These aren't even really "estimates." They're forecasts. No, they're S.W.A.G.'s -- stupid wild-ass guesses.

Remember, these consultants are the same geniuses who said, four years ago, right about the time when the
NASDAQ was at 5000, that Internet traffic would grow at 90% a year forever, and that by 2002 every
American citizen would have digital video-on-demand beamed via low earth orbit satellite to his cell phone.
Hey, if that were true I could be watching "Friends" right now.

Even if outsourcing forecasts are correct 10 times more jobs will be created in the same
time.
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Let's get real. Suppose Forrester is right, that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015.
That's eleven years, folks. That's 300,000 jobs a year, or 25,000 a month. Today there are 130 million jobs in
the United States.

So the cost is 2/100 of 1% of jobs each month. Don't worry about it. On average the US economy generates
job growth 10 times that much every month.

Outsourcing forecasts only look at costs while ignoring benefits


Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

But it's not just that even the wild-ass guesses are actually quite small in the grand scheme of things. The
worst part of it is that these forecasts inevitably just look at costs, and never benefits.

When Forrester says that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015, not a single thought is
given to any possible offsetting benefit of that in the US. The implicit assumption is that 3.3 million people
who would have otherwise have jobs will instead be on food stamps. But it's hardly that simple.
ADI 105
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good
Outsourcing lowers prices while increasing profits and quality
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Other offsetting advantages of outsourcing are less obvious, but just as compelling. Last time I was in San
Diego, I attended a meeting with Dick Heckman, the CEO of K2, the sporting goods conglomerate that is
moving most of its manufacturing to China. Heckman says that he can lower his labor costs by a factor of
more than 20, compared to the US.
Okay, that's a smart arbitrage. But there's more to it than that. He's found that when labor is that much
cheaper, he finds new things to do with labor that he couldn't have afforded to do before. When K2's major
league baseball batters helmets were made in Missouri, labor was so expensive that all he could afford to do
was pull the helmet off the injection molder, throw it in a box, and ship it to Walmart. But in China, he can
afford to pay laborers to hand polish the helmet first, removing all the little mold artifacts and making it look
and feel great.
Cheaper labor, then, means not only lower consumer prices and higher corporate profits back in the US, but
also higher quality.
ADI 106
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good
Negative outsourcing rhetoric and scare tactics are illogical but effective political
propaganda
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

The issue of outsourcing has some very special psychological properties that make it especially useful as
propaganda -- perfect fodder for the conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid.
First, it is an amorphous fear about the unknowable future more than it is a realistic observation about the
present. So the message is, "Yes, I know the economy is recovering and you have a good job. Today! But two
years from now that job could go to China! If you don't vote for me, that is." You can't argue with that kind of
non-logic. But it doesn't even have to be logical. It just has to be scary.
Second, the outsourcing issue cleverly links economic concerns to national security concerns. Of course in
the wake of September 11, such concerns are never far below the surface, and they are very powerful.
Especially when the story connects directly to the ability of grubby people in poor, third world countries to
threaten the all-powerful United States.
ADI 107
Free Trade

Outsourcing Good
Outsourcing will self correct as long as we don’t mess with it – Indian wage increases prove
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

The people who are supposed to "do something" are us. If that means outsourcing something your business
does to China or India or anywhere else, I say go for it.
But be careful. For all the same reasons that the hype about outsourcing makes it a red-hot political issue, it's
also potentially a dangerous fad. Remember, those consultants with all the big forecasts have consulting
services to sell. They make money helping you do your outsourcing whether it ends up making money for
you in the long run, or not.
And like all fads, the first ones in make all the money. Then it gets harder. Already wage rates in India for
call center operators are rising at 20% a year. That sweet spot gets less sweet every day. But the consultants
keep on consulting.
So it's a self-correcting process, like most economic processes, if we are just patient. So try to tune out the
conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid. If you're a worker, don't feel afraid. If you're a manager, don't feel
guilty.
That simple world of cheese and wine can be ours if we just stick patiently to the basic axioms developed by
classical economics 200 years ago. If you have the courage to build a world based on trade, you'll get your
daily cheese. Plus you'll get more wine.
ADI 108
Free Trade

Outsourcing Bad
Outsourcing hurts specialized labor leading to protectionist backlash
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Obviously, the first guy is the US and the second guy is -- China, India, you name it. Steel may be a necessity
of our life -- like cheese in the example. But we're going out of the steel business, even though we are the
best at making steel, or at least could be if we wanted to be. But we don't want to be. Because we're even
better at designing fiber optic networks or figuring out financial derivatives or making blockbuster action-
hero movies -- or something.

But of course it's not that simple. A nation is not a single individual who does two things -- and as soon as he
stops doing one, he just does more of the other. A nation is many people who are specialized into different
things. If a nation stops making cheese, its cheese makers can't just suddenly become winemakers. US steel
workers can't just start designing fiber optic networks. So at least in the short term, there will be winners and
losers

And any time there are losers, politics gets involved. The winners from the deal are busily reinvesting their
gains -- but the losers run to their lobbyists. So we end up with things like the Bush administration's tariffs on
foreign steel. Sure, it protects the domestic steel industry -- sort of. But any advantage conveyed to steel
producers becomes a disadvantage to steel consumers. So this ends up being a problem from which you can
run, but you can't hide.
ADI 109
Free Trade

Neoliberalism Bad
Neoliberalism is a project of sacrificial genocide normalizing docility to the point we are
unable to stop the colonizing war machine ultimately culminating in collective suicide—this
ideological thinking fosters a death drive of endless error replication justifying the worst
impacts
Santos in 2003 (Boaventura de Sousa [Director of the Center for Social Studies @ U of Coimbra], BAD
SUBJECTS, Issue #63, April, http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html)
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to
save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name
of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over
which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous
peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused
millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with
the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the
collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq,
it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope
might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate
perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it.
Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the
present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of
development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is
not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there
is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total
violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists.
This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection
of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is
the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this
logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency
of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable
efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes
democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and
international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political
democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely
strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in
motion by supposedly democratic rulers.
At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming
collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the
definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its
sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and
Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable
populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers,
to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent
civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by the
Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will die during
the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost
100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years.
Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has
always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial
design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling
efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though
hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of
primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by definition,
there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, the period of primitive accumulation consists
of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The machine of democracy and
liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.
ADI 110
Free Trade

Neoliberalism Good
Neoliberalism has made lives better reducing poverty and increasing inclusivity
Mhone no date (Guy C. Z. [Former Director of the Graduate School of Public and Development
Management at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg] accessed online on 7/31/08 @
.http://science.jrank.org/pages/10467/Neoliberalism-Effects-Neoliberal-Policies.html)

In the wake of these challenges, shifts have begun to occur in the neoliberal camp in the early twenty-first
century, and new syntheses of approaches have been proposed. The neoliberal agenda has begun to
include welfare issues by supporting the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, social safety nets, and
poverty reduction. In addition, given that neoliberal policies have tended to be unilaterally imposed,
particularly in developing economies, there has been a shift to accommodating popular participation and
good governance, as in the development of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) associated with the
Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt initiative of the Bretton Woods Institutions. More generally, there
is less of a dogmatic stance on the nature and content of policy packages comprising economic reform
initiatives, yielding what has been labeled the "post-Washington Consensus." At another level, some have
worked toward synthesizing lessons from neoliberalism with those from social democracy, resulting in the
proposal for a "third way." Finally, from a philosophical point of view, the assumptions underlying the
neoliberal model have also been challenged, particularly as to whether methodological individualism
assumed in the model, to the exclusion of other plausible assumptions that could be made, is necessarily
the most appropriate or adequate assumption to guide formulation of social theories; and, if it can be
contended that a particular proclivity of human beings is natural and inevitable, such a proclivity must
necessarily be pandered to as a normative ideal. Thus, while as deductive theory and approach
neoliberalism may appear unchallengeable and highly persuasive, its benefits are increasingly viewed as
unsustainable on intellectual, philosophical, social, and political grounds.
ADI 111
Free Trade

Collectivism Bad
Collectivism is racist xenophobia that reduces life to a zero sum game which leads to
resource wars justified by an “us or them” ideology
Binswanger ’03 [Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn
Rand Institute, “'Buy American' is UN-American,” Capitalism Magazine, 09/05/2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=576>]
Most "Buy American" advocates are motivated by misplaced patriotism. But for some the motive is a
collectivist
hostility towards foreigners. This xenophobic attitude is thoroughly un-American; it is plain bigotry.
Giving preference to American-made products over German or Japanese products is the same injustice as
giving preference to products made by whites over those made by blacks. Economic nationalism, like racism,
means judging men and their products by the group from which they come, not by merit.
Collectivism reflects the notion that life is "a zero sum game," that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, where one
man's gain is another man's loss. On this premise, everyone has to cling to his own herd and fight all the
other herds for a share of a fixed, static, supply of goods. And that is exactly the premise of the "Buy
American" campaign. "It's Japan or us," is the implication. If Japan is getting richer, then we must be getting
poorer.
ADI 112
Free Trade

Collectivism Bad
Collectivism is Marxist
Binswanger ’03 [Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn
Rand Institute, “'Buy American' is UN-American,” Capitalism Magazine, 09/05/2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=576>]
The patriotic advocates of buying American would be shocked to learn that the economic theory underlying
their viewpoint is Marxism. In describing the influx of Japanese products and investment, they don't use the
Marxist terminology of "imperialism" and "exploitation," but the basic idea is the same: capitalistic acts are
destructive and free markets will impoverish you. It's the same anti-capitalist nonsense whether it is used by
leftists to attack the United States for is commerce with Latin America or by supposed patriots to attack
Japan for its commerce with the United States.

Contrary to Marxism, one does not benefit from the poverty or incompetence of others. It is in your interest
that other men -- in every country -- be smart, ambitious, and productive, not stupid, lazy, or incompetent.
Would you be better off if Thomas Edison had been dim-witted? Nothing is changed if we substitute a
Japanese inventor for Edison.
ADI 113
Free Trade

Economic Nationalism Causes Collectivism


Economic nationalism creates collectivism that reduces individuals to no more than units of
a nation
Binswanger ’03 [Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn
Rand Institute, “'Buy American' is UN-American,” Capitalism Magazine, 09/05/2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=576>]
Philosophically, Americanism means individualism. Individualism holds that one's personal identity, moral
worth, and inalienable rights belong to one as an individual, not as a member of a particular race, class,
nation, or other collective.

But collectivism is the premise of "Buy American." In purchasing goods, we are expected to view ourselves
and the sellers not as individuals, but as units of a nation. We are expected to accept lower quality or more
expensive goods in the name of alleged benefits to the national collective.

Subsidies and interference with free trade destroy individualism


Binswanger ’03 [Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn
Rand Institute, “'Buy American' is UN-American,” Capitalism Magazine, 09/05/2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=576>]
More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What's good for Toyota is good for America.
That's individualism, and that's Americanism.

Government interference with free trade is un-American. Sacrificing one's standard of living in order to
subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American. The tribal fear of foreigners is un-American.
Resentment at others' success is un-American.
ADI 114
Free Trade

NAFTA – Key To U.S. Economy


NAFTA is key to U.S. viability in the global market. It saves manufacturing jobs while
increasing employment, wages, and the value of farm and food exports
Welch and Welch ’08 [Jack Welsh, bestselling author, journalist, professor at MIT’s Sloan School of
Management, and Fortune magazine’s “Manager of the Century” in 2000 & Suzy Welch, MBA, bestselling
author, commentator, business journalist, former editor-in-chief of the Harvard Business Review, Executive-
in-Residence at Babson College, and Baker Scholar from Harvard Business School, “A PUNCHING BAG
NAMED NAFTA;
The trade deal's enemies are in full scream, but its benefits are simply undeniable,” Business Week,
04/28/2008 <L/N> Accessed 07/30/08 ]
We realize Nafta's opponents would use the same word--"wrong"--to describe what has happened in some
Midwestern states over the past decade. But Nafta alone is not the cause of pain in Ohio or any other state.
Remember, Nafta frees up trade between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. The companies in the Midwest that
moved operations to Mexico did so to stay competitive with China, India, and Eastern Europe. Nafta made
that possible. Global competition made it necessary.
Which brings us to the real reason people hate Nafta: It represents globalization. Indeed, maybe that's why
we support it so much! Yes, it's possible more might have been done to replace lost jobs by supporting laid-
off workers with a greater focus on retraining. And yes, globalization causes dislocations. But it also makes
America healthier and the world overall a better, safer, more interdependent place. We've seen its benefits
with our own eyes: countless product lines resurrected from heavy losses by the integration of U.S. and
Mexican operations. And that process allowed certain industries to compete with an onslaught of Asian
imports, saving thousands of U.S. jobs.
Statistics tell the same story. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, employment in America has grown
24% since Nafta took effect, and real wages have risen 19.3%, compared with only 11% in the 14 years prior.
The USTR also reports that, due to Nafta, the value of U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico and Canada
grew 165%, compared with 65% worldwide. Such data--and there's more like it--suggests Nafta has been a
net positive for the U.S.
ADI 115
Free Trade

SKFTA – Will Pass Now

Bush will push for KORUS ratification before January

Chosunilbo, 7/10/08 [“Bush Vows to Push Ratification of Korea-US FTA”, English Chosunilbo
News, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807100016.html]
U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday said the controversy surrounding Korea’s import of U.S. beef
has bolstered, not weakened, his will to get the Korea-U.S. FTA ratified. In a meeting with Bush on the sidelines
of the G8 summit in Japan, President Lee Myung-bak told him, “There is something you need to do before your
term ends” in January next year, and Bush responded by saying he would press on with the ratification of the
FTA. While he could not promise that it will be passed by Congress, he will try his best to win approval, he
vowed.
Presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said the two leaders agreed to work together closely for the “faithful
implementation” of an additional beef agreement to restore Koreans’ trust in U.S. beef. The deal effectively
bans shipments of beef from cattle aged over 30 months.
ADI 116
Free Trade

SKFTA – Will Not Pass Now


SKFTA WILL NOT PASS

National Journal.com, 5/22/08 [“Senate Dems: No Korea FTA Without Trade


Enforcement”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hba_20080522_1580.php]
A dozen senators led by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told the Bush administration Wednesday to do
more to address unfair trade barriers before asking Congress to approve the Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement.
"Before we implement the biggest trade agreement since NAFTA, we need our government to stand up
for American families and make sure that countries like South Korea and China are playing by the
rules," said the letter by 11 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
"We simply cannot support another trade agreement ahead of enforcing our trade laws, improving product
safety, and ensuring a level playing field for our businesses and workers," the senators wrote to President
Bush.
Administration officials said this month they are unlikely to send the
Korea FTA to Congress this year because there are fewer than 90
legislative days left until the scheduled adjournment, making it
impossible to "force" a vote under the 90-day window prescribed in
presidential trade negotiating authority protocols.
ADI 117
Free Trade

SKFTA Good

KORUS net beneficial to US economy – leads to better products and lowered prices on
goods

The Reporter, 8/1/08 [“Time to Implement Agreement with Korea”, Richard L. Kirkwood, The
Reporter, http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_10066857]
It's been more than a year since its signing, and still Congress has not implemented the Korean-U.S. Free
Trade Agreement.
On April 1, 2007, the United States concluded negotiations on what the office of the U.S. Trade Representative
called its "most commercially significant FTA since NAFTA." Upon implementation, the agreement promises
to eliminate tariffs, expand markets, increase U.S. access in Korea, protect U.S. investors and intellectual
property rights, and increase governmental transparency, among a host of other benefits.
So why is Congress stalling?
Free trade stabilizes domestic economies and improves diplomatic relations, but its biggest beneficiary is
always the consumer. Open markets and fewer tariffs mean more choices, better products and lower prices
for consumers. In 2005, the United States and Korea exchanged $71 billion in goods and services, yet only 38
percent of American and 13 percent of Korean tariff lines were duty free.
The greatest push-back to the Korea-U.S. agreement comes from the American automakers, which fear the
competition of the Korean market.
In comments made to a Korean news source (korea.net) on Jan. 8, Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative,
noted that the United States has "an obligation and desire to look after [the auto industry], but the rest of the
economy should not be punished by virtue of that. The American taxpayer and consumer should not have to
pick up the cost in terms of the U.S. not opening its market."
holding up the Korean-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Congress chooses to cater to the voices of a few large
automakers and labor unions, to the detriment of the whole of the American consumer population.
It is time Congress set aside partisan differences and worked for the
common good of the American public.
ADI 118
Free Trade

SKFTA Good
KORUS key to reverse downward relations trend and bolster South Korean economy –
failure to ratify a huge missed opportunity

Young, 3/11/08 [Lee Jae, MA from Cornell, “Impact of the US-South Korea FTA”, UPI Asia
Online, http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/03/11/impact_of_the_us-
south_korea_fta/5536/]
Seoul, South Korea — The World Trade Organization, since its founding in 1995, has been seen as the central player
driving world trade in the globalization era. It has helped reduce trade barriers and settle trade and policy disputes
among member countries.
However, the WTO's negotiations reached a stalemate in 2003 due to continuous discord between its rich and poor
member countries. Since then it has been overwhelmed by a wave of regionalism driven by free trade agreements.
Many have viewed these FTAs with skepticism because they are seen as undermining the WTO's multilateralism.
South Korea and the United States, though members of the WTO, have advocated FTAs and even collaborated to
create a new one, known as the "KORUS FTA," in 2007. With the widespread admission that the WTO is
dysfunctional, many countries are eager to join the FTA trend. This has made the South Korea-U.S. deal look
like a natural progression -- all the more so because the two countries traditionally have been allies in terms
of economics and politics.
According to the U.S. Congressional Report Service's January report, the KORUS FTA was seen as an example
for other potential U.S. trade partners, advancing the Bush administration's policy of "competitive
liberalization" that, through free trade agreements, induces trading partners to remove trade and investment
barriers. KORUS is the United States' largest FTA in terms of mutual trade and investment since the North
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, came into force in 1994.
The U.S. also has viewed its free trade deal with South Korea as a means to check China's increasing
economic influence. And it has been seen as devised to reinforce the traditional U.S.-South Korean alliance,
perceived as weakened in recent years due to conflicts over North Korean policy.
It seems there is consensus regarding the KORUS FTA's political effects, though the economic perspectives of
the FTA partners may still diverge somewhat, influenced by diverse interest groups. Opposition has arisen from such
U.S. groups as auto and steel workers, manufacturers and labor unions. On the other hand, Korea faces challenges
mainly from agricultural and medical groups.
South Korea has sought to negotiate FTAs with several longtime trading partners such as Chile, Singapore, China,
the European Union, the United States, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Mexico, Russia and India. A South Korea-Chile FTA came into force in 2004 and a South Korea-Singapore trade
deal was formed in 2006. After South Korea concluded FTA negotiations with the United States in 2007, it
immediately began to launch negotiations with the European Union.
South Korea's government has two main policy goals in seeking these trade agreements. Firstly, according to the
Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade, South Korea's initial goal of launching these negotiations was to
keep pace with the FTA-driven regionalism wave. South Korea's new government is shifting its focus to reforming
its economy through the U.S. and EU trade deals. In addition to these policy goals, the KORUS FTA can be
reviewed through a cost/benefit analysis.
The FTA's primary benefit is to grant South Korea preferential access to the U.S. market through reduced
trade barriers. Although it was considered that the United States could gain more than South Korea from this
agreement because South Korea's tariffs have been higher, such an exclusive privilege available only to an
FTA partner is not to be passed up.
Furthermore, the United States is special in that it has been South Korea's third-largest trading partner. So,
even any minimal additional preferential access to the U.S. market represents a new, incomparable trading
opportunity.
Another expected economic benefit is an increased inflow of foreign direct investment. FDI-related business
activities have been, in fact, regulated by WTO rules. However, the WTO's failure to provide properly
elaborated regulations and protections has given almost complete permission for bilateral investment treaties
and FTAs to take the place of the WTO. When it comes to FDI, most FTAs are absorbing bilateral investment
treaties' standardized rules.
ADI 119
Free Trade

The U.N. Conference on Trade and Development has long studied the positive effects of FDI on economic
growth. Basically, FDI contributes to economic growth by injecting capital into a host country. FDI's most
precious benefits, however, are transfers of skills and technologies and structural market reforms.
FDI-related business activities channel foreign skills and technologies into a local economy: this is called the
"spill-over effect." The increased competition for FDI among domestic and local enterprises drives structural
reforms. The UNCTAD advises that these benefits of FDI cannot lead to economic growth in a host country
whose economy is not mature enough to absorb them. However, this is not the case in South Korea.
On the other hand, FDI is deemed in general to bring economic costs by creating a "trade-diversion effect" and,
furthermore, unsettling domestic economic policies because it falls under the protection of the "investor-state dispute
settlement mechanism," which allows a private investor to legally challenge a host government's public policy.
These concerns may sound reasonable at first. But a closer look shows whether they are true in the case of the
KORUS FTA. South Korea, with this FTA, does not intend to choose just one among equally important trading
partners. It is wise to deal selectively with counterparts who hold different values. South Korea rather attempts to
reinforce its focus on a major trading partner, the United States, and to discriminate against other minor
partners. This is likely to create more gains than having no FTA with the United States.
In this respect, the FTA would not simply create a "trade-diversion effect." It would rather enhance trade
through a trade discrimination process. In addition, South Korea has pursued its FTA projects with many
countries equipped with significant export markets. This may efficaciously offset such a diversion effect.
It looks as if the "investor-state dispute settlement mechanism" poses grave challenges to a host country's domestic
policy. However, it turns out that this mechanism has not worked that way. The UNCTAD's Jan. 8 report, "Investor-
State Dispute Settlement and Impact on Investment Rulemaking," reveals that many countries -- mostly in the Asia-
Pacific region -- have accumulated experience with the mechanism, which has helped host countries to elaborate
their investment-related policies for better interpretation and application.
The UNCTAD reaches the conclusion that thanks to the accumulated experience with the mechanism, host countries
can liberalize and protect FDI and avoid hurting their key public policy objectives.
Both governments embarked on this project with the idea that this FTA would mutually benefit their alliance,
whether the benefits are political or economic. This FTA would upgrade their alliance to a higher level in
terms of economic and political cooperation and mutual prosperity. Their traditional alliance yields
compellingly persuasive evidence to justify the FTA, and its long-term benefits confirm their need for it.
The KORUS FTA is still pending, awaiting approval from the countries' congresses. It is unclear now whether
it will overcome the opposition groups in both countries. However, it is clear that the KORUS FTA's failure
would be a great loss to the two countries' alliance.
ADI 120
Free Trade

SKFTA Good
Korea FTA is critical to US-Korea relations and Northeast Asian Stability.
Kim ‘6
(Anthony B., Research Associate in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation,
An Agreement Among Allies: Advancing the Korea-U.S. FTA, November 14,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm1253.cfm)
The KORUS FTA would go beyond promoting free trade, increasing economic benefits, and bolstering the broader bilateral relationship.
Agreement and cooperation on economic issues provide a strong basis from which to reinforce collaboration in the
political and security arenas. An FTA would undoubtedly reinvigorate and strengthen the dynamic and compre-
hensive U.S.–South Korea partnership, the cornerstone of peace and stability in Northeast Asia for more than five
decades.

South Korea FTA solidifies US-South Korea relations, gives US access to larger Asian
markets, and counterbalances Chinese dominance in southeast asia.
Klinger and Kim ‘7
(Bruce, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center, Anthony B., Policy Analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, both at The Heritage Foundation, The U.S.-South Korea FTA: A
Defining Moment, April 2, http://www.heritage.org/research/asiaandthepacific/wm1413.cfm)
Big Benefits
The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement--the largest signed by the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994--is a milestone in
broadening the U.S.-South Korea relationship beyond the military alliance. It is expected to increase the countries'
robust $75 billion annual bilateral trade by an additional $20 billion. The FTA would give U.S. business another
important bridgehead into the Asian market, counterbalance South Korea's growing trade ties with China, and
potentially allow the U.S. to regain its position as Seoul's preeminent trade partner. For Seoul, the agreement will
improve South Korea's economic freedom by locking in additional economic reforms. It may also give a boost to
South Korea's credit ratings and give the country a competitive advantage over regional rivals China and Japan.
ADI 121
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

Trade deficits not an indicator of economic health


Bates, former International Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute,
2000
(Jenny, "Putting the U.S. Trade Deficit in Perspective"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900009&co
ntentID=609

In and of itself, a trade deficit (or surplus) says very little


about the health of the economy. The trade deficit (It) simply
shows that the U.S. economy is consuming more than it is
producing and is funding the process with foreign capital. While
the United States will have to pay these loans back in future, policy
should not be aimed primarily at reducing the trade deficit.

The size of the U.S. economy makes it capable of financing a large


trade deficit
Bates, former International Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute,
2000
(Jenny, "Putting the U.S. Trade Deficit in Perspective"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900009&co
ntentID=609

Whether a country is able to borrow from, or lend to, the rest of the world is
not determined solely by domestic policies. Inflows of foreign capital will
depend partially on investors' perceptions of the riskiness of a country and
its currency. The United States has advantages in attracting foreign
capital due to the size and strength of its economy and the role of
the dollar as the world's main trading (or reserve) currency. Thus,
the United States is in a better position to finance a trade deficit
(through international borrowing) than small, open economies with
weak or less-traded currencies.
ADI 122
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits impact

Stats are inaccurate –1/3 of U.S. exports go


unreported
Bates, former International Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute,
2000
(Jenny, "Putting the U.S. Trade Deficit in Perspective"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900009&co
ntentID=609

Trade deficit statistics are often inaccurate. The U.S. Census Bureau
recently estimated that $62 billion of U.S. goods exports go
unreported each year--this amounts to almost one-third of the
current U.S. merchandise trade deficit. 3 Similarly, new areas such as
trade over the Internet and high value, high-tech products
transported by air often go un- or under- reported. While the
government is working to improve these figures, more accurate
data will not be available for several years.
ADI 123
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits Impact


Trade with China is only small part of U.S. trade- AND the imports from China wouldn't
be replaced with domestic products, they'd be replaced with other foreign products.
Bates, former International Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute, 2000
(Jenny, "Putting the U.S. Trade Deficit in Perspective"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900009&contentID=609)

Many critics of the bilateral trade deficit with China fear that Chinese products will flood
the U.S. market. However, it is important to note that trade with China only amounts to 2
percent of total U.S. trade. Half of all U.S. trade is with three partners-- Canada, the European
Union, and Mexico. Moreover, increased Chinese imports tend to displace imports from
other countries, mostly Southeast Asian countries. One recent study showed that two-thirds
of China's exports to the U.S. displace third country exports rather than American
products. 5 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, cheaper, more competitive Chinese imports
amount to a price cut for U.S. consumers. According to a 1994 World Bank study, importing
from China compared to importing similar products from any other country saves the American
public $14 billion per year.

Trade deficit with China good for U.S. economy


Inter Press Service, 9/13/2005 [http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30237]

On worsening trade deficit with the U.S. (last year it reached a record 162 billion dollars),
Chinese economists point to Beijing having used the surplus to buy American government
bonds. This, in turn, has lessened budget deficits, kept interest rates low and contributed to
a housing boom that fuelled much consumer spending in recent years. ''The U.S. trade
deficit with China benefits U.S. consumers as well as the U.S. economy,'' argues Xiao Lian
from the Institute of World Economics and Politics, under the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. ''No trade deficit with China means the U.S. may have to import the same
products from other countries at higher prices''.
ADI 124
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

Trade deficits don't threaten the dollar- they are a


sign of capital attraction
Tamny, National Review, 2005. John, Trade Charade. LN
Amidst all of the hysteria between Ip and Opdyke about evil trade
deficits, the Journal's Money & Investing section ran an article on
foreign capital inflows titled, "Why Foreigners 'Buy America.'" Arthur
Laffer has regularly pointed out that the trade deficit is the flip
side of the capital surplus, and he's right. Almost unrelated to
currency movements, foreign capital inflows into the U.S. have
skyrocketed since 1995, from roughly $80 billion to over $600 billion
in 2004. Unsurprisingly, the trade deficit has risen alongside
those inflows. Foreign investors were net buyers of $81 billion
worth of U.S. securities in November alone.
Until foreign investors find a better, safer place than the U.S.
to park capital, we will run large trade deficits. That the U.S. is
a magnet for world capital is a compliment. Currency manipulations
are proven failures in moving the balance of trade up or down. We
could reduce the trade deficit, but it would require higher
taxes, higher tariffs, and higher unemployment for us to do so.
The trade deficit is a misunderstood figure. It is in fact
unambiguously positive for the economy of the United States.

Its not a trade deficit - it's a capital surplus


Milton Friedman 12-26-05. Charlie Rose Show (LN)

Not at all. Because neither of those necessarily impedes our


progress. First of all, the trade deficit is not -- it`s not a deficit in
another sense. It is a capital surplus. You look at the so- called trade
deficit. And on the books, the U.S. is a borrower. We owe money to the
rest of
the world. But that`s because the books are kept in a misleading way. If
you
look not at the capital - not at the balance sheet, but at the income account,
and ask how much income are we getting from foreign-owned assets, from assets
that we own abroad...
ADI 125
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

Current patterns of growth prove trade deficits are good


for the U.S. economy
Kane and Miles, Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis and Director of the
Center for Int'l Trade and Economics at Heritage, May 12 2005. (Tim and Marc, " Trade Deficits,
Dollars, and China: Wrong Lessons Make Dangerous Policy" WebMemo #743.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm743.cfm)

The March trade deficit fell back from its record high in February, according
to numbers released by the Commerce Department this week. So does this
mean we are out of the woods? There is a better question to ask: What
woods? Despite cries of impending doom, the U.S. economy
continues to expand faster than all other advanced economies. In the
just-ended quarter, even with a record-level trade deficit, the U.S.
economy grew at a 3.1 percent rate, four times faster than
Germany, which consistently runs a trade surplus. Could it be that
trade deficits are not a drag on growth?
Since the end of the Cold War and through the booming 1990s, the U.S. trade
account has trended consistently towards deeper deficits. The media,
politicians, and consensus economists regularly warn that larger
trade deficits mean that America is losing in the global trade war. As
the dollar rose in the late 1990s and the trade deficit kept widening (see
Chart 1), many believed that a correction was inevitable, and some even
prescribed a "weak dollar" policy to fix things. Now that the dollar has
lost roughly a third of its exchange value on a trade-weighted basis,
things look different. The trade deficit keeps on getting bigger. It
appears that the conventional assertion that the dollar and the
trade deficit move in opposite directions does not hold much water.
All we have to show for the dollar's decline are higher oil prices, a jump in inflation, and blip upwards in short-term
interest rates. You might think that they would learn, but now the same alarmists want to bet our trade policy with
China on the same misguided logic. Make no mistake—those who call for China to end its policy of pegging the yuan
to the dollar are calling explicitly for a weaker dollar. In 2005 to date, the U.S. has a $42 billion trade deficit with
China, but China has a trade deficit with the rest of the world. As a result, China's overall trade account is roughly in
balance. And China too has suffered from more expensive oil and gas prices, unlike Europe, because global oil
markets are priced in dollars, not Euros. If China floats the yuan, it may do so to devalue the currency, not to
appreciate it. As they say, be careful what you wish for. The same goes for the "twin deficits" theory. According to
the budget deficit exacerbates the trade deficit. But the
this story,
deficits are not twins at all and probably aren't even cousins. Japan's
persistent trade surplus, according to twin deficit theory, is impossible with a
national debt that has grown to 169 percent of GDP, and yet there it is.
Another example: during the late 1990s, the U.S. federal government
ran a budget surplus (as we are often reminded), and yet the trade
deficit continued to set records. Here's how to make sense of all this.
Trade deficits are a symptom of one thing only: capital inflows. The
trade account and capital account must be equal and opposite. The
ADI 126
Free Trade

trade deficit is therefore a symbol of the continued attractiveness of


investing in the U.S. As Ben Bernanke, the new chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisors, put it, the trade deficit is the "tail of the dog." It's
time we started focusing more on the dog.

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

Trade deficit is shrinking including a massive boost in


U.S. exports to China
LEVY, 10-20-2005. (MICKEY D. CHIEF ECONOMIST Statement of Mickey D. Levy
Chief Economist, Bank of America Committee on House Joint Economic, LN)

Exports are projected to continue rising rapidly, reflecting improving global


economic trends; but recently slower import growth has begun to narrow
the trade deficit. Real exports, which rose very sluggishly early this
expansion but accelerated to a rapid 9.1 percent average annualized growth pace
in the last two years, are projected to grow strongly through 2006, as global
economic conditions continue to improve. Imports have been much more
volatile: after declining during the 2001 recession, they have increased
at a 7.5 percent average annual pace, faster than exports, and the
trade deficit has widened. However, so far in 2005, import growth has
slowed significantly to a 3.5 percent pace contributing to a narrowing
trade deficit. With the exception of economic weakness in core
European nations, the economies of major U.S. export markets are
healthy. Asia, destination for approximately 26 percent of U.S. exports,
continues to grow significantly faster than the global average.
Importantly, Japan, the world's second largest economy, is rebounding to
sustainable healthy growth following prolonged stagnation and deflation. I expect
Japan will grow significantly faster than consensus estimates through 2006.
China's economy shows no signs of slowing from its long-run 9+
percent rate of expansion. U.S. exports to China have grown 46
percent in the last year, reaching $39 billion, and should continue to
increase rapidly. India's economy and trade with the U.S. are also expanding
rapidly. Growth in Canada remains healthy, Mexico is growing on the coattails of
the U.S. expansion, and Brazil, Argentina and Chile are expanding and enjoying
relative stability. Europe's economic performance will remain uneven. Misguided
tax and regulatory policies constrain potential growth in core European nations,
while other European nations, including some that will be joining the European
Union, are growing rapidly. The substantial widening of the U.S. net export
deficit in recent years implies that foreign producers have supplied a
growing share of domestic demand. Moreover, fueling concerns about
the trade deficit, the common perception is that "excessive consumer
spending" is the primary culprit of rapid import growth. In fact, nearly
40 percent of total U.S. imported goods are industrial supplies and
capital goods (excluding automobiles and petroleum), which directly contribute
to business production and expansion. The growth and composition of
imports suggest strongly that the wide trade deficit is to some extent
a reflection of the U.S.'s economic strength, and is not as bothersome
as is commonly perceived. As long as the U.S. continues to grow faster
than other industrial nations, fand its investment growth is stronger, its
ADI 127
Free Trade

trade deficit will tend to remain wide. However, the strength in exports
and recent slowing in import growth, which must be interpreted cautiously,
have reduced the trade gap. As economic growth improves in other
regions of the world, investment in these nations will expand, and real
interest rates will rise. Slower growth in U.S. consumption, higher household savings
rates, a greater reliance on exports to spur domestic economic growth and a gradual
narrowing in the U.S. trade gap are natural and necessary consequences of an
improved balance in world economies. The best contribution for U.S. economic policy is to
encourage the positive trends abroad while sustaining healthy domestic economic
fundamentals.

AT: Trade Deficits Impact


Trade deficit isn't economically destabilizing
LEVY, 10-20-2005. (MICKEY D. CHIEF ECONOMIST Statement of Mickey D. Levy
Chief Economist, Bank of America Committee on House Joint Economic, LN)

The high U.S. trade deficit has resulted largely from the U.S.'s
relative economic strength, while the unprecedented U.S. current
account deficit reflects global differences in growth, saving and
investment, and is not likely to be the primary source of economic
destabilization.
Since 1990, U.S. economic and investment growth has been persistently
and significantly stronger than Europe, Japan and other industrialized
nations, and its future potential growth is estimated to be higher. The
rising U.S. trade deficit reflects and is consistent with its relative
economic strength, as its strong domestic demand and
investment spending support rapid growth in imports. As long as
the U.S. maintains this growth advantage, which boosts the
demand for imports, and the demand for U.S. dollar-denominated
assets remains high, the trade deficit will remain large.
In general, the large current account imbalances of many nations and
international capital flows reflect the large difference in rates of economic
growth, investment and saving. The unprecedented U.S. current
account deficit now exceeding 6 percent of GDP reflects the U.S.'s
insufficient saving relative to investment, other nations' excess
saving, and the strong demand for U.S. dollar-denominated assets
as global portfolio managers seek the highest risk-adjusted rates
of return on investment. While U.S. investment remains strong, its large
budget deficit and low rate of personal saving drag down national saving.
In contrast, Asian nations tend to be large savers. Japan exports capital, as
its weak investment and high saving have generated current account
surpluses (Japan has been running a large government deficit, but its
private sector saving has been very high, reflecting the prolonged
deflation and long-run concerns about government finances and pensions).
Barring a sharp change in global economic fundamentals, I do not expect
a dramatic shift in asset allocations away from U.S. dollars that
would generate a sharp fall in the U.S. dollar and/or rise in
ADI 128
Free Trade

interest rates that would damage U.S. economic performance.


That said, there are initiatives that international policymakers could agree
on that would reduce global imbalances and boost growth at the same
time. A coordinated package that would reduce U.S. budget deficits,
institute pro-growth tax cuts and regulatory reforms in Europe, and involve
agreement by select Asian nations, including China, to float their
currencies, is such a package.

AT: Trade Deficits Impact


The trade deficit is a meaningless economic statistic – the affs
exaggeration of its impact only flames protectionist sentiment
and turns back the advantage
Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, February
14, 2000. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/trade/pd021400a.html

The trade deficit is essentially a meaningless statistic. This can easily


be shown by the fact that no one knows or cares what the trade balance is
among the 50 states. As Adam Smith explained more than 200 years ago,
"Nothing...can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the
balance of trade."
In an increasingly globalized world, large multinational corporations
can provide clients and customers with goods and services from any
number of locations. Yet the trade balance data assume that it makes a
difference whether goods or services are produced by a U.S. company
domestically, or in one of its foreign offices or plants.
Lately, the Department of Commerce has attempted to measure U.S.
trade on an ownership basis. It has recomputed U.S. trade data back
to 1982, counting the net receipts on sales by U.S.-owned affiliates
in foreign countries as part of U.S. exports. It also includes receipts by
foreign-owned affiliates here as imports.
The data show that on an ownership basis, the U.S. trade deficit is far smaller
than the official figures indicate.
For example, in 1997 -- the latest year in the Commerce study -- the
U.S. had a deficit on goods and services of $104.7 billion.
But adjusting for the $115.8 billion earned by U.S. companies
abroad, less the $46.6 billion earned by foreign companies here,
lowers that figure to just $35.5 billion.
Large trade deficit figures unfortunately stoke the fires of
protectionism and encourage ill-advised policies. Otherwise, they
ADI 129
Free Trade

are meaningless.

Trade deficits reflect economic strength


Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis,
December 27, 1999. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/trade/pd122899a.html

The flip side to the trade deficit is the large surplus the U.S. runs in its capital
account, which measures investment flows in and out of the country. This surplus
indicates the world's investors find the U.S. has a far more attractive business
climate than any other major country; thus they believe they will earn more on an
investment here than in Europe, Canada or Japan.
Writing in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis's economic review, economist Michael Pakko
says, "...rising trade and current account deficits are consistent with the notion
that strong investment spending is associated with the adoption of new
technologies, with the anticipation of rapid economic growth in the future
suppressing domestic saving." The inflow of foreign investment is both a sign of
the economy's strength and a contributor to it. The trade deficit is simply a
statistical corollary. At least for now, it is nothing to worry about.
ADI 130
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits impact


Don't buy into the hype – all the evidence on the trade deficit is
based on faulty data
Joseph A. Ritter, "An Overstated Headline," National Economic Trends, July
1999, Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/trade/pd081299g.html

A closely watched economic statistic is the trade deficit -- the


excess of imports over exports. However, due to faulty data,
the monthly figures for the trade deficit are significantly
overstated, says a Federal Reserve Bank economist.
The U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible for trade data, says
that a major component of the trade deficit called the
merchandise trade deficit overstates the gap between imports
and exports of goods.
The Census believes that merchandise exports are probably understated
by 3 percent to 7 percent, but possibly as much as 10 percent.
Since there is no evidence of similar errors in import data, Census estimates the
merchandise trade deficit was overstated by as much as 34 percent in
1997.
Until the Census began basing figures on exports to Canada on that country's
import data, in 1990, it was estimated that exports to Canada were understated by
as much as 20 percent.
A major reason the data are flawed is because Census bases
merchandise trade figures on the paperwork importers and
exporters file with the U.S. Customs Service -- but exporters
are not required to file paperwork for shipments valued at less
than $2,500. Instead, Census relies on a survey to estimate the
fraction of total trade in these small shipments; but the most recent
survey was conducted almost 10 years ago. Since then, the market
share of small shipments has changed relative to large ones,
due to such things as the boom in inexpensive air cargo
services; but the magnitude of the shift is unknown.
ADI 131
Free Trade

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

Turn: The most comprehensive and conclusive


studies confirm that trade deficits are good for the
economy
Daniel Griswold February 9, 2001. Economist and Associate Director
of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. America's
Record Trade Deficit. A Symbol of Economic Strength.
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-012es.html

America's chronic trade deficit continues to set new records, both for
its sheer size in nominal terms and for its share of an expanding gross
national product. The record deficit is fueling worry that it could
hurt U.S. industry, destroy jobs, burden future generations,
and cause the current economic expansion to end in a "hard
landing." But those worries rest on a fun-damental
misunderstanding of the causes and consequences of the U.S.
trade deficit.
In November 2000 the congressionally appointed Trade Deficit
Review Commis-sion issued its final report, The U.S. Trade Deficit:
Causes, Consequences and Recom-mendations for Action. The report
reflected the views of a sharply divided commission, with
Democratic-appointed members warning of the dangers of the
deficit while Republican-appointed members empha-sized its
more benign nature. Economic theory and experience
demonstrate that trade deficits are driven primarily by
macroeconomic factors, in particular investment flows, and not
by allegedly unfair trade barriers or declining industrial
competitiveness.
Because of the link between trade deficits and rising
investment, larger trade deficits are typically accompanied by
improving economic conditions. A survey of the U.S. economy
since 1973 confirms that, by almost any measure—economic
growth, employment, industrial production, poverty reduction
—the economy has per-formed better in years in which the
trade deficit rose than in years in which it shrank. America's
annual trade deficits are sus-tainable as long as the United
States remains a safe and profitable destination for the world's
ADI 132
Free Trade

savings. The accumulating net foreign ownership of U.S. assets,


America's so-called foreign debt, does not threaten our sovereignty,
our ability to finance that investment, or continued eco-nomic
expansion.

AT: Trade Deficits Impact

The trade deficit has nothing to do with


competitiveness, it is caused by increase in
domestic investment by foreign sources
Daniel Griswold February 9, 2001. Economist and Associate Director
of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. America's
Record Trade Deficit. A Symbol of Economic Strength.
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-012es.html

The fundamental reason the U.S. trade deficit has grown so


rapidly in the past decade has been a dramatic increase in
domestic investment. Since 1992 annual real investment in
nonresidential structures, equipment, and software has
doubled, from $631 billion to $1,255 billion (in 1996 dollars). Real
investment in computers, peripheral equipment, and software
during that same period has increased more than fivefold, from
$80 billion to $405 billion (1996 dollars).5 This dramatic rise in
domestic investment has been financed in part by a rising
inflow of capital from abroad, an inflow made possible by the
offsetting deficit in the U.S. current account. Without those
foreign funds, the U.S. economy would be less productive both
today and in the future. An alternative way to explain the
trade deficit is that it represents the gap between what we
produce and what we spend. If Americans spend more on
consumption, investment, and government purchases than we
produce in a given period of time, we must fill the gap with a
net inflow of goods and services from abroad. The result is a
trade deficit. If production exceeds domestic purchases, then
the extra production will be sold abroad, resulting in a trade
surplus. Whichever approach is used, the variables in the trade deficit
equation are not industrial competitiveness or trade policies but
ADI 133
Free Trade

macroeconomic factors of savings and investment or of production and


spending.6
ADI 134
Free Trade

Trade Deficits Good


Rising trade deficits help the economy while shrinking deficits slow growth
Griswold ’01 [Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute,
“AMERICA'S RECORD TRADE DEFICIT: A Reflection of Economic Strength,” USA Today, May 2001,
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2672_129/ai_74572239>]
The latter, dark assessment of the trade deficit's impact on the economy is difficult to square with America's
economic performance during the past decade. Since 1992, while the trade deficit has grown dramatically
larger, the U.S. economy enjoyed a record-breaking expansion; the unemployment rate fell to a 30-year low;
inflation was down; productivity accelerated; manufacturing output reached new highs; and real
compensation and household incomes rose across all income levels.

A survey of the U.S. economy since 1973, when the era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows
began, confirms that rising trade deficits generally accompany periods of rising investment and expansion.
Since 1973, America's current account deficit as a percentage of GDP has grown larger ("worsened") in 16
years and shrunk ("improved") in 11. By almost any measure, the economy has performed better in years in
which the trade deficit rose, compared to those in which it shrank.

Trade deficits lead to foreign investment, U.S. job creation, and economic growth
Williams ’06 [Dr. Walter Williams, a PhD in economics from UCLA, renowned author, winner of numerous
awards in a variety of subjects including economics, and advisor to the Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation,
Institute of Economic Affairs, and Heritage Foundation, “Foreign Trade Angst”, Capitalism Magazine,
October 18, 2006 <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4808>]

Mr. Buchanan writes, "Imports surged to $188 billion for the month [of July], as our dependency on
foreigners for the vital necessities of our national life ever deepens." That means we imported $188 billion
worth of goods. Do foreigners keep all those dollars they earned under a mattress? They are not that stupid.
They use those dollars to import capital goods such as U.S. stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury notes.
They might use some of it to build factories in the U.S. such as Honda, Novartis and Samsung. The dollar
amount of those purchases is going to equalize the value of what we import. We sport a huge surplus in our
capital account with foreigners. As such, they are dependent on us for a safe and profitable place to invest
their earnings. That dependency contributes to our economic growth.
ADI 135
Free Trade

Elections – Free Trade Key Issue


Primaries Prove Free Trade Will Be A Deciding Factor In The Election
Cooper and Broder in 2008 (Michael and John M., McCain Pushes Nafta in Visit to Canada as Obama,
Again, Defends His View, NYT, Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13 June 21, lexis)

The McCain campaign is using the issue of free trade in part to appeal to economic conservatives who
have sometimes been wary of him, but more to question Mr. Obama's candor after he has sent shifting
signals about trade in the past year. Mr. Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to question Mr.
McCain's empathy, and support, for struggling working people, especially in the Rust Belt, where
many workers blame free trade for the closing of factories and the loss of jobs. Free trade became a
major issue in the Democratic primaries, when all the major candidates, courting votes in Rust Belt states
and the support of unions that oppose free trade agreements, took a sharply critical view of free trade
agreements. Mr. Obama said that he would favor an ''opt-out'' clause that would allow the United
States to walk away from the deal if better labor and environmental standards could not be negotiated.
ADI 136
Free Trade

Elections – Obama Pro WTO/Anti FTAs


Obama is pro-free Trade but against trade agreements
Cooper and Broder in 2008 (Michael and John M., McCain Pushes Nafta in Visit to Canada as Obama,
Again, Defends His View, NYT, Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13 June 21, lexis)

Senator John McCain's campaign sent out an e-mail message on Friday highlighting what it called Senator
Barack Obama's ''completely mystifying shift'' on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Republican National Committee issued a news release charging that Mr. Obama is ''for free trade but
against free trade agreements'' and even released a Web video about Mr. Obama and free trade.
Mr. McCain's campaign plane, full of reporters, made an unusual foray past the battleground states here to
Canada, where Mr. McCain gave a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in which he was applauded for
saying that ''for all the successes of Nafta, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate.''
ADI 137
Free Trade

Elections – McCain Pro Free Trade


McCain is one of the strongest advocates of free trade and global integration on Capitol
Hill
Steinbock ’08 [Dan Steinbock, the Research Director of International Business at the India,
China and America Institute, “GUESS WHO'S AFRAID OF FREE TRADE,” China Daily,
05/14/2008, <L/N> Accessed 07/30/08]
A Democratic president might work with the Democratic majority of the Congress, led by the Speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi, a vocal supporter of the "Free Tibet" movement. Like the Democrats, the leading
Republican contenders favor more emphasis on diplomacy and multilateral engagement. Unlike Democrats,
the Republicans support free trade. Senator John McCain is one of the strongest advocates of free trade in
Capitol Hill.
McCain argues that the stage for a Pacific-wide effort to liberalize trade will be set by free-trade agreements
(FTAs) with Malaysia and Thailand. These FTAs will realize the potential of the new trade agreement with
South Korea and institutionalize economic partnerships with India and Indonesia, while building on existing
agreements with Australia and Singapore. McCain believes that China and the rapidly developing nations of
Asia are growing into stronger economic competitors. His economic and trade policies are designed to
improve America's global competitiveness. Unlike the Democratic contenders, McCain supports increasing
global integration. He has urged Americans to reject the "siren song of protectionism" and embrace a future
of free trade.
ADI 138
Free Trade

Agriculture As A Percentage Of GDP


Agriculture is 45-60% of GDP in some African countries
Dale ’03 [Helle Dale, deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
“Trading Insults: The WTO's Cancun Free For All”, Capitalism Magazine, September 21, 2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3113>]
In African countries like Congo, Burundi or Tanzania between 45-60 percent of the GDP derives from
agriculture. These countries cannot compete in high tech or services. Meanwhile, in the United States,
agriculture accounts for 1.4 percent of GDP. In most European countries, it is less than 3 percent.

Agriculture only accounts for 1.4% of the U.S. GDP


Dale ’03 [Helle Dale, deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
“Trading Insults: The WTO's Cancun Free For All”, Capitalism Magazine, September 21, 2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3113>]
In African countries like Congo, Burundi or Tanzania between 45-60 percent of the GDP derives from
agriculture. These countries cannot compete in high tech or services. Meanwhile, in the United States,
agriculture accounts for 1.4 percent of GDP. In most European countries, it is less than 3 percent.

Agriculture is only 3% of European GDP and yet the EU accounts for 85% of the world’s
agricultural subsidies
Dale ’03 [Helle Dale, deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
“Trading Insults: The WTO's Cancun Free For All”, Capitalism Magazine, September 21, 2003,
<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3113>]

In African countries like Congo, Burundi or Tanzania between 45-60 percent of the GDP derives from
agriculture. These countries cannot compete in high tech or services. Meanwhile, in the United States,
agriculture accounts for 1.4 percent of GDP. In most European countries, it is less than 3 percent.

And yet, for political, emotional and other reasons, our farmers are protected against competition by huge
and expensive subsidies and tariffs. While American farmers also benefit from subsidies and export
guarantees, the European Union is the worst offender. The European Common Agricultural policy accounts
for 85 percent of the world's agricultural subsidies.
ADI 139
Free Trade

All Boxes Are The Same


AMBER AND BLUE BOXES ARE NOW INCLUDED AS GREEN BOXES SO THE EU
AND U.S. CAN CONTROL THE MARKETS
Salvosa in 2008 (Felipe F. [Sub-editor @ Business World], Two sides of the liberalization debate, Business
World, July 23, lexis)

Within the highly technical nature of global trade talks is an interesting color scheme when it comes to
domestic farm subsidies. At the Doha Round, rich nations have agreed to reduce the most "trade-
distorting" payments to agribusiness, including marketing loans and direct subsidies, which fall inside
the so-called "Amber" and "Blue" boxes and the minimal or "de minimis" category.
The United States and the European Union will continue to have some leeway for these types of farm support
and Doha Round negotiators agreed four years ago to leave the "Green" box category - for programs like
environmental protection and regional development that cause "not more than minimal trade-distortion" -
untouched.
While they may still directly subsidize farmers under the Green box, the EU and the US have pledged to do
away with payments that encourage production or support price levels which have led to dumping of produce
overseas.
Developing nations, however, suspect that Amber (all support measures) and Blue (exclusively for
agriculture) box subsidies will only be reclassified and stuffed inside the Green box in what amounts to
an escape clause. It did not help that in May, as WTO negotiators tried to gather momentum for the
talks, US lawmakers passed a new five-year, $289-billion Farm Bill - mostly for food stamps and
nutrition programs but which still includes farm payments.
ADI 140
Free Trade

SSM Good/SAS Bad


SSMs protect developing countries against SASs which flood the markets with cheap
imports to dominate smaller economies
Salvosa in 2008 (Felipe F. [Sub-editor @ Business World], Two sides of the liberalization debate, Business
World, July 23, lexis)
Developing countries like the Philippines want the new Special Safeguard Mechanism or SSM to
provide better protection than the existing Special Agricultural Safeguards which allow some countries
to impose higher duties in case of a flood of cheap imports or if prices fall to the detriment of
subsistence farmers.
"Those trade-distorting subsidies of the developed members will still
continue to pollute the international markets including ours in the
billions of dollars as they will not be eliminated in this round. We need
a more developing country-friendly SSM," Agriculture Undersecretary
Segfredo R. Serrano said.
ADI 141
Free Trade

Laissez-Faire Good
Only by using a laissez-faire economic policy can we maximize our economy and preserve
freedom
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

So what can we do in terms of policy to address these issues?


You do the hardest thing of all. Nothing. And the more nothing the better.
That's because of all America's absolute and comparative advantages, the most important one we've got is
freedom. And freedom consists mostly of having a government policy to do nothing. Let free individual
economic actors figure it out for themselves by trial and error. Yes, it's painful. And it's hard to stand by and
do nothing when a displaced steel worker goes on Lou Dobbs' show and complains about it (although I've
found the answer for that -- just turn the TV off).
But it's only under a policy of do-nothing economic freedom that we can maximize our chances to find the
thing we're good at doing instead of making cheese, steel, or even wine.
ADI 142
Free Trade

Laissez-Faire Good
Laissez-faire economics are superior to regulated trade because they improve the economy
and solve foreign competition – empirically proven
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Just remember, there was a time in the 1970s when the US was afraid of competition from Europe. That's
right, Europe. Can you imagine that now?
Then in the 1980s we were afraid of Japan. Can you imagine that now?
Then in the 1990s we were afraid of the giant sucking sound of NAFTA. Can you imagine that now?
What happened in all these cases was that America's politicians did pretty much nothing. We deregulated our
economy, and let individual economic actors figure it out for themselves. Europe and Japan laid regulation on
top of regulation on top of industrial policy on top of managed trade. We won, they lost.
We could have all won, by the way. I think that's generally how it's turned out with our NAFTA partners, so
far. This isn't a zero-sum game, as the cheese-and-wine example shows.
So now we're back in the same place, déjà vu all over again. But this time it's China and India we're worried
about. If it's not one thing it's another. But the answer is the same -- to do nothing.
ADI 143
Free Trade

Comparative Advantage Good


Comparative advantage results in a net increase for everyone when used instead of absolute
advantage
Luskin ’04 [Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, an economics research and consulting
service providing exclusive market-focused, real-time analysis to the institutional investment community and author,
“Outsourcing: Threat or Menace?”, Capitalism Magazine, May 9, 2004, <
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=13>]

Let's say you have an economy consisting of two self-sufficient people, and in this economy it takes a
minimum of 1 pound of cheese every day in order to survive. So you spend as much time as you have to
making a pound of cheese. After that, you devote your leftover time to making wine, which is a luxury.
The first guy is very productive. It takes him only a quarter of his day to make his pound of cheese, and then
in the remaining three quarters he can make 12 bottles of wine.
The second guy's not so good. In fact, he's totally unskilled. It takes him half a day to make his pound of
cheese, and in the leftover half day he can only make 2 bottles of wine.
Right off you wouldn't think the first guy has any reason to trade with the second guy -- he's got him beat in
every way. But that's not the right way to look at it.
Suppose the second guy stops making wine altogether, and devotes his whole day to making cheese. He'll
able to make 2 pounds -- one to eat, and one leftover to trade. If he trades his extra pound of cheese to the
first guy, that would free up a quarter of the first guy's working day. That means the first guy would be free to
make another four bottles of wine.
He gives three of those four bottles to the second guy in exchange for the cheese. So now the second guy,
who started off with a pound of cheese and 2 bottles of wine every day, now ends up with a pound of cheese
and 3 bottles of wine.
The first guy, who originally had a pound of cheese and 12 bottles of wine, ends up with a bottle of cheese
and 13 bottles of wine. The world has become richer, on net, by two bottles of wine.
Notice that this result occurred even though the first guy enjoyed an absolute advantage over the second guy in both
wine and cheese. But absolute advantage isn't as important as comparative advantage. By going entirely out of the
cheese business, the first guy was able to exploit his comparative advantage in wine.
ADI 144
Free Trade

Corporate Domination Good


A. Corporate domination will force GM agriculture throughout the world.
Coudry, 2003 (Aziz, Organizer of GATT Watchdog “Shodown in Sacramento? Bush's Biotech Bullies Vs. The
World”, ZNET, 3/29/03, http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-05/29choudry.cfm)

It may not be a WTO meeting but for the US government and agribusiness, Sacramento has everything to do with
their global trade and investment agenda. Informal pressure can be just as effective in securing results as binding
trade agreements. The US administration uses every opportunity to coerce the rest of the world into
compliance with its economic and geopolitical interests, through its aid budget, its embassies, and through
meetings like this. Sacramento brings together many of the same players – officials and corporations -
behind the controversial addition of agriculture and intellectual property rights on the world trade agenda
during the GATT Uruguay Round which set up the WTO. These agreements protect the corporate players
that now dominate vast areas of the world’s food supply while undermining the rights and lives of small
farmers, peasant and indigenous communities.
The conference opening plenary says it all: “How science and technology, in a supportive policy environment,
can drive agricultural productivity increases and economic growth to alleviate world hunger and poverty”.
Other sessions include: Food security and the promise of new technologies Attracting foreign and domestic
investment in the agricultural economy Fighting Hunger and increasing incomes with biotechnology, and
“Combating Malnutrition, disease, and HIV/AIDS: Food-based intervention”. As Hope Shand of the ETC
Group recently wrote in the NY Times (27 May): “There is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods
are cheaper, safer, better-tasting or more nutritious. Lacking consumer benefits for its genetically modified crops,
the biotech industry is desperately seeking moral legitimacy”. Expo exhibitors include biotech giants Monsanto and
DuPont (Qualicon), CropLife America (whose members read like a who’s who of US agribusiness/biotechnology corporations), and DC-
based International Food Information Council (funded by US food, beverage and agricultural industry and an advocate of biotech). Food
irradiation corporations like Ottawa-headquartered MDS Nordion, and San Diego-based Surebeam (sponsor for the Expo grand opening) will also
be there. Food irradiation, a technology which brings together the food processing, agribusiness, medical science and nuclear industries is highly
controversial. US agribusiness researcher and campaigner Al Krebs writes: “Critics of irradiation believe it is really not only just a quick (and
temporary) fix for poor slaughterhouse sanitation, but also a way of disposing of nuclear wastes by selling them to private industry and leaving
the taxpayers to fund the inevitable clean-up costs.” Agriculture remains a hugely contentious trade issue, with the EU and US in apparent
stalemate in WTO negotiations. Many countries in the South are resisting pressure to make yet more concessions on a range of issues, including
agriculture, saying that the system is based on double standards which favour the powerful, and that the promised benefits of free trade have not
materialized. The USDA, USAID and the State Department are advancing US geopolitical and corporate
interests internationally, and a market model of development which has caused ecological and human devastation,
both in the South and in the USA. These agencies work to promote biotechnology as a “solution” to hunger.
USAID has been promoting agricultural biotechnology for over a decade. The title of its recent policy document, “Foreign
Policy in the National Interest:i Promoting Freedom, Security and Opportunity” speaks volumes about the agency’s
agenda. Hegemony, not humanitarian assistance. Principled opposition to biotechnology on health, environmental, ethical and
other grounds, such as African countries decisions to refuse GE food aid are viewed as a new “axis of evil” to be overcome.
The international peasant and small farmer movement, Via Campesina, accuses the US of “trying to usurp the process of the
World Food Summit held in June 2002 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) by claiming that
Sacramento is a “follow up to the Rome Summit.” Via Campesina has denounced the Sacramento meetings urging
governments not to attend. Via Campesina believes that another "Blair House Agreement" between the US and the European
Commission – may be under negotiation. This agreement broke the standoff between the US and EU during the Uruguay
Round, and maintained support for corporate, export-oriented agriculture at the expense of small farmers, peasants, and food
producers worldwide. Industrial farming and the reorientation of agriculture to a corporate model is a human and ecological
disaster. Under free trade, the dumping of subsidised (and often genetically modified) imports on the Third World is destroying
the livelihoods of millions of farmers, many of them women, who simply cannot compete. The free market model which the US
so ardently supports is behind much of the social and economic injustice which underpins food insecurity – not inadequate
access to biotechnology.
The US backs international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank which force countries to deregulate
and open up their economies, and reorient their agricultural production away from meeting domestic needs to
growing cash crops for export. Via Campesina is campaigning to get the WTO out of agriculture altogether. The
fact that an official meeting and a business expo are taking place side by side in Sacramento neatly illustrates
the cosy relationship between the US administration and big business. Secretary of Agriculture Anne
Veneman is a former director of Calgene (now a Monsanto subsidiary) the first company to bring genetically-
engineered food, the Flavr Savr tomato, to consumers. When Veneman recently proclaimed that the WTO case against the EU
represents “fighting for the interests of American agriculture” she clearly means US agribusiness. It is merely a different
way of saying what Robert Fraley (co-president of Monsanto’s agricultural sector) told the Farm Journal in 1996 –
“What you are seeing is not just an consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain."
While the Expo will promote US corporate agriculture products and technology, the Ministerial allows the
ADI 145
Free Trade

Bush administration and US biotechnology/agribusiness corporations to lobby and bully officials and
ministers of other governments to fall into line with their pro-biotech, industrial farming, agricultural trade
and investment liberalisation agenda before Cancun.
ADI 146
Free Trade

Corporate Domination Good


B. Genetically modified agriculture is key to prevent global famine which would kill billions.
Reason, 2000 (Ronald Bailey, Interview with Norman Borlaug: Noble Peace Price Winner and Professor at Texas A
& M University, “Billions Served”, April http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html)

In the late 1960s, most experts were speaking of imminent global famines in which billions would perish. "The
battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb. "In the 1970s and
1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have
yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted
that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." But Borlaug and his team were
already engaged in the kind of crash program that Ehrlich declared wouldn't work. Their dwarf wheat
varieties resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the
traditional varieties. In 1965, they had begun a massive campaign to ship the miracle wheat to Pakistan and
India and teach local farmers how to cultivate it properly. By 1968, when Ehrlich's book appeared, the U.S. Agency
for International Development had already hailed Borlaug's achievement as a "Green Revolution." In Pakistan, wheat yields rose from
4.6 million tons in 1965 to 8.4 million in 1970. In India, they rose from 12.3 million tons to 20 million. And the yields continue to increase. Last
year, India harvested a record 73.5 million tons of wheat, up 11.5 percent from 1998. Since Ehrlich's dire predictions in 1968, India's population
has more than doubled, its wheat production has more than tripled, and its economy has grown nine-fold. Soon after Borlaug's success with
wheat, his colleagues at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research developed high-yield rice varieties that quickly spread the
Green Revolution through most of Asia. Contrary to Ehrlich's bold pronouncements, hundreds of millions didn't die in massive famines. India
fed far more than 200 million more people, and it was close enough to self-sufficiency in food production by
1971 that Ehrlich discreetly omitted his prediction about that from later editions of The Population Bomb.
The last four decades have seen a "progress explosion" that has handily outmatched any "population
explosion." Borlaug, who unfortunately is far less well-known than doom-sayer Ehrlich, is responsible for much of
the progress humanity has made against hunger. Despite occasional local famines caused by armed conflicts or
political mischief, food is more abundant and cheaper today than ever before in history, due in large part to
the work of Borlaug and his colleagues. More than 30 years ago, Borlaug wrote, "One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that
the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy." As REASON's interview with him shows, he still
believes that environmental activists and their allies in international agencies are a threat to progress on global food security. Barring such
interference, he is confident that agricultural research, including biotechnology, will be able to boost crop
production to meet the demand for food in a world of 8 billion or so, the projected population in 2025.
Meanwhile, media darlings like Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown keep up their drumbeat of doom. In 1981 Brown declared, "The
period of global food security is over." In 1994, he wrote, "The world's farmers can no longer be counted on to feed the projected additions to our
numbers." And as recently as 1997 he warned, "Food scarcity will be the defining issue of the new era now unfolding,
much as ideological conflict was the defining issue of the historical era that recently ended."
Borlaug, by contrast, does not just wring his hands. He still works to get modern agricultural technology into the
hands of hungry farmers in the developing world. Today, he is a consultant to the International Maize and Wheat Center in
Mexico and president of the Sasakawa Africa Association, a private Japanese foundation working to spread the Green Revolution to sub-Saharan
Africa. REASON Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey met with Borlaug at Texas A&M, where he is Distinguished Professor in the Soil and
Crop Sciences Department and still teaches classes on occasion. Despite his achievements, Borlaug is a modest man who works out of
a small windowless office in the university's agricultural complex. A few weeks before the interview, Texas A&M
honored Borlaug by naming its new agricultural biotechnology center after him. "We have to have this new
technology if we are to meet the growing food needs for the next 25 years," Borlaug declared at the dedication
ceremony. If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotech, he fears, they may finally bring on the
famines they have been predicting for so long.
ADI 147
Free Trade

High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization


High oil prices reverse globalization
Steinbock ’08 [Dan Steinbock, the Research Director of International Business at the India, China, and America
Institute, “Oil prices threaten globalization,” China Daily, 07/09/08,< http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-
07/09/content_6830184.htm>]
But there is a caveat. Each wave of globalization has been driven by falling transport costs and reductions in
tariff barriers. Conversely, when transport costs have been rising, or tariff barriers have been increasing, or
both, progress in globalization has been overturned.
Given the soaring prices, oil has the potential for such a reversal.
Since the postwar era, multilateral trade negotiations - particularly reduction in tariffs and non-tariff barriers -
have supported dramatic surges in global trade. But, along with the new protectionist winds in the advanced
economies, the greatest immediate challenge to global trade and investment may be the triple-digit oil prices.
When oil prices were still around $20 per barrel in the year 2000, transport costs amounted to an average
tariff rate of 3 percent. At $150 per barrel, the rate is 11 percent, which was the average level of the 1970s. If
the price hits $200, it would reflect the kind of average tariff rates that prevailed in the mid-1960s.
ADI 148
Free Trade

High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization


High oil prices destroy globalization and encourage regionalization
Steinbock ’08 [Dan Steinbock, the Research Director of International Business at the India, China, and America
Institute, “Oil prices threaten globalization,” China Daily, 07/09/08,< http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-
07/09/content_6830184.htm>]
The impact of high oil prices has been felt across oil-intensive industries in the US Airlines are moving
toward shakeouts; the $4-a-gallon gas has forced the first fall in gas consumption since the Gulf War of 1990-
91; and last June, the sales of new cars and trucks plunged to their lowest level in more than 10-15 years.
A sustained trend would reinforce the kind of trade diversion that was seen in the 1970s, which made trade
more regional. American importers would substitute Latin America for East Asia, Japan would import more
from China; China's Guangdong trade engine would be challenged; Mexico's maquiladora plants could thrive
again, and so on.
During the past 30 years, global economic integration has supported extraordinary global growth. The take-
off of large emerging economies, particularly China, has had a great positive impact on the world economy.
If the cost of moving things and people continues to soar, globalization will erode and regionalization will
gain.
ADI 149
Free Trade

Technology Bad
Loss of manufacturing jobs is mainly a result of technology and the jobs are declining
globally at an average percent equal to that of the U.S.
Williams ’08 [Dr. Walter Williams, a PhD in economics from UCLA, renowned author, winner of numerous
awards in a variety of subjects including economics, and advisor to the Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation,
Institute of Economic Affairs, and Heritage Foundation, “Anti-Free Trade Paradise”, Capitalism Magazine,
04/16/2008 <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4914>]
There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen,
and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner,
professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs,
May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent.
Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5
million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the
top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan,
Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).

Technologic advancements decrease the number of manufacturing jobs while increasing


production output
Williams ’08 [Dr. Walter Williams, a PhD in economics from UCLA, renowned author, winner of numerous
awards in a variety of subjects including economics, and advisor to the Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation,
Institute of Economic Affairs, and Heritage Foundation, “Anti-Free Trade Paradise”, Capitalism Magazine,
04/16/2008 <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4914>]
But guess what -- globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to
research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent
between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in
manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and
technology?

Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction,"
where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships
on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off.
ADI 150
Free Trade

Labor Adaptability Key


Technological advancements make job loss inevitable. Labor adaptability key to prosperity
Ghate ’04 [Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute with a PhD in philosophy, "To Outsource or
to Stagnate?”, Capitalism Magazine, July 26, 2004, < http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3812>]
This is the nature of a free society: economically, it does not stand still, it advances. It demands the same of
its citizens.

When Henry Ford introduced mass production of the automobile in the early 1900s, he changed
transportation. This inevitably caused disruptions. The days of the horse and buggy were numbered. But
those in the dying industry who chose to face the reality of Ford's advance, whether a business owner who
learned to produce gasoline instead of buggies or a worker who learned to repair automobile engines,
prospered.

Later, when men like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Michael Dell ushered in the personal computer revolution,
almost no industry was unaffected. The businesses and employees that embraced the new invention, a retailer
that computerized its inventory or a worker who learned to program a computer, prospered.

Labor adaptability key to prosperity. Makes free trade and outsourcing beneficial to the
individual
Ghate ’04 [Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute with a PhD in philosophy, "To Outsource or
to Stagnate?”, Capitalism Magazine, July 26, 2004, < http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3812>]
Today, as businesses hire white-collar workers abroad, similar opportunities will abound for those ready to
change and grow. As in earlier eras, the capital accumulation made possible by the increased efficiency and
specialization at American companies will fuel demand for employees with new skills, such as managers able
to integrate a company's activities across countries and cultures.
It should not be surprising, for instance, that from 1991 to 2001, 2,500 U.S. multinational corporations added
2.8 million foreign jobs and 5.5 million new U.S. jobs (the latter above the average U.S. employee growth
rate for the period), or that 25 percent of Americans now work at jobs not even listed in the 1967 Census
Bureau codes.
Those who prosper in a free society are individuals who choose, no matter how severe the change, to adapt,
to expand their skills, to increase their knowledge, to grow. For this type of individual, trade and
specialization--across one's city, state, country or globe--are acknowledged as beneficial; the progress of a
global economy, including "outsourcing," is not feared but welcomed.