You are on page 1of 267

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

1
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Politics – India Deal
Politics – India Deal.........................................................................................................................1
Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (1/2)...................................................................................................5
***Political Process UQ***............................................................................................................7
UQ – Capital Down (1/2).................................................................................................................8
UQ – A2: Bush Cuts Now..............................................................................................................10
UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (1/2)......................................................................................................11
UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (1/3)...............................................................................................14
UQ – Bipartisanship high (1/3)......................................................................................................17
UQ – Partisanship High (1/2)........................................................................................................20
UQ – Partisanship High - A2: Energy Proposal.............................................................................22
***India Deal UQ***....................................................................................................................23
UQ – Will Pass – Congress (1/2)...................................................................................................24
UQ—AT: Overwhelms the Link....................................................................................................26
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (1/2)................................................................................................27
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—India.........................................................................................................29
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (1/2).................................................................................................30
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—France/Russia/Japan................................................................................32
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Australia...................................................................................................33
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (1/2)...............................................................................................34
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (1/2)...........................................................................................36
UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—IAEA........................................................................................................38
UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (1/3)................................................................39
UQ – A2: Congress Not Key.........................................................................................................42
UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (1/2)................................................................................................43
UQ – Won’t Pass—Democrats.......................................................................................................45
UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (1/3).......................................................................................................46
***Links – General***..................................................................................................................49
Link—Delay..................................................................................................................................50
Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (1/2)..................................................................................51
Link – AT – Our Plan Is Popular....................................................................................................53
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress Subsidized.............................................................................54
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (1/4).......................................................................................56
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (1/5)......................................................................................60
Link – Cuts Unpopular – American Farm Bureau.........................................................................65
Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Democrats......................................................................................70
Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Food Manufacturers (Grocers).......................................................71
Link – Cuts Popular – Bipartisan Support.....................................................................................72
Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (1/2).................................................................73
Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (2/2).................................................................74
Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (1/2)..............................................................................................75
Link – Cuts Popular – Grocery Coalition/Heritage.......................................................................77
Link – Cuts Popular – Business Lobbies.......................................................................................78
Link – Cuts Popular – Dems..........................................................................................................79
Link – Cuts Popular – Anti-Spending............................................................................................80
Link—Trade Barriers Popular – Lobby.........................................................................................81

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
2
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
***Links – Ethanol***..................................................................................................................82
Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (1/2).................................................................................................83
Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (1/2)...................................................................................85
Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Congress.......................................................................................87
Link – Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2)..............................................................................88
Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Congress..................................................................................90
Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (1/3)..............................................................................91
***Links – Sugar***.....................................................................................................................94
Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/8).................................................................................95
Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Congress...................................................................................104
Link—Sugar Cuts Popular – General..........................................................................................105
Link – Sugar Cuts Popular – A2: Lobby......................................................................................106
Link—Sugar Cuts Popular—Democrats......................................................................................107
***Links – Soy***......................................................................................................................109
Link—Soy Cuts Popular..............................................................................................................110
Link – Soy Cuts Unpopular..........................................................................................................111
Link—Soy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby...........................................................................................112
***Links – Corn***.....................................................................................................................113
Link – Corn/Soy/Cotton/Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Harkin...........................................................114
Link—Corn and Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby .......................................................................115
***Links – Dairy***...................................................................................................................116
Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2)...............................................................................117
Link—Dairy Cuts Popular—Congress........................................................................................119
***Links – Cotton***..................................................................................................................120
Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/4).............................................................................121
Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Republicans.............................................................................127
Link—Cotton and Rice Cuts Unpopular......................................................................................128
Link—Cotton Cuts Popular—Oxfam..........................................................................................129
***Links – Fish***......................................................................................................................130
Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (1/2).................................................131
Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Oceana Lobby Link Turn.........................................................134
Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Lobby...................................................................................135
Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Food Industry Lobby...........................................................137
***Links – Wheat***..................................................................................................................138
Link—Wheat Cuts Unpopular—Lobby.......................................................................................139
***Links – CAFO***..................................................................................................................140
Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2)............................................................................141
Link—CAFOs Cuts Popular........................................................................................................143
***Links – Rice***.....................................................................................................................144
Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2).................................................................................145
Link—Rice Cuts Popular.............................................................................................................147
***Links – Misc***....................................................................................................................148
Link – Multilateral CP Popular....................................................................................................149
Link – Bush Supports the Plan.....................................................................................................150
***Internal Links – Political Process***....................................................................................151
Internal Link – Winners Win (1/2)...............................................................................................152
Internal Link – Winners Lose (1/3)..............................................................................................154

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
3
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Internal Link – Plan costs political capital...................................................................................157
Internal Link – Capital is finite....................................................................................................158
Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (1/2)...................................................................................159
Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (1/6)............................................................................161
Internal Link – Olive Branch.......................................................................................................167
***Internal Links – Lobbies***..................................................................................................168
Internal Link—Sugar Lobby = Agenda.......................................................................................169
Internal Link—Farm Lobby = Agenda........................................................................................170
***Internal Links – Nuke Deal***..............................................................................................171
Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (1/2)....................................................................172
Internal Link—Bush Pushing Nuke Deal....................................................................................174
Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal.............................................................................175
Internal Link—Democrats Key Nuke Deal.................................................................................176
Internal Link—Republicans Key Nuke Deal...............................................................................177
Internal Link—Bipartisanship Key Nuke Deal............................................................................178
***India Deal Top-Level Aff Stuff***........................................................................................179
AFF UQ: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link...............................................................................180
AFF UQ: Won’t Pass—Many Reasons........................................................................................181
AFF UQ: Obama Passes India Deal.............................................................................................182
***India Deal – I-P NW Impacts***...........................................................................................183
Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (1/2)......................................................................................................184
Impacts – Indo-Pak NW – A2: Limited.......................................................................................186
***India Nuke Deal Good***.....................................................................................................187
Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (1/3)...............................................................................188
Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations – Impact: Indo-Pak War................................................193
Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy/Warming............................................................................194
Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy – India Key to World.........................................................195
Nuke Deal Good – Warming (1/2)...............................................................................................196
Nuke Deal Good – Russia-China Axis.........................................................................................198
Nuke Deal Good – Oil Prices.......................................................................................................199
Nuke Deal Good – US Nuclear Industry.....................................................................................200
Nuke Deal Good – US Econ........................................................................................................201
Nuke Deal Good – AT: Pollution.................................................................................................202
Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (1/2).......................................................................................203
Nuke Deal Good – A2: US-Pakistani Relations – A2: Terror......................................................205
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Prolif Signal...........................................................................................206
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Proliferation – Safeguards .....................................................................207
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indian Prolif...........................................................................................209
Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation = Slow......................................................................................210
Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Deters War...............................................................................211
Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Prevents Escalation..................................................................212
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2)..................................................................213
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2)..................................................................214
Nuke Deal Good – Warming........................................................................................................215
Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Impact.........................................................................................216
Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (1/2)...........................................................................217
Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Modeling....................................................................................220

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
4
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (1/3)..........................................................................................221
Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (1/2)....................................................................224
Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Key to World.........................................................................226
Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Deal Solves................................................................................227
Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Down.........................................................................................228
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Turn.....................................................................229
Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (1/2)..........................................................230
***India Nuke Deal Bad***........................................................................................................232
Nuke Deal Bad – Proliferation (1/2)............................................................................................233
Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: IAEA Inspections Solve Prolif....................................................235
Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: Safeguards...................................................................................236
Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation = Extinction................................................................................237
Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation Causes War.................................................................................238
Nuke Deal Bad—Nuclear Accidents Bad....................................................................................239
Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Pakistan War...........................................................................................240
Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Sino War.................................................................................................241
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2)...........................................................................242
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Link Ext. ................................................................244
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Brink.......................................................................246
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solvency...........................................................................247
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (1/2)................................................................248
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solve: Transportation.......................................................250
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (1/2)......................................251
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (2/2)......................................252
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism..................................................................................................253
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism – Pakistan Relations.................................................................254
Nuke Deal Bad – Iranian Proliferation........................................................................................255
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (1/2)...........................................................................256
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (2/2)...........................................................................257
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – Resilient.................................................................258
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (1/2)................................................259
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (2/2)................................................260
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Oil Prices..................................................................................................261
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Nuke Industry...........................................................................................262
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ...............................................................................................263
Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ – Growth Bad.......................................................................264
Nuke Deal Bad – Democracy......................................................................................................266
Nuke Deal Bad – Regional Instability.........................................................................................267
.....................................................................................................................................................267

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
5
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (1/2)
Bush is using all of his remaining capital to pass the Indian nuclear deal – It will succeed
after a fight

India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa, India Today, “The Long Last Mile,” 2008, l/n)
India's other concern is that the NSG may not give it "a clean exemption" and
instead foist killer caveats. Given the domestic political opposition, India has
requested the US to ensure that there were no hiccups or embarrassments at the
NSG. It would need all of Bush's dwindling clout to get NSG clearance by September,
just in time to have it listed for ratification by the US Congress before it adjourns.
The deal is unlikely to get the US Congress' seal of approval without some debate.
Many Congressmen are already seething that Bush used his presidential powers to
waive some uncomfortable clauses that the Hyde Act could foist on India.

Farm subsidy reform requires political capital

Benbrook 3 (Charles, Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Networking Conference, April 24,
ww.biotech-info.net/kellogg.pdf)
About a third of the 17 changes discussed above are already on the table and/or progress is
being made toward implementing them. About another third are conceivable, but will
require some sort of national awakening or cataclysmic event to create political pressure
and overcome entrenched political interests. And the last third will simply happen largely as a function
of the other two-thirds. Implementing this sort of plan will not require a significant increase in federal expenditures nor
will the price of food rise. New taxes, fees and penalties, reduced demand for imported foods, and other longer-term cost
reductions will over time improve economic performance and help reduce federal budget deficits. Billions in medical
expenditures, lost wages, and environmental harm will be saved. Public funding for federal agencies and programs is not
the issue or what is holding back these sorts of changes. The problem is a lack of consensus and
clarity on what is wrong with the American food system and what steps are needed to
make things “right”. Overcoming this problem is getting harder, not easier, because of
increasingly successful efforts by entrenched interests to – Set the terms of debate and
“spin” the messages reaching the public. Control the facts accessible to inform the
debate. Muddle science, create gridlock in regulatory agencies and processes, and
confuse the public regarding food safety, diet-health linkages, and farming’s impacts on the
environment. Sidestep the will of the majority in Congress. Progress will depend on
coordinated and systematic changes in federal fiscal, tax, environmental, research,
regulatory and commodity policies. Reforms must establish new “rules of the road” for
private enterprise. State and local government initiatives, and much stronger regulatory
presence and capabilities, will also be needed to – Stimulate innovation and create new
market channels and better performing markets, and Enforce compliance with worker and
food safety rules, water quality laws, and resource conservation requirements. Collectively,
policy reforms must change the factors governing the flow of agricultural and food
system income streams. Income streams set the values of assets and wage structures.
Income streams determine where capital flows, the terms and cost of capital, and drive the
ability to carry out research and development. In general, the bigger the income stream,
the more political capital and clout in play and at stake.

and even allegations of bribery on the parliament floor. They had threatened to pull their support from Singh's government if he pressed forward with it. but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -. “Wider Military Ties With India Offer U.a situation likely to persist for months -. If Congress stalls. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions. has eased.S. when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan. some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth. But Singh called their bluff. From the start of President Bush's term. it will alienate a key ally and hand away billions of dollars in potential U. Congress needs to approve the nuclear deal. the priority has been terrorism. though I don't want to overstate it. . 6-10-02. India would open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection. Now it's time for the U. China. Congress to ensure that Singh's risk wasn't for naught. with a burst of navy.S. The United States is hoping its deeper military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. 11. hate this deal.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 6 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (2/2) Reversal of the deal would crush relations and US safeguards Chicago Tribune 7-28 Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a political risk recently when he affirmed his support for the nuclear cooperation pact he negotiated in 2005 with President Bush .and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. In exchange. The Communists. whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic threat. seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. key allies to Singh's ruling Congress Party." a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war. After harsh debate. "I don't want to predict this guarantees success. Singh's government prevailed with a 275- 256 vote Tuesday. 11. and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust. With that. But since Sept. the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. which will go to other exporters of nuclear technology. Strong US-India relations are critical to prevent a nuclear war Dugger. air force and army joint exercises. for decades a champion of nonalignment.S. A1) Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. New York Times 2 (Celia Dugger." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. The deal would reopen civilian nuclear trade between India and the U.S. He opted to face a no-confidence vote in parliament rather than bow to the Communists' demand to scuttle the nuclear pact. Diplomatic Leverage. 11. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism.” p. such as France and Russia. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. India.-Indian trade.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 7 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Political Process UQ*** .

which are fueling the White House percent approval just before stepping down. Bush is the nation's fifth lame duck since the 22nd Amendment limited presidents to two terms. http://www. what is its responsibility to Chinese human rights activists like Hu Jia.html) Shortly after his re-election victory in 2004. PR machine. drove the Republicans from control of both branches of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections. he doesn't really have a lot of political capital. He's going out with a whimper. Bill Clinton's was 59 percent in a July 2000 Gallup poll. The White House.atimes.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/12/olympicgames2008. and the unpopularity over the Iraq war. beginning with Harry Truman's successor in 1952. . now probably wishes that he did not have supporters at a 2005 rally that included elderly Social Security pensioners chanting the phrase "Hey hey! Ho ho! Social Security's got to go!" Bush lost political capital by attending the Olympics Guardian 8 (7-12. the experts and the polls say. by saying he would be attending as a sports fan. presidential scholar at Vanderbilt University and the author of The Effective President. flow from his recent tendency to compromise more on national security issues.html) The White House wants the American public to think it's on the rebound. Ronald Reagan's number when he left office was 64 percent. http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 8 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Capital Down (1/2) Bush lost all political capital early on Asia Times 8 (7-16. Adam Warber. and his approval ratings have remained at or near a dismal 30 percent for about a year. That. Just before he did so.guardian. ''All this is pretty much a lot of noise. If Washington's pressure can effect the release of a US citizen. http://www.humanrights) George Bush has undoubtedly wasted his political capital. "The Real China and the Olympics"? More ev… Lightman 8 (7-20. a court in Shanghai granted parole to a Chinese-born US citizen. however. David. scoring important triumphs in Iraq and North Korea and on domestic spying while taking tough stands on oil drilling and relief for homeowners. old-age Social Security. who resigned because of Watergate-related scandals 19 months into his second term. Dwight D. ''It's very difficult for him now. for he immediately staked his political capital on a laissez-faire free-market restructuring plan for the gem in the Roosevelt crown. Congress is run by Democrats reluctant to give Bush any domestic victories.miamiherald. Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG16Dj05.'' Warber said. professor of political science at Clemson University. who got three and a half years in prison in April for publishing an open letter. is wrong. His supporters said he had refused to pay a bribe sought by tax officials.com/news/nation/story/610912. The others left office with strong approval ratings. who had served half of a 16-year sentence on tax evasion and fraud charges. Jude Shao.'' said Erwin Hargrove. President Bush hasn't begun a comeback. Eisenhower hit 59 Bush's achievements. David Lightman was the Hartford Courant's Washington Bureau Chief for 23 years before joining the McClatchy Washington Bureau. One was Richard Nixon. defeated in 2006. George W Bush apparently thought so.co. had similar thoughts. His public approval is so poor.

http://www. ``underlines and underscores that the main organization he's trying to help are the oil companies. David Lightman was the Hartford Courant's Washington Bureau Chief for 23 years before joining the McClatchy Washington Bureau. Reid said. and in the House of Representatives. that's unlikely. And there's plenty of time to get action with the United States Congress. he still has no political capital Lightman 8 (7-20. and with Democratic leaders opposed. Nothing's going to happen. .'' But outside the White House. He rattled off his list and looked ahead. We can get trade bills done. 'People say. `Aw. the president's done nothing. This week. David.' '' he said. ``We can get good housing legislation done. Republicans. few were as optimistic. ''Really. who fear a rout in November's elections.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 9 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Capital Down (2/2) Don’t be fooled by bush’s recent accomplishments. ''What can we get done?'' he asked.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/610912. Congress overrode his veto of Medicare legislation.'' His call for more drilling.'' Congress needs to approve any end to the drilling ban. saying. put some polite distance between themselves and the White House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Bush's energy policies. you're running out of time. man.html) Bush was upbeat recently as he recalled his recent string of accomplishments. There are more ominous signs for Bush that his power remains diluted. We can get good energy legislation done.

independent. and soybeans. the proposal would lower federal spending on agriculture by a paltry $587 million in 2006. will face greater cutbacks than growers of crops such as corn. Unfortunately. wheat. Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Economics at Suffolk University. which generally receive smaller subsidies. Also. March 28.org/newsroom/article. PhD in Economics From George Mason University.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 10 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – A2: Bush Cuts Now Bush’s cuts are too modest to cause political fight Powell 5 (Benjamin. http://www.000 to $250. If adopted.000. Not surprisingly. growers of crops that receive large subsidies. . Big corporate farms are most affected by the reform.and rice-growing regions against others. like rice and cotton. absent from that fight is any consideration of whether farmers should get subsidies at all. the debate in Congress pits representatives in cotton.asp?id=1477) President Bush’s modest proposal to reduce farm subsidies will not cause a partisan fight between Democrats and Republicans. Bush has proposed decreasing the subsidy an individual farmer can receive from $360. but make no mistake about it: the fight that does occur will be interest-group politics-as-usual.

meaning they could stymie any fresh legislation Bush puts forward. Bush's main legacy is the disastrous war in Iraq. Even if he had an agenda now. The result has been a surreal situation for much of the past year. Simply put: everyone waits for the new man (or woman) to take power." and impose a blanket veto on the whole regulatory enterprise. After all. http://online. Yet ratings for the episode slumped. for example. they see it's now or never to redeem the equity they have accumulated with the lobby boys. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has announced that there will be no new regulations at all come Nov. But for Bush the problem has become particularly acute. As the political scene shifts to their inevitable successor. This time. Bush is a lame duck Harris 8 (5-11. the Bush administration seems to have moved up the date for its own extinction.wsj.usa) For Bush. they nixed the more restrictive ozone standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. But even this quiet bid for nullity is really a strident declaration of the administration's true loyalties. "It seems like he is just counting down the clock. who is fast becoming the forgotten man of America's political landscape." The term "lame duck" is always given to two-term American presidents in their final year of office. "He is one of the least popular presidents we have ever had. John McCain. That prompted the New York Post tabloid to crow in a headline: "Bush cameo sinks game show". a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. That has seen his popularity ratings plunge to historic lows. Outgoing administrations traditionally step on the gas in their final months. Earlier this year. Wall Street Journal. "laissez faire." said Professor Shaun Bowler. and then the Democrats won control of Congress. laissez passer.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 11 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (1/2) Bush is a lame duck Frank 8 (7-9. have fought the regulators all along. Though he remains the most powerful man on Earth and will continue to occupy the Oval Office until January 2009.guardian. warring against their own scientists and shooting down their own agencies' work. The coming elections merely give them an excuse to close up shop early. however. In recent weeks his most high-profile appearance was on the TV game show Deal or No Deal. And what of the conservative legislators themselves? With little hope of a GOP comeback. rushing through all manner of new regulations. Though the Democrats continually link Bush with the Republican nominee." said professor Seth Masket of Denver University. At the same time. the trickle a hemorrhage. it is the opposite of panic that reigns.com/article/SB121556041111937489.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Over at the executive branch.co. The Guardian.uk/world/2008/may/11/georgebush. Indeed. Twenty-eight House Republicans have announced their retirement since the last go- round: The retreat has become a rout. he would not be able to enact it. Thomas He has received a Lannan award and been a guest columnist for The New York Times. He began his second term with a radical domestic agenda to change social security and reform taxes. McCain has tried to distance . Nothing he does is really worthy of any attention at this moment. Bush has been reduced to a marginal figure. further reducing his waning political influence. to sigh. Paul. it has been a rare moment back in the spotlight. The fact is that for months Bush has been largely irrelevant in American politics. "He is an extremely lame duck. www. That was defeated. strangely. 1 – that this lame-duck administration will try to achieve a state of Zen-like lameness surpassing all precedent. Bush & Co. it becomes difficult for any president to have a meaningful impact. Bush's toxic popularity ratings mean that he has played almost no role in the Republican election campaign so far.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 12 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal himself from his own president. . McCain recently launched a blistering attack on Bush's "disgraceful" handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Indeed.

David. such as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.com/news/stories/0708/11785. Republican defections tipped the scales dramatically. putting into law a bill that many Democrats — only weeks ago — didn’t think had enough votes to get through Congress. The Senate followed.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 13 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (2/2) Republicans are abandoning Bush making him even more lame Rogers 8 (7-16. Within hours of receiving Bush’s veto message on Medicare legislation on Tuesday. Senior Congressional Reporter for Politico. as restless Republicans defect and power shifts to activist Cabinet members.politico. The president used a televised news conference Tuesday to endorse Treasury’s plan to shore up investor confidence in the two troubled giants: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 70-26. lawmakers overrode the president. But again. willing to engage with Democrats. and on the veto override. prompting delays in the House and forcing Paulson to rely on Democrats to see the bill through Congress. with 21 Republican defections. http://www. Instead. Republicans are defecting.html) From Medicare to mortgages. 153 members of the president’s party joined 230 Democrats on the 283- 41 vote. . The current crisis over the mortgage finance industry shows the other side of the coin. President Bush’s lame-duck status is more and more evident in Congress.

11 attacks. Bush can still get things done through olive branching Eggen 8 (7-13. On foreign policy. you finesse it. On other things. North Korea has agreed to disable its nuclear plant and allow experts to inspect the site under an agreement with the U. and they don't abide the notion that he's a lame duck. "What you're seeing is a willingness to bend some when you're getting a broader objective.I. http://www. ``Because he's stuck to it. a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans.washingtonpost. legislative aides and political experts. Yet any hint of accommodation is notable for a president who has often pursued a confrontational strategy with Congress -. Yet even there.and who has stood behind an unpopular war and go-it-alone policies abroad. he's been able to pull off a few things. but there has been definite movement toward compromise.S. “Recent Bush victories smell of compromise”. largely because the White House won legal immunity for telecommunications firms that helped in eavesdropping after the Sept. and he has threatened to veto several key measures winding through Congress. and Paul Kane. lawmakers approved an expansion of a program Bush established in 2003 to fight AIDS in Africa.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616. "There hasn't been wholesale change." said Thomas E. Although environmental groups said the deal lacked vital specifics. http://www. . Faced with persistently low public approval ratings. "The president and the White House are very focused on getting things done. Mann. The changes allowed the bill to easily overcome opposition from Democratic leaders and civil liberties groups. but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided. Calio. "To get something done or to get what you want or most of what you want. Bush. a lame duck with approval ratings under 30 percent. still managed to roll up a few victories in recent weeks." Bush's willingness to compromise remains limited. Catherine Dodge. including language making clear that the measure is the exclusive legal authority for government spying. He won the battle with the Democratic majority in Congress over a $162 billion funding measure for the Iraq War.bloomberg. he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals. president who came to office questioning the science of climate change.html) President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks. a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin.even when it was in GOP hands -.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 14 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (1/3) Recent Bush victories proves he still has moves Sobczyk 8 (7-21. he got an overhaul of a terrorist surveillance law he championed.S.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRa4aqPAsv9o&refer=home) July 19 (Bloomberg) -.'' said Bruce Buchanan. and it included expanded G. you've got to compromise. from Medicare payments to housing reform. where the United States for the first time joined the other major industrialized countries in agreeing to try to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Joe. A new surveillance bill signed into law Thursday also marked a significant victory for Bush. Bush's conciliatory mood extended to the Group of Eight summit last week in Japan. on surveillance reform." Two weeks ago. Washington Post staff writers. Bill college benefits and other provisions that he had opposed. the compromise legislation included reforms that the administration had initially opposed. war funding and an international agreement on global warming. Dan. who served as Bush's first legislative affairs director. it marked a long journey for a U. according to administration officials. Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. Washington Post. a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. Bush's troop surge is getting credit for improving security in Iraq. for example. With less than seven months left in office.President George W. But the final legislation was far more expensive than Bush had said he would accept. Bush signed a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he hailed as a product of bipartisan cooperation." said Nicholas E. and five other nations.

S. then glosses over all the bitter words if a compromise with lawmakers emerges. The good news was essentially there waiting for him. Bush evoked the memory of Sept. sometimes." said Norman Ornstein. there was Bush. Like a Middle East peace deal before he leaves office. troops. It was also a time when the nation was united behind Bush.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 15 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (2/3) Bush still has the political power to advance policies concerning security such as the India Deal Associated Press 08 (7-10. Right after returning from Japan on Wednesday. He even thanked congressional staffers. President Bush still has some juice. "But you're still the president of the United States. The White House is grappling with how to do respond to a rebuff from the Supreme Court." ." White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. Bush bashes Congress for inaction. Bush has had a second term of big setbacks. Plus. which is all but ignored by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Contrast this to Bush's domestic agenda. When Bush signed a law Thursday to broaden the government's eavesdropping power. "Being a lame duck means you have less clout. And he just keeps talking of what he plans to get done. The measure targets terrorists. didn't want to take that risk. He thanked his own administration. Sometimes he doesn't. Bush got the anti-terrorism spying legislation largely on his terms. he served notice of how much sway he still holds on matters of national security. John McCain has better than a two-to-one edge over Obama on handling terrorism. He thanked lawmakers of both parties. spy on Americans. The president commands the military in a time of war. So going against him can mean being labeled as soft on terrorism or unsupportive of the troops.com/article/ALeqM5j0pvISNafxE8dxMzz2F9UVgjngrwD91R7EQ00) For an unpopular guy on his way out of his office. and never on a matter of war or terrorism. Bush's approach to Congress. Sometimes he delivers." To be sure. but I don't think it happened just because of President Bush. and this could have been put out there against them as a contributing factor. according to an Associated Press- Yahoo News poll conducted last month. from offshore drilling to tax cuts to a trade deal with Colombia. as the Senate had passed the bill earlier in the day. "Good timing. Then Bush went back to the Rose Garden on Thursday to sign the bill. But opponents in Congress were hemmed in by time. 2001. then watched as Democrats failed to override him. though it has raised alarms about sweeping in innocent Americans. Lawmakers blew right by him in approving a massive farm bill. like overhauling immigration or Social Security. in fact. Wiretapping orders approved last year would start expiring in August without congressional action. one of the worst times in the country's history. Nine times he has vetoed bills. He leads a nation that was infamously attacked — and no one has forgotten 9/11." Ornstein said. can challenge their detention in U. Bush's own former spokesman. 11." Democrats. It seems true again this year: Republican Sen. The message: I'm still in charge here. have a tougher job of winning over voters when it comes to protecting the country.S. Bush. Sen. no matter how unlikely. the Democrats' presidential contender. "I vowed to do everything in my power to prevent another attack on our nation. like staring down Congress on mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq. even on security. he is relevant in the twilight of his second term. "An awful lot of Democrats just did not want this issue to drag into the summer and beyond with the possibility that something could happen out there. which ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. He makes big promises. Cuba. though. a scholar on the presidency and Congress at the American Enterprise Institute. "You'd have to say it's a clear win for President Bush. Including a provision Bush demanded: immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the U. offering a credible veto threat.S. even with anemic public approval ratings and much of the country tuning him out.google. Congress has had the muscle to override him only twice. often a forgotten man this year. Barack Obama. He also has won fight after fight to keep the Iraq war going without a timeline for withdrawal of U. In an election year. try going to the voters with that around your neck. Bush held a Rose Garden event to praise the passage of the eavesdropping legislation. He backed the eavesdropping bill on grounds that it was imperfect but better than losing a tool against terrorism. http://ap. "I believe this legislation is going to help keep that promise. does not change. Why the difference on security? Because protecting the country is. civilian courts. clearly reveled in his latest victory. this time flanked by members of Congress. in a stunning book." Bush said. So Congress agreed on new surveillance rules. historically. said Bush favored propaganda over honesty in leading the nation into war in Iraq. He keeps pushing for items that seem to be going nowhere. a different matter. He vetoed a bill that would have banned waterboarding for terror suspects. Yes.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 16 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (3/3) Bush’s recent victory proves he can still win battles Associated Press 08 (7-10.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok- utYBdh9wDwD91RFJAG1) President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U. . http://ap. It was a battle that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks and Democrats' fears of being portrayed as weak when it comes to protecting the country." Bush signed the measure in a Rose Garden ceremony a day after the Senate sent it to him. 2001. terrorist attacks. 11. an unpopular lame-duck president who nevertheless has been able to prevail over Congress on most issues of national security and intelligence disputes. following nearly a year of debate in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the warrantless wiretapping program Bush initiated after the Sept. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases.S. Its passage was a major victory for Bush. He called it "landmark legislation that is vital to the security of our people.

The proposal would fund a conversion of the nation's petroleum-guzzling vehicles to 85% non-oil fuel sources such as batteries and alternative fuels within 20 years." said Saxby Chambliss.cnn. D-N.. a bipartisan group of lawmakers may be charting a solution that could attract the majorities needed to push their energy proposal into law. The campaign office for presidential candidate Sen. the gang offers to repeal a manufacturing tax credit to oil companies and require oil firms that haven't paid royalty fees from faulty 1998-1999 leases in the Gulf of Mexico to ante up the billions lawmakers believed is owed the government. indicating the comprehensive energy bill was unlikely to be voted into law in the run-up to November elections." He later told reporters the package stood little chance of passing. his comments opened the door toward working with the group.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 17 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Bipartisanship high (1/3) Recent energy proposal proves bipartisanship is high Talley 8 (8-1. Barack Obama. Virginia. Party leaders may have difficulty whipping members into line to support their presidential candidates' policy positions after lawmakers come back from the August recess. Mel Martinez: "The proposal would eliminate Florida's 2006 Gulf protections and give Floridians absolutely no voice in determining where exploration could occur.. Specifically. It also would extend renewable energy and efficiency tax credits through 2012.S. and revenue from the leases from 50 to 100 miles out would be shared between the federal and state governments. and you don't get 60 votes without a true bi- partisan effort. appeals to both parties by taxing Big Oil and funneling those funds into alternative and renewable fuels - but opens up major portions of the Outer Continental Shelf currently closed to exploration.D. a spokeswoman for the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute. contributing $15 billion for research and development and helping auto manufacturers retool their plants.500 tax credit to purchase advanced vehicles. saying he welcomed "the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.five Democrats and five Republicans ." It immediately drew the ire of Florida Republican Sen. It would offer a $7. which the politicians expect could be brought to the floor in September. In the House. who along with Kent Conrad. D-Ill. R-S. said while the group commended the bipartisan effort to expand production. some of which expire at the end of this year. "It hopefully does break down some of the barriers around here. Associated Press. where "Nothing they'll likely receive an earful from voters angry at Congress for not passing any legislation to cut record oil prices. said he didn't agree with all of the provisions in the proposal. the proposal would open up sections of the OCS 50 miles off the shores of Maryland. D-Nev. another bipartisan group of legislators has offered a similar proposal and has said they would work with their Senate colleagues to gather support. The proposal.. .D.. posted a statement that stopped short of an endorsement but praised the proposal as "a good faith effort" and "an important step in the process of reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.and give Democrats another lure for support . To pay for the $84 billion proposal . led the "Gang of Ten" Senators . gets done in this body without 60 votes." While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Conrad said a number of Senators had already expressed interest in the proposal.htm) As Democrats and GOP leaders excoriate each other's energy policies as key tenets of their election-year strategies. John Thune." Although Obama said he remained " skeptical" that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short term. energy supplies.who formed the proposal. Karen Matusic. http://money. "we remain concerned some proposals in this broad energy plan would impede efforts to maximize U. All of those states except Florida would be able to opt for leasing of the acreage off their coasts." said Sen. North Carolina.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200808011623DOWJONESDJONLINE0 00859_FORTUNE5. Revenue from leases beyond 100 miles would be federal funds. "I am hopeful this plan can begin to break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate floor." the Senator said in a statement. South Carolina and Georgia and off Florida's west coast in the Gulf of Mexico. R-Ga. he said. Ian.besides leasing and royalty revenues.

"Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn. While approaching the debate from vastly different perspectives and ideologies.earthtimes. and stabilize the home financing system. chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.9 billion in neighborhood stabilization funds through Community Development Block Grants. and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.14 trillion in housing wealth by the end of 2008. Congress and the Administration finally did what our local officials must do every day in cities across America . This legislation provides funds for municipalities to purchase. . National League of Cities. these two leaders developed a constructive working relationship guided by a focus on solutions - not politics.) are also to be commended for their ability to work out a compromise that could garner the support of their colleagues. The current housing crisis has led to large numbers of foreclosures across the country and the side effect has been abandoned and unkempt properties that further drive down home values. "With Americans expected to lose $1. "As a result of this legislation.org/articles/show/nlc- praises-bipartisanship-in-enacting-housing-reform. rehabilitate and re- sell these homes in an effort to keep entire neighborhoods from falling into decline.shtml) "The National League of Cities congratulates the Administration and Congress for enacting legislation that will help thousands of Americans stay in their homes.). provide cities with the funding they need to stop the downward spiral of home vacancies and neighborhood deterioration."A large part of the credit for enactment of the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act goes to Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.486930. municipalities all across the country will have access to $3. The legislation signed today gives local governments the federal assistance they need to bolster and expand the measures they have begun on a city-by-city level.they put aside partisanship and focused on getting the job done. so it is particularly important to acknowledge when the system works as the framers of the Constitution intended.) and the Committee's Ranking Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala. "The Administration and Congress are often criticized for partisanship and stalemates on the most vexing problems facing our nation. http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 18 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Bipartisanship high (2/3) Recent mortgage bill proves current bipartisanship NLC 8 (7-30.

including research and development and environmentally responsible domestic supply -. Kelley (Ret.S. the proposal includes provisions to lift congressional moratoria to allow environmentally responsible energy production in the U. and though we may not agree on all of the steps to reach those goals. 28th Commandant of the U. and others.X. It includes several provisions that SAFE is advocating." Kelley continued.to support that effort and meet our current critical energy needs. consumer tax credits to encourage the purchase of these vehicles. including: increasing research and development funding for alternative fuel vehicles (including batteries)." Kelley added." . It is time for both the House and the Senate to move forward. In recent weeks. on a long-term course toward dramatically reducing its dependence on oil. Robbie. and to meet our energy needs in the interim. expanding transmission capacity for power from renewable sources. financial support to help U. This is a strong proposal. "We share the same goals with this bipartisan group of senators. "There are few more important national security priorities for the United States than energy security. It also details the necessary steps -. Outer Continental Shelf. and SAFE is eager to continue working with members of the Group of 10 and the entire Congress to refine it and pass it into law. There are very few legislative days remaining in this election year.S. Marine Corps and co-chairman of SAFE's Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) said. as well as a carbon sequestration credit for use in enhanced oil recovery in existing wells. "We worked closely with members of both parties last year to draft and pass legislation that included the first improvement in vehicle fuel economy standards in three decades.). http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 19 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Bipartisanship high (3/3) Energy proposal proves current congressional bipartisanship Diamond 8 (8-1. this proposal includes several key policy elements that SAFE and the ESLC are advocating. automakers retool factories to produce these vehicles. "It leads our nation toward the long-term transformation to an electrified transportation system that is no longer dependent on oil. primarily by electrification of the transportation system." General P." The proposal includes policies that will put the U. "Time is short.S. Diamond has a Masters in Law and Diplomacy from The Fletcher School.com/news/story/safe-applauds-bipartisan-energy- proposal/story.aspx?guid=%7BC3266EAB-C1A9-4FBE-8A1B- 2D6231290490%7D&dist=hppr) "This bipartisan collection of leaders has put forward a serious vision to end oil as our primary source of transportation fuel.S.marketwatch. we have worked with the Gang of 10 and their staffs to take the next important steps. To fund these measures and to meet crucial energy needs in the interim. and this proposal provides a solid framework with which to do so.

And yet: sixteen weeks before the election. Three options: my best guess is that partisan differences are reasserting themselves -. Specifically: Three in five Americans (60%) believe there is a great deal of hostility and political partisanship in Washington. D. Nine in ten Americans (89%) say it is important that the next president reduce political partisanship and hostility in Washington. just over half of Republicans (56%) say it is very important compared to seven in ten (70%) Democrats.theatlantic.com/news/story/partisanship-hostility- cast-shadow-over/story. Interestingly.php) There's a bit of an irony in this: Iraq is the issue that defines Barack Obama. The elections are provoking partisanship.S. presidential candidate claiming that they can reduce the hostility in Washington.marketwatch.Republicans and Republican- leaning independents are coalescing around their nominee and his position.454 U. adults and 1. Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) say there is a great deal of hostility compared to just over three quarters (78%) of U.C.009 Canadian adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive(R) between June 9 and 16.Iraq proves The Atlantic 8 (7-15. 2008 suggests that there is a very large amount of hostility that needs to be reduced. http://marcambinder.John McCain -.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 20 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Partisanship High (1/2) Partisanship is up Harris Interactive 8 (7-10. with 63 percent saying it is very important he do this. a new Harris Poll of 2.. it propelled him to the Democratic nomination.S. http://www.is just as trusted by Americans to figure out what to do about it. D. . with Republicans even more likely than Democrats to believe this (65% versus 59%). his 2002 speech represents the intellectual quality that his supporters find most attractive: his capacity to see around corners. more than any single factor. the American people have moved on Iraq from 2006 and tend to accept the premise that The Surge is working. Just over two in five (44%) U. after 16 months of campaigning. or. Matures (those aged 63 and older). D. Or maybe this is a tribune to McCain's astonishing personal brand.S.S. the man who is most identified with The Surge -.C.C.aspx?guid=%7B93D8EDF7-D2AF-4FF4-8F06- 6CF54F7BBF54%7D&dist=hppr) With each U.com/archives/2008/07/on_iraq_partisanship_is_back.

Congressional rules and procedures provide many ways for the minority to frustrate the majority's ability to pass these superficial measures that would not address our nation's energy needs. If Republicans develop a popular new idea.an area of Alaska where drilling is already approved - as well as a plan to force oil companies to "lose" leases they don't use and possibly some other minor measures. Democrats are starting to talk more about domestic production. The majority has canceled markups in committee and restricted the types of bills the House considers. The economy needed a boost. Yet all these ideas have two things in common: Republicans did not dream them up. Good-faith compromise could help refill the tanks of public confidence. Special to the Washington Times. voters would take notice. The House majority appears either unwilling or unable to do this . "This is the most unified and energized I have seen our members all year. Congress came together to do what it could. expanding refining capacity and investing in renewable resources.leading to continuing declines in approval.giving the majority a chance to rise above expected patterns of partisanship. Taken together. Democrats bury it. these actions send a clear message to voters: Congress is dysfunctional and more interested in accommodating narrow." Lawmakers found a model for legislative success earlier this year with the bipartisan economic stimulus legislation. the House is more likely to name a post office than pass energy legislation. for example. Lexis) The House majority leadership has pulled out all the stops to block votes on measures aimed at increasing domestic supply. So the default is a stalemate until Democrats decide they are willing to confront the energy problems and their environmental-interest-group supporters. The House Democratic leadership is making a common error: failing to produce legislative achievement by compromising with the minority.on issues such as energy. House Republicans feel emboldened by their successes so far. the House may consider Democratic legislation to expedite production in the National Petroleum Reserve . In today's polarized environment on Capitol Hill. That would boost congressional popularity and probably solidify the Democratic majority. All of these efforts are aimed at blocking one thing: congress working its will. If Democrats reached out and repeated this pattern several more times . "Party leadership now approaches legislation like the Super Bowl. Gary Andres. Circumstances rarely provide lawmakers with a chance to address the desires of a focused public. and they would do little if anything to address our nation's energy problems. Lawmakers could come together on legislative proposals aimed at more domestic production. It also means nervous rank-and-file Democrats have a tough time explaining how their leadership's obsession with scuttling Republican legislative ideas eases the pain at the pump. but it sounds more like a buffer against blame than a bipartisan solution. there's only winners and losers. private interests or partisan aspirations than coming together to address the big problems of the day. . So far. The entire appropriations process has virtually ground to a halt because of Democratic leadership concerns that Republicans might offer amendments aimed at expanding energy resources." a senior Republican leadership aide told me. Energy policy does just that . The notion of sharing political accomplishment is not in the congressional leadership's lexicon. party politics is a zero sum game. using its considerable procedural power to exclude amendments and other legislative ideas from consideration. the House Democratic leadership is running on empty. It is a pattern that reinforces Americans' worst stereotypes about the institution. But these days. A former Democratic senator once told me. This week.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 21 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Partisanship High (2/2) Partisanship in congress is causing utter stalemate Washington Times 8 (7-27.

the same partisan scenario is playing out with an airline-backed bill aimed at curtailing oil price speculation. (NYSE: LCC). Gabrielle Giffords. In the House. .. The energy proposal proves partisanship is spilling over to other issues Sunnucks 8 (7-25.7 billion measure awarding generous increases to veterans programs and military base construction projects. http://www. The Air Transport Association airline industry group backed the oil reserve release plan and was disappointed by the partisan gridlock. "We sincerely hope that Congress can put aside its partisan differences and agree on a comprehensive package before recessing for the summer. was what Congress failed to do: pass energy legislation and other measures aimed at lowering the price of gasoline." said ATA chief executive James May.S. Democrats tend to oppose increased domestic drilling and do not want floor votes on such proposals. Andrew. including the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts." In the U. Rick Renzi and Jeff Flake voted "no" and Democrats Harry Mitchell. House of Representatives Thursday and a filibuster is blocking movement on a Senate bill aimed at putting some stops on oil price speculation.A2: Energy Proposal Parties are butting heads over the energy issue Taylor 8 (8-1. new offshore drilling plans would be allowed.com/secure/register?authToken=M3SX&authType=name&lnk=vw_pprofil e&id=5226265) Partisan divisions and maneuvers have stymied two federal plans aimed at easing high gasoline and crude oil prices. Sen.S. They contend that commodity speculators are driving up crude oil prices. More noteworthy however. That procedure blocked Republicans from forcing a vote on opening new areas to oil drilling. The House vote was 268-157. the SPR plan failed to get two-third approval with Republicans (including Arizona's four GOP congressman) opposing. Phoenix Business Journal. Republicans Trent Franks. U. A proposal backed by the airline industry to release oil from the U. Senate Republicans blocked a bill aimed at curbing speculation in oil markets. As its last major act. Strategic Petroleum Reserve failed to get enough votes in the U. Airlines (including US Airways. American Airlines and United Airlines) favor legislation putting more rules and restrictions on oil price speculation.linkedin. while a similar bill and several others by House Democrats — including a plan to encourage drilling in already available coastal areas and in Alaska — failed to advance after party leaders brought them to the floor under procedures that required supermajorities to pass.com/id/150233) Lawmakers sped for the exits Friday as Congress was to begin a five-week recess after a summer session noteworthy for bitter partisanship and paralysis on the issue topmost in the minds of many voters: the cost of gasoline. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. ATA members include major U. including via a vote Friday. even as oil patch members and moderates in the party support the idea.S. The Republicans favor offshore and ANWR drilling to boost domestic oil supplies and want those ideas added to other energy bills. Senate. But House Democrats required two-thirds approval instead of majority approval because they worried Republicans would add on provisions for new domestic offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Republicans have been pressing to allow oil exploration in areas that are currently off limits. Associated Press writer. Mike. The state's four Democratic congressional members voted for the measure.newsweek.S. That could have passed with a majority vote and Democratic House leadership opposes ANWR and offshore drilling. Democratic leaders have been resolute in blocking new offshore exploration.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 22 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Partisanship High . D-Nev. Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva voted "yes.S.S. falling short of the two-thirds requirement. GOP Senators have been successfully filibustering the speculation plan. Arizona's eight House members all voted along party lines. a $72. the House passed by a 409-4 vote its first spending bill. They have been relentless in their assault on Democrats over the topic. has a bill aimed at oil price speculation but the plan is being blocked by Republicans (including U. It's clear that if a vote were allowed. John Shadegg. Jon Kyl of Arizona).. airlines including Tempe-based US Airways Group Inc. even though opening the Outer Continental Shelf to new exploration wouldn't put any oil on the market for a decade or more. https://www.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 23 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***India Deal UQ*** .

outlookindia.on the US and India had been fulfilled . But whether we do or not. expressed confidence that the safeguards agreement would be through. I am confident that there is a strong support in the Congress . Even the secretary of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).a majority (of the members) support the agreement. Mulford said. However. sources here believe the IAEA agreement should not be a difficult achievement for India . But analysts here said that IAEA was a UN body so voting on a decision is not unknown. then US President George W.asp?fodname=20080811&fname=Nuclear+%28F%29&sid=1 &pn=1) Citing bipartisan support for the N-deal. The focus indeed would be the members of the Congress campaigning in their home district.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) I feel very good.and with this determination.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 24 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Will Pass – Congress (1/2) Political will and bipart are critical to swift passage in the SQ Hindustan Times 7-22 (“N-Deal Full Throttle Ahead. The deal has the support of the majority of congress but it will be tight Wilson 7-25 (Joe. http://www. The India Deal will pass the IAEA and will make it through Congress before Bush leaves office Times of India 7-25 (“NSG Clearance: Menon to Work on German Leadership. But there is a chance that we may come back for a special session after the elections. This would give the deal a fighting chance of going through before president George Bush leaves office. The US wants the Indian nuclear agreement to be in the Congress by the end of the first week of September. Saran was of the view that given the political will and bipartisan support.com/full. We certainly are going to have a challenge because of the lateness of the legislative session and the upcoming elections. the 123 agreement would then be sent to the US Congress. "It is within the realm of possibility that the (congressional) leadership could change its mind and call a lame-duck session for the deal. the nuclear deal could clear the 90-day requirement to lie before the US Congress. before being voted on. Heritage Foundation's analyst Lisa Curtis says." . United States Congressmen. Bipartisan support means the deal will pass in the lame duck session Outlook India 8-11 (http://www. Anil Kakodkar. Bush would have to determine that all obligations .” 2008) Pakistan has indicated that it might ask for a vote hoping to put divisions in the IAEA to the fore. as and when the NSG gives the green signal.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.” 2008) And.

S. . very tight. who is expected to play a key role in moving it forward.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 25 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Will Pass – Congress (2/2) The deal will pass but it will be tight IANS 7-16 (http://www.asp?ID=IEP20080716001346&Page=P&Title=Nation&Topic=0) The lawmaker. it has to be ratified by Congress.newindpress. For the deal to go through. but it's very.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-34665120080724) The agreement has fairly broad bipartisan support in Congress. said the landmark agreement could still be completed before the current Congress adjourns.com/NewsItems.reuters. "It's possible. Broad bipartisan support for the deal Reuters 7-14 (http://in. but its passage could be complicated by the short legislative calendar ahead of the November U. election.

but it has extraordinary needs. During my visits to India. I could see that people are using primitive way of heating or cooking. United States Congressmen. people understand India has extraordinary potential to be a very important partner of the United States. I saw the power interruptions.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) I believe that there would be some level of controversy.com/convergence/ndtv/story. .Arizona Debate Institute 2008 26 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ—AT: Overwhelms the Link There will be controversy over the deal but it still will garner support Wilson 7-25 (Joe. http://www. It is a country with a dynamic economy. It would be safe and secure and also benefit the health of the people of India. So by having a stable power supply source. but over all.ndtv. this would actually help the economy grow and create new jobs.

will now be the target of diplomatic initiatives by the US and India. http://economictimes. Before that clock can start. and Congress should find the time to say yes -. the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must give India a green light.S. which has been trying to block India's civilian nuclear aspirations.. But. New Zealand and Sweden. "Our hope is that following the IAEA meeting. The deal raises many legitimate questions. The assessment at this stage is that it will take time to convince all the NSG members to support a waiver for India. US put nuclear deal on fast track. we would like the NSG meeting to take place within a week to 10 days. With the UPA government surviving the trust vote. But it is the NSG stage that has both US and India concerned." said Mr Mulford.com/PoliticsNation/India_US_put_deal_on_fast_track/articleshow/3272154.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 27 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (1/2) The deal will get approval from the IAEA and NSG—Even if time runs out Congress will hold a lame-duck session to get the deal through. The US doe not see any problems at the IAEA stage and expects the governors. These countries. The main focus on both sides is to win over the handful of NSG countries which are still uncomfortable about allowing India into the nuclear mainstream. on balance. While those approvals are likely. US ambassador David Mulford said the Bush administration would talk to Pakistan.. ". He further hoped that Pakistan would "see things in the right light". . including Ireland. if necessary. But the US is determined to complete the NSG step in August.” 2008. to give the approval. both India and the US are now working furiously to meet these tight deadlines. Congress must be in session continuously for 30 days to consider the deal. The deal will get through the IAEA and NSG and be in Congress in the beginning of September Economic Times 7-24 (“India. And because of the long August recess. This comes a day after Mr Manmohan Singh removed the domestic political hurdles to the deal. under U. there may not be more than 30 "legislative days" left before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26.” 2008) There isn't much time.in a lame-duck session after the November election. Washington Post 7-23 (“India’s Outstretched Hand-New Delhi Does its Part to Salvage a Nuclear Pact – Now it’s Congress’ Turn.cms) NEW DELHI: Putting the nuclear deal negotiations on the fast track the US said it was planning to seek a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the second week of August and send the nuclear deal to the US Congress by early September. including Pakistan.So we'll have enough time to be in a position to give the legislation on the very first days of the US Congress in September." said Mr Mulford. they won't happen instantaneously. The strategy is to call a NSG meeting immediately after the meeting of IAEA board of governors on August 1. law.indiatimes. We feel that it is important to immediately address whatever concerns there are and if necessary have a second NSG meeting. it is in the United States' interest.

with New Delhi sending emissaries to key NSG countries and Washington planning an NSG meeting early next month so that the deal can be wrapped up by September.” 2008) Putting the nuclear deal negotiations on the fast track the US said it was planning to seek a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the second week of August and send the nuclear deal to the US Congress by early September.com/43/20080723/812/tnl-with-vote-won-india-and-us-fast-trac_1.' he said.com/convergence/ndtv/story. July 23 (IANS) A day after the government won the trust vote. This comes a day after Mr Manmohan Singh removed the domestic political hurdles to the deal.” 2008 http://in. There’s enough time—the deal will be in front of Congress before September IANS 7-23 (“With vote won. US ambassador David Mulford had said that the US was keen to convene the meeting of the NSG in the first week of August after the approval of the India-specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting August 1. If it is necessary to have a second meeting of the NSG. “India may wrap up N-deal by September: Sibal.html) New Delhi/Washington. we will do so that we can present it (123 agreement) to the US Congress in early days of September. Mulford told reporters in New Delhi in a telephonic interaction from Ohio..yahoo. The 35-member IAEA board of governors is expected to meet August 1 to approve the safeguards pact that assures India uninterrupted fuel supplies for the lifetime of its reactors and the right to take corrective action in case of disruption in foreign-sourced fuel.” 2008.news.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 28 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (2/2) The NSG process will be completed in August and the deal will be signed by Congress in September Indo-Asian 7-26 (NDTV.The NSG process is likely to be completed in August so that the 123 agreement can be endorsed by the Congress in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement.' US ambassador David C. 'We feel it's important to address their concerns (of NSG countries) immediately. No risk of their timeframe arguments—the deal will be on the table by September The Economic Times 7-25 (“India. http://www. . India and the US Wednesday fast-tracked the nuclear deal. India and US fast-track n-deal diplomacy.ndtv. US Put Nuclear Deal on Fast Track. 'We will like the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) meeting to take place within a week or 10 days after the approval (of the India-specific safeguards pact) by the IAEA board.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058805&ch=7/26/2008%206:33:00%20PM) A couple of days ago.

the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and then the US congress. “Singh Savours Victory. Brazil and South Africa had to give up their nuclear weapons programmes before being allowed a deal. which still needs the backing of the International Atomic Energy Agency. But this was a triumph for Dr Singh. some of them on stretchers. and offers an appalling example in trying to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. For Now. Both government and opposition pulled out all their resources: jails were opened to allow six convict MPs to vote. given the widespread predictions of defeat in the vote. allegations of vote-buying abounded. It would be nice to think that the government will seize the opportunity to put the economy into second gear. . Bush in 2005. leader of the principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. a rich claim from a party that tried hard for a similar nuclear deal when it formed the government.” 2008) It was hardly the finest hour for Indian democracy. India is being allowed to keep its nuclear weapons untouched. claimed the nuclear deal makes India "subservient" to the US. but there are still too many contradictions and too much red tape restraining what is potentially the most exciting country in the world. Victory means Dr Singh has the authority to press ahead with the deal. Equally important is the still-open question of whether the victory will boost Dr Singh's own confidence and inspire him to revive the stalled economic reform programme. Lal Krishna Advani. American nuclear experts have vociferously protested that the deal allows India to drive a coach and horses round the Non-Proliferation Treaty. while ambulances delivered others from hospitals. The way is now clear for Dr Singh to press ahead with plans for India to come in from the nuclear cold by pursuing the deal struck with President George W.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 29 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—India Singh won the no confidence vote—now he can push the deal without opposition domestically South China Morning Post 7-26 (Kevin Rafferty. but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally called the bluff of his leftist so-called allies this week and won a vote of confidence in Parliament after two days of stormy debate and widespread allegations of bribery and corruption. The margin of victory in the no-confidence vote in the 541-member lower house was 19 votes .275 against 256. Congress may be tougher than the Indian Parliament. defeat for the nuclear deal and an early election.

l/n) Also the G8 Summit in Toyako. The envoy. "We would like the NSG meeting to take place in a week or 10 days after the IAEA Board's after the approval of the India -specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting August 1. the gamble was well worth the effort. In his 50-minute meeting with Bush. "This is a historic moment and countries are expected to take a political decision on which side of the history they are-whether they want to engage themselves with India or not.” 2008.” 2008) The US wants the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) process to be completed in August so that the US Congress can endorse the 123 agreement in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement. According to him. India Today. But even then we have enough time to place the deal before the Congress in time. was an ideal place for Manmohan to canvass for the deal with not only Bush but other leaders belonging to NSG countries including China. indicating that it would not be an obstacle at the NSG. the prime minister also got assurances that the US President would go all out to move the deal through the remaining hoops. .'' US ambassador David Mulford told reporters here in a telephonic conversation from Cleveland. The NSG is on board for the India Deal Now—its been endorsed by all of the G8 countries India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa. who is currently in the US holding consultations with the Bush administration on India . is expecting to get a clean' waiver from the NSG for India by the end of August. "Some countries might ask for a second meeting of the NSG. “The Long Last Mile. the Bush administration.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 30 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (1/2) The deal will get NSG approval and be placed before Congress by the end of August Financial Express 7-24 (“US Wants NSG Process to be Over in August. is working on the time-line. Japan.'' Mulford said. which could be held in the later part of the months. Judging from the unequivocal endorsement he got from the G8 countries as also from China. said the US. which would see the NSG clearing a waiver for India by the end of August so that the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement could be placed before the US Congress by September.'' Mulford said in response to a question.

Mr Saran. which has warned that the nuclear deal will lead to an arms race between India and Pakistan and raised non-proliferation concerns. said that the nuclear deal has more support among NSG countries today than a year ago. But in case a governor pushes for a vote. Prime minister's special envoy Shyam Saran. But officials also warned against overestimating the effects Pakistan's efforts will have on the IAEA board." Mr Saran. including the keen supporters of the non-proliferation regime. or indirectly on the NSG.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 31 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (2/2) The India deal will get approval from the IAEA and NSG—Momentum and Goodwill Economic Times 7-28 (Nirmala Ganapathy." he added. Without going into any specific details. am confident we should get the kind of waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. New Delhi definitely does not want a vote as it would send out a wrong message and give India the dubious distinction of facing a vote in the IAEA after Iran. Meanwhile. Pakistan prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is scheduled to meet US president George W Bush on Monday. "whatever demarches we have made with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group today we are confident of a much more positive sentiment in the group then perhaps would have been the case about a year ago. Usually.India momentum. the last time a vote took place in the board of governors was two years ago and that too over Iran and its nuclear programme. for one. US ambassador David C Mulford said last week that the US would talk to Pakistan and hoped that Islamabad would 'see things in the right light'. Significantly. IAEA board of governors takes decisions based on consensus.” 2008) Pakistan's attempt to inject delay and dissent into the process cannot torpedo the nuclear deal. who refused to go into details of whether India had Ireland's support. . “Government Hopes Pakistan Won’t Push For IAEA Vote. said. where there is enough support for the nuclear deal. maintained that the NSG countries. who had left for Ireland the day the government won the trust vote. maintained that the ongoing diplomatic initiatives were whipping up a pro. who left for Latin America on Sunday. would not be affected by Pakistan's note. An official said that it remains to be seen if Pakistan pushes for a vote on August 1. Significantly. But the government is fairly confident that the IAEA step will be completed by the end of this week. who gave a climate change talk on Saturday in between diplomatic initiatives in Ireland and Latin America. Mr Saran. But India does not want the safeguards agreement to be put to vote at the board of governor's meeting this Friday. then the principle of simple majority is followed. "There is tremendous goodwill for India and I. New Delhi thinks that such a linkage is completely avoidable.

Srinivasan said.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 32 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—France/Russia/Japan France. Srinisavan said he also met High Commissioner of French Atomic Energy Commission Bernard Bigot during the meeting and both Bigot and Olivera said they were all waiting for India to speed up the process so that they could support India at both the IAEA board as well as the subsequent meeting of the 45-member NSG to facilitate India's entry into world nuclear commerce. The international meet was attended by several specialists in plutonium and even countries like Russia [Images]. Olivera is also part of the board of governors of the IAEA. .htm) France will support India during the forthcoming meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency convened to consult and ratify India- specific safeguards agreement for the Indo-US nuclear deal. but did not finalise it as they had to wait for the Indo-US deal to be completed. Srinivasan had met the French diplomat during an international meeting on 'Plutonium and Security' held near Paris last week.com/news/2008/jul/15ndeal14. France. and Russia all support passage of the India deal—especially france. he said. Japan [Images] are keen to support to India. France and India had almost entered into an agreement. which has already given the green signal to build EPR 1650 MW nuclear power plant early this month. Japan. Rediff 7-15 (http://www.rediff. is looking forward to the Indo-US deal to be completed as soon as possible so that they could go ahead with their cooperation with India. Member of Indian Atomic Energy Commission Dr M R Srinivasan on Tuesday told PTI from Ooty that he was assured by the Director of External Relations of French Atomic Energy Agency Caron Olivera that France will back India at IAEA and the Nulcear Suppliers Group.

htm) Australia was unlikely to oppose the Indo-US deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. a crucial step in the completion of the agreement. sources in Melbourne said as the opposition pushed the Kevin Rudd government to reverse its "hypocritical" stand of not selling uranium to New Delhi. an international security analyst at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. but the sources told The Age daily that Canberra was not expected to obstruct approval of the Indo-US deal at the 45- member Nuclear Suppliers Group. said the Rudd government needed to balance Australia's increasingly important relationship with India with its strong stance on nuclear non-proliferation.com/news/2008/jul/09ndeal3. The report came as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] met his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd for the first time on the sidelines of the G-8 Summit in Toyako.rediff.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 33 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Australia Australia won’t oppose the India Deal—they want to build a strategic relationship with India. . Rediff 7-9 (www. The Labour government was against uranium sale to India as it is not a NPT treaty signatory. Rory Medcalf.

com/report. It also articulates China’s “intention to cooperate with India” in the area of nuclear energy. he added. China can cite non- proliferation concerns to block the grant of an exemption to India. works on consensus. both pledged to promote bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy. notes the analyst. The day PM Manmohan Singh met Chinese president Hu Jintao at the outreach session of the G-8 meeting in Japan.dnaindia. in the past it criticised it on grounds that it would go against the the objective of nuclear non- proliferation. the analyst noted. substantialise the China-India strategic partnership and advance the stable. during Singh’s visit to Beijing. sound and long-term development of bilateral relations. http://www. Although China has never explicitly come out against the Indo-US nuclear agreement.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 34 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (1/2) China will back India at the IAEA and NSG meetings—they want to build bilateral nuclear energy cooperation Vembu 7-9 (Daily News and Analysis India. During Singh’s visit to China earlier this year. he said. it has implications for its response at the NSG . At Tuesday’s meeting with Singh in Japan.asp?newsid=1176527) HONG KONG: China will almost support India’s case when it goes before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) to operationalise the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. “When an NSG member commits to cooperating with India on a bilateral basis in nuclear energy. Beijing’s support is critical for India. which envisages bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy among other things. China. Here. consistent with their respective international commitments. which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Hu spoke in general terms about the need to strengthen “win-win cooperation” between their countries. when it approaches the NSG to seek a “clean exemption” while seeking nuclear supplies.” reported Xinhua. which will contribute to energy security and dealing with climate change risks. earlier this year. the analyst told DNA that China’s support would be consistent with a bilateral cooperation agreement between India and China on civilian nuclear energy. according to an influential member of a Chinese think-tank. Since the NSG. he and premier Wen Jiabao signed a document on ‘A Shared Vision for the 21st century’. was “willing to work with the Indian side to promote cooperation and exchanges in various fields. Asked if it meant China would back India at the NSG.

com/US_hopes_China_to_back_nuke_deal_in_NSG/rssarticlesho w/3271319. "I have a feeling they will take a positive view. Beijing indicated it will not be a hurdle in the path of India in the NSG. during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao July 9 on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Japan.indiatimes. one of the five recognised nuclear weapon states and influential member of the NSG." he replied when asked whether the US was confident that China will back India in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). has been ambivalent about the India-US nuclear deal and has yet to take a formal position on it." US Ambassador David Mulford told reporters here in a conference call from Cleveland. China has agreed to review carefully the necessary documentation before taking a decision. China. The US is keen to convene a meeting of the NSG in the first week of August after the approval of the India-specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting on August 1. But I can't speak for China.cms) NEW DELHI: The US on Wednesday said it has spoken to China about support for its nuclear deal with India and expressed hope that Beijing will take a positive view of global nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. However. Yes. . we have had conversations with China. The US wants the NSG process to be completed in August so that the 123 agreement can be endorsed by the US Congress in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement. said Indian officials.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 35 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (2/2) China won’t be an obstacle in the approval process Times of India 7-23 (http://timesofindia. The telephonic interaction was arranged by the US embassy at the American Centre.

could seriously upset their calculations and cause major problems in trying to get US congressional approval of the final draft of the deal before President George W. Bush leaves office.” 2008) The NSG bans exports to nuclear weapons states such as India and Pakistan that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have full safeguard agreements allowing the IAEA to inspect their facilities. Pakistan's intervention yesterday came as a battery of New Delhi's top envoys were fanning out across the world following the Indian Government's spectacular win in a no- confidence motion in parliament this week brought by opposition parties who were against the deal. Pakistan warned the deal ``threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the sub-continent''. Given the extent to which Pakistan is tied to Washington after receiving $10 billion in aid over the past few years. Washington's ambassador in New Delhi. Heavy aid from the United States means they can be strong-armed into cooperation. unveiled in 2005. Predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947. The Australian 7-25 (Bruce Loudon. David Mulford. Moving to block consensus and stall a process that both India and the US are seeking to expedite. The agreement. . which developed their nuclear arms in secret. including the likes of Australia. Relations have improved considerably since the start of a peace process in 2004. in part due to lobbying from Washington. will allow the US to sell nuclear plants and related technology to India once it has separated its civil and military programs and accepted a certain level of UN inspections.clearly aimed at appealing to those countries most concerned about nuclear proliferation. Last night. There is consternation in the Indian capital that the move by Pakistan -. and the ``clean exemption'' agreement that is due to be rushed through the NSG immediately after that. “Pakistan: Nuke Deal to Spark Arms Race. its scope for independent initiatives is considered by most analysts to be limited. Indian hopes the Bush administration would be able to strong-arm Islamabad were boosted by a report in the The New York Times outlining plans to shift nearly $US230 million ($240million) in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Islamabad's ageing F-16 attack planes. But progress at the talks has been slow and deep distrust remains between the two rivals.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 36 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (1/2) Pakistan has no leverage to block passage of the India deal. There seems little doubt Islamabad's intervention will be high on the agenda when new Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani arrives in Washington next week to see Mr Bush . said the Bush administration had the ability to ``persuade'' Pakistan to ``co-operate''. Scores of India 's most senior officials have embarked on urgent missions aimed at ensuring rapid approval of the so-called safeguards agreement by the board of the IAEA when it meets in Vienna on August 1. Canada and New Zealand -. Islamabad warned the deal was ``likely to set a precedent for other states which are not members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have military nuclear programs''. But the NSG is ready to consider a waiver for India .

. http://news. the official said.html) Pakistan has raised several objections to certain clauses in the proposed India-specific safeguards agreement.” 2008. Bush and Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani in Washington.webindia123. The issue figured in discussions between US President George W. NSG (Lead). The US has also spoken to the powers-that-be in Islamabad and exhorted them to see the India-US nuclear deal in the right perspective. but New Delhi is confident that such efforts will not succeed as there is an overwhelming support and goodwill for India in the IAEA.com/news/Articles/World/20080730/1013977.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 37 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (2/2) Pakistan isn’t a problem—overwhelming good will for India and United States influence Webindia 7-30 (“India hopeful of positive response from IAEA.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 38 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—IAEA The deal passed the IAEA The Indian News 8-1 (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/india-gets-iaea-pass- for-global-nuclear-trade_10078838. a key step towards readmitting New Delhi into the privileged world of nuclear commerce.html) Vienna. Aug 1 (IANS) The India-US civil nuclear deal Friday cleared its first global test as the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously approved the India-specific safeguards agreement. The 35-member IAEA board meeting lasted nearly four hours with an exhaustive discussion on different aspects of the safeguards agreement that aims at bringing 14 Indian nuclear power reactors under international safeguards over the next few years. .

this coalition would break apart and could take years to come together again. when one of them enters the White House in January 2009. think tank. it will have to be the call of Senator Barack Obama or Senator John McCain. “US-India Nuclear Deal Unlikely to be Reached Soon.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage. have indicated support for the deal. India was going to become a global power. Congressional clock ticks away.hindu. would leave it to an uncertain fate. the new President was unlikely to spend much political capital on a deal done by his predecessor until he achieved several of his own promised goals. Three. In the opinion of Prof. said "the underbelly of this deal. It had a strong run because many different domestic US interest groups came out in its favour. “U. The deal won’t go through if it isn’t finished with this administration Associated Press 7-10 (Foster Klug.In Singh's failure.V. The new administration also would be working without many of the high-level Bush officials who led painstaking talks with India and then persuaded skeptical U. big business and the Indian-American community . Stevenson. lawmakers to give their approval. Both leading candidates for president.google. would be "what does it say about India that the government fell over a deal that was so very favourable?" Future US administrations will be reluctant to expend political capital on behalf of India. The most successful has been the Israeli lobby. Failure to secure approval under Bush.htm) If the deal does not go through this year.com/article/ALeqM5hjHnPz7XX0WpdjPiswhHLvaXj0pAD91QROR80) The next president could take up the accord when he takes over in January. The new President will have to make all the required determinations and then submit them to the new Congress for its consideration. http://www.hindustantimes.” July 23.com/2008/07/15/stories/2008071559781000. I just don't know if McCain or Obama are going to embrace that. http://ap. and that meant becoming a global nuclear power. Prasad. This included the Pentagon. a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp. but it is not clear that either would consider it a priority as president.” 2008.” http://www.aspx?sectionName=&id=7f10a8a2-fcd1-4d5a- 8c3931b085c5f2b3SinghisKing_Special&&Headline=Advantage+Singh+in+United+States) The US reaction in case of a defeat.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 39 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (1/3) If the deal fails it won’t pass in the future—no interests groups and future Administrations won’t spend the political capital Hindustan Times 8 (“Advantage Singh in US. she said. Christine Fair. uncertainty over lame duck session.S." . was that. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. however. Building such coalitions in Washington is very difficult and sustaining them even more so. as Bush envisioned it. with our help.S. Neither McCain or Obama will spend their political capital—they’d have to completely redo the deal The Hindu 8 (K. the nuclear deal took off in the US not only because of Indophile George W Bush.

he said.” 2008 http://www. What it means is that countries like France [Images] and Russian can make nuclear sales to India while American companies continue to face restrictions since the congressional approval has not been forthcoming. That.rediff. 'It was a fatal flaw in the logic of US Congress. Sharon Squassoni.co. Once armed with the NSG approval.google. it seems likely that the US. compromises the integrity of the review process of the deal's nonproliferation implications. said the Bush administration is pressuring the IEAE and NSG for quick approval of the deal. If Congress cannot ratify the deal. 'India doesn't need the US deal at all' after the NSG's approval. "nothing would stop India from signing deals with other international suppliers. Squassoni told the newspaper.htm) Given this. and the IAEA and NSG approve it.in/news/2008/jul/09ndeal15. http://ap. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” 2008.com/article/ALeqM5hjHnPz7XX0WpdjPiswhHLvaXj0pAD91QROR80) Democratic Rep. India doesn't really need the US. may end up the loser. “US-India Nuclear Deal Unlikely to be Reached Soon.' . After NSG approval France and Russia would make nuclear sales to India Rediff News 7-9 (“After NSG ok. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. India can begin nuclear trade with other countries. US administration officials and congressional aides told the Post. agrees as much to the Post. a leading critic. and not India.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 40 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (2/3) India will just go elsewhere for nuclear materials Associated Press 7-10 (Foster Klug. Markey added in an interview.

php?leftnm=lmnu5&subLeft=1&autono=317102&tab=r) These are complex issues. and if he were to be succeeded by a Democrat president.html) “One thing that needs to be remembered here is that among those who opposed the bill many of them chair some of the most important committees in the new Congress and can easily kill a similar bill if presented for approval today.business- standard.” said Mago. and the government initially overstated what India would gain from the agreement. during which the country can regret at its leisure a missed opportunity.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 41 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (3/3) New Committee makeup would make that impossible Thaindian news 3-11 (http://www. But India’s negotiators have done an outstanding job — which is not to say that there have been no compromises.com/common/news_article. If it is not signed before Mr Bush’s term ends.com/newsportal/world-news/indian-american- seeks-early-action-on-n-deal_10026132. No chance of a deal if it doesn’t get done now Business standard 3-17 (http://www. . it is a given that the whole thing will be dead and buried.” said Mago seeking early action on India’s part. The deal itself would not have been possible without the political push given by President Bush.thaindian. “We will always be able and ready to support India’s cause as and when needed. who helped create the “Friends of India caucus” in the US Senate headed by former first lady Hillary Clinton and Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas. Those hoping to re-negotiate better terms will then have to wait an awfully long time.

. . This is because congressional approval makes it more difficult to change in the future and provides New Delhi with greater certainty. GUEST COLUMN: AN AMERICAN VIEW: The 123 Agreement Will Prevail.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 42 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – A2: Congress Not Key Congressional approval key to stable deal – congressional imprimatur provides more certainty Rivkin. the 123 Agreement is to be approved or disapproved by an up and down vote in the Congress. the IAEA safeguards.. e. p. a purely executive agreement could always be changed by the next President. 30) Once India fulfils the preconditions that have been agreed upon. without providing Congress the opportunity to modify the Agreement. 9-10-07 (David B. and the ban on nuclear trade is lifted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.g. In contrast. It is far better for India to have an Agreement that is blessed by Congress.. Jr. India Today. BakerHostetler partner and constitutional law expert.

. too. For Now. and offers an appalling example in trying to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. citing administration officials and congressional aides.com/2008/06/18/us-india-nuclear-deal- now_n_107764. say providing U.” 2008) Congress may be tougher than the Indian Parliament. Regardless of its passage in India—the India deal won’t get final approval in Congress Thai-Indian News 7-9 (http://www.html) (IANS) Despite clearing a key hurdle.huffingtonpost. fuel to India would free up India's limited domestic supplies of nuclear material for use in atomic weapons. “Singh Savours Victory.S.thaindian. the Washington Post said Wednesday. India is being allowed to keep its nuclear weapons untouched. raising the possibility that India could begin nuclear trade with other countries even without” it. Critics there. including some in Congress. Brazil and South Africa had to give up their nuclear weapons programmes before being allowed a deal.html) The nuclear deal faces opposition in the U. Growing opposition towards the India deal—fear of nuclear arms race Huffington Post 6-18 (http://www. the India-US civil nuclear deal may still not win final approval in the US Congress this year. American nuclear experts have vociferously protested that the deal allows India to drive a coach and horses round the Non-Proliferation Treaty. according to a US daily. . The Bush administration’s signature deal “appears unlikely to win final approval in the US Congress this year. but New Delhi can begin nuclear trade with other countries even without it.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 43 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (1/2) Opposition to India deal increasing South China Morning Post 7-26 (Kevin Rafferty. which they argue could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia.S.com/newsportal/world-news/n-deal-may-not-pass- but-india-can-turn-to-others-washington-post_10069655.

A July 15 government statement says. .” Congress won’t accept the deal—Washington caved too easily on India’s demands Curtis 8 (Lisa. To win over its parliamentary allies.heritage.aspx?dtlid=175311&catid=11) President Bush has his own problems. The Centre for Arms Control and Non- Proliferation. India has consistently defended its right to reprocess nuclear fuel. assistance in the pursuit of reprocessing activities. safeguarded reprocessing facility to ensure that U. Some analysts object to the deal because it fails to restrain India’s nuclear weapons programme.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2002.cfm) Some congressmen who are adamant about denying India nuclear fuel reprocessing rights may be reluctant to accept the language of the 123 Agreement. a Washington-based non-partisan policy organisation. saying it undermines global non-proliferation efforts. The Bush administration has tried to convince Congress that the US legislation for the nuclear deal. However. committed to create a dedicated. India.S. executive director of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre. “The agreement will in no way impinge on our strategic programme. Both US presidential candidates Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have indicated support for the deal. the Hyde Act.S. argues in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that “fuelling India’s civilian reactors with foreign fuel is not all that peaceful”. But it is not clear if they would present it to the Congress in its current form. has asked the suppliers group and Congress not to make a hasty decision on the nuclear agreement. has mechanisms to check India’s nuclear weapons ambitions. for its part.com.pk/OpinionNews. which is entirely outside the purview of the IAEA safeguards agreement. The Administration ultimately accepted Indian demands regarding this right but distinguished between the right and an entitlement to U. the prime minister’s office insists the nuclear deal overrides the Hyde Act.-origin nuclear fuel is not diverted to its weapons program. http://www. persuading Congress to pass the deal before it adjourns for the year on September 26. Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 44 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (2/2) Congress is opposed to the nuclear deal—objections to lack of restraints on India The Post 8-1 (http://thepost. the Indian government is indicating the opposite. which seeks to bridge the divide between Washington and New Delhi on this issue. Henry Sokolski.

Democrat Edward J." Contrary to everything the Bush administration has claimed about the US-India nuclear deal. it is a sham. this agreement lays out a path for India to unilaterally remove international safeguards from reactors. Markey.” 2008) While critics of the deal. Democratic leadership is opposed to the deal—they’re unhappy about the lack of safeguards Hindustan Times 7-11 (“US Vows to Uphold Its End of Nuclear Deal. a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the founder and co- chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on non-proliferation. India can turn to other suppliers and the US nuclear industry could potentially lose billions of dollars in business. meanwhile is threatened both by resistance from some Democrats. Congress. including some Democrats accuse the Bush administration of diluting US non-proliferation policy. India will be allowed to make electricity one day and bombs the next. non- proliferation policy.S.S." he alleged. he said: "Safeguards agreements should ensure a bright red line between civilian and military nuclear facilities. Gollust 7-10 (http://voanews. Instead. who accuse the Bush the administration of diluting U. if this safeguards agreement is approved.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 45 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass—Democrats Growing democratic opposition is threatening the India Deal. for one called the India-IAEA safeguards agreement as "worse than useless.com/english/2008-07-10-voa51." Expressing shock at what he called "the loopholes" in the agreement. .cfm) Enabling action in the U. those in favour have warned that if Congress fails to act this year. and the political timetable.

Acting State Department Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the Bush administration will work to move the agreement forward but said it remains to be seen if there is enough time. We have the situation that we have. “We're going to be communicating to the Hill how important we believe this measure is for the United States.” 2008) Before the U. the NSG. Legislative rules require that the India deal must sit before Congress for 30 days of continuous sessions before a vote. Congress can approve enabling legislation." he said. contend that it undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But we do look forward to moving forward with this and will do so as quickly as we can. which governs trade in reactors and uranium fuel.S. We understand that the calendar is tight. the IAEA. Congress which aims to finish its session by September 26. for us. and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. and the 30-day clock can only begin after approval by both the IAEA and NSG. including Markey.S. and for others concerned with security around the world. partly because they anticipate election gains for Democrats and do not want the current Congress to be prolonged. the agreement must be cleared by both the International Atomic Energy Agency. especially in the U. At a news briefing. how important we believe this strategic partnership will be for India . who chairs the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-Proliferation.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 46 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (1/3) The deal won’t make it through Congress—not enough time Thai Press Reports 7-24 (“Bush Administration promises full efforts on India Nuclear Deal. The India deal has broad support but some members from both parties. said earlier this month there is simply not enough time left and that administration hopes for action are just fiction. Democratic leaders have said they oppose re-convening Congress for a so-called "lame duck" session after the November election. Ed Markey. A key Congressional Democrat. .

08 (Alan. which sat in January 2007. It is part of the law. to Senator (Joseph) Biden's statements. . which is an enabling act that is clear about the requirements (that come after the submission by the) president. Congressmen may or may not decide to come back for the lame-duck session. right? I am not aware of any steps the president can take to do away with the 30 days of continuous session that is required.” July 8. http://in.com/news/2008/jul/08inter. The calendar is getting a little tough now. That's why. When the administration started referring to Biden's statements I took it as a sign that the (Bush) administration itself was seeing the timeline the same way.. say. This is very disruptive to the Congressional schedule.rediff. The entire 435 members of the House (of Representatives) and one-third of the members of the Senate are running for re- election. The 30 days' session starts when the president submits the India-US nuclear co-operation agreement to Congress.As a senior (senator). ends this year. If the necessary steps at the IAEA and NSG are completed by. there are ways of doing it. Congress is in recess in August. Biden said we need to submit (the nuclear deal) sometime in June. the Congressional calendar in US requires a continuous 30-day session once the president introduces the bill to Congress. What if President Bush decides to take it up? Then.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 47 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (2/3) The India Deal’s time has run out—there aren’t enough consecutive days left on Congress’ schedule and there will be no lame duck session. Subsequent statements from the (US) ambassador (to India David Mulford) and even from some Congressmen suggest that the clock has run out. the end of July.The session of the 110th Congress. there are just not enough days in the Congressional calendar without (including) a lame-duck session. Senator Biden's words should be taken as quite credible on the issue. We have the Atomic Energy Act. certain steps at have to be completed at the IAEA and NSG. in the last few months we saw State Department officials started referring. They are compelled to go back to their districts to campaign. There is the Hyde Act. according to our laws. specially this year. As I understand a session is planned in September that only leaves whatever days are left in September and whatever days remain in July. then do you think the nuclear deal has a good chance to pass Congress? The way I see it. The session is slated to end in late September unless a lame-duck session occurs after the November election. Kronstadt. I don't see how they (could) get 30 continuous days out of that. Expert on South Asian Affairs and a Senior Analyst at the Congressional Research Service..htm) The key here is that. now that we have a presidential election going on too. which is relevant here (It deals with the regulation of nuclear materials and facilities in the US). To do that. “Not enough time in US Congress to pass deal: Expert. Congress is likely to be not in session for (the remainder of the) year unless they choose to come back for the lame-duck session.

Washington Post 7-9 (Glenn Kessler. 4 elections. spokeswoman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee.the so-called Hyde Act -. and securing approval from the 45 nations that form the Nuclear Suppliers Group. But the IAEA Board of Governors is not expected to take up the matter until August. which governs trade in reactors and uranium. companies still face legal restrictions. officials and experts have begun to focus on the possibility that other countries -. with the near impossibility of congressional passage by year-end. Bush and Singh agreed to the pact in July 2005.completing an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. said Lynne Weil.S. 26.Now.that gave preliminary approval to the U. giving him enough support to retain his majority even as the Communists bolted over fears that the pact would infringe on India's sovereignty. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif. he secured an agreement with the Samajwadi Party to back the deal. less than 40 days are left in the session before Congress adjourns on Sept.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 48 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (3/3) Passage of the India deal is impossible—there isn’t enough time.-India agreement. This week. is designed to solidify Washington's relationship with a fast-emerging economic power.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801523. considered a key part of his foreign policy legacy.would rush in to make nuclear sales to India while U.President Bush's agreement with India.S.such as France and Russia -.S.-India Nuclear Pact.S.html) India's civil nuclear agreement with the United States may have cleared a key hurdle in New Delhi this week. according to administration officials and congressional aides. . but it appears unlikely to win final approval in the U. But the legislation passed in 2006 -. Because of the long August recess. requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider it. raising the possibility that India could begin nuclear trade with other countries even without the Bush administration's signature deal. Congress this year.) has repeatedly insisted there will be no lame-duck session after the Nov. "At this point. but it has faced repeated delays and opposition in both countries.washingtonpost. both [the IAEA and NSG actions] have to take place in the next couple of weeks" for the deal to be considered by Congress. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has struggled to keep his coalition government intact over the controversial deal to give New Delhi access to U. the Democrats significantly gain seats. Congressional aides said that clock can begin to tick only once India clears two more hurdles -. “Congress May Not Pass U. nuclear technology for the first time since it conducted a nuclear test in 1974. http://www. There would be little incentive for the Democratic majority to hold a lame-duck session if. as expected. whereas the NSG may take several months to reach a consensus.” 2008.S.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 49 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – General*** .

“The Long Last Mile. l/n) The Left's stringent objections and delaying tactics have left both the Indian and the US governments with little elbow room to consummate the deal during US President George Bush's tenure which ends in January 2009. a Washington law firm hired by the US- India Business Council (USIBC) to win support for the deal in Congress. there is a slight possibility that the September 26 date for recess could be postponed until early October.outlookindia. However. .asp?fodname=20080811&fname=Nuclear+%28F%29&sid=1 &pn=1) Graham Wisner. would close the very small window before the US election break. After that the US President will make a determination that India has fulfilled its part of the deal and send it to the US Congress which will then have to take an up-or-down vote on it. says there has to be "a full diplomatic press by the Indian and US governments to get unanimous consent from the NSG by the first week of September.” 2008. he warns.Apart from the IAEA Board clearing the India-specific safeguards agreement. The deal has to get done now—any further delay would cause its collapse India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa. Only after all these processes are completed to everyone's satisfaction. thus enabling the deal to lie in Congress for 30 days of continuous session. And there was every danger that they may not be as responsive or enthusiastic as Bush and the current legislators are. will the deal become operationalised and allow India to engage in nuclear trade with American entities.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 50 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Delay Bush has to solely focus on the deal—any delay will cause its death Outlook India 8-11 (http://www. the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to agree to make an exception in its rules that would permit its 45 members to carry out civilian nuclear trade with India even though it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). it was because any further delay would mean that India would have to negotiate with a new President and a new Congress to seal the deal. If Manmohan suddenly seemed in a hurry to push the deal through.com/full." Any further delay. a lobbyist with Patton Boggs.

" . expertise. 91 (Robert. This was true for the Panama Canal treaties and the war in the Persian Gulf. One highly placed Nixon observer maintained that "the [Family Assistance] plan could have been announced much sooner if there hadn't been such a struggle. welfare reform serves as an example. A few difficult issues -. expertise. When one would attack. p. political capital. ) The President's domestic agenda also reflects the allocation of resources. if he needs to ask Congress repeatedly to approve an unpopular policy -- such as contra aid -. 2. as Reagan did. It takes a heft investment of presidential influence and effort." a Johnson legislative assistant argued." Once again.policymaking and resource distribution require extensive use of White House resources Light. the president will almost certainly have to devote a much larger proportion of his time and political capital to gaining approval for it.time. p.he will deplete his political capital and is likely eventually to lose the votes.. this pressure will not abate in the near future. ) Presidential priorities also involve more conflict. WASHINGTON QUARTERLY. both inside the administration and out. Given the ever-tightening policy options. the trade-offs between domestic and international interests will become more delicate. Policy-makers increasingly turn to the agenda for the first battles over the distribution of scarce resources. the issue was intricate. With Burns and Moynihan at odds. we couldn't move. Autumn 1991. interest groups and individuals have "discovered" Congress and the Presidency. "Compromise doesn't usually happen overnight.like the canal treaties or contra aid -. As it was. Brookings Center for Public Service director. 1999. 99 (Paul C. the other would counterattack. information. Normal means ensures the plan spends finite political capital .. energy. 2.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 51 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (1/2) The plan crowds the agenda and burns capital Pastor. Emory political science professor. the more time. As a President moves through the term. The president must be very conscious of his agenda and very selective in his approach. each agenda choice commits some White House resources . Brookings Center for Public Service director. whether federal funds or bureaucratic energy. there was a stalemate for three months. THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA. The increasing complexity of the world and its growing interdependence with the United States means that the agenda will grow. Congress rarely rejects him. "You'd be surprised how long it takes to iron out the differences. And the greater the conflict. Lexis) The third dysfunction in interbranch relations is the length of time and the amount of presidential capital needed to gain approval of a major foreign policy law or treaty. This growing pressure has placed greater emphasis on the agenda as a topic of political conflict. 99 (Paul C. Given a fixed amount of time and a limited number of decision makers. which often are fixed and limited. information. but it could have been handled much faster without the in- fighting. Each agenda item also commits some policy options. and energy necessary to settle the disputes. Controversial policies spend political capital Light. and he will have less time for and influence on other foreign policy issues. When the president makes a compelling case that the national security of the United States demands the approval of a particular bill or treaty. 1999. THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA. this systemic delay might be among the most important problems that stem from interbranch politics.can delay consideration of the entire foreign policy agenda for prolonged periods. But if the policy is unpopular. Also. p. Sure. The sheer number of participants in the policy process both inside and outside the White House has increased rapidly over the last two decades. and the role of Congress will increase proportionately.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 52 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (2/2) Controversial decisions burn capital Thomas & Pika. THE POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENCY. . 97 (Norman & Joseph. Professors of Political Science. University of Cincinnati and Delaware. As they make controversial decisions. which they are seldom able to replenish. 1997. They must decide which proposals merit the expenditure of political capital and in what amounts. they "spend" some of their capital. pg. 215 "Political Capital" is the reservoir of popular and congressional support with which newly elected presidents begin their terms.

p. No matter what the president and his advisers believe. THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY. with presidential policy. presidents now are no longer driven to pursue only an anticommunist containment policy. a substantial number of Americans – in the mass public and especially the elite public – disagree. Unlike those in the 1950s. and frustration in obtaining. or are open to disagreement. consensus and policy legitimation. Hence. Presidents no longer come to office with automatic majorities behind their policies. 388) The fragmentation of public ideological and foreign policy beliefs gives a president great opportunities but also creates great risks. 2004. Yet it is unclear how far a president may go in pursuing any policy before losing public support. University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor (Jerel A. the continual presidential search for. .Arizona Debate Institute 2008 53 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – AT – Our Plan Is Popular Only a risk of a link – There’s always opposition to be overcome Rosati 4..

also elected in November 2004.964 in subsidies in 2005.[10] The Herseths of South Dakota. in Big Sandy Springs. but this sample illustrates the extent to which these potential conflicts of interest exist and the significant amounts of money that are involved. he received $789. These elected officials are among a number of Senators and Representatives--including Representative Dennis Hastert (R-IL). From 1995 through 2005. Between 1995 and 2005. The information was compiled by the Environmental Working Group from USDA data.heritage.D.S. Past and Present. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT). Ralph Lars Herseth. Lugar Stock Farms.555 in USDA subsidies. newly elected in November 2006. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO).833 in subsidy payments.[13] Lugar Stock Farms. Inc. The company received $45. nonetheless confront the challenge of a potential conflict of interest. The list is not intended to be definitive. Kansas. the farm received $232. while they have yet to take a stand on agriculture spending. http://www. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). as do some members of his immediate family. Grassley received $225. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). and his wife Sharla are equal co-owners of T-bone Farms. Oregon. Between 1995 and 2005. and other examples will likely come to light.. Virginia. but several studies and articles have uncovered some information. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has extensive farm interests. Treasury.. Jon Tester (D-MT).[12] His father.[3] Big Subsidies in Big Sky Country. received $5. Senator Grassley's son Robin has received $653. Ph. who is a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. elected in November 2004.[11] The Brownbacks of Kansas. Between 1995 and 2005. Some of these Members have been serving in Congress for many years. Max Sieben Baucus (D- MT). was appointed to a seat on the House Agriculture Committee.662 over the same period.[14] Many More. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) received $40. Inc. Iowa. Brownback. own the Sieben Ranch Company in Wolf Creek.403 in farm subsidies (mostly for conservation) between 1995 and 2005. also of Parker. Senator Gordon H. the Representative received $161.041 in USDA subsidies for corn and soybeans and disaster assistance between 1995 and 2005. elected in November 2002.575 in federal farm support for a diversified portfolio of crops and farm activities.[4] Members of the family of Montana's senior Senator. sit on the agriculture committees of their respective legislative bodies. and dry peas and assistance for miscellaneous disasters. and his brother. Glenn Robert Brownback of Parker. The other 88 percent is owned by 13 other family members.[7] The Family of Senator Charles Grassley. Inc. is a major beneficiary of federal farm pro- grams. and his brother.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 54 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress Subsidized Members of Congress receive subsidies Utt 7 (Ronald D. Salazar (D-CO). Senator Smith and his wife Sharon co-own Smith Frozen Foods in Umatilla. received $126. Sieben Ranch (co-owned by six members of the Baucus family) received $230. Montana. and queries to his office on this matter were not answered. and his wife Charlene own just over 12 percent of Lugar Stock Farms in Oxford. The following examples represent a cross-section of Members of Congress who have received USDA subsidies between 1995 and 2005. and his wife Janice have received USDA subsidies in the past but nothing in recent years. Smith (R-OR).311 in USDA subsidies for oats. Montana's lone Representative. is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A.org/research/agriculture/bg2045.084 in agricultural subsidies from the U. her father and former South Dakota governor. received $286. Representative John T. Others have just been elected to Congress and. and many others no longer in office[15] .[6] The Salazars of Colorado. barley. Listing his home address as Arlington. Between 1995 and 2005.. Indiana.[8] In New Hartford. who also lives in New Hartford.237 from the USDA. Montana.cfm. Senator R. mostly for corn and soybeans. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD). including extensive service on the agriculture committees. While records indicate that she receives no USDA subsidies.[5] There are conflicting reports on the Senator's financial ownership interest in the enterprise. John R. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.[2] and the record indicates that some Members and their families receive substantial financial benefits. wheat. the Senator's grandson. and the Senator received $770 in 2002. received $319. 6/27) Exactly how many Members of Congress benefit directly from USDA subsidies has not been fully established.082.[9] Patrick Grassley..400 in wheat-related subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 55 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

or-break session now. which continues today. Republicans are worried about losing votes and giving the Democrats an opening. Peter Mandelson. http://www. continues to receive enthusiastic bipartisan Congressional support. "This has been badly handled. with President George W.iht. Alexei. Congress this week. July 27) Though farmers make up a small percentage of the work force in the developed countries participating in the talks. neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to alienate farmers by agreeing to a trade deal that diminishes their subsidies and supports without offering gains in markets overseas in return. this farm policy..” To put honesty in this policy would mean acknowledging that this policy exists to serve electoral politics." Strong bipartisan support for agriculture subsidies Sauer 1 (Peter. Indeed.S. meant that when Congress voted for additional farm subsidies through the Market Loss Assistance Program in 1999. disappeared. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman candidly admits. and that it promotes agriculture’s spiraling dependency on toxins that damage the human and ecological health of the nation. during this same period. which costs taxpayers $28 billion in the current year. 22. farm-related jobs. was deemed "unacceptable" by leading French politicians even as it was derided by the United States as minimal. that the so-called rural economic development program subsidizes the loss of farms. including ours. It leads to these enormously noncompetitive agriculture sectors that people are trying to protect. it actually increased the payments to large industrial farms. "To have a trade negotiation at this point and try to get the Bush administration to make very difficult choices which will affect a number of congressional districts three or four months before an election doesn't make sense.000 small farms. These are consolidated.000 newly consolidated large farms were created. Republicans support it because most of the money goes to districts that elect Republicans to Congress.” Orion Magazine Spring) Between 1994 and 1997.000 small farms in the U. In several states in the American farm belt. capital. “The Monarch Versus the Global Empire: The butterfly and human rights.S. Bush and the Republican Party facing likely setbacks in the election in November. However. In a December 2000 New York Times article. “Maybe it is time we had some honesty in farm policy. In spite of its contradictions and failures." said John Engler. which since the early nineties has been dominated by five or six multinational corporations. because of cultural and economic reasons. The net loss. and to structure government farm support programs that encourage and reward the growth of big farms. Democrats support it because several farm states—Iowa. "Agricultural is so emotional and so cultural for many nations. farm policy with campaign contributions to candidates in farm state elections also are the primary investors in and beneficiaries of the imposition of similar policies around the globe. For decades. has brought the industrialization of American agriculture yet another leap forward.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 56 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (1/4) Cutting subsidies costs Bush political capital w Congress Weisman and Barrionuevo 6 (Steven R. and suicide rates among American farmers spiked. the de facto national farm policy has been to reduce the number of farms. Missouri. These are precisely the same effects that agricultural industrialization has had on Mexico and other developing nations." The failure of the recent trade talks was hailed throughout the U. a former trade envoy and commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton. The offer made by the chief European negotiator. 42.com/articles/2006/07/26/business/trade. This year. Leaders on both sides of the aisle said in almost the same words that "no deal was better than a bad deal" in the current trade talks. president of the National Association of Manufacturers and former Republican governor of Michigan. and the farmers’ proportional share of agricultural profits." said Mickey Kantor.and chemical-intensive corporate and factory farms that participate in and complement the methodologies of the food and fiber industry. The farm crisis of the mid-nineties. and Illinois—are important swing states in national elections. farmers. "We were all agrarian societies once upon a time. .S. There is also the farmers' ability to play on cultural and romantic feelings that many in these countries have about people who work the land. nearly 20. the political situation is so fraught that some experts wonder why the administration scheduled a make. their leverage is enormous. The agrichemical corporations that support the current U. so the Bush administration could not afford politically to compromise on lowering tariffs and farm supports.php.

Rising food costs and the upcoming election have fueled bipartisan support for a politically popular $290 billion farm bill full of extra money for food stamps and farm subsidies. 28 more than needed to override his promised veto. Supporters garnered 318 votes in that chamber." About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. Bush has said the legislation is fiscally irresponsible and pays too much money to wealthy farmers. one day after the House supported the legislation overwhelmingly. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer reiterated Bush's veto threat Wednesday by saying it is a "bloated. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs. despite strong opposition from President Bush. 100 Republicans voted for the bill. . The Senate is expected to approve the five-year bill and send it to Bush on Thursday. earmark laden bill.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 57 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (2/4) Farm Bill proves subsidies have bipartisan support AP 8 (“Politically popular farm bill gets election-year boost” 5/15) WASHINGTON (AP) .

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
58
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (3/4)

Both House and Senate support for pro-subsidy legislation: agriculture lobbies strong

Riedl 2 (Brian M., Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534.cfm)
Organizations representing the farmers of the subsidized crops are responsible for
much of the $69.6 million that agribusinesses have donated to congressional and
presidential candidates since 1999. 7 Several of these organizations were also
represented on the 11-member Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture,
which was established under the Freedom to Farm Act to review its performance and
recommend changes. In January 2001, the commission released a report calling for the
complete abandonment of Freedom to Farm through (1) the extension and expansion of
Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) subsidies that were supposed to be phased out, (2)
the creation of a new "counter-cyclical" farm subsidy program, and (3) the continuation of
policies targeting subsidies to the largest farms and agribusinesses. 8 American Farm
Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, a commission member, reiterated these policy
prescriptions before the House Agriculture Committee on February 28, 2001 9 and later
called any vote against them a "slap in the face." 10 The Washington, D.C., office of the
American Farm Bureau Federation backed up these calls for increased farm subsidies
with political donations of a steady $4.5 million per year. Similarly, a member of the
National Cotton Council's board of directors, claiming to represent the entire cotton
industry, testified in favor of subsidy increases before the House Agriculture
Committee on July 18, 2001. His suggestion was given added weight by $304,422 in
political donations that the council contributed to federal political candidates since 1999.
11 The unprecedented farm subsidy increases proposed by these agriculture industry
representatives were quickly written into farm legislation, and on October 5, 2001, the
House of Representatives voted overwhelming to pass the most expensive farm bill in
history. The 10-year, $171 billion bill contains virtually the same PFC expansions, new
counter-cyclical farm subsidies, and further tilting of farm subsidies toward the largest
farms that were proposed by the farm lobby. The Senate followed suit by passing an
equally expensive bill with most of the same policy prescriptions. 12

Congressional opposition to the Bush veto demonstrates strong subsidy support

Roberts 8 (Commercial Appeal, http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/Jun/03/brazil-
may-meet-cotton-subsidies-with-tariffs/, 4/3)
The farm bill proposed by the Bush administration whittled down farm subsidies. It
was overridden when Congress "spoke rather boldly," said Mike Stevens, commodity
futures broker with Swiss Financial Services in Mandeville, La. The new $290 billion bill
largely keeps farm subsidies as they were, although it does reduce income eligibility
thresholds from $2.5 million to $750,000. It also lowered the target price of cotton and
altered the loan program, which could reduce the amount of money farmers get to cover
expenses before they sell their cotton.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
59
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (4/4)

Subsidy cuts unpopular: Agricultural Interests too Strong, control key members of
congress

Heinisch 5 (Master Thesis,
http://witsetd.wits.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/195/1/main.pdf )
Governments use subsidies to ensure adequate food supplies and national selfsufficiency.
However, there are other factors at work. “There is also no doubt that in many Western
democracies, agricultural interests have a political clout that gives them a decisive
influence on the political lives of their countries” (Delcros, 2002, p. 220). This is true,
Delcros says, in most countries where the electoral system is based on representation
according to geographical criteria rather than the size of the population in given regions.
“This is the case in the United States where the thinly populated states of the farm
belt have as many senators as densely populated states” (Delcros, 2002, p. 220). This
section discusses the political dynamics underlying the strong support for cotton producers.
Congress writes U.S. farm policy. At the time the 2002 Farm Bill was passed, the two
most powerful members of the House Agriculture Committee were from Texas, the
source of a fifth of the nation’s cotton, and five U.S. senators from cotton states sat on
the other chamber’s agriculture committee (Thurow and Kilman, 2002). The Economist
underlined this point, stating that the WTO response to a proposal put forth by the West
Africans to end U.S. cotton subsidies “had American fingerprints all over it. Political
realities in Congress (the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee is a close ally of
the cotton farmers) made American negotiators fiercely defensive of their outrageous
subsidies” (Economist, 2003b).

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
60
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (1/5)

Agricultural lobbies powerful in Congress – Opposition is weak

Riedl 2 (Riedl, Brian. Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas
A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Agriculture Lobby
Wins Big in New Farm Bill” 4/9. KK.)
Producers of the five
largest subsidized commodities--wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and
soybeans--have been responsible for much of the nearly $70 million that has been
donated by agricultural interests to federal candidates since 1999. Leaders of organizations
such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, which have also been multimillion-dollar campaign donors, were appointed to federal
commissions where they proposed several new expensive farm programs to Congress. Not surprisingly, nearly all of the
recommendations made by these organizations ended up in the House and Senate bills. The sugar industry donated
$4.3 million to federal political candidates in hopes of retaining federal sugar
supports that triple the price American consumers pay for sugar. One-fourth of these donations came from just one company--Flo-
Sun, Inc., a sugar empire located in Florida and the Dominican Republic and owned by brothers Alfonso (Alfie) and Jose (Pepe) Fanjul.
Although this corporation is scarcely in need and the Fanjuls' sugar fortune has been conservatively estimated to be worth $500 million,
the government's sugar program provides them with approximately $125 million per year in federal benefits. In December 2001, a
Senate amendment that would have saved consumers $1.9 billion per year by eliminating the federal sugar program was defeated by a
vote of 71-25. Likewise, the peanut industry sought assurance that it would not be harmed by the elimination of price supports.
Organizations including the Western Peanut Growers Association and the National Peanut Growers Group donated nearly $250,000 to
candidates for national office and testified before Congress several times in favor of replacing peanut price supports with generous
federal subsidies. Both the House and Senate voted to include $3.5 billion in peanut subsidies over 10 years, thereby shifting the cost of
the peanut program from consumers to taxpayers. Meanwhile, dairy farmers have been defending milk price supports that impose a
"milk tax" costing consumers $2.7 billion per year. Organizations such as the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), which told
Congress that these milk tax policies are actually good for consumers, were responsible for much of the $3.3 million that has been
donated by the dairy industry to federal political candidates. While Congress did allow one dairy price support program--the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact--to sunset in 2001, the Senate voted to provide a new $2 billion golden parachute payment for dairy farmers
across the country. Many political scientists no doubt would consider agriculture
policy a classic case of special-interest politics. The beneficiaries of farm
subsidies may be few in numbers, but they have dedicated substantial resources
to influencing the debate on farm policy because its outcome will result in massive gains or losses for
them. On the other hand, while the vast majority of Americans are harmed by
subsidy policies, they have not felt a pressing call to action, given that the
effects of subsidies on an individual level are relatively small and are hidden
in food prices and tax bills. Consequently, the more active and impassioned farm
lobby has succeeded in preserving its special-interest subsidies.

Farm interests strong: Key congressional allies

The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter 7 (“Farm interests will fare well overall in the 110th
Congress” 1/5, KK)
Farm interests will fare well overall in the 110th Congress. Farmers have friends on key
committees. Sen. Tom Harkin (D -IA) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) will head
agricultural committees nearly split along party lines. Both panels often will be bipartisan.
Ag interests also have allies on other important congressional panels, including those
with control over the purse strings in both chambers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
61
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (2/5)
The farm lobby empirically succeeds in gutting subsidy reductions
McKenzie 8 (William, Dallas Morning News Writer, “Fresh Thinking dries up” 5/22) KK
The old way of seeing farm bills was more in terms of domestic benefits. Capitol Hill thought mostly about helping
farmers in the Texas Panhandle, on the plains of the Dakotas or across the fields of Kansas. Farmers, after all,
have political clout. There's a new way to see farm policy, however, and it revolves around connecting the
developed world to the developing world. More than ever, ag policies shape everything from how crops grown in Texas
and Kansas affect food prices in Egypt, Haiti and Cambodia. Bush gets the picture. So do some
legislators, like Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin. They
pushed for a more economically efficient way of farming, including doing away with
subsidies for farmers who make as much as $750,000, after expenses. Unfortunately, the farm lobby
prevailed. David Beckmann, president of the hunger charity Bread for the World, told me that he met only
one legislator who told him he was wrong to lobby for reforming farm payments. The
rest told him he was right but that they couldn't go against the farm lobby.

Agriculture lobby too strong: Dems and GOP won’t cut subsidies
Orden 2 (David, Professor of ag policy @ Virginia tech, “Reform’s stunted crop,” Cato Institute) KK
As this article goes to press, several things are clear about the 2002 farm bill. First, neither recent budget
considerations nor international commitments to wto rules have constrained farm spending levels
or policy instruments, despite markedly changed budget projections and the importance of foreign markets to U.S.
agriculture. That unfortunate outcome is a testament to the continued power of the agricultural
lobby and its advocates in Congress; neither party seems willing to restrain the farm subsidy
juggernaut. Any prospect for reducing the levels of farm support expenditures has been lost
in 2002. The Senate bill spends more in the next five years than the House bill, and the bidding war may not be over. Fiscal
restraint on farm policy will have to wait for another day.

Farmers powerful: massive campaign contributions

Heidorn 4 (Nicolas, public policy intern @ independent Institute of Oakland,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/porkbarrel081804.cfm)
Rich farmers are a powerful lobby in American politics. In the last election, crop
producers gave $11.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, and they are likely to give much more by this November. So don't be
surprised that the GAO's report won't be taken too seriously on Capitol Hill. Farm
subsidies are more than just payoffs for loaded, large landowners. They're subsidies
for elected officials, too.

Farm Lobby Strong: Congress caters to lobbies

SF Gate 8 (4/30, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNV410DQ89.DTL)
"Congress is about to be grotesquely generous to big, subsidized farms that are now
enjoying unprecedented prosperity," Cook. said. The list of recipients for payments last
year "makes clear the disturbing degree to which congressional leaders are catering to
the powerful farm subsidy lobby at the expense of ordinary American taxpayers."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
62
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (3/5)
Farm Lobby Strong: lobbies form coalitions drawing public support

Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm)
Although the health-care industry and trial lawyers spend far more than Big Farm to
influence Washington, the farm lobby is distinguished by a well-organized grass-roots
network of organizations that extends throughout rural America. In the capital, farmers
are represented by a core group of long-serving lobbyists who regularly band
together, setting aside divergent interests to keep the dollars flowing to farm
programs. And this lobby can draw on public sympathy for a stereotype of a quaint
family farm. The political structure also works in its favor. The Senate's equal
representation gives voters in sparsely populated rural states extra political weight.
And it doesn't hurt that the first presidential caucus is held in Iowa, where candidates
ritually pay homage to the myth of the family farm.

Farm coalition strong: strong relations with key members of Congress

Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm)
The coalition of farm groups has been resilient, in part because none of the interests
has waged war against another. Even when health advocates attacked tobacco
subsidies, the coalition continued to support them until tobacco growers agreed to a
federal buy-out. "It was made very clear to those of us on the committee," LaHood said.
"I don't grow one leaf of tobacco in my area in Illinois. The point was, even if you don't
like tobacco, you'd better be for tobacco if you want corn and (soy) beans to be taken care
of." The farm lobby works hard to maintain chummy relations on Capitol Hill. When
the sugar industry hosted Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and five
congressional staffers at its "sweetener symposium" in Vail, Colo., in 2004, the leisure
activities included white-water rafting and golf. Three mornings of seminars on trade and
sugar issues were spread over the five-day event. As a general rule, the more controversial
the farm program, the more money its backers dole out in junkets and campaign
contributions. And the biggest beneficiaries of agriculture's funding are the leadership
of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the leadership of the
agriculture appropriations subcommittees. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, chairman of
the House appropriations subcommittee, has raised $300,000 from the farm sector, and
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, $287,000.
The farm lobby also generates good will by offering jobs to members of Congress and
their staffs. The committees overseeing agriculture have become a reliable farm system
for the USDA, commodity organizations and lobbying firms. Dale Thorenson is a typical
example.

they have served on federal commissions. Plan unpopular: Ag lobbies strong control. The Bush Administration has made noises about a veto. including massive farm subsidies and price supports. testified before Congress. which spent $135 million on lobbying and donations last year and brilliantly portrays opponents as enemies of the heartland of America. and donated millions of dollars to federal political candidates.." Farm Lobby Strong: Stranglehold on Congress Grunwald 7 (Michael." says Oxfam America's Jim Lyons. they have both the incentives and resources necessary to invest heavily in maintaining the current flow of subsidy dollars. Grover M. http://www.cfm) Because the largest agribusinesses are the chief beneficiaries of agriculture policy.time. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. http://www. Through representative organizations.html) Of course. Although he supports more funding for rural development and conservation. wield support on House Agriculture Committee Maixner 6 (Ed. he vows that subsidies "will be largely an extension of the 2002 farm bill. And they'll continue to wield power on Capitol Hill. The Senate is considering a similar bill. Rep. the large coalition of ag interests that receive the bulk of crop subsidies are still a formidable force. the House and Senate farm bills include many of the provisions that these groups support.1680139.heritage. Not surprisingly.00. http://www. massive investment in maintaining subsidies Riedl 2 (Brian M. confided in a private chat that he regrets signing the lavish 2002 bill. Kind says the President.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534." .S. Agriculture Under Secretary.html) The story of this butt-kicking is a quin-tessential Washington tale. "The game is always the same. But it's never wise to bet against the farm lobby. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Collin Peterson (D-MN). illustrating how a single special interest with a single-minded devotion to a cause can trump a broad coalition and the national interest. a former U. famously reluctant to admit mistakes.kiplinger. flatly rejects reducing crop subsidies to win a new world trade liberalization deal. Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter.9171. "The big commodity groups have a stranglehold on policy.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 63 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (4/5) Plan Unpopular: Farm Lobby Strong.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but _not_scuttled__. For example. Time Magazine. and a reform effort led by Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana seems likely to meet a similar fate. And there's not a lot of stomach for new ideas. who will chair the House Agriculture Committee if the Democrats take over.com/time/magazine/article/0.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 64 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (5/5) The plan tanks political capital—the farm lobby has a stranglehold on policy making. illustrating how a single special interest with a single-minded devotion to a cause can trump a broad coalition and the national interest. http://www.com/time/magazine/article/0. And a recent Government Accountability Office report identified $1. which parlays cue-the-violins stereotypes of struggling yeomen into giveaways to the planter class of the South and Great Plains. ethanol mandates and tariffs to boost their prices. which means it will keep funneling money to farmers and pseudo farmers through a bewildering array of loans. the National Farmers Union and the Big Five commodity lobbies. and a reform effort led by Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana seems likely to meet a similar fate. Since five row crops--corn. November 2. Time Magazine. a Wisconsin Democrat who led a failed bipartisan reform effort in the the vast majority of the cash goes to House. subsidized insurance. emerged to help Kind and Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona try to shake up the system. but you're way out of your league here. and just 19 of the 435 congressional districts were vacuuming up half of all subsidies. The moment seemed ripe for Democrats to challenge the status quo." an oblique way of saying it isn't reform at all. Kind says the President. disaster aid and money-for-nothing handouts that arrive when times are tough--or not tough. This summer an unprecedented coalition. flood-control and irrigation projects to protect and enhance their land.S. The bottom 80% average just $700. Agribusiness was steering two-thirds of its campaign donations to Republicans. restoration projects to clean up their messes. assuming none of them knew decent accountants.000 per year. "I knew we were going to kick his butt." grumbles Congressman Ron Kind. Pelosi sided with the American Farm Bureau. "You're eligible as long as you're breathing.1680139. soybeans. Still. especially the small farmers whose steadfast family values and precarious family finances are invoked to justify the programs. But it's never wise to bet against the farm lobby. famously reluctant to admit mistakes. the emergency has never ended. "The big commodity groups have a stranglehold on policy. a former U. The one major "reform" was that farm families earning at least $2 million a year would supposedly be ineligible for subsidies." Actually. The Bush Administration has made noises about a veto.00. visa programs to supply them with cheap labor.html. while the influential sugar industry would retain its lucrative price supports. That's worth repeating: most farmers." says Oxfam America's Jim Lyons. thundered for reform. running the gamut of the advocacy world from rural development to Editorials health to business to the environment. calling it "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency. In reality. cotton and rice--more than 60% of our farmers receive no subsidies. "The game is always the same. you're a good guy. for an average of almost $35. "What a joke. The story of this butt-kicking is a quin-tessential Washington tale.) Nevertheless. "I told him.1 billion of subsidies whose recipients were no longer breathing.'" Peterson told TIME. This evidence assumes their turns Grunwald 7 (Michael. The government still gives farmers your money--more than ever over the past decade--along with research projects to expand their yields. Franklin Roosevelt's in Administration started farm aid in response to the Dust Bowl and the Depression. House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota had a warning for Kind." He was right." But Washington. that's not quite true.9171. which spent $135 million on bill lobbying and donations last year and brilliantly portrays opponents as enemies of the heartland of America. spearheading a bill she called "a first step toward reform. Congress is finalizing a $286 billion farm bill that will continue our basic farm policies." .time. The Senate is considering a similar bill. The Big Five would still hog the subsidies. get little or nothing. the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three-quarters of the subsidies. The bipartisan farm bills that Congress passes every five to seven years reflect the power and savvy of the farm lobby. Agriculture Under Secretary. price supports. And there's not a lot of stomach for new ideas. 'Ron. confided in a private chat that he regrets signing the lavish 2002 . and tax breaks by the bushel. wheat. and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco--the city of organic kale and "meat is murder"--vowed to deliver it.

Once her position was known. It lost 309-117. is using all of its considerable muscle to derail efforts to change the subsidy system." the group's president. to limit subsidies -. chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.ewg. D-Calif.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 65 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – American Farm Bureau American Farm Bureau against subsidy reduction The Oregonian 7 (11/11. a proposal by Rep. Tom Harkin. Ron Kind.was doomed. conservation and rural development. D-Ore.org/node/25626) The American Farm Bureau Federation. Earl Blumenauer. D-Iowa. It was a plea with power.also supported by Rep. rice and other commodities. wheat. In July. wrote last month to Sen. Bob Stallman. to support the current system. the Farm Bureau and other interests persuaded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. http://www.. -. "Farm Bureau strongly urges you not to adopt a farm bill that shifts money from the commodity title to increase funding for other programs including nutrition.. with help from lobbying groups for corn. D-Wis. Pelosi said the move was necessary to protect vulnerable Democrats in rural and conservative districts that rely heavily on agriculture. .

Hence aluminium plants are attracted to major hydroelectric projects. Directorate for Food. Subsidies to food processing industries (e.htm) The loose alliance working to reform American farm policy is broad and diverse. especially those that derive a significant proportion of their sales from exports. Even the most passionate reformers. Another factor working against reform is that subsidies themselves create a pool of money out of which recipients can influence the very political process that channels money to them in the first place. the offending programmes simply get renamed or cloaked in the latest policy fashion.some want more money for conservation. such as agriculture. The latter lobby vigorously to defend their handouts. and don’t recognize salient effects Steenblik 98 (Ronald.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots. http://www. a chain reaction can take place. The farm lobby has a narrower agenda: They are all about perpetuating the farm bill. fisheries and mining. a former California lawmaker and member of the House Agriculture Committee who is now president of the Food Products Association. tomato canneries. the bureaucracy itself can present an obstacle.15 · Compensatory support: When support leads to higher input prices for downstream consumers." said Cal Dooley. · Subsidy clusters: When support — or failure to consider opportunity costs — leads to lower prices for natural resources. Agriculture and Fisheries. The groups have different reasons for trying to change farm policy . The resulting low mobility of the affected labour force itself becomes a barrier to reform.. This is especially the case when subsidies are used to support employment in rural industries. a trade association fighting for market-oriented farm programs that would reduce sugar prices and accelerate trade talks. Finally. farm lobby’s small agenda ensures support for subsidies Dorning & Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew.g. but it's not even a top priority. Often downstream consumers receive additional incentives from governments to do so. it often does so in a manner designed to benefit domestic producers. but it is hard to imagine total disinterest being the norm. which are then followed by airframe manufacturers.floridafarmers. and the Food Products Association. the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.oecd.pdf) The beneficiaries of a subsidy can become entrapped in a social sense as well. the bureaucratisation process often feeds a pervasive notion that the subsidised activity forms part of the natural order of things. More subtly. short-term bursts of public outrage against particular subsidies are usually ineffectual. to prevent them. "This is one of them. Many examples can be found in the energy sector. It includes the Environmental Defense. and any attempt to curb them becomes politically hazardous." . we've got a lot of priorities. acknowledge it will be hard to match the intensity of the farm lobby.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 66 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular: Support Outweighs Opposition (1/2) Supporters of subsidies are vocal and powerful and opponents are small. Government ministries rarely admit to having avested interest in the continuation of the support programmes they administer. or are empowered.14 In any case. producers of potato starch) are common examples. increasing subsidy dependency.org/dataoecd/2/62/1918086. others want to lower the federal budget deficit . and so forth. Principal Administrator @ Fisheries Division. "You get an association such as mine. which require specialised skills but not necessarily much formal education. http://www.13 In many instances subsidies redistribute wealth from a large number of unknowing contributors to a smaller number of beneficiaries. a libertarian research group based in Washington. This subversion of rational policy-making feeds the spread of derivative subsidies — for instance: Sympathetic support: When support is used to influence the direction of technological developments. such as when governments support the construction of coal-fired “demonstration” power plants that are dependent on coal from highcost domestic mines rather than on imported coal. Chicago Tribune. and making structural adjustment all the more traumatic when it finally does come. compensation is often provided in order to keep them buying domestically produced raw materials. whereby new investment occurs to take advantage of the cheap input.but they all want to roll back subsidy payments. Subsidies thus metamorphosise into entitlements. however.16 Our evidence is comparative: anti-subsidy lobbies don’t have a chance. unorganized. the Cato Institute. the former seldom bother.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 67 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

" says Kari Hamerschlag. chairman Peterson took Pelosi to meet with farm groups and warned her that Democratic freshmen in rural districts might lose seats if farm programs were revamped.html. Berry once called Pelosi late at night to beg her not to allow strict payment limits or any cuts in subsidies. Grunwald 7 (Michael. the House bill increased the maximum direct payment 50%. Kind thought they had a shot. Pelosi ultimately pledged to support the work of the Agriculture Committee. How did Peterson achieve this consensus? By buying off the reform factions. with its predictable tributes to hardworking family farmers. whose members represent districts that receive 42% of the subsidies. no markup.5 billion for conservation and $100 million for black farmers. But Kind thought wrong. "Kinda-Flakey"--but this time it was crushed. He added $4. The aggies flew in hundreds of farmers to lobby for the status quo. no hearings. Reformers countered with polls showing support for strict payment limits in those districts.com/time/magazine/article/0. I was stomping him so bad. this stuff is complicated.9171. Time Magazine." Kind says. I'll take your word for it. which were originally supposed to be transitional." Peterson says. "I had two members tell me they felt sorry for Ron. "I don't like direct payments myself. One lobbyist mused that General David Petraeus could learn something from Pelosi about crushing an insurgency. "That was 'game over' right there.7 billion for nutrition. Republicans denounced this back-door tax hike to no avail." As they watched the debate. "They had every right to scream foul. it didn't matter whether the danger was real. you have to play their game.00. Johanns kept displaying maps of all the subsidy recipients on Manhattan's swank Park Avenue. boost conservation funding and create a more targeted safety net for farmers having rough years. California Representative Dennis Cardoza and the fruit-and-vegetable lobby agreed to support the bill once Peterson threw $1. Even the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition dropped its opposition for scraps: $5 million for organic research. tax liabilities. They have empirically used leverage on other legislative issues in order to gain support for farm subsidies." he says." In fact. Game Over EVEN BEFORE THE Agriculture Committee began work on the farm bill.time. $4. but if you say it's that important. Pelosi allowed a vote on Kind-Flake--or.'" Berry recalls. I could've taken him under 100. "That committee is completely beholden to the status quo." Kind says. So instead of cutting farm spending--which accounted for less than nutrition spending--Peterson persuaded Pelosi to pry money out of the Ways and Means Committee by closing a loophole that helps foreign firms duck U.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 68 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular: Support Outweighs Opposition (2/2) The Agriculture Committee can and will use their clout to squelch opposition. $22 million for organic certification and $30 million to help farmers sell value-added products. "I needed them in there to keep everyone on board." Peterson said with a grin. it only mattered that freshmen Democrats believed it. My party . "I got a real lesson in how Washington works. as the farm groups called it. http://www. "She said. Congressmen Kind and Flake proposed an amendment last summer to eliminate no-strings-attached direct payments.1680139.000 a year. 309 to 117. and this time Democrats--who had spent six years complaining about Republican giveaways to the rich--were calling the shots. if you want anything from the committee. Peterson still had to pay for the extras. And cutting easier-to-defend payments for times of low crop prices was even less realistic. 'Marion. "There was no vetting in Ways and Means. but they're political reality. sportsmen and the Congressional Black Caucus into the fold. Even the Bush Administration supported payment limits. But as a Pelosi aide told them. and an analysis showing that most of those districts would receive more money under Kind-Flake through conservation payments. frustrated ." Democratic leaders then squelched an amendment that would just grabbed $10 billion to buy off the opposition have forced an up-or-down vote on eliminating subsidies for farmers earning $250. November 2. "If I had put down the hammer.6 billion at specialty crops. end subsidies to the rich. But the methadone had become the heroin. "The programs that really benefit small farmers are tiny." The committee passed its bill without a dissenting vote. and several "Blue Dog" Democrats agreed to support Pelosi's efforts to fund children's health insurance with tobacco taxes only if she supported the status quo. He considered trimming the widely ridiculed direct payments. but the unfortunate fact of the politics is. During speeches to farm groups. a sustainable-agriculture consultant. which brought progressives.S. A similar package had gotten 200 votes in 2002 without such a grand coalition.) For all those reasons.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 69 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal reformers filled out "Farm Bill Bingo" cards with aggie catchphrases like "farmer- friendly." "dismantling the safety net" and "East Coast media." .

ronkind. particularly in the South and in the Corn Belt. like Jim Marshall of Georgia and freshmen representatives like Zachary Space of Ohio and Nancy Boyda of Kansas support extending the current farm bill and the generous subsidies that go with it. both voted for Mr. Democrat of California. producers. and the House majority leader. The New York Times. But now that they are in leadership positions. Kind s bill in 2002. particularly the multibillion-dollar agricultural subsidies that have historically obtained congressional passage with broad Democratic support. http://www.cfm?id=301. The Democratic proposal also lacks any mention of ending protections for U. Seattle Post-Intelligencer) Yet it is not very clear that the Democrats are committed to the fundamental aspect of trade that benefits poorer nations . conservative districts. market.free and fair access to the U. “Democrats want to reshape trade.S. attacking farm subsidies could alienate voters in rural districts.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 70 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Democrats Democrats wont take on subsidy cuts Sanchez 7 (Marcela. Several Democratic lawmakers who represent rural.S. . Democrat of Maryland.” 4/6.org/clip. Hoyer. Dems wont attack farm subsidies Crandall 7 (Bill. Steny H. syndicated columnist. 6/22) The House speaker. Nancy Pelosi.

1984. and 23). . is not statistically different from zero. The gross profits of only five firms are not significantly related to lobbying expenditures relative to Wilson Food Corporation (firms 1. Whatever the case may be. .edu/~jab/Library/S99-02. or both. 17. Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia.C. Journal of Agribusiness 17.agecon. The variables labeled DP1 through DP23 in table 2 represent firm1-23.uga. which represents lobbying expenditures in the input markets.1. Four firms' profits have a significantly negative relationship between lobbying expenditures and profits (firms 13. respectively. and 20). increased profits are significantly correlated with greater lobbying expenditures. is statistically significant. 16. This is interpreted to mean that food firms do not spend a significant amount of their resources to lobby in their input markets and.. The result suggests that the direct lobbying through food firms' political contributions is primarily directed to their output market. 10. Failure to reject the hypothesis that food firms do not lobby in the input market (an important component of which is the supply of agricultural comn~odities) is consistent with the view that food firms have rnonopsony power in their input markets that allows them to negotiate lower prices despite government regulations. do not exercise significant political influence in agricultural commodity markets.) for an individual firm is significantly correlated with its total lobbying expenditures relative to the reference firm. 6.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 71 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Food Manufacturers (Grocers) Food manufacturers won’t lobby against agricultural subsidies Ndayisenga and Kinsey 99 (Fidele and Jean. the ultimate implication is that the food processing sector had no serious incentive to act as a countervailing power to the farm lobby in the forming or reforming of agricultural policy in the early part of the 1980s. For the remainder of the firms. 2. The significance of the coefficient on the variable REVENUE.pdf) The results (presented in table 2) indicate that the coefficient on the variable COST. by implication. The last two coefficients in table 2 indicate that lobbying expenditures were less in 1983 and 1985 relative to the reference year. The reference firm is the last film listed in table 1 (Wilson Food Corporation). which captures lobbying expenditure in the output market. or they can pass through any cost increases to consumers. identified by name in table 1. The coefficients on DP1-LIP23 (table 2) indicate whether the gross profit (as measured by R. Spring http://www. The firms are entered into the estimating equation in the order they appear in table 1.

" Reps. Since we aren’t paying attention. but "there are a lot of moving parts.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 72 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Bipartisan Support Bipartisan support for subsidy cuts Environment and Energy Daily 7 (“AGRICULTURE: GOP stages mutiny on farm bill after Dems reveal offset plan. to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues.) told the Rules Committee last night that his wide- ranging amendment to overhaul farm payments would "get ourselves out of this offset box. Why? Because most of us assume that. or even selling. Kind described Goodlatte's remarks as a "bombshell" for the committee's bill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz. He said he is anticipating more Republican support for his measure. they pay no political price for trading. paying much attention.000. April 22) KK Given all this. Pollan 7 (Michael. is the Knight Professor of journalism at the University of California. a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors. It’s doubtful this is an accident. the farm bill is about “farming. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year. 9. but that hasn’t been the case.” Spotlight. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis. a contributing writer. true to its name. Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.” NYT. Vol 10 No.) said "there is a lot of interest" in the amendment. . The proposal would invest more than $3 billion more in conservation programs. with virtually nobody else." No Political Capital Loss: Farm Bill proves little political interest in agriculture. Their proposal includes many of the administration's proposals to scale back farm subsidies.Y.” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to. Ron Kind (D-Wis. much less the average citizen.). either in Congress or in the media. “You are what you grow. July 26) A bipartisan group of House members backing an amendment to scale back farm payments and increase conservation funding is hopeful the tax fracas might give them more support for their proposal. you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore. Berkeley. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill. which would avoid the tax offsets by decreasing farm spending. In an interview after the markup of the farm bill rule. their farm-bill votes.) are cosponsors of the amendment to cut farm subsidies for anyone making more than $250.

The system could be changed during the current Doha Development Round trade negotiations at the WTO or in Congress during next year's renewal of the farm bill.. virtually all 100 senators can sympathize with farming interests.html) Another new player is Oxfam America. In 1996. particularly states growing subsidy-rich cotton and rice.including down on the farm. Last year. Oxfam is politically powerful – Checks farm lobbies Swanson & Bogardus 7 (Ian. anti-subsidy movement comes from the World Trade Organization. such as buying farmers out from subsidy programs. are financing some of this advocacy. Leonard told them. and the powerful farm lobby has defended itself against attacks in the past. including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation." Grass- Another spur to the roots groups are riding the momentum that began with the push to forgive the debt of poor countries in the late 1990s.C. Kevin.S. who collects subsidies himself and campaigns in a white cowboy hat. who noted the group’s influence in raising attention to U. Leonard. D. agency priority for the year. Prominent philanthropic organizations. is stirring attention because it is unusually broad. farmers over the decades. The foundation of late Nascar legend Dale Earnhardt has teamed up with rock star Bono. "From a Christian standpoint. where the U. Students for Social Justice at Baylor University in Texas have dumped cotton balls on the ground to protest cotton subsidies. Oxfam “sends shudders down the spine of the agriculture community.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 73 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (1/2) Subsidy cut movement growing: Oxfam. he helped humanitarian group Oxfam International in its anti-subsidy campaign by escorting a cotton farmer from Mali to church gatherings near his the current anti-subsidy farm in Holstein. the Senate and House agriculture committees have dominated policy for decades and are largely given a free hand by the governing administration. the National Taxpayers Union on the right and the libertarian Cato Institute. which depresses prices for poor growers overseas. the Alliance for Sensible Agriculture Policies is meeting to share ideas about changing the farm bill. But sentiment. which recently hired Clinton administration Agriculture Undersecretary Jim Lyons as its vice president and is making the farm bill its U. "They care about Africa. rising over the last year in the U. what it is doing to Africa tugs at your heartstrings. told a room full of farmers recently that federal payments spur overproduction. There isn't any serious talk in Washington of wiping out subsidies entirely. Participants include Oxfam and Environmental Defense from the left. which have been worth nearly $600 billion to U.html) A movement to uproot crop subsidies." Mr. In Washington. federal officials and politicians are seriously discussing alternatives.S. "There are a growing number of people who want to weigh in on farm policy. The 2002 farm bill signed by President Bush is one of the most lavish ever." says Rep. is coming under increasing pressure to rein in farm spending.S. http://lists. Mark W. one of the most heavily subsidized states. CATO and the WTO support Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger. incentives to encourage farmers to save during good years and paying growers for environmentally friendly practices. .S. They care about nutrition. But now. Last year. Jerry Moran. a Kansas Republican who sits on the House Agriculture Committee. It is also bringing Oscar-nominated actor Djimon Hounsou (“Blood Diamond”) to Washington today for a lobbying session with members of Congress. even as the economic cycle improved. farm leaders.S. 5/17.. The movement is tilting against one of the most deeply entrenched federal entitlements. consider this a crucial issue and could well block any change in Congress. But Washington backed off as the farm economy entered one of its cyclical tailspins. a Republican running to be state agriculture secretary is telling big farmers they should get smaller checks. Hill Writers. In Iowa. is gaining ground in some unlikely places -.” said one farm lobbyist.com/business-- lobby/labor-unions-and-conservation-groups-team-up-in-bid-to-influence-farm-policy-2007- 05-17. http://thehill. farm subsidies. 3/14. whose movement wants to overhaul Western agriculture policies to boost African development. Because almost every state has farmers.org/pipermail/mgj-discuss/2006-March/005316.mutualaid. a Republican-led Congress passed legislation to wean farmers from subsidies over seven years. Legislators representing districts with farming interests. They care about the environment. [Mark Leonard] There is a long history of mostly failed attempts to pare farm payments. the government paid a record $23 billion to farmers. In addition. Environmental Defense Fund.

C. "The Cato Institute [in particular] has established itself as a major voice in Washington. cost-efficient and fair." agrees E. Dionne. says Charles Murray. Environmental Defense Fund became one of America's most influential environmental advocacy groups. economics and law to create innovative.D. Guided by science.C.'s top conservative think tanks.charitynavigator. . economic and social support because they are nonpartisan.summary&orgid=3671) Since 1967 the Environmental Defense Fund has linked science.cfm?bay=search. The Environmental Defense Fund is politically powerful Charity Navigator 6 (www.org/index.J. Washington. D.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 74 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (2/2) The CATO institute is politically powerful UPI 1 (12-31) Both Cato and Reason have done a great deal to legitimize libertarianism as a serious political perspective that must be considered when formulating policy. D. senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. equitable and cost-effective solutions to society's most urgent environmental problems. scientists and economists on staff than any similar organization. senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Environmental Defense Fund evaluates environmental problems and works to create and advocate solutions that win lasting political.000 members and more Ph. now with over 500. one of Washington.

nwsource. food manufacturers.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 75 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (1/2) New anti-subsidy groups counteract farm lobbies Pierce 7 (Neal. Seattle Times.com/html/opinion/2003525390_peirce15. including conservative anti-subsidy groups. anti- hunger advocates. real-estate operators and tractor dealers. health and religious groups. Working together through a new Farm and Food Policy Project that includes dozens of farm. http://seattletimes. Many of the farm bloc's lobbyists are former lawmakers or congressional aides. rural. that want Congress to end or reduce agricultural subsidies paid to major-commodity farmers. They range from the American Farmland Trust to Bread for the World. rural bankers. . Subsidy cuts popular: lobbying groups support Farm Worker Justice News 7 (http://www. and environmental groups.org/newsletters/FJNewSpring07_EN. the National Cotton Council.pdf) Also involved in the Farm Bill negotiations are a broad array of groups with varying purposes.html) The greatest number of farm-bill dollars flow to the big producers protected by the combined lobbying forces of the American Farm Bureau Federation. the Environmental Defense Fund to the Northeast-Midwest Institute. 22. they plan to announce a full reform agenda on Jan. But new players are demanding fundamental change.fwjustice.

However. the National Taxpayers Union on the right and the libertarian Cato Institute. A front-page article in the March 14.S.html) Leading the charge against subsidies are the White House and the U. to think tanks. they enjoy rock-solid support from agricultural committees. there are powerful lobbying groups looking to send current farm spending levels spiraling. 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal summed it up by saying.” Farm subsidy payments will undoubtedly be the target of an aggressive and well-funded lobbying effort—this is not the atmosphere to make a pricey sugar policy transition from no cost to subsidy checks. But traditional farm groups. http://www. but not as much as opponents want. Prominent philanthropic organizations. Moreover. Plan Popular: Environmental lobbies and White House oppose subsidies Maixner 6 (Ed. consumer interests plus the two-thirds of American farmers and ranchers who produce crops and livestock that do not receive direct government payments.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but_not_scuttled__. considering that government programs for just a handful of crops have been the status quo for 70 years. any change will be significant. including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Department of Agriculture.pdf) Not to mention. opponents of farm subsidies are more optimistic than ever that agricultural spending will be reduced in the 2007 Farm Bill.org/library/resourcedocs/Sugar_Subsidy_Checks.kiplinger. which account for more than 75% of all subsidies totaling well over $20 billion a year. From foreign countries.. environmental groups. Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. is stirring attention because it is unusually broad…Participants include Oxfam and Environmental Defense from the left. are financing some of this advocacy. to environmental groups.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 76 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (2/2) Plan popular: anti-subsidy sentiment growing Sugar Alliance 6 (August.S. Odds are that farm subsidies will be trimmed. . still have lots of lobbying muscle. http://www.sugaralliance. rising over the last year in the U. “The current anti- subsidy sentiment.

ewg. 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws.sourcewatch. The Heritage Foundation is powerful Source Watch 8 (6-4. http://www. as well as conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation that have close ties to the White House. of the Coors beer empire. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors. fish.php?title=Heritage_Foundation) The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington. the "National Uniformity for Food Act. 4167. Grocers are politically powerful Organic Consumers Association 7 (http://www. including those governing the safety of milk. and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration.org.org/node/25626) The grocery manufacturers are part of an improbable coalition that includes environmental groups." lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not "identical" to federal law.R.org/index. . religious organizations and Republican-leaning tax groups. spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 77 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Grocery Coalition/Heritage Grocery coalition and the Heritage Foundation support subsidy reduction The Oregonian 7 (11/11. and shellfish. heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune. The Foundation maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairs and the Mont Pelerin Society.futuresfoundation. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers.pdf) The House will vote March 2. http://www.by some accounts $16 billion -.be used for nutrition programs and conservation. and Richard Mellon Scaife. Heritage continues to rake in a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea each year. All are demanding that subsidies be dramatically reduced and that the money -.au/documents/wellbeingproject/supporting%20articles/Congress%20Poised%20t o%20Pass%20Bill%20Taking%20Away%20Right%20to%20Know. With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas. H. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk.

bankers and economists dined on stuffed chicken served on bone china while preparing a report arguing for an overhaul of the farm program. The task force was assembled by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.org/pipermail/mgj- discuss/2006-March/005316. During a recent meeting in a private club on Chicago's Michigan Avenue. an 84-year-old nonprofit group that includes many of the Midwest's biggest firms.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 78 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Business Lobbies Cuts popular – Business lobbies Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger. http://lists. 3/14. business executives. Several participants are executives of Fortune 500 companies. .mutualaid.html) The White House has the support of other businesses that would like to see the subsidy question settled in order to spur the lowering of overseas trade barriers on their goods.

nwsource. http://seattletimes. He's urging the Democratic House leadership to take on the challenge of major farm-bill reform. It's all about legacy now.com/html/opinion/2003525390_peirce15. Bill Clinton. which Congress has to pass this year. will mirror the same-old subsidies. Rauch notes the Democrats now have a chance to earn their reformist spurs by ending farm welfare as we know it. dependency-forming New Deal-born program. Just as the Republicans back then identified themselves with reform of an archaic. Seattle Times. to 1996 when a newly elected Republican Congress ended welfare as we knew it and got a Democratic president. Earl Blumenauer. insisting it's just as important as new energy legislation and "may have more impact. to agree. and to get a president of the opposite party to sign the bill. Jonathan Rauch suggests in National Journal.html) Could that change in 2007? Most farm economists expect that the reauthorization. . But not Rep. acre for acre. D-Ore.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 79 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Dems Democrats support subsidy cuts Pierce 7 (Neal. Blumenauer said last week: "Now the president is in a different situation." A bipartisan accord with President Bush on farm reform is possible. dollar for dollar. than the transportation bill." There's a strong parallel.

Medicaid and Social Security . demographic. they attacked earmarking. the party's potential candidates for 2008 called for cutting or slowing government spending across the board and retooling bedrock entitlement programs . "Yes. http://www. In terms of specific types of spending cuts." Senator John McCain of Arizona.Medicare. government spending that has soared under President George W. They called for a presidential line. an anti-deficit interest group. "But they're not justification for a one-way ticket down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending.item veto and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.php) MEMPHIS. a likely candidate for 2008. see a very different type of political calculus. We have to stop this.allacademic. these last five years. the war on terror. Each of the three spending categories is measured separately as a dependent variable in ordinary least square regression models with political and constituency factors that may have influenced members of Congress as independent variables. with Democratic legislators and representatives who come from Democratic- leaning districts much more likely to support cuts in defense spending. 9/11. however. But we also should have the willpower to stop this. another likely candidate. The findings of this study indicate that a legislator's partisanship and the degree by which a legislator is a party loyalist have a very strong impact on spending cut votes. they appear to be in agreement on one central issue for 2008: Curbing the U.iht." said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. And with varying nuance. discretionary spending. and defense spending. Katrina. this study classifies spending votes from the 104th-107th Congresses (1995-2002) into three different spending categories: entitlement spending. Bush.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 80 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cuts Popular – Anti-Spending Republicans support spending cuts International Herald Tribune 6 (3/13. Reductions in defense spending.com/articles/2006/03/13/news/gop.that have become a drain on the Treasury. the majority leader. and distance themselves from the embattled incumbent in the White House. http://www. and cultural characteristics of one's constituency also influence legislative behavior on spending votes. homeland security." Republicans support cuts in spending Fisher 6 (Patrick.html) Why do members of Congress make the decisions regarding federal spending that they do? Utilizing the spending votes that comprise the congressional vote score rankings of the Concord Coalition.S. votes to cut entitlement spending and discretionary spending share many of the same explanatory features. we've been hit with unexpected challenges: a recession. For two days before an audience of Southern Republicans here. Tennessee: As prospective Republican presidential candidates search for themes to distinguish their prospective campaigns. At the same time. Aug 31.com/meta/p151918_index. outside the scrutiny of the normal budget process. the budget tactic some members of Congress use to channel money to favorite projects. political. Republican legislators and legislators who come from Republican-leaning constituencies are much more likely to support cuts in entitlement and discretionary spending. declared: "We need to pass a line-item veto. .

and an agreement was reached.html) The United States. So once farmers have won government entitlement benefits. India refused to stop shielding its farmers from global competition. How did it get to this? The short answer is that agricultural lobbies enjoy a political clout that far outweighs their economic weight. has been new commercial activity that has added several trillion dollars to the world economy in the past few decades. economists say. the effort fell apart like a comedy of errors. The result. The breakdown doesn't mean a new global trade accord won't happen. it takes a formidable argument on the part of free-traders to overcome the opponents to big cutbacks in farm supports. But despite years of serious work.. Their influence is often felt in every region of nations such as France and the US. the Doha Round could hardly avoid putting farm goods at the forefront when talks began in 2001. With so many areas of trade already liberalized. agriculture has remained highly protected. Thus. and members of the European Union . "We have seen stoppages like this in the past.." Dr. http://www. But throughout it all.com/2006/0727/p02s01- wogi. "Eventually there was a breakthrough. a trade specialist at the Institute for International Economics in Washington." Those past agreements have cut trade barriers worldwide. That land would probably drop in value by half" without subsidies. "You take that cotton land down in Mississippi. import duties. Hart says. with corresponding influence in legislatures. and subsidies restraining the free flow of cotton. But it could take months or years to jump-start the dead talks.all of them rich nations that are food importers or exporters . sugar. The US and European Union are now trading jabs at each other for not offering deep enough cuts in farm protections. in part because the rich nations didn't win enough concessions in return to counterbalance the weight of opposition from their own local farm lobbies. and other crops.. they're often very hard to remove. says Gary Hufbauer. economists say.were willing to cut some of their farm-support spending as a concession to developing nations. which has long protected its rice farming industry - complained that "I was not given the opportunity to show all of my cards" in negotiations.csmonitor. analysts say. And the agriculture minister for Japan. But the deal collapsed. . with tariffs.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 81 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Trade Barriers Popular – Lobby Reducing trade barriers is political suicide—farm lobby backlash Christian Science Monitor 6 (July 27. Japan.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 82 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Ethanol*** .

A March lobbying registration form shows that Kraft Foods Inc. wheat and other commodities.flex-news- food. Philadelphia cream cheese and Oscar Mayer meats .9% drop in first-quarter net income as price hikes didn't completely offset the surging costs for ingredients and a higher tax rate. But their willingness to take on an active role in the ethanol debate highlights just how big an issue commodity prices have become to the packaged-food makers. http://online. (K) discloses that the company has been lobbying on the subject of "ethanol production". when it mandated that oil refiners blend 7." An April lobbying report filed by Kellogg Co.html) The stalling ethanol industry wants Congress to mandate greater use of the biofuel.com/pages/16181/Biofuel/Corn/Food/food-makers-lobby-congress-limit-corn-usage- biofuels-dj. But ethanol production today is close to reaching the 7. Environmental groups backed it as a way to fight global warming and lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. a professor of political science who teaches a course on public advocacy at American University in Washington. Congress gave a big boost to ethanol in 2005. dozens of ethanol plants have sprouted around the country. Even the petroleum industry was supportive." Opposition to ethanol outweighs support Etter 7 (Lauren. "They now are entering a period of active lobbying against the corn- based ethanol people.C. firm DLA Piper to lobby on "energy policy and initiatives related to biofuels.C. among others. But many of the industry's former friends have turned against it amid soaring prices for corn and other grains. "The food and feed people are beginning to realize what it means to have subsidies and tax breaks for the ethanol plants. They weren't alert to this particular issue.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 83 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (1/2) Package food lobby oppose ethanol use Dow Jones Newswire 8 (http://www. turning corn into fuel. Producers and corn farmers are lobbying hard for Congress to boost the requirement anew to ensure that demand can soak up the rising production.posted a 13% drop in first-quarter net income amid surging costs for dairy. (KFT) has hired Washington D. Since then.html) Filings with the Senate's Office of Public Records reveal that several large packaged-food companies have hired Washington lobbyists or are using their internal teams to help them make a stronger case against the use of corn to produce biofuels like ethanol.5-billion-gallon level in the 2005 law. not just corn.com/public/article/SB119206474778855491. . Food companies' profits are being nicked by a variety of commodities. D.wsj. Kellogg posted a 1. Earlier this week Kraft - which makes its namesake cheese singles." says James Thurber.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol into the nation's gasoline supply by 2012. The rise of the industry has helped to boost grain prices and create jobs in farm states. The farm lobby was united behind ethanol as a way to strengthen rural economies. Oversupply has forced down prices and driven some ethanol producers into trouble.

he knows that meat and dairy lobbyists will be close behind. LOUIS . So as Litterer. The burgeoning ethanol industry is creating a wave of prosperity for rural towns throughout the Midwest. The price of corn-based animal feed has increased about 60% since 2005. president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. http://online.says high corn prices are hurting its profits. according to the U. He opposes increasing federal support for ethanol. barnyard lobby opposes Etter 7 (Lauren.wsj. but the energy bonanza is also pitting farming groups on separate sides of the fence.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 84 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (2/2) Ethanol losing support. The so-called barnyard lobby -." says Cal Dooley. Meat. Other groups that were originally sympathetic to ethanol are drifting away." says Jesse Sevcik. Department of Agriculture. dairy.representing the meat.html) Opposition to the ethanol industry's goals has grown significantly stiffer.msn. "Many policy makers were seduced by ethanol. giving corn prices the kind of lift they haven’t seen in years. Farm lobby oppose ethanol subsidies: cutting into profit margins Associated Press 7 (9/13. visits with members of Congress in coming months. .msnbc. Rob Litterer will be working the halls of Congress this fall to push for increased ethanol production.S. But he’s facing stiff opposition from what on the surface seems an unlikely source — the farm lobby. incoming president of the National Corn Growers Association. They fear that the fuel's advantages are outweighed by the rise in corn prices. vice president of legislative affairs at the American Meat Institute. But the corn farmer’s win is the hog farmer’s loss. http://www. "Our single biggest priority is for Congress to reject a new renewable-fuels mandate. and other food producers are pushing back against the ethanol boom as higher grain prices cut into their already slim profit margins. Corn farmers are pushing for more ethanol production as the industry creates an enormous new market for their crop. delivering the opposite message.com/public/article/SB119206474778855491.As a chief advocate for corn farmers around the country. a meat and poultry trade association. livestock and poultry industries -. which they say increases the cost of foods ranging from steak to cereal.com/id/20760839) ST.

The opposition groups haven't worked together before this year.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070316_016207. Bush and farmers across the Midwest hope that the U. "Salesman In Chief")." . calling for the end of corn ethanol subsidies. is reconsidering his opposition as he tries to snare the Republican nomination. and their power.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 85 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (1/2) There’s growing opposition to ethanol subsidies and tariffs—environmental and meat lobbies Business Week 7 (March 19. a Boston consultancy. Hillary Clinton. but they should allow consumers to pick their own. They agreed to form an ad hoc group. because of the heavy use of pesticides. 16." says Demian Moore. Even John McCain. and machinery that burns fossil fuels. chicken farmers." says Doug Koplow." says Hitch. solar-power idealists and free-market pragmatists (see BW Online. "There's great concern. however long it takes. Ranchers and other opponents say they're determined to get the government to change its policies. While politicians including President George W. Besides Bush's call for sharply boosting output during his State of the Union (see BusinessWeek. is a formidable lobbying force in the capitol. can win its energy independence by turning corn into fuel. hog farmers and hippies. Yet while the influence of ethanol's enemies isn't great now. " Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn"). who analyzes energy policy for Earth Track. and the National Pork Producers' Council testified before Congress. the NCBA. the National Turkey Federation. the agribusiness giant and the largest ethanol producer. "The government thinks it can pick a winner. is on board. On Mar. But their common contentions are that the focus on corn-based ethanol has been too hasty. and the government's active involvement—through subsidies for ethanol refiners and high tariffs to keep out alternatives like ethanol made from sugar—is likely to lead to chaos in other sectors of the economy. senator from New York and Presidential contender. another Democratic Presidential hopeful. For two days earlier this month. http://www. "This ethanol thing is driving everybody half nuts. Barack Obama. representatives of the ranchers. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). to launch an informational Web site and to work toward the inclusion of measures to eliminate domestic ethanol subsidies and tariffs on Brazilian ethanol in the Farm Bill expected later this year. 02/2/07. their cohesiveness. Hitch and an unlikely assortment of allies are raising their voices in opposition. the National Chicken Council. we certainly can and will. 1/24/07. fertilizer. Left-leaning economists such as Princeton University's Paul Krugman are joining free-market fundamentalists at the Cato Institute in pointing out the economic pitfalls of ethanol. which has not been publicly announced.htm?cam paign_id=rss_topStories) The ethanol movement is sprouting a vocal crop of critics. and milk producers held a joint conference call to discuss strategies for addressing the ethanol issue." Ethanol has plenty of support in Washington. "Corn ethanol has failed to prove itself as a reliable alternative that can exist without huge subsidies. And green groups worry that aggressive production of corn could have dire consequences for the environment. is growing. "As far as presenting a united front on this issue. has reversed her previous position to support ethanol subsidies.S. but Hitch says the NCBA is now beginning to reach out to other groups in an effort to coordinate lobbying and other activities. after having handed out millions of dollars in political contributions over the last three decades. senior analyst for the nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense.businessweek. The effort is uniting ranchers and environmentalists. a vocal critic for years. They have different reasons for opposing ethanol.com. pork processors.

com/id/20760839) As a chief advocate for corn farmers around the country.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 86 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (2/2) Oxfam and Grocery Manufacturers lobby against ethanol Red Orbit 8 (5/30. the Heritage Foundation. Rob Litterer will be working the halls of Congress this fall to push for increased ethanol production. Corn farmers are pushing for more ethanol production as the industry creates an enormous new market for their crop. http://www. .msn. But the corn farmer’s win is the hog farmer’s loss. and other food producers are pushing back against the ethanol boom as higher grain prices cut into their already slim profit margins.msnbc. the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association and Oxfam America. but the energy bonanza is also pitting farming groups on separate sides of the fence. an international aid organization. dairy. have banded together to lobby members of Congress to consider repealing the ethanol mandate. the National Restaurant Association. The burgeoning ethanol industry is creating a wave of prosperity for rural towns throughout the Midwest. But he’s facing stiff opposition from what on the surface seems an unlikely source — the farm lobby.com/news/science/1409607/washington_ethanol_fuels_food_fight/) Groups as disparate as the Grocery Manufacturers Association.redorbit. http://www. Meat. giving corn prices the kind of lift they haven’t seen in years. Ethanol subsidies piss off the farm lobby MSNBC 7 (September 13.

investors are figuring out that these government policies are turning water into an increasingly scarce resource on which money can be made. and growth in the number of biorefineries. Seems to us that the two chambers could simply agree that expanding on the already enormous subsidies for ethanol is a costly mistake and go home to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner. . This will allow him to dip a straw into the Ogallala aquifer. portions of which "show water table declines of over 100 feet since about the 1940s. A University of Iowa professor chaired the report committee.com/public/article/SB119482533176389532. the Texas Republican who is blocking a conference on the energy bill because the House version contains billions in new oil taxes to be spent on ethanol subsidies. costs.000 acres of water rights in the Texas panhandle." says Senator John Cornyn. consumers to buy more ethanol. but apparently the market distortions caused by ethanol mandates are finally having an impact. Meanwhile. Last week brought news that legendary oilman T. this is of the miracle variety. the House's tax-and-subsidy scheme for ethanol also doesn't appear to be part of the package. it's time for Congress to stop subsidizing an inefficient and thirsty energy source that soaks up more of that water. And with good reason. drawing Senat opposition. increased corn production. drawing House opposition. the National Academy of Sciences reported on the impact of ethanol production on water supplies. As the speaker attempts to fashion a stripped-down bill that can move in both houses. But NAS reported that. Last month.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 87 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Congress Support for subsidized ethanol is wavering in face of growing opposition Wall Street Journal 7 (November 12. in the House.S. and growing. you have to wonder who is for it. Boone Pickens has purchased 400. "in some areas of the country. . http://online. "We're in a strong position. When oil barons decide there's money in drilling for scarce water in the American West. Ethanol has prospered on taxpayer subsidies fed by political panic over oil prices and old-fashioned Congressional log-rolling. As political news goes. What we do understand is that opposition to corn-based ethanol from environmentalists has Speaker Nancy Pelosi seeking a rewrite of the Senate's mandate." When ethanol is criticized by scientists at Iowa's two largest state universities. there's opposition to the Senate's mandate to increase ethanol production by 30 billion gallons annually by 2022. It's about time that some in Congress are finally stopping to inspect ethanol's many. Let's review: the House energy bill taxes oil to subsidize ethanol. water resources are already significantly stressed . support for corn ethanol seems to be ebbing in Congress.wsj." according to the NAS report. Increased biofuels production will likely add pressure to the water management challenges the nation already faces as biofuels drive changing agricultural practices. Meanwhile. but we don't pretend to fully understand the ways of Congress. so Big Corn might have hoped for a home-court advantage.html) Like water seeping out of the giant High Plains Ogallala aquifer. while the Senate bill forces U. .

weather. The alliance has a budget of several million dollars for the campaign. 4/25) The new group -. "A group of the world's biggest agribusiness companies announced it will use lobbyists on Capitol Hill and national ads to build the case for fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.announced Thursday it will use national advertisements and lobbyists on Capitol Hill to build the case that new technologies can make it economically feasible to produce crop-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel.prwatch." Biofuel lobbies growing: increased lobbiests and ads Leonard 8(Chris.formed by Monsanto Co. Just a niche market three years ago. and DuPont Co. -. The mandates are under attack from a wide variety of groups who blame the new industry for rising food prices that have sparked riots and hoarding everywhere from Haiti to southeast Asia. Deere & Co. but it did not disclose the exact amount. The biofuels industry has blossomed under federal mandates requiring the United States to increase alternative fuel usage by 2009. The Washington Post reports.. Dupont.com/articles/biofuels072508. Organizer of the newly formed Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy said Thursday they want to change the debate about biofuels.org/node/7590) Monsanto. Their plan is to convince consumers and politicians that both goals can be met at once by increasing agricultural productivity. the biofuels industry has blossomed because of federal mandates requiring the United States to use 9 billion gallons of alternative fuel annually by 2009.. AP Business Writer.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 88 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2) Biofuel lobby building support: budgeted millions to campaigning PR Watch 8 (http://www. . especially in Washington DC. even as grain prices climb worldwide. The mandates are under attack from groups who blame the new industry for rising food prices that have sparked riots and hoarding in several countries. http://climate. No doubt feel-good ads from this front group will soon fill the airwaves. . Archer Daniels Midland. even as grain prices climb worldwide.html. Archer Daniels Midland and the PR giant Burson-Marsteller are some of the corporations behind the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy..

" said Ernest Shea.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 89 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Biofuels Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/2) It would cost massive political capital to go against biofuels—it has the support of the environmental.S. and the support for renewable electricity was stronger in coastal states. some 70 agriculture and forestry groups and companies endorsed a campaign dubbed 25x'25. the National Milk Producers Federation. he says. Gingrich. "If you look at the map last year of the [congressional] support for renewable fuels. Montana Gov. there are more than 30 senators who consistently vote in favor of agriculture interests. a nonpartisan group of business." . because I know how aggressive it is. soy. I swallowed hard when [Shea and other agriculture leaders] presented this goal to me. March 25. all of which could play a role in cultivating homegrown energy sources. a vice president at the National Environmental Trust. and environment experts that is funding the 25x'25 campaign with support from private foundations.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/25/muckraker/) A few more strange bedfellows have recently been coaxed into the sack with the enviros.. Earlier this month. trees and even dairy cows. the National Corn Growers Association. That means biofuels like ethanol. hawks and labor advocates pushing for a smarter U. the Association of Consulting Foresters of America. "We don't see this as big. be it for nourishment or fuel. hailed the campaign as "urgent . Said Detchon. speaking at the March 8 press conference where 25x'25 was unveiled. We're trying to bring those two together. At the moment." Reid Detchon. security. According to Kevin Curtis. but also energy for America. it was in the center of the country. and the farm equipment giant Deere & Co. executive director of the Energy Future Coalition. which advocates that 25 percent of energy in the United States come from "America's working lands" by 2025. bioenergy from processed animal manure and agricultural waste. it's doable..salon. many of them generally right-leaning. water. and wind and solar power produced on agricultural lands. energy strategy. We see it as enormous. We see this as something that will dramatically expand agriculture's role -. the 25x'25 coalition boasts an impressive roster of backers from both sides of the aisle. freely admits that the 25 percent target is a stretch: "As an energy wonk. wheat. Brian Schweitzer (D). http://www. and every agriculture lobby Little 6 (Amanda. labor. including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R). The newbies include growers of corn. one of the major building blocks of creating a national security [plan]. particularly given the tremendous amount of political capital agriculture interests bring to the table. former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). include the American Farm Bureau Federation. Mitch Daniels (R). "Land managers inherently understand how soil. most of whom have not traditionally supported clean-energy initiatives." But. these sources make up less than 4 percent of America's energy mix." and said there was no time to spare in turning its goals into legislative reality: "I urge you to go to Congress to get a resolution this year on a bipartisan basis that directs the congressional committees and the budget committees to develop a 25x'25 strategy. and Indiana Gov. Backers of the campaign." Already. air and sunlight can be harnessed and harvested. a longtime agriculture and conservation lobbyist who is spearheading the 25x'25 coalition.as a producer not just of food and fiber.

Leadership involves decision-making. most importantly. Now." Bush would have to invest significant amounts of political capital to remove ethanol subsidies—Congress is unwilling to change Feltman 8 (Kenneth.etalkinghead.as enacted by Congress . ETalkingHead. But if conditions change.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 90 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Congress Public pressure means cutting ethanol subsidies costs political capital Lyne 7 (Jack. "As long as they believe that ethanol subsidies will deliver political capital. votes. the initial decision may need to be changed. Nothing happens until a decision is made. Decisions are instruments of change. http://www. as Congress finally reconsiders. Exclusive Editor of Interactive Publishing for site Selection Magazine." says the Cato Institute's Taylor. August 7. U.htm) "Elected officials are primarily motivated by the hunt for political capital.S.siteselection. .com/archives/ethanols-roadkill- 2008-05-14.html) Unfortunately. the corn-ethanol promoters are battling to keep the subsidies for corn producers and the corn-ethanol industry. http://www. And Congress has seemed unwilling or unable to change previous misguided decisions. they will vote for ethanol subsidies. including campaign contributions but. all the publicity about the wastefulness cannot change things without Congressional action.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0708.is part of the problem. public policy . Sticking with an obsolete decision is a sign of weakness.

an outspoken ethanol evangelist. Earlier this year. by making the commitment to grow more corn for ethanol.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_bigge st_political_boondoggles/2) So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis. Unlike coal. upped the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025. how can you not love ethanol? . which has made energy independence a universal political slogan. The first is panic: Many energy experts believe that the world's oil supplies have already peaked or will peak within the next decade. As former CIA director James Woolsey. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America. The third factor stoking the ethanol frenzy is the war in Iraq. ethanol has the added political benefit of elevating the American farmer to national hero. are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism. including a fifty-one-cent-per- gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.about half of ethanol's wholesale market price. With the first vote to be held in Iowa.38 per gallon -. Three factors are driving the ethanol hype. Sen. rival Democrat John Edwards. former skeptics like Sens. A few weeks later. Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone and a Frequent Contributer to the New York Times Magazine. The second is election-year politics.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 91 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (1/3) Ethanol subsidies are politically untouchable—three reasons Goodell 7 (Jeff. another heavily subsidized energy source. http://www. the largest corn-producing state in the nation. "American farmers.twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans.rollingstone. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies. raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -. Hillary Clinton and John McCain now pay tribute to the wonders of ethanol. puts it." If you love America. but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. who is staking his campaign on a victory in the Iowa caucus. August 9. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural backers in Illinois by co-authoring legislation to raise production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030.

com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x. (Nothing against the hydrogen-powered "Freedom Cars" the Bush Administration has put $1.htm) Talking about ethanol is good politics. for farmers. Technology Writer and Former Editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. That's why politicians like to talk about it. at least for the time being. replace gasoline.usatoday. in sales or subsidies. But. The automotive industry loves it. Ethanol can. so we can reduce our dependence on people who hate us. ethanol. Talking ethanol means you're not talking about energy concepts people don't like to hear about. It doesn't kill property values like giant windmill farms or nuclear power stations. reality rears its ugly head.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 92 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (2/3) Ethanol is widely popular—outweighs your turns Kantor 4 (Andrew. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. which is a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. so voters get that warm fuzzy feeling they don't get from petroleum products. as often happens. February 20.2 billion toward developing. . since distillation was invented.) Rural people like ethanol because it means more money. The oil industry loves it because the use of ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual. Politically it's hard to go wrong promoting an alternative fuel made from American corn. It's natural — folks have been making ethanol since. Urban people like it because ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline and nobody likes a smog alert. It means talking about a fuel that comes from corn. if not good science. to some extent. And because it's a liquid we wouldn't have to change our whole delivery infrastructure the way we would with hydrogen. or mandatory low-powered electric cars. Castro was right. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that America may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil. People like ethanol because it comes from the good ol' USA. Politicians love it because by subsidising it they can please all those constituencies. because it reckons that switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. You've probably heard of gasohol. l/n) Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative- energy initiative that has broad political support. rolling blackouts. well. like nuclear power. Taxpayers seem not to have noticed that they are footing the bill. Ethanol has broad political backing The Economist 7(4/7. http://www.

the country's largest producer of ethanol.com/2008/03/ethanol- follies. Everyone supports ethanol—cutting it would be political suicide Greenwich Financial 8 (March 3. They are in it for the money. But politicians. Instead. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Senator McCain. can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. However.html) Ethanol might not conserve fossil fuels. who bravely fought the ethanol lobby for years. looking for cheaper gasoline.com/article. feeling good about our civic virtues while worsening the true problem . http://www. corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. Capitalism Magazine.asp?ID=5131) It's easy to understand how the public.capmag. we jump on the ethanol subsidy hayride. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 93 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (3/3) Cutting ethanol subsidies would be political suicide—ethanol and farm lobbies Williams 8 (Walter. http://blog. but it makes great political hay. proposing this is viewed as political suicide. flip- flopped during the Republican primaries and now is a strong ethanol supporter. President Bush waves the flag for ethanol. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot. A way of discouraging fossil fuel use that is market neutral toward alternatives would be to increase the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. Candidates Clinton and Obama both enthuse about energy from corn.greenwichfinancial.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 94 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Sugar*** .

which has donated $414. Sugar Lobbies strong: massive congressional support for sugar subsidies. and world-class golf courses. and Texas and beet fields in California. and American Crystal Sugar.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 95 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/8) No one will oppose the sugar lobby—they fear not being re-elected Dean 6 (Adam. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A.235. For many of these districts.000 acres of land in Florida and the Dominican Republic. which has donated $795. find it in their electoral interest to continue to support the US sugar program.upenn.heritage. http://repository. With cane fields in Florida. along with Senators from these states. is a basic requirement for any politician hoping to win an election in these areas. Michigan and Ohio (see Appendix V) there are many US congressional districts that contain farmers that are dependent on the sugar program in some capacity.3 million has been donated to federal politicians by the sugar industry. bilateral trade deals that open the US sugar market to foreign competition. such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). 15 The largest beneficiary of continued government price-fixing in the sugar industry. The broad base of national support for the sugar program has enabled the industry to successfully oppose any serious reform to an inefficient program that has enormous annual costs for US consumers. Opposition to such trade agreements. Hawaii. the Flo-Sun sugar empire includes several sugar mills and 410.000-acre luxury resort with 14 swimming pools. will be Florida's Flo-Sun. Among such pro-price support organizations are the American Sugar Cane League. Washington State. 17 It is not unreasonable to assume that Flo-Sun may well have had substantial influence on the current farm policy debate on Capitol Hill. North Dakota. the sugar industry continues to be a major beneficiary of price-support policies that have cost American consumers billions of dollars. however. Grover M. Minnesota. pose serious threats to their livelihood. Inc.cfm) Since 1999. . College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal. millions in campaign contributions Riedl 2 (Brian M. Montana. $4.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534. Overall. http://www. Oregon.) As is the case with all agricultural protection policies.898 to federal candidates since 1999. However. as well as any proposed reform of the sugar industry. an amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to eliminate the federal sugar program and shift the savings to the food stamp program was defeated by a vote of 71-25.Louisiana. Owned by brothers Alfonso (Alfie) and Jose (Pepe) Fanjul. Representatives from these districts. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.. sugarbeets and sugarcane are grown in numerous areas throughout the country.136. the Fanjuls receive a huge annual sugar benefit from the federal government: roughly $65 million for their Florida-grown sugar and an additional $60 million for the Dominican sugar they sell in the United States. nearly all of which has come from organizations representing farmers who benefit from these price supports and want to continue them. given that it has donated $1. In December 2001. 16 Profiting from Congress's misguided policies. several mansions. University of Pittsburg. the Fanjuls have purchased a 7.900 to federal politicians since 1999. Idaho. Despite a fortune conservatively estimated at $500 million. the farmers that benefit from the US sugar program are opposed to any reform efforts.edu/curej/28/. unlike certain agricultural commodities that are only grown in certain regions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 96 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

80.000 acres of cane fields in Florida and the Dominican Republic. Alfie Fanjul was invited to an “economic summit” in Little Rock. President Clinton received a personal phone call from Alfie Fanjul during his final private meeting with Lewinsky. Inc. between 1991 and 1995 Fanjul controlled companies contributed $131.22 With such a large sum of money at stake. the exact opposite is the case for US producers.. http://repository. the annual per capita cost ranges from only $3. With over 400. .000 to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Although the political influence of Alfie Fanjul. the Fanjul owned Flo-Sun. With the average American family of four losing less than $50 each year. have always found it in their best interest to be very involved in the political process. benefit in excess of $65 million each year.00021 of the 1. University of Pittsburg. and matters more to simply support whoever is in power. When political influence is so important. the Fanjul family of Florida. it matters less what party you support.7 million short tons of raw sugar produced in Florida each year. Fanjul controlled companies and PACs make contributions to both political parties.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 97 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/8) The sugar lobby drowns out political support for the plan Dean 6 (Adam.upenn. As argued in Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action19. From 1991 to 1995 Fanjul controlled assets were responsible for 59 percent of all soft money contributions made by the Sugar industry to national parties and committees. Alfie’s influence was coincidentally made very public in 1998 during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal.2 billions dollars20. However. the Fanjul family and the corporate executives of Flo-Sun. The wealthiest of all US sugar producers.23 After Clinton’s election. and the Fanjuls themselves actively support both the Republican and Democratic parties. Since each consumer only has the potential for a small gain from liberalizing the US sugar market it would be irrational to dedicate much time or money to a reform movement. was the co-chairman of Bill Clinton’s Florida Presidential election campaign in 1992 and cosponsored a Cuban-American fundraiser in Miami that raised over $100. and its corporate executives donated more than $2. From 1979 to 1995. these hard money contributions do not include the highly lucrative soft money donations given by the Fanjuls and Flo-Sun. it is understandable that protection of the US sugar industry is not a highly controversial topic amongst consumers.24 According to the Starr report. In the same years the Fanjul family alone gave $359. certain US producers stand to gain millions of dollars each year. The difficulties of organizing a consumer advocacy group to lobby Congress for decreased protection of the US sugar industry would be severe. Living up to expectations.40-$10. and others like him. large groups are often much less effective than small groups at forming lobby groups and effectively applying pressure on legislators. the Fanjul family. College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal. However. a life-long Democrat.505 to more than 172 congressional candidates of both political parties. Since the US sugar program has such small effects on each consumer it is very unlikely that a large number of them will organize to lobby legislators. accounts for over 6. Inc.) The concentrated benefits and diverse costs of the US sugar program make it so that consumer advocacy of major reform is unlikely. Arkansas where he was given a seat 3 spaces away from Clinton and Al Gore. A consumer advocacy group would be unlikely to even cover their costs if they were to send donation requests through the mail or to send group members door-to-door to solicit funds. Alfie Fanjul.6 million to political candidates. Clinton returned the phone call while Lewinsky was leaving the room and continued to talk to him for 22 minutes about a proposal to have the sugar industry pay for an environmental clean-up of the Florida Everglades. usually goes unnoticed by the general public. Whereas each US consumer has very little to gain or lose from the US sugar program.500. the Flo-Sun Corporation.edu/curej/28/. With the estimated annual net cost of the US sugar program ranging from 1 to 3.000. along with the Florida Sugar League PAC.

Ryan. ." said Eric Eikenberg.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flasugarpolitics0714sbjul14. much of it based in Florida — or its political clout. the American economist. Those exclusions. broadcasting and other sectors. along with niggardly US concessions on beef and dairy imports.sun-sentinel. pointed out. Observers on all sides of the transaction say it could strengthen the remaining players." Sugar Lobbies have clout: campaign contributions greater than any food growers Krauss 7 (Clifford. “Sugar industry likely to remain potent political force Industry may wield more clout after land deal. The system has been subjected to withering criticism for decades. and McNeill 8 (William E. Its clout over the next few years may be enhanced by the conversion of sugar cane into ethanol. Sugar industry has power – Australian FTA proves Financial Times 4 (“Sweet deal: The US sugar industry is an affront to free trade” Financial Times. more than any other group of food growers. "But there are multiple interests within the industry that will remain very much a part of the landscape. belie official efforts to label the deal a "free trade" agreement. Kleindienst..927023. a potentially profitable enterprise tied to the politically popular cause of developing alternative fuels. but the sugar lobby has clout on Capitol Hill. Big Sugar's survival was assured by congressional passage last month of price supports that keep the industry alive. Linda. By successfully resisting Australian demands for removal of its elaborate protection. Sugar and its allies in the sugar cane and sugar beet industry have poured millions into political campaigns. But it costs consumers money in the form of higher sugar prices.story) KK U.7 million in campaign contributions to House and Senate incumbents in 2006.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 98 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (3/8) Sugar Lobbies still powerful: recent land deal strengthens players Gibson.” New York Times. 2/12) As Mancur Olson. The unfolding land deal does not herald the end of Big Sugar — a powerful industry of growers and refiners. the industry deprived US negotiators of the bargaining power needed to secure removal of Australia's restrictions on wheat marketing.S. “Seeing Sugar's Future in Fuel. a small industry that has punched a big hole in the newly concluded US bilateral trade agreement with Australia. notably Florida Crystals and other concerns run by the Fanjul family of Palm Beach County. boosted or cut short political careers and made their imprint on Congress and the Florida Legislature. "The land deal just removes a player from the field. pressure groups wield political clout in inverse proportion to their size. July 14. There are few more striking demonstrations of that principle than the US sugar lobby. chief of staff to Gov. Charlie Crist.0.” South Florida Sun-Sentinel. http://www. according to the Center for Responsive Politics. a point of pride for the industry. October 18) KK The system does not cost taxpayers money directly. Sugar producers donated $2. a Washington group.

S. sugar PACs generally have a slight preference for donations to Democrats. The government also restricts the amount of domestic sugar that can be placed on the market in order to keep the U. sugar producers receive no subsidies. lowered their contributions in the 2005-2006 cycle. Less than 18 months later.” The Hill.more than $1 million . "I'm optimistic we'll get good sugar provisions in the farm bill. farmers could flood the domestic market and drive sugar prices down . Besides American Crystal. from Central America. The White House's only new proposal was to eliminate a 2002 farm bill rule that requires the administration to allow the release of U. Peterson's district covers the Red River Valley. sugar producers." said Rep. the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative nearly doubled its donations to Republican candidates. suffered a bruising defeat in 2005 when Congress approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) over their strenuous objections.S. director of government affairs for American Crystal Sugar Company. however.)." Melancon said.S. He added that the group feels better about its position for the upcoming debate over the farm bill now that Peterson is chairman of the agriculture committee.500 in 2003-2004 to $156. Although U. "We were pleasantly surprised by the administration's proposal. from $57.250 in 2005-2006. They can read the writing on the wall. according to some farm-group lobbyists. with longtime congressional allies in key positions of power on several House and Senate committees. U. and particularly those representing the sugarcane industry in the south.375 in the 2003-2004 cycle to $112.D. which runs along the border of North Dakota and Minnesota and includes much of the nation's sugar beet production. Collin Peterson (D-Minn. referring to the 2006 elections. the industry appears stronger than ever in Washington. sugar industry that stepped up their political activity in the wake of the fight over CAFTA. Price said the CAFTA fight played into American Crystal's decision to step up its political activity. sugar on the domestic market only when imports hit a certain trigger level.).000 more than the total for 2004. a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.S. About 60 percent of the donations went to Democrats. a spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance. She described the administration's proposals as interesting but not robust enough to amount to an overhaul. Most notably. he said the proposal did not represent the radical reforms that some in the agriculture community had been expecting. But that would violate another rule in the 2002 bill that requires the sugar program to impose no direct costs on taxpayers. All in all. from $108.) is the new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee." Price said. That rule.000. If the rule were triggered.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 99 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (4/8) Sugar lobbies powerful: Congressional allies in key positions Swanson 7 (Ian. said many lawmakers do want to change the sugar program.D. a former president of the American Sugar Cane League. they are protected by high import tariffs. for years one of the most powerful lobbying forces in agriculture. a spokeswoman for the National Confectioners Association. "It's not solely a factor of CAFTA. Besides Peterson. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.S.) and Sen. sugar supporters include Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N. American Crystal Sugar Company. Some PACs representing the sugar industry. . but it's one thing we've experienced that makes people interested in being politically active. but sugar PACs overall increased their political donations by a total of $250. CAFTA allowed a limited increase of sugar imports to the U. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has also always supported the sugar program.in principle leading to the forfeiture of crops and high bailout costs borne by taxpayers.500 in the 2005-2006 cycle. but domestic producers saw it as the beginning of the end for Big Sugar. Susan Smith." said Phillip Hayes. This is almost twice what the company spent during the 2002 cycle and $250. Charlie Melancon (D-La. according to Kevin Price. The cooperative spent a record sum .S. which operates five refineries in the Red River Valley.). backed by sugar interests. "These guys are not dumb.on political contributions to House and Senate campaigns in the 2005-2006 election cycle. Its spending on Democratic candidates also increased. Whereas most agriculture political action committees (PACs) give more to Republicans.S. Byron Dorgan (N. “Sugar industry pours it on after CAFTA's bitterness. price high. but they find that reform is always an uphill climb. according to the PoliticalMoneyLine website. tried to ensure that the government kept imports below that threshold. American Crystal is one of several groups representing the U. Rep. 2/13) KK U. Sugar's growing clout was also reflected in the Bush administration's relatively timid proposals for sugar reform in the farm bill proposals it unveiled two weeks ago. which reflects a trend in the sugar industry that is unusual in agriculture.

923) and committee chairman Collin Peterson." says Cato's Edwards.forbes. the U. .html) Nonetheless. the top beneficiaries of big sugar's influence for the current election cycle include Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin.400).S. 2. ($33.. with $26. sugar- beet acreage is in the Red River Valley between Minnesota and North Dakota.S. is No. which recently became law after a veto override.com/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-biz- beltway-cx_jz_0630sugar. taking in $26. The U. Peterson.900). D-Minn. ($28. North Dakota's sole Congressman. As an explanation for sugar's lavish subsidies in the 2008 farm bill. has been the greatest beneficiary of donations from sugar-related political-action committees for the 2008 election cycle. House Agriculture Committee member Tim Mahoney. Department of Agriculture says roughly 54% of total U. look no further than Congress' Agriculture Committees. the Center for Responsive Politics says.500. "They have been a notoriously powerful lobby for decades and decades. Democrat Earl Pomeroy. http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 100 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (5/8) Cutting subsidies would be massively unpopular—the sugar lobby controls congress Forbes Magazine 8 (June 30.S. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. sugar industry remains strong in Washington. D-Fla.400 in PAC money. D-Iowa ($35. whose district in western Minnesota stretches along the Red River Valley.

There are relatively few sugar producers in the United States. CATO Institute.org/downsizing/agriculture/regs_trade_barriers. sugar programs.html) With all the negative economic and environmental effects of U.30 One advantage they have is that their subsidies mainly take the form of import protection and thus do not show up as a costly line item in the federal budget.cato. why do they persist? Sugar policies are a classic example of the government conferring benefits on a favored few at the expense of average households. http://www. . June 13.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 101 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (6/8) Bush would have to fight to get the plan through—the sugar lobby is strong and the subsidies don’t show up on the federal budget Edwards 7 (Chris.S. but they form a notoriously powerful lobbying interest in Washington.

S. with total contributions of $851. The single largest sugar donor in the 2004 elections. The U. taxpayers $430 million to support the sugar industry between 2002 and 2011.S. May. the sugar lobby is dominated by consortia of sugar-beet farmers in the upper Midwest.pdf) Politicians have responded by preserving the sugar price supports and import quotas. lobbying effort to keep sugar out of the U. President Bush signed into law the Farm Bill 2002.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0704-34. Director of Tax Policy Studies. The new bill will cost U.cato. When the CAFTA (Central American FTA) negotiations were concluded and the sugar industry learned that it provided for a slight increase in sugar imports the industry responded by launching a large. these farmers are small. Flo-Sun will be among the sugar growers that will benefit from this support. U.S. but they are highly organized and can bring enormous pressure to bear on the politicians who represent them. was American Crystal.com/virata/The%20Effects%20of%20the%20US%20Sugar. http://findarticles. .-Australia FTA.S. The Fanjuls are among the biggest sugar growers in that country. Sugar Lobby Strong: large campaign donations National Review 5 (6/18.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_13_57/ai_n15674141) Apart from large cane growers like the Fanjuls and their rival. Those controls have created an entrenched and wealthy sugar producers’ lobby that dishes out millions of dollars of campaign contributions to protect the industry’s monopoly profits at the expense of sugar-consuming businesses and average families. Sugar Lobby Strong Edwards 6 (Chris..Arizona Debate Institute 2008 102 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (7/8) The sugar lobby will try to block any effort to cut subsidies or lower trade barriers Virata 4 (Gillian.pdf) Corruption in foreign trade is illustrated by restrictions on the importation of sugar. International Economic Studies Center. ultimately successful. Politicians have also kept sugar out of bilateral free trade agreements starting with the U. http://www. Individually.-Canada FTA. a sugar-beet cooperative in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. Masters in International Policy and Practice from George Washington University. Sugar Corp. which not only negated the farm subsidy reduction of Farm Bill 1996 but also compensated farmers for losses from the first bill. Cato Institute. http://internationalecon.000.S.ñDominican Republic FTA increased the Dominican Republicís quota by 10% over several years but kept the quota regime intact.

2004) that the powerful U. sugar lobby and affiliated individuals and political action committees had donated $20.SugarPolicies. The Washington Post reported (February 9.S.S. 2005).Arizona Debate Institute 2008 103 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (8/8) Sugar Lobby strong: massive donations to both political parties Mitchell No Date Given (Donald. July 28. sugar industry was recently demonstrated when it opposed and almost prevented the passage of the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) because the agreement increased the sugar quotas of these countries (Wall Street Journal. however.S. .org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/239054- 1126812419270/10.S. sugar industry had earlier prevented sugar from being included in the Australia–U. Lead Economist in the Development Prospects Group of The World Bank http://siteresources. free trade agreement. even though sugar is an important export for Australia. Pressures for change are building.2 million to both U.worldbank. political parties since 1990.S. The U. and the opportunity for sugar policy reform is better now than in several decades.pdf) The clout of the U.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 104 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Congress Past votes on cutting sugar subsidies prove there’s overwhelming opposition to the plan Center For Trade and Policy Studies 6 (CATO Institute. increase the forfeiture penalty by 1 cent. . the House voted 177.org/node/806) On October 4.239 (House Roll Call 367) to reject an amendment by Rep. http://www. Dan Miller (R-Fla. 2001. Judd Gregg (R-N. On December 12. 2001.) that sought to reduce the sugar loan rates by 1 cent. and authorize the use of program savings for conservation and environmental stewardship programs to enhance the Florida Everglades ecosystem that has been damaged by intensified cane farming in the region.freetrade. the Senate voted 71-29 (Senate Roll Call 364) to table an amendment by Sen.) to phase out the sugar program by fiscal year 2006 and use the savings to fund nutrition programs.H.

governors and many members of Congress." Such frustration already appears to be influencing politicians. is demanding fundamental reform. Many such groups suspect that the exemption of sugar from the Australian free-trade agreement resulted in their getting fewer concessions in that pact than they otherwise would have won. pressure for U.S. many environmentalists favor farm-trade liberalization for the reasons discussed above. 6/25) With all the negative effects of the sugar program. Groups concerned with the elimination of global poverty. R-Ariz. "I've been in the unholy agricultural alliance for 33 years. such as Oxfam. why does it survive? Because Congress often puts the interests of the favored few ahead of the general public good. are quick to point out that the U. As WTO members move toward final agreement on the Doha round of trade- liberalization talks. I've voted for every damned ridiculous agricultural program and subsidy conceived by the minds of men. but I think this time most of the rest of agriculture is starting to look at the sugar lobby as being off the reservation and out only for themselves. . depresses world sugar prices and keeps cane-growing tropical nations poorer than they need to be. http://www. the sugar industry's opposition to CAFTA has alienated agricultural lobbies traditionally sympathetic to sugar growers. along with European export subsidies for sugar-beet growers. it could exploit the fact that discontent with the sugar program transcends traditional political divides." Plan Popular: bipartisan opposition to subsidies: our ev assumes the power of your lobbies Edwards 7(Chris. reform will increase.org/node/694.php) While such an opposition would lack the organizational advantage of representing highly concentrated interests.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 105 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Popular – General Opposition to the sugar subsidies outweighs your link—bipartisan interest groups and declining power of the sugar lobby Steorts 5 (Jason Lee. Trent Lott. John Frydenlund of Citizens Against Government Waste says. manufacturing and agricultural interests that stand to benefit from trade liberalization. sugar growers are well-organized and they protect the program by providing large campaign support to presidents.. Meanwhile. The EU has just announced a plan to cut its sugar subsidies by 39 percent. and are opposed to sugarcane farming in Florida because of the damage it inflicts on the Everglades. protectionist schemes for sugar and other crops will grow ever harder to defend. and consumer groups that object to high sugar prices. "There always has been a circle-the-wagons attitude in agriculture as far as protecting each other is concerned. On the left. But I may not anymore. director of tax policy at the Cato Institute. and a bipartisan group of more than 100 House members led by Jeff Flake.freetrade. July 18. National Review.org/articles_2005/sugar_industry_subsidies. sugar program. expressing his annoyance with the sugar industry. The Bush administration proposed minor reform to sugar policies this year.S. recently said. But the sugar lobby is beatable. In this case. to the degree that its member states consent in liberalizing their sugar industries. A coalition to oppose the sugar lobby could draw support from free-trade advocates on the right.reclaimdemocracy. http://www.

said that the changes to the sector from CAFTA would be small and there was nothing in the agreement that was a threat to the sugar industry. big agribusiness is siding with the Bush administration against sugar. Ambassador Allen Johnson. And. D.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 106 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Sugar Cuts Popular – A2: Lobby Sugar Lobby on the decline: your generic farm lobbies cards aren’t responsive Food and Drink Weekly 5 (6/6. Johnson suggested that the sugar lobby was short-sighted. is on the wane.C. http://findarticles. risking its relationship with the Bush administration ahead of legislation that would determine the billions of dollars in federal money to be divided among farmers into the next decade for crop subsidies. CAFTA. . in one of the rare instances of a food lobby turning against one of its own. the president of the American Farm Bureau federation. Big sugar is especially losing its sway with Republicans as its opposition to President Bush's top trade priority. according to the New York Times. conservation and other agricultural programs. "Sugar is fighting to maintain its program to the detriment of the rest of agriculture. According to the Times. America's chief international agricultural negotiator.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_21_11/ai_n13831226) The influence of the sugar lobby in Washington. has forced the party to abandon the industry." said Bob Stallman.

 Watch for the president to call for political reconciliation. governors and many members of Congress. Democratic leaders say. are likely to confront searing hearings in a  Democratic­controlled House intent on exerting new oversight and challenging the course of the war. education. with Vice President Dick Cheney insisting elections  will have little impact: "The president’s made clear what his objective is: It’s victory in Iraq. Without any capital. www. I earned some capital.’ in a way that has not occurred for the majority of his presidency… Or drawing a line in the dust. And the president’s own  war in Iraq. the president abandoned that bid – although he has hinted at taking another shot at Social Security reform in his remaining two years. experts say. when he secured his “No Child Left Behind’’ educational reforms with the assistance of Democrats. Director of Tax Policy at the CATO Institute. suggesting Bush must regain that  . And with criticism for conduct of the war in Iraq mounting even within his own party. a time of healing. a new willingness to deal with Democrats.’’’ says Ornstein. Rumsfeld and others could face unrelenting interrogation. Watch for the president today to set a new tone. resident scholar at Washington­based  American Enterprise Institute. This much is certain: The rules of the game have changed. June 25. Edwards 7 (Chris. leaders within Bush’s party could help chart a new war strategy as they seek to regain the GOP’s footing for 2008. The Bush administration proposed minor reform to sugar policies this year. and it’s full speed ahead.  he said this about his reelection to a second term: “It's like earning capital… Let me  put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign . a casualty of the  the tax reform he is seeking in his final two years – making his first­term tax­cuts permanent – with the new Democratic majority in the House. L/N) The last time that Bush held a post Election Day­press conference. On the war front and home front. In this case. the sugar trade with Mexico will be opened in 2008.’’ Bush said two years ago. Reaching out to democrats is key to advancing Bush’s Agenda and overcoming a lack of political capital Chicago Tribune 6 (November 8. fighting and winning the war on terror. is demanding fundamental reform.’’ says Stephen Hess. As the focus of politics in  Washington rapidly shifts to the next presidential election. not a divider. "It’s a real time for choice by President Bush. intent on fulfilling a domestic  agenda that includes perpetuation of tax cuts won during Bush’s first term. has Bush demonstrated the full bipartisan spirit that he pledged campaigning in 2000 –  running as "a uniter. Donald Rumsfeld. 4. he maintained: “I've  earned capital in this election ­­ and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on. During a campaign­closing rally. I’m going to sprint as hard as I  ’’ The president could stumble for two years. as today’s  .’’ His final two years may depend on a revival of that spirit. "When Bush started out. ’I am going to strike a balance here. which should add to the pressure for reform.org/node/694) With all the negative effects of the sugar program. Also.  and now I  intend to spend it. that capital is gone. but the White  House. "All those people heading to the polls hoping to change the policy in Iraq are going to wake up Wednesday and find out that won’t happen. "It really becomes a question of whether he is really going to become ’a uniter. political capital . Some say Bush  could find quick common ground on immigration reform. sugar growers are well-organized and they protect the program by providing large campaign support to presidents. With his party’s loss of the House. will make it difficult for him to withstand Democratic challenges    about the future course of  war. Bush also will be hard­pressed to secure  unpopularity. Bush and his embattled secretary of defense. cooperation is the president’s best course. It’s unlikely that any hearings will escalate to the level of impeachment that GOP leaders have warned of with a Democratic takeover. 2004. Bush promised: "For the next two and a half years.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 107 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Sugar Cuts Popular—Democrats Removing sugar subsidies is popular with reformist democrats. R-Ariz.’’ Any course change – including the removal of a defense secretary who has faced calls for resignation from retired generals and the editorial page of the  Army Times – could take some time. Democrats portrayed themselves as reformers willing to take on special interests for the benefit of average families. But the sugar lobby is beatable. Now they have a chance to prove it by abolishing the sugar program. why does it survive? Because Congress often puts the interests of the favored few ahead of the general public good. Bush must fundamentally  Tribune reports: Bush's tough hand By Mark Silva<Washington Bureau< WASHINGTON – President Bush faces fateful new choices. "Staying the course’’ in Iraq is only likely to intensify the scrutiny of House committees whose new  Democratic leaders have subpoena power to pursue questions they have raised for the past few years. and with his reelection. experts say  alter the way he approaches Congress for any hope of salvaging his own  "aggressive’’  agenda  for the remaining two years of his presidency. Bush’s ability to make any headway during the rest of his term will depend on a willingness to work with Democrats whom he has spent years marginalizing. and a bipartisan group of more than 100 House members led by Jeff Flake.’’ The White House. under rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  The administration already has revealed a determination to prosecute the war as it is.’’ says Norman Ornstein. not a divider. the idea was.’’ After several months of  campaigning in 2005 for Social Security reforms which neither the public nor Congress supported.. is likely to seek some reconciliation – with Bush planning to speak out Wednesday. moving this economy forward. a Brookings Institution senior scholar. “ After the 2000 election. which is ­­ you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform. on Nov.freetrade.’’ Today. In winning the House last year. Not since his first year. if he does not demonstrate  can. not the unbridled tone of that last post­election press conference.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 108 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal balance for any success from now on. it’s going  to be a long and difficult two years. "If he doesn’t move in that direction.’’ .

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 109 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Soy*** .

the truth is beginning to emerge. falsification.thing to do with hypothyroidism. manipulation.cates of the ongoing use of soy. and despite the power of the vested interests and the complacency and laissez-faire attitude of governments. conducting an unrelenting political lobbying campaign in Congressional Committees. Dr Northrup still denies that soy has any.pdf) But maybe there is hope yet. with emphasis on the potential liability of soy products. to be held during the (US) Fall of 2002. Slowly. the adverse effects of soy often take years to manifest and are no respecter of persons.http://www. Price Foundation to prepare a brief on the legality of soy foods. As I have indicated throughout this essay. . It was therefore with mixed emotions that I recently learned that two prominent advo. the prestigious Georgetown University has sponsored a national forum on the food supply. and continues taking her soy preparation every day. a Washington public interest charitable organization.com/articles_links/ATTACK%20OF%20THE%20KILLER%20BEANT HE%20CASE%20AGAINST%20SOY. direction. Research Director of the Hippocrates Health Center of Australia. And a ray of hope is coming from another. threats and other illegal activities undertaken by powerful multinationals in order to maintain the multi- billion-dollar profits generated by this innocuous-looking. as well as the USA. The US Congress is now taking seriously a plethora of complaints and legal actions being instituted against Monsanto on behalf of millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined through the corporate greed of this legalized drug pusher. August. Some of soy’s most vocal supporters are now having cause to reconsider their stance – and their beliefs. In other countries.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 110 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Soy Cuts Popular There is widespread public and lobby backlash against soy—former supporters of the crop are jumping ship Hollingsworth 2 (Elaine. class actions are being mounted which will finally make public the human toll and the extent of cover-up. The Environmental Law Forum of the Georgetown Law School has specifically asked the Weston A. American MD Christiane Northrup and Australian naturopath Nancy Beckham have both been diagnosed with health problems directly related to excessive soy intake: hypothyroidism and osteoporosis Paradoxically.roex. In addition. harassment. despite the clear evidence to the contrary. This is largely due to the Weston A Price Foundation. perhaps surprising. notably Australia and New Zealand. genetically modified and deadly poisonous bean.

extender. XXVI.htm) FDA’s approval of the health claim for soy protein was in response to a petition by a leading soy producer. http://www. It is a cost cutter that swells profits. In view of the overall evidence against soy. One critic. and replacer in foods for humans and in feed for animal. The soybean lobby exerts powerful clout.nutrition4health.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 111 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Soy Cuts Unpopular The soy lobby is extremely powerful—it is the most lobbied agricultural product NOHA News 1 (Vol." . Conversely.org/NOHAnews/NNF01SoyBeatrice. p3. Fall. no other food has so many public relations firms and lobbyists working for it. Tom Valentine. is the health claim justified? Previous health claims have been approved in response to commercial interests and similarly based on highly selective evidence. food and beverage processors favor soybean use because it is a low-cost filler. In addition. observed in True Health that "no other dietary staple has so many anti-nutrient drawbacks as soy.

right on par with the meat and dairy lobbies. PhD – Lehigh University. .edu/~inbios/schneider/soy. the soy industry is a huge agribusiness. Most soy is sold by Archer Daniels Midland.lehigh.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 112 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Soy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby The soy lobby is one of the most powerful political lobbies—the government allocates them enormous amounst of subsidies Schneider 5 (Jill. the healthy "Asian diet. a Fortune 500 company quite well known for receiving enormous subsidies ("corporate welfare") and price fixing (see the Wikipedia entry for starters ). To the contrary." and so forth. organically grown vegetables.htm) Some people equate soy products with various "good" things such as fresh. The soy lobby is one of the most powerful political lobbies. unprocessed. http://www. These people are under the erroneous impression that the makers and purveyors of soy products are in a different moral. ecological category than those in the meat and dairy industry.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 113 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Corn*** .

Peterson predicted in December. dairy.com/content. Tom Harkin of Iowa -. And concerns are widespread with lawmakers and farmers that there won’t be nearly as much money budgeted for agricultural spending next year as the 2007 farm bill is created.cattlenetwork. Ellis said Harkin. though he trails others. an Ames Republican.asp?contentid=93566) In order to create programs to further support ethanol production as well as keep farm subsidies plentiful. a longtime member of the House Appropriations Committee. "There are still others more aggressive than he. there has to be a federal budget to support them. government has paid out billions of dollars in subsidies to cotton.Rep. a Mississippi Republican. Thad Cochran. as a "cardinal." Harkin is a cardinal member of Congress—he uses his status on the appropriations committee to influence the agenda Des Moines Register 7-8 (http://www. Sen.dll/article?AID=/20080708/NEWS09/807080360/-1/BUSINESS04) Iowa is in an unusually influential position for a small state that sends just seven people to Congress. and cotton is a critical issue to Harkin—its vital to maintaining his leadership in Congress Tomson 6 (Bill. http://www. soybean. Tim Walz. addressed the subject recently in a press conference with USDA’s Johanns.com/apps/pbcs.html) Defending agricultural subsidies is an increasingly tough sell in Washington." as chairmen are dubbed. D-Minn. he said: "I don't have anything against rice and cotton -. Southern lawmakers find themselves taking a back seat to those from the Midwest. http://www. D- Iowa. Harkin told reporters he hopes current high farm prices won’t be used as a reason to allocate a smaller budget next year . They're optimistic because two veteran Democrats -.com/politics/11759541. corn. the earth truly did shift in terms of agriculture. milk."For those of us out here.. Getting a sufficient budget allocation next year. but Tordsen and other Midwestern farmers expect to benefit from a shift in political power in the new Congress After years of dominating the farm committees in Congress. For example.desmoinesregister. clearly is in a "position of power" as an appropriator.startribune. peanut and other producers so far during the 2002 farm bill as well as kept domestic sugar prices artificially high by controlling imports. soy. a member of the House Agriculture Committee. The U.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 114 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Corn/Soy/Cotton/Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Harkin Harkin is a strong advocate of corn and soy subsidies Star Tribune 7 (March 4.it's just that I'm a little partial to corn and soybeans." said freshman Rep. "It's huge" to have Peterson and Harkin in leading roles.are heading the agriculture committees and will take the lead in crafting a new farm bill this year.something that could hamper farm leaders in Congress as they write the 2007 farm bill."Certainly (Harkin) makes use of his position being a powerful appropriator.S. and corn and soybean farmers are eager to cash in. Dow Jones Newswire. . Tom Harkin." said Ellis. with Harkin a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Latham. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Sen. Maintaining subsidies to corn. will be the “first big hurdle.“ Sen. landed $837 million in earmarks for this budget year. who will take over as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee in January.

And all of this did not happen by accident. rather than burn it. http://my. there was a glut of cane sugar on the market. They have successfully lobbied to have sugar prices artifically inflated to the point where we pay 4 times as much for sugar in this country than in Europe or the rest of the world. causing red tides in the Gulf. for fuel purposes. You can vote with Big Corn and Joe Voter won't know or care (the voters are more concerned with the so-called "real issues" like Gay Marriage and Abortion.barackobama.doing your part to suppress Communism in Latin America!) powerful. however. and the body tends to convert it directly into fat. Why is this? High Fructose Corn Syrup is the answer.provided that sugar prices are kept artifically high. Once the price of sugar plummeted. in the guise of "helping the sugar beet farmers" price supports for sugar are renewed every year in Congress (this. I think High Fructose Corn Syrup might be the cigarettes of the next decade.U.com/page/community/post/robertbell/Cxz9) The Corn Lobby is powerful. It is a hard choice to make. which really hurt the Cuban economy as well. the year it was introduced to the market. which are really nothing more than window dressing). perhaps not. America's Sweetner.!" to Castro. requiring huge amounts of fertilizer (using oil!) which in turn runs off into the Mississippi.it is not an easy question to anwser. It also helped crash the price of sugar on the world market. The USA was the world's largest consumer of sugar. and when high fructose corn syrup repolaced it. Or you go vote against Big Corn and end up out of office in 6 years. or what is right for the special-interest groups in your State (who donate heavily to your campaign and party). Cuba used sugar as a cash crop to exchange with their Soviet supporters.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 115 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Corn and Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby No one is willing to oppose the corn lobby on the issue of cutting corn and sugar subsidies Bell 7 (Robert. Regardless of its personal or enviromental safety. . Some environmentalists also criticize corn as an environmentally poor crop . and our "F.a trend that the graphs all show starting in 1977. Now go to the grocery store in Europe and try to find a product that has it (you can't). the reason why we use it is that it is cheaper to use . In 1977. Most voters do not have the sophisitication to even understand the issues (how many of you have even read this far?). it was our get-even with Castro. there is a lot of pressure on you to vote for sugar subsidies (to benefit the corn lobby). in contrast. But the ingredient is in nearly all of our food now (and only in the USA!) and it was done without any discssion of the merits and darn little product testing. If you are a Senator from a Corn State. Some studies have linked the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup to the obesity epidemic in the USA .1:1 ratio). ADM (Supermarket to the World) does not want to see sugar price supports dropped. the Soviets were less interested in supporting Cuba. Now this brings us to the point. Mike Gravel tried to do what was right in Alaska. but rather as "Patriot Pounds" And the Corn Lobby pushing for this product are very . So. Sugar. high fructose corn syrup quietly replaced cane sugar as the primary source of sweetener for soft drinks and food. Like I said. Go to your grocery store some time and try to find a food product WITHOUT this ingredient. despite the general trend to deregulating our farm economy and free trade!). The Corn lobby is also pushing for corn-based ethanol for fuel (as a mandatory requirement! 10%!). as the Corn Lobby is not happy about this. and the Cuban economy has suffered as a result. like Illinois. You can do what is right for the country. even though it takes the equivalent of nearly a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of ethanol (about a 1. and he was history in short order. (So. generates 4- 5 times as much energy in ethanol than is used in production and is a much more economically sound "renewable resource" than corn. perhaps we should not view the obesity epidemic as a glut of people who are chronically overweight. Some scientists claim that High Fructose Corn Syrup is not metabolized the same way as natural sugars. Further studies on this are not forthcoming. Political survival versus the right thing .it tends to deplete the soil.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 116 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Dairy*** .

. which awards $2 billion in golden parachute payments to assist dairy farmers who will lose the benefits of this second tier of price inflation and provides additional aid to other dairy farmers nationwide. and dairy farmers--especially those far away from Eau Claire. In testimony before the House Agriculture Committee on April 5. Each year. which raises the price of milk as much as 20 cents per gallon. Wisconsin. Under this Depression-era program. the federal government allows states with less efficient dairy farmers to establish local milk cartels to keep less expensive Midwest milk off the market and sustain artificially high prices for milk produced in those states.7 million. was allowed to sunset in October 2001. the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. resulting in milk prices that are considered to be too low. this move was countered by a stipulation in the Senate bill. 22 Much of the $3. Wisconsin--will continue to be the beneficiaries. An amendment by Senator Michael Crapo (R-ID) to delete this funding was strongly opposed by the farm lobby and failed by a vote of 51 to 47. which had allowed New England states to set milk prices even higher than federal regulations permitted. the further a participating state is away from Eau Claire.heritage. 24 As written. the higher its milk prices are increased. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. In response to this situation. In a step toward reform. Jerry Kozak--CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). benefits consumers and should be continued.3 million donated to federal candidates by the dairy industry since 1999 has been from dairy farmers who support continuing the current price-fixing scheme. However.500 in donations it has made to federal candidates since 1999. 2001.. http://www. Current law is based on the perception that Midwest dairy farmers produce milk too efficiently. Grover M. 23 The policy prescriptions of the NMPF were buttressed by the $120.000 dairy farmers--declared that the current milk policy. Federal policies that increase milk prices appear to be here to stay.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 117 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2) Funding dairy popular: farm lobby blocks subsidy cuts Riedl 2 (Brian M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. both the House and Senate bills will continue current price- altering milk policies. this "milk tax" costs supermarket customers approximately $2.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534. which represents a majority of the nation's 83.cfm) The House and Senate farm bills also benefit the dairy industry.

and a behind-the- scenes political battle ensued.html) The absurdity of federal dairy controls was driven home in a Washington Post profile of a maverick dairy entrepreneur in 2006.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 118 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) The plan causes a political food fight—dairy lobby and bipartisan support for dairy controls Edwards 7 (Chris. a Dutch immigrant. and they were happy to provide customers with the new discount milk. His low prices created a large demand for his products. http://www.11 Hein Hettinga.cato. the producers in the government system were not happy with the competition from Hettinga.org/downsizing/agriculture/regs_trade_barriers. They began to vigorously lobby Congress to intervene. June 13. which cost more than $5 million in fees to Washington lobbyists. CATO Institute. However. and his business expanded rapidly. He sold his milk to Arizona chain stores and to Costco in California at 20 cents less per gallon than the government-regulated milk. began a modest dairy farm and milk bottling plant in Arizona in the 1990s outside of the government system. Costco executives believed that consumers were being “gouged” by the government-regulated system. Both Republicans and Democrats sought to protect existing producers in their states.12 . and they teamed up to crush Hettinga and close the legal channel through which he was operating.

http://www. Associated Press. 1.fmpc. April 22. The new dairy program would replace Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. said Middlebury dairy farmer Bob Foster. but it won't make them rich. like the compact. ''This plan will ensure that Vermont farmers are not held hostage by the wild fluctuations of milk pricing.'' said independent Sen. it's just sort of catching up from when the prices'' collapsed. The new program was a victory for Vermont's three-member congressional delegation. ''You should not underestimate this. which means Vermont dairy farmers will share about $9 million in payments for compact payments lost over the winter. During that time the compact paid about $146 million to New England dairy farmers. 2001. ''This plan will provide our farmers with the security they need so they can focus on what they do best.uconn.pdf) Dairy farmers across the country will be guaranteed a minimum price for their milk under a provision of the Farm Bill that was finalized Friday by congressional negotiators. which shepherded the legislation through Congress. but it will help dairy farmers in all 50 states. ''I think for Vermont farmers.'' The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact expired last October after being in place for four years. James Jeffords. The new program will be retroactive to Dec.'' said Vermont's independent Rep.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 119 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Dairy Cuts Popular—Congress Federal dairy support is wildly unpopular in congress Ring 2 (Wilson. Bernard Sanders who first proposed the idea in Congress last October.'' The new system. ''This is huge. will help farmers.edu/research/compact/ring. Farm advocates in the Northeast felt the compact helped dairy farmers weather wide fluctuations in the free-market price for milk. which expired last fall. It was funded through a surcharge on dairy processors. who had to overcome fierce opposition from politicians from midwestern dairy state .

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 120 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Cotton*** .

most importantly. http://www. “You add to that the ongoing debate over budget priorities. the National Cotton Council. He says that effort is responsible for the industry being able to gain disaster assistance from Washington for the past two years. ACSA’s testimony indicated that the Association saw US cotton as being increasingly uncompetitive on the international market. That makes it tough for us.html) Producer lobby organizations have always had a challenging mission for agriculture. ACSA made a call for the competitiveness of US cotton to be secured by firstly maintaining the ‘loan rate’ for cotton. Two years later the Republicans pushed through the Freedom to Farm legislation in a move that he says “changed the equation.com/home/archive/2000_febstory5. ascribed in their view to the effect of the removal of certain export subsidy provisions (the so called ‘Step 2’ payments which were ruled WTO incompatible in the Upland Cotton dispute settlement proceedings and discontinued in August 2006). “By that. he tries to stay persistent and believes in working through the system.” Lavis and other ag association leaders say it is imperative that they work effectively with both political parties in Congress. Exceptional cotton promotion schemes overseas. While it is likely that the voice of the cotton lobby will resonate with a weighty appeal through the hearings.cfm?refID=98521) The primary lobby for US cotton farmers. unstable overseas markets. he sees the Council and the American Cotton Producers (formerly the Producer Steering Committee) as vital components in a system where compromises can be achieved on difficult policy issues. and it drives the policymakers nuts.” he points out. did not appear at the present hearings.” Lavis says it was an omen of things to come when Congress initially tried to write the 1996 farm law against the wishes of the National Cotton Council which represents all segments of the industry. I mean that America tries to do everything based on the free market. “I don’t know if the job is getting tougher and tougher. however. “You just keep pushing ahead and believing in what you are doing. A producer ag organization serves the interests of its membership. Even though it is encouraging for Congress to approve such legislation. are trying to guide their memberships through financial stress that already is affecting a huge part of the nation’s otherwise robust economy. Granted these are attractive elements. “In that regard. “In terms of the job itself. changing farm policy and political cotton industry has the most partisanship. the voices of moderation are certainly emerging. “That isn’t the case with farm policy.” Lavis is glad it has helped nurture in Congress through the Council.org/library.agobservatory. and agriculture is becoming less and less a the cotton industry continues to take advantage of important coalitions component. In some ways. You just have to hang in there. even in the best of times. Right now. However in our opinion it is suggested that the major factor identified is the reliability of the US as a dependable supplier. He is further exasperated that cotton producers have so little control over forces that control world prices. And.” Cotton Lobby Strong: National Cotton Council opposes subsidy cuts IDEAS 7 (http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 121 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/4) Cotton lobby strong: important coalitions in Congress Horton 0 (Cotton Farming. US reliability as a dependable supplier. and secondly recalculating it to provide a more favourable return to growers3. the problems are the same as they were 20 years ago. the job is becoming more difficult.” Lavis says it becomes an unnerving scenario when this country’s environmental and tax system do not support a free market for agriculture. Most observers say the effective regional and national organizations in all of agriculture. but the cotton voice was heard via American Cotton Shippers Association (ACSA). Those organizations. Together with this proposal the cotton shippers express the view that US cotton has a comparative advantage brought about by the following factors: A superior US cotton classification system. which would not occur at world market price levels.cottonfarming. A unique cotton transportation system in the US. it is probably no different than it ever has been. To this end the following closing quotation from David Beckmann’s testimony with which we concur: .” he says. “It’s just a question of access and getting the word across. you do have a different set of circumstances in which to operate. according to many ag groups. tries to solve work(s sic) with problems and work with other organizations to send a positive message to the public. Still. These voices should be encouraged and supported as the US domestic market for policy (the so-called ‘political economy’) will likely function in an improved manner with access and voice given to economically sound approaches to the 2007 Farm Bill debate. they Congress to develop good policy for agriculture. executive vice president of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association. as highlighted in this brief. Lavis thinks farm policy differs from other government issues. In today’s volatile economic environment which includes low prices. and that this advantage is a creature borne of a long history of subsidized support and not a naturally occurring comparative advantage.” he says. But even Lavis admits that his job took a real detour and changed when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.” says Rick Lavis. what makes my job tough is that I have a congressional delegation in Arizona that is not exactly supportive of agriculture. In particular. The loan rate is essentially the artificially supported floor price that keeps US cotton acreages in production.

from the US cotton industry lobby. according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.com/articles/26960) Officials in developing countries and international poverty analysts say the subsidies drive down prices. Officials in Burkina Faso are not overly optimistic about the prospects of their cotton industry in the immediate future. it's Larry Combest.If anyone has an insider's view of the cozy and enduring alliances that maintain America's generous farm subsidy program. “We hope that at the US-executive level.afrol.is not on their side. China is the largest exporter of cotton. http://www. officials will feel embarrassed for always being pointed at and that something can be done to implement the But the problem remains with the US Congress which is under strong pressure ruling. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables. success in protecting subsidies means consumers pay twice. Corn subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft drinks." Combest said. Chicago Tribune. Massive cotton lobby in congress: Combest proves special interest strength Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 122 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/4) Subsidy cut unpopular: pressure from cotton industry Afrol News 7 (http://www. Congress is expected to rewrite the farm bill next year. even as the number of farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population. the renewal of farm subsidies is being challenged by a coalition that includes the Bush administration." he said. which initially brought the case against the US. The House Agriculture Committee's former top-ranking Democrat. Nutrition and Forestry Committee already have collected more than $7. fighting for subsidies on Capitol Hill while reaping political benefits back home. said the US Congress is still considering a new Farm Bill that would leave farm subsidies largely unchanged.On the inside. making it hard for small farmers in poor countries to compete on international markets. But supporters of farm programs say they provide a safety net to help farmers and ensure an abundant. relatively inexpensive and homegrown food supply.floridafarmers.htm) WASHINGTON . they need to understand that the real environment . "I'm not saying it's impossible to force radical change onto the farmers of this country.1 million in campaign contributions from the farm sector while their 46 House counterparts have received $2. Combest's after leaving Congress. “This would be most tragic for the millions of people in developing countries whose livelihoods are threatened on a daily basis because of US agricultural subsidies”.” said Seriba Ouattara. For critics. Combest is far from the only person to pass through the capital's revolving farm door. Offenheiser said in a statement." personified by Combest. another major cotton producing country. "And we have less subsidies than So Washington sends subsidy payments to farmers. But Combest is hardly trembling. The Brazilian government says the US only retained its place as the world's second-largest cotton grower by paying out US$12. Now. while Brazil is fifth." The "real environment. is a self-perpetuating cycle of money.5 billion in government subsidies to its farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. lobbies on behalf of agriculture . "I'm just saying that before all bring farm policy down in this country break out the inverted pentagrams or whatever voodoo that unites them. At a recent gathering of agribusiness leaders in Washington. legislation that provided farmers a windfall of federal largess. Charles Stenholm of Texas. Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. He spent 18 years representing west Texas cotton country in Congress. subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from its agrarian base. He chaired the House Agriculture Committee the last time Congress rewrote the farm bill. Regular as the harvest for 73 years. Farmers reward the some other countries. Farm groups and agribusinesses lubricate the system with campaign contributions and lobbying jobs.as opposed to the one they are trying to conjure up . lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. the 20 members of the Senate Agriculture. Oxfam America president Raymond Offenheiser. the medley of malefactors who are teamed up to according to a partial transcript. most of which are not subsidized." politicians with votes and money. Director General at the Ministry of Health.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots. once at the grocery store and again on their tax bills. With elections less than six months away. They also argue subsidies level the playing field because many other wealthy nations subsidize their farmers. including farmers.9 million. "I think Americans like the fact that we produce a lot of our food in the country. it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved. The ruling could open the door to billions of dollars in trade sanctions against the US by Brazil. Combest was cocksure. Taxpayers pick up the tab: a record $23 billion in farm subsidies last year. votes and political power that has made agriculture one of Washington's most entrenched special interests. environmentalists and fiscal conservatives. he's on the farm lobby's payroll with the job of persuading his former colleagues to keep the good times rolling.

In all. at least 19 congressional aides who worked on the 2002 farm bill have taken jobs as agriculture lobbyists or with commodity groups or farm organizations. .Arizona Debate Institute 2008 123 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal interests too.

%20to%20cut% 20aid%20by%2080%25. 3/12) WASHINGTON . Heinisch 5 (Master Thesis. no unified lobby backing subsidy cuts. cotton subsidies. and is shockingly indifferent to poverty in Africa” (Baden. Watkins said “The NCC has welded different players in the cotton sector into a unified political force with immense clout at all levels of government. Europe and the United States are not willing to face global competition on fair terms. 4). Ray argues that special interest groups thwart the drive to liberalize world trade (Ray. et al. 341). “It demonstrates that US trade policy is vulnerable to small but powerful domestic lobbies with friends in high places.'' Blumenthal said.The American cotton industry is expected to lose its long struggle against cuts in special subsidies.cn/cms/sites/www/images/2008/3/12/Washington%20set%20to%20lose %20in%20cotton%20subsidy%20feud%20WTO%20could%20force%20U.S. 2003a). . a Washington consultancy. according to the Center for Responsive Politics (Becker.” and a willingness to jeopardize the multilateral system over the issue of cotton. one of the few points of agreement has been the need for substantial reductions in U.pdf ) High levels of support to the cotton sector reflect the formidable power of the NCC. p. “arguably the most effective agricultural lobby in the industrialized world. 352). From taxpayers’ perspective. Critics such as the nongovernmental organization Oxfam cite the failure of the U.S. an agriculture expert at World Perspectives. 2003b). Our ev is comparative.S. “Politicians interested in re-election will most likely respond to the demands for protectionist legislation of such an interest group” (Coughlin. government to respond to “one of the starkest examples of the rigged trade rules. Yet.ac. Gary Blumenthal. ''so why pull the trigger before you have to?'' Cotton sector strongest agricultural lobby: key to political re-elections. p. So agriculture remains the hypocritical asterisk to our fervent free-trade and free-enterprise creed” (New York Times.wits. 9).” (Watkins. p.gov. “they are very profitable to small power groups which have been able to lobby with great effectiveness. p. The cost of cotton subsidies exceeds the value of the country’s cotton exports. while there is no organized constituency for reducing the costs of cotton subsidies which are thinly spread among hundreds of millions of taxpayers” (Goreux. expects that Bush administration negotiators will not broker those cuts until the last minute. 2004. 2). While economists say the costs of protectionist trade policies exceed their benefits. p. After six years of querulous talks in the so-called Doha round by the World Trade Organization.” A New York Times editorial noted: “Politically powerful farm lobbies in Japan. 1991. the subsidies do not make sense. 2004. which opponents argue drive down prices on global markets and deepen poverty for the world's poorest farmers.doc. but cotton's political clout may mean that painful concessions will be postponed until the 11th hour. “The government serves simply as the agent for all of these interests while pursuing a trade policy consistent with its own survival or electability” (Ray. p.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/195/1/main. http://witsetd. Political contributions from agribusiness rose from $37 million in 1992 to $53 million in 2002. 1991. 32). ''It is a political loser domestically. 2003.acs. groups that benefit from them – such as American cotton growers – are politically effective.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 124 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (3/4) Cutting cotton subsidies is political suicide: cotton industry has clout International Herald Tribune 8 (http://www. 1991.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 125 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 126 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (4/4) The plan would require a massive amount of political capital—the cotton lobby is the strongest agricultural lobby and has no opposing constituency Heinisch 6 (Elinor. the subsidies do not make sense.pdf&code=b1c8a6a5a98b3f8da467b20ce538f628) The bill was passed at a time when prices for major commodity crops were extremely and unusually low. Yet. Watkins said : ‘ The NCC has welded different players in the cotton sector into a unified political force with immense clout at all levels of government. Cambridge University Press. Congress writes US farm policy.payers.cambridge. ‘ they are very profitable to small power groups which have been able to lobby with great effectiveness. The cost of cotton subsidies exceeds the value of the country’s cotton exports. while there is no organized constituency for reducing the costs of cotton subsidies which are thinly spread among hundreds of millions of tax.org/download.php?file=%2FMOA%2FMOA44_02%2FS0022278X06 001625a. ’ From the taxpayer’s perspective. World market prices for cotton were at their lowest level in 30 years. ‘ arguably the most effective agricultural lobby in the industrialized world ’ (Watkins 2003 : 4). High levels of support to the cotton sector reflect the formidable power of the NCC. http://journals. .

the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the committee. .html?res=990CEFD91338F935A1575AC0A963958260) Representative Pat Roberts.com/gst/fullpage. This week Republicans worked to win to their side the votes of Southern Congressmen opposed to subsidy cuts for cotton farmers." And if the bill is approved by the House committee. has "an excellent chance. the Freedom to Farm Act. the Senate Agriculture Committee is likely to pass a similar measure.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 127 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Republicans Republicans oppose cotton subsidies cuts New York Times 95 (September 26.nytimes. http://query. said his bill.

If adopted. wheat. .000. will face greater cutbacks than growers of crops such as corn. growers of crops that receive large subsidies.and rice-growing regions against others. the debate in Congress pits representatives in cotton. http://www. which generally receive smaller subsidies.org/newsroom/article. and soybeans.independent. Unfortunately.asp?id=1477) President Bush’s modest proposal to reduce farm subsidies will not cause a partisan fight between Democrats and Republicans. Bush has proposed decreasing the subsidy an individual farmer can receive from $360.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 128 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Cotton and Rice Cuts Unpopular Cutting rice or cotton subsidies causes a political food fight between cotton and rice growing states Powell 5 (Benjamin. but make no mistake about it: the fight that does occur will be interest-group politics-as-usual. Also. like rice and cotton. PhD in Economics From George Mason University. the proposal would lower federal spending on agriculture by a paltry $587 million in 2006. Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Economics at Suffolk University. Not surprisingly. absent from that fight is any consideration of whether farmers should get subsidies at all.000 to $250. March 28. Big corporate farms are most affected by the reform.

market." said Jim Lyons. including Fannie May and Hershey Foods.sfgate. http://www. candymakers. Several major U.com/cgi- bin/article. and the sugar tariffs that keep sugar cane from poor countries out of the U.S.S.S. vice president of policy for Oxfam America."We're perplexed by how they can characterize what they've generated as real reform. "It's more regressive than progressive.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 129 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Cotton Cuts Popular—Oxfam Oxfam opposes cotton subsidies San Francisco Chronicle 7 (July 27. plants to Canada and Mexico to avoid the tariffs.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/27/MNG6FR7ON81." .DTL) Oxfam opposed the bill's cotton subsidies that drive down the prices poor farmers in West Africa receive for their cotton. have moved their U.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 130 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Fish*** .

health-care programs and empowerment zones—a designation that includes significant portions of Mr.com/2008/07/21/why-does- congress-care-about-fish/) Why Does Congress Care about Fish? July 21st. Rangel. Rangel is key to the agenda New York Observer 6 (http://www.208). Rangel is assuming a reassuringly friendly posture—along with just the tiniest hint of menace.S. This is important because more than 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are now overexploited. Trade Representative Susan Schwab to make the “phasing out and elimination of destructive fisheries subsidies one of the Administration’s trade priorities. who is ripe for demonization by the G. ‘Look. who has accused Mr.observer.Con. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is currently considering a proposal to eliminate fisheries subsidies as part of its Doha trade round. 2008 It’s simple! Because governments are paying their commercial fleets to overfish our oceans. Mr. “He works well across the aisle. “I would hope that we would be able to say to the President. “I don’t really want to get out there and have Bush beating me up. because I’m good at that. 814. this week included him in a list of “Dean Democrats. S.’s blog announced this month that “You’ve Been Warned: Rangel Promises To Raise Your Taxes If Dems Take Control. The R. Rangel is the sort of urban liberal. Mr.P.” Based on a series of monthly conversations he’s had with Mr. Rangel—his legislative agenda makes the prospect of heated clashes between him and the administration almost inevitable. Res. put it: “If Charlie Rangel doesn’t want it to happen. H. Oceana Federal Policy Dir. Rangel.” Given that any Democratic majority is likely to be a minuscule one. decide how much you want to compromise—let’s not get out here and fight. the Ways and Means Committee has its own resolution on the issue. doing his best to seem exasperated. Congress on fisheries subsidies. a political-science professor at Columbia University.thehill.” said Mr. both the U. Rangel—whose power derives from his role as the gatekeeper to most of the government’s tax legislation—is relishing the chance to abolish some of Mr. but you don’t get to be chair unless you know how to cut deals. Bush’s key tax legislation and initiatives. as a casual observation. and Rangel is their leader Lowell 8 (Beth. vice president and policy director of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.” and Vice President Dick Cheney. Rangel hasn’t been a model of bipartisan comity.94. Now. Epstein believes that the Congressman will increase tax incentives for the city’s bilingual education. suggesting. if you want to get something done. “Some people have tried to demonize him and called him a polarizing figure. it won’t happen.com/node/36131) Still.S. In 2007.O.C. House and Senate passed resolutions calling for international leadership by the United States to ban destructive fisheries subsidies (H. and he has been given to statements like the one he made recently on NY1 News.” said David Epstein. Mr.’” But putting aside the implicit wink that goes along with such statements—no one does indignation better than Mr. in other words. Mr.” The Ways and Means Committee letter follows a series of actions by the U. Rangel is making an effort to seem as unthreateningly bipartisan as possible. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI). http://blog.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 131 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (1/2) Cutting fisheries subsidies has wide bipartisan support. Rangel of senility (“Charlie is losing it”).S. Last week. In addition.. He talks about a retreat he would organize in January or February with Republican Representatives. fully exploited. . Rangel’s district in Upper Manhattan. Mr. significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation. showed their support by urging U.N.Res. Mr.Res.” It’s true that in the past. joined by a bipartisan group of 10 committee members. administration officials and “no spouses”—for good-natured fiscal-policy talks. that the Vice President is clinically insane. As Ross Eisenbrey.

S. maintenance.com http://www. are working to resolve this issue in the upcoming appropriation process. While so much detail to this process cannot be expressed in this letter it should be noted that in a recent Washington briefing by NMFS there was a clear indication more regulation is needed and on its way. Sens.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 132 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (2/2) There’s bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for cutting fisheries subsidies OCEANA 7 (The Largest International Ocean Protection and Restoration and Environmental Advocacy Group.Con. The act is based in conceptual policy for marine resources for the federal waters of the nation. insurance and other expenses and it's a man-made disaster with epic results. Based within that statement is the fact Congress periodically renews legislation known as the Magnuson/Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. Senators.) introduced a resolution supporting the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations and calling for the United States to pursue an international ban on government subsidies to the fishing sector that are supporting the overfishing of world’s oceans. Hard to believe in a scenario that translates in this region in allowing ground fishermen 24 days a year to fish along with myriad other regulations. a bipartisan group of 13 U.S.doc) In May.Res. Anderson is a writer for seacoastonline. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam).This skewed process combined with evolving and changing science are the ingredients of poison for an industry trying to provide food and protein to this nation. In this case it's a story that has been evolving for many years prior to current attention and reality. this down-turning economy can be portrayed in a variety of stories of which all are important.H. led by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ala. Oceans. Judd Gregg and John Sununu. As resilient as they are in contending with the duties of their profession and their business it compares mildly to the daunting task of dealing with relentless bureaucracy and consequences of government.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/ Senate_press_release/Media%20Backgrounder%20US%205%203%2007. In March. Add high costs of fuel. there is increasing probability nothing will take place as the 2009 federal budget will be a continuing resolution with no new appropriations because of the election year. a resolution (H. the chairwoman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries.dll/article?AID=/20080801/OPINION/808010360/- 1/NEWS10 While there is hope U. The shenanigans of Washington politics continue and in this case the recipients are fishermen mired in current and oncoming federal regulations the likes of which no other business or industry would tolerate. In conclusion. When renewed. it is passed onto the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for its interpretation with little or no congressional oversight. Sea Coast Online.. . While the policy of the act is fundamentally sound it deteriorates quickly in the hands of NMFS in regulatory conditions passed onto fishermen. and Wildlife.seacoastonline.94) on fisheries subsidies was also introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. A tragedy is in the making of historical and economic proportions with an industry and the fishermen who are being sacrificed at the cost of politics and hypocrisy.oceana. Anderson 8 (Erik. www. R-N. Cutting subsidies is bipartisan.com/apps/pbcs.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 133 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 134 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Oceana Lobby Link Turn Oceana will lobby for the plan – they are empirically successful and influential Food & Wine 8 (Aug. harder and farther away. the U. “Much of the $30 billion in subsidies increases fishing capacity—the ability to fish longer.After campaigning by Oceana. Each campaign has a specific timeframe and objective that will make a significant difference to the oceans. http://www.com/articles/eco-ocean-awards) Oceana. Oceana lobby strong – they conduct focused and intensive lobbying campaigns Oceana 8 (http://www. Oceana is working with nations in the current World Trade Organization negotiations to end these harmful taxpayer handouts.” She also notes that some harmful practices.” says Oceana senior campaign director Courtney Sakai. American Oceans Campaign. legal. was folded into Oceana in 2002). Each campaign combines scientific. most notably the Pew Charitable Trusts. like bottom trawling. “Governments are paying fishermen to overfish. Congress passes resolutions supporting worldwide cuts in harmful fishing subsidies that lead to overcapacity in fishing fleets and thus to overfishing. Next up: lobbying foreign delegates to the World Trade Organization to end fishing subsidies in 152 countries. The Oceana lobby will push the plan in Congress Oceana 8 (http://www.org/north-america/who-we-are/successes/) MAY 2007: Cutting Fishing Subsidies -. but in each of our campaigns we aim to accomplish an important milestone in that effort within two to five years. It has helped produce a worldwide fishing fleet that’s up to 250 percent larger than what is required to fish at sustainable levels. To achieve real benefits for the oceans. Saving the oceans may take decades. both were passed by Congress.oceana. particularly Japan. . Oceana conducts focused. India and China (oceana. strategic campaigns. Oceana counts longtime ocean conservationist and Cheers star Ted Danson as one of its most active board members (the nonprofit he co-founded.oceana.S.org/north-america/what-we-do/) WE ARE INTERESTED IN RESULTS. policy and advocacy approaches to reach its goal.org).foodandwine. Established in 2001 by several foundations. As a formal advisor to the government on trade and environmental policy. wouldn’t be profitable without huge subsidies. the ocean-restoration group. Oceana pushed for two resolutions in 2007 that supported the elimination of subsidies. aims to protect fish by lobbying to end government subsidies given out worldwide to fishermen each year.

com/2007/0709-interview_mike_sutton. PhD Candidate at Hamburg University.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54) The subsidizing of the fishing fleet continues.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54) The broad prohibition of subsidies would be difficult to achieve. governments subsidized commercial fishing to the tune of at least $15 billion — and perhaps as high as $50 billion — a year. the situation is changing.jiclt. the sphere of the prohibited subsidies expects to be one of the most controversial issues. Prohibiting fisheries subsidies would require massive political capital—industry lobbies and disagreement on the sphere of subsidies Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina.mongabay. Powerful lobbying by the fishing industry meant that instead of addressing the problem. it was generally assumed that ocean species had nearly boundless capacity to recover from overfishing. subsidies promoting the reducing of the fleets’ capacity seem tobe a reasonable measure in this situation. Japan.g. overfishing and fisheries subsidies is more or less acknowledged. buying back of vessel and fishing permissions. using the argument that sustainable practices will ensure the industry survives for the next generation of fishermen. the traffic light approach would be the chosen path for the legal regulation in this field. Germany. since the conditionality of the overcapacity. http://www. Driven by these perverse incentives and greed. ban destructive fishing practices. http://www. Probably. . The position of the “no need” approach seems to be also not very stable.html) Until recently few people gave much thought to ocean conservation. though progress is slow in the face of continued lobbying by industry. The attempts to reduce it face strong political opposition especially from the side of the lobbying sectors of the food industry. try to eliminate the harmful results of the overfishing and fleets overcapacity (e. applied by the EU. In general. Attempts to reduce subsidies face significant political opposition—lobbies Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina. Besides.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 135 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Lobby Fishing industry will lobby against subsidy cuts – stronger than the opposition Mongabay 7 (Environmental science and conservation news. and the United States. Despite evidence from the overexploitation of whales and North Atlantic cod. Lecturer in the Law of the Sea at the Kant State University of Russia. Germany. Lecturer in the Law of the Sea at the Kant State University of Russia. Some believe the best approach to addressing overfishing is to bring industry on board. prolonging the development of WTO disciplines of fisheries subsidies. Today some of the world's largest environmental groups are focused on addressing the health of marine life and oceans. The problem with subsidies is that government grants also are able in some cases to reduce fleets capacity.). However. Canada. and educate consumers. Environmental subsidies.com/index.jiclt. http://news. protect key species. PhD Candidate at Hamburg University. industrial fishing put the livelihood of tens of millions of subsistence fishermen at risk while threatening the primary source of protein for some 950 million people worldwide. Conservation groups are working with governments to establish marine reserves. worsening the carnage. fishermen retraining programs etc. fisheries subsidies are supported by the strong lobby of fishing (and even food) industry.com/index. Despite these dire trends. while sustainable fisheries management is at the top of the agenda for intergovernmental bodies.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
136
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
137
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Food Industry Lobby
Cutting fisheries subsidies will be opposed by the food and fishing industry lobbies

Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina, Lecturer in the law of the sea,
http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54)
The subsidizing of the fishing fleet continues. The attempts to reduce it face strong
political opposition especially from the side of the lobbying sectors of the food
industry. The problem with subsidies is that government grants also are able in some cases
to reduce fleets capacity. Environmental subsidies, applied by the EU, Japan, Canada, and
the United States, try to eliminate the harmful results of the overfishing and fleets
overcapacity (e.g. buying back of vessel and fishing permissions, fishermen retraining
programs etc.) Withdrawal of subsidies in fisheries would considerably contribute to the
conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks. However, a full retreat from the
subsidies in fisheries seems to be unrealistic. The appropriate restrictions have to be
made reasonable not to distort positive environmental-friendly trends in subsidizing and
to protect the interests of the developing fishing states. The number of people
employed in the fishing industry is growing every year, particularly in developing
countries. Around 80% of fisheries subsidies of the developing countries are caused by
their wish to preserve this employment.

Food industry key to the agenda – powerful lobby plays politics better than anyone

Nestle 7 – (Marion, Ph.D., http://www.foodpolitics.com/pages/foodpolitics.htm)
We all witness, in advertising and on supermarket shelves, the fierce competition for our
food dollars. In this engrossing exposé, Marion Nestle goes behind the scenes to reveal
how the competition really works and how it affects our health. The abundance of food in
the United States—enough calories to meet the needs of every man, woman, and child
twice over—has a downside. Our overefficient food industry must do everything
possible to persuade people to eat more—more food, more often, and in larger portions
—no matter what it does to waistlines or well-being. Like manufacturing cigarettes or
building weapons, making food is very big business. Food companies in 2000 generated
nearly $900 billion in sales. They have stakeholders to please, shareholders to satisfy,
and government regulations to deal with. It is nevertheless shocking to learn precisely how
food companies lobby officials, co-opt experts, and expand sales by marketing to
children, members of minority groups, and people in developing countries. We learn that
the food industry plays politics as well as or better than other industries, not least
because so much of its activity takes place outside the public view.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
138
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

***Links – Wheat***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
139
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Link—Wheat Cuts Unpopular—Lobby
The plan’s massively unpopular—the wheat lobby is devastating

The Zoo 8 (May 23, http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/the-corn-wheat-soybeans-and-
cotton-diet/)
So why aren’t more small farmers and environmentalist having an impact on this
bill? Because the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The corn, wheat, soybean and cotton
industry has lobbyists that won’t quit. They keep pounding away at Congress until
they get what they want. The smaller farmer doesn’t have the finances or the time to
compete with the subsidy lobby.

Wheat lobby powerful

Busicom 6 (http://www.busicom.com.au/data/News_2006.htm)
Democrats hunting AWB bribes: Bad news for the Australian Wheat Board and the
Government: whatever the findings of the Cole Commission into the oil-for-food inquiry,
Wheat Associates (the US wheat lobby in Washington) now has a powerful ally. The
result of the sweeping shift in political power in America means Democrat Senator,
Tom Harkin (from the wheat state of Iowa), will become chairman of the Senate’s
powerful Agriculture Committee. He has been a consistent and vocal critic of AWB’s
bribes to Saddam. He has in the past claimed the White House didn’t want to investigate
AWB because of John Howard’s willingness to send troops to Iraq. The Democrats are
now in charge of committees of the House, and the new House agriculture committee chair
will be Collin Peterson, also from Iowa. [17.11.06]

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
140
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

***Links – CAFO***

the USDA's meat- inspection arm. a culture that has developed over the years at the political level. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions. the industry has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years. or when a regulator finalizes a regulation.Over the last 50 years. When the USDA proposed implementing new food-safety regulations in response to the devastating Jack in the Box E. are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute.the meat industry targets their approach to a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on their business interests. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "It is just a political context. introduced the amendment to force the USDA to conduct more extensive hearings.the traditional method used by many large corporations -. the meat industry grew accustomed to having powerful friends in the upper levels of the U. http://www. PBS Frontline. and thinking in terms of efficient inspection rather than protecting public health. a lawyer by training who didn't have a meat-industry background. Instead of spreading lots of money around to many different lawmakers in an attempt to gain access and influence -. the National Meat Association.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/) The meat industry in the United States is a powerful political force. both in the legislative and the regulatory arena.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 141 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2) The factory farm industry is a juggernaut—they have power at all levels of the government and will use their influence to switch votes Johnson 2 (Steve. Continued… . the food safety program at the USDA thinking of the industry as the customer rather than the consumer. the meat industry attempted to delay the implementation of the new regulations by convincing a member of the key appropriations committee to introduce an amendment to stop the rulemaking process. Some of that changed in the Clinton administration in the 1990s. is part of their decision-making process.Rep. including the big meatpackers. And one was to the American Meat Institute and the other was to the National Cattlemen's Association.pbs. thus delaying implementation of the new food-safety system. James Walsh. CEO of the American Meat Institute. became the new head of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). our expertise." says Patrick Boyle. "I think the ultimate objective of a lobbying organization such as the American Meat Institute is to be sure that when the legislators enact bills.000 from agriculture industry interests in the 1996 election cycle. and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. which included testing for salmonella in ground beef. even though the way they wield that power is different from many industries on Capitol Hill.S."Taylor says this is emblematic of the cozy relationship the meat industry had with the government agency in charge of regulating it. When Michael Taylor. coli outbreak that made 700 people sick. "On the telephone there were two speed dials with names by them."The meat industry demonstrated its muscle in 1995. Most of the companies involved in the meat business. They're a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in Washington. an upstate New York Republican who received over $65. our experience. our insight. he was surprised at what he saw on the telephone in his new office.

the legislation failed in the Senate by one vote. In between the two votes. The Washington Post reported at the time that an attorney for the National Meat Association was one of the authors of the Walsh amendment. In the end. food safety advocates pushed for legislation explicitly empowering the Department of Agriculture to set limits on the acceptable amount of salmonella in meat In 2000. And I believe the reason was that Tyson Food purchased IBP. In a regulatory battle like this one. Tyson Foods." Her contention is that some senators with poultry interests in their states now had an incentive to vote against legislation they supported in the past. when Tyson. . bought IBP. the largest poultry producer. Fearing an unfavorable outcome.went forward. were out in force last fall. "There was a reason that we lost by five votes. from the Consumer Federation of America. It was an effective tactic to insist on more study on the new regulation. the poultry industry suddenly had a reason to oppose legislation that impacts the level of salmonella in ground beef. whose members account for nearly 95 percent of the chicken sold in the country.the main enforcement tool of the new regulation . 1 meat processor. The poultry people had never been involved in this issue before. "And guess what? Almost without exception. the largest beef producer. leaving the meat industry with the same inspection system it had since the early 1900s -." In fact. by five votes. Last October.After the battle for the new meat safety regulations was won in 1995-96. lobbying against the legislation. the No. after a public outcry from consumer advocates and newspaper editorials criticizing the amendment and the meat industry. a major merger took place that made the meat industry even more powerful on Capitol Hill. the giant poultry company. you had Tyson approaching senators from poultry producing states and urging them to vote to limit USDA's power." says Carol Tucker Foreman. "It was very clear really that the industry was pushing this effort to stop the rulemaking. Capitol Hill staffers confirmed Foreman's assertion." Tucker Foreman said."In other words. by me and the Department of Agriculture. saying lobbyists for the National Chicken Council. saying it was not the proper scientific measure to use."We had several senators who changed their votes. forming a Goliath in market share and political power. "Congressman Walsh from New York who spearheaded the effort said publicly and to us in meetings that the reason this amendment was needed was because the industry felt that its concerns were not being heard clearly enough. . the salmonella testing provision . you had a few senators who represented IBP states who led a fight.with the salmonella testing -. This year. bought IBP. United States Department of Agriculture.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 142 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) Continued… The industry strongly objected to the new salmonella testing. and some estimated it could delay the implementation of the new rules for up to two years.the days of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. a compromise was negotiated and the new meat inspection rules -. they were senators with very large poultry operations. a two-year delay would effectively kill the new measure." Taylor said. Senators who'd voted with us in 2000 voted against us in 2001. it failed again. "Last year.was challenged in court in Supreme Beef vs. and convinced Walsh to offer the amendment on their behalf.

Wetlands. Environmental protection was a defining issue in the campaign. the verdict was unequivocal. where hog factories have blighted northern counties and driven most of Iowa's traditional hog farmers out of business. Initiative 14. Faircloth. 1998) "was part owner of Coharie Farms. Glendening received high marks for his crackdown on Maryland's huge chicken farms following the 1997 pfiesteria outbreak in the Chesapeake Bay area. . In Iowa. In Colorado. which places hog factories under moderately severe regulation. In Congress he attended to the interests of the pig men as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Water.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 143 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—CAFOs Cuts Popular Regulating factory farms is widely popular across the country Garret 99 (Tom. the 30th largest hog producer in the country. Reform Party candidate. Parris Glendening. the hog issue played heavily in Democrat Tom Vilsack's crushing upset of Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Lightfoot. In neighboring Minnesota. Fall. Private Property and Nuclear Safety. AWI Quarterly. was approved by over 60% of the electorate. Lauch Faircloth was defeated by John Edwards (D." Environmentalists and small farmers across the state worked hard to defeat Faircloth. http://www. gained 59% of the popular vote despite a massive infusion of corporate cash and opposition from the state's Republican governor. which bans corporate farming in the state altogether. The governor-elect supports a temporary moratorium on new hog factories. South Dakota Amendment E.org/farm/aw474far. NC). The Sierra Club flooded the airwaves with ads linking Faircloth to water pollution and pfiesteria. according to CounterPunch (November 1-15. Factory farming was also a factor in the unexpectedly severe defeat of anti-environmentalist Republican candidate Ellen Sauerbrey by Maryland's incumbent governor.htm) In the two states where the hog factory came directly before the people. Jessie "The Mind" Ventura's victory sent a seismic shock through the American political establishment. Faircloth owned more than $1 million worth of stock in two slaughterhouses.awionline.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 144 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Rice*** .

"Since developing countries offer the most potential for demand and import growth in the future. these provisions would severely undermine potential market access gains from tariff reductions.htm) The rice lobby is very well connected politically in the US. http://www." it said. .Arizona Debate Institute 2008 145 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2) The rice lobby is strong—significant campaign contributions Economic Times 5 (April 11.columbia. being large donors to political campaigns.edu/~ap2231/ET/FT_Exchange_Oxfam. then US trade representative. In a 2003 open letter to Robert Zoellick. a group of agricultural exporters including the US rice producers' association argued against protection for special products.

Trade Briefing Paper No. political action committees connected to the rice sector contributed $289. Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. Not surprisingly.freetrade. house and Sentae. The rice program exists not because it serves the national interest but because the special interests that benefit from it are more organized. Griswold 6 (Daniel.S.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 146 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) The plan would be massively unpopular.org/node/539) A major obstacle to scaling back the rice program is interest-group politics. November 16. 25. and motivated. http://www.076 in the current election cycle through June 30. than the general public that pays for the program. In the 2003-04 election cycle. and those same PACs had contributed $250.300 to influence elctions for the U. The three largest contributers were the Farmers’ Rice Cooperative. concentrated. and Riceland Foods. . The rice lobby controls the subcommittees and is more mobilized than possible opposition. a significant share of contribution went to members of the agricultural subcommittees that oversee the rice program. 2006. the USA Rice Federation.

In the wake of various lobbying scandals in Washington. reforming the rice program and other farm programs offers members of Congress an opportunity to show that they can serve the broader public interest by asserting their independence from special-interest lobbying. . Trade Briefing Paper No. http://www.org/node/539) The answer is not to restrict campaign donations but to expose the true costs to the public of the federal rice program.freetrade. 25. Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. November 16.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 147 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link—Rice Cuts Popular Jumping off the rice bandwagon would be popular—it shows independence from lobbying interests Griswold 6 (Daniel.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 148 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Misc*** .

org/dataoecd/2/62/1918086. a government may be able to fend off internal political pressures for protection and subsidies. But another important explanation has also been offered. Directorate for Food. much less agreeing to international rules restricting their ability to subsidise? The trade literature offers several explanations. . they provide a way for governments to credibly distance themselves from powerful domestic special-interest groups. Agriculture and Fisheries. even those smaller countries that have undertaken unilateral reforms realise that. cutting through the Gordian knot of domestic subsidies is not a politically feasible option for large democracies with diverse constituencies.oecd. it would have a stronger incentive to enter into such an arrangement if at the same time it is trying to control budgetary expenditure generally. is that the net gains from trade are usually large enough that industries that lose out can be compensated. import-competing industries be willing even to consider opening up their markets. along with the promise of economy- wide reform. Indeed. part of the quid pro quo expected of them: their domestic industries can more readily accept what they see as sacrifices if they perceive progress in efforts to open up export markets. The classic reason. Thus. The difficult part is convincing reluctant trading partners that subsidy reform is in their national interest as well. Why should importers with vulnerable. It is. Principal Administrator @ Fisheries Division. Multi-sectoral agreements allow such trade-offs among different sectors and nations to be made.pdf) However. by having its hands bound by an external agreement. http://www. That their governments have been in the vanguard of efforts to establish international rules and mechanisms for disciplining subsidies is not due simply to an evangelical impulse.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 149 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Multilateral CP Popular Multilateral CPs shield politics: government able to fend off internal politics Steenblik 98 (Ronald. given for reciprocal trade agreements in general.20 Presumably. which perhaps also explains why agreements are sometimes reached involving only one or a few sectors — namely. of which no attempt to summarise them is made here.

business executives. 3/14. is urging a sharp shift in government funding away from subsidies for a few and toward more research and rural infrastructure improvements that would help more American farmers compete worldwide. During a recent meeting in a private club on Chicago's Michigan Avenue. saying they "hurt countries that could benefit from exporting these commodities to the United States. At the WTO.S. who will unveil the administration's plans in January. Several participants are executives of Fortune 500 companies. the White House Council of Economic Advisers took the unusual step of devoting a chapter in the annual "Economic Report of the President" to lambasting crop subsidies. The group also wants Congress to phase out direct crop subsidies. replacing them with a broad farm revenue insurance plan for all farmers. such as insurance programs that protect against big drops in revenue.html) The Bush administration is in the reform camp.html) The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. . The task force was assembled by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.kiplinger.org/pipermail/mgj- discuss/2006-March/005316. Last month. a move that the U. The White House has the support of other businesses that would like to see the subsidy question settled in order to spur the lowering of overseas trade barriers on their goods. http://www. it has offered to cut by 60% the amount of money it can spend every year on certain subsidies. Administration economists say there are lots of ways to get money to farmers that don't depress international prices. an 84-year-old nonprofit group that includes many of the Midwest's biggest firms. Bush supports subsidy reform Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger." President Bush has yet to propose his own specific solutions. "I will tell you that this administration intends to put forth farm policy proposals that recognize and embrace change. bankers and economists dined on stuffed chicken served on bone china while preparing a report arguing for an overhaul of the farm program. when the White House dropped reform efforts as the current farm bill was being debated. Reformers have a strong ally in the Bush administration this time around.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 150 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Link – Bush Supports the Plan Bush Administration supports cuts Maixner 6 (Ed.mutualaid." says Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. if the European Union cuts by 83%. Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. says would bring both blocs into line. for one. http://lists.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but _not_scuttled__. unlike four years ago.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 151 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Internal Links – Political Process*** .

perception matters. They do not "risk it" in pursuit of political victories. They put their political capital in a safe place in order to bolster their personal popularity. “Spending Political Capital”. then Members of Congress will behave accordingly. p. on the wane or without the ability to win under adversity can lead to disaster. winners win and losers lose more often than not. Winners Win-successfully investing political capital reaps more political capital Lindberg 4 (Tom. ROLL CALL. Washington Times. Therefore. a most mellifluous metaphor for the activists in the president's camp. somebody who can say. does not remain intact but rather diminishes over time through disuse. For political capital. In simple terms. it almost sounds like a sure thing: The president takes his political capital. American Enterprise Institute. Phd Political Science University of Michigan. getting on the winning team when it looks the best and means the most. Lexis) Winning comes to those who look like winners. invests it and reaps a mighty return. Winning leads to more winning Ornstein 1 (Norman. presidents who have it often make the mistake of trying to "hoard" it. again in the conventional use of the metaphor. it is mere prudence for a president to "invest" his political capital. May 27. And therein.when they act in anticipation of what they think somebody would want them to do. as individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning side and negotiate accordingly. in the conventional application of the metaphor. 1993. somebody who will pull out victories in Congress even when he is behind. a president will find a way to pull out a victory--is the most valuable resource a chief executive can have. They will want to cut their deals with the president early. In fact. If power is the ability to make people do something they otherwise would not do. It "wastes away" . "Do this!" and have it done. of course. etc. in the usual metaphor of political capital. Lexis) In a system where a President has limited formal power.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 152 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Winners Win (1/2) Winners win Ornstein 93 (Norman. Phd Political Science University of Michigan. Lexis) Now. p. real power is having people do things they otherwise wouldn't do without anybody making them . ROLL CALL. a president's popularity and reputation.and with it. Who dares wins. whether on their policy agenda or for controversial judicial appointments. lies peril. This is. The reputation for success--the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down. This only sounds redundant or cliche'-ish. Conversely. . It promises reward for ambitious action and warns against the high price of a lack of ambition. If a president develops a reputation as a winner. when hoarded. Only by seeking political victories and winning them by such judicious investment can a president maintain and even increase his political capital. the widespread belief that the Oval Office occupant is on the defensive.

he will first help Americans. 2002. But what was most striking to me was how he avidly soaked up lessons about his father’s presidency. that was the ultimate source of presidential power and American global leadership following World War II. 98) It was the sense of national emergency associated with the cold war during the fifties and sixties. p. That lesson is as clear now as it was then: Political capital is perishable. refers to often. But much will depend on the image that Americans have of a president’s policies and of their relative success. posing greater foreign policy opportunities and political risks for presidents and American leadership abroad.. and one his political advisers. and he will get more political capital back in return.’s second State of the Union message. If he uses his political capital skillfully. 11A) The fall of 1990 was not a particularly good time for the senior Bush. 2004. He has erased any serious doubts about his qualifications to serve. And as the American public focuses its concern increasingly on “intermestic” (and especially economic) issues. He has as much political capital in the bank as there is gold in Fort Knox. p. So what does he use it for? A string of domestic issues are possibilities. presidents who are perceived as dealing successfully with those issues are likely to enjoy an increase in their popularity and ability to govern in foreign policy and in general. and with the country focused on the continuing war on terrorism and the continuing recession-- one lesson the president learned from his dad is particularly apt for him. Remember: “Read my lips. At this moment--on the eve of President George W. after all. Bush now has an approval rating in the mid-80s. no new taxes?” And then the 1990 budget agreement with new taxes? The younger Bush was not real happy about the articles he read slamming his father’s administration. but still stratospheric. USA TODAY. . at home and abroad – a function of the turn of events and the strength of presidential leadership. Phd Political Science Michigan University. many of whom are hurting as a result of the recession. THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY. This means that the fragmented and pluralist political environment that has prevailed since Vietnam will likely continue in the post-cold war future. Karl Rove. a bit lower than at his peak. but economic stimulus sits atop the heap. University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor (Jerel A.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 153 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Winners Win (2/2) Winners Win Ornstein 2 (Norman. or the legitimacy of his victory. Perception of successful policy boosts president’s power to control agenda Rosati 4. It is a lesson Bush junior has mentioned himself. with Congress back for the second session of the 107th Congress. January 28. too. You use it or you lose it.

p. Winning in one arena may cause a major loss in another. Presidential Studies Quarterly. economy is chugging along. 553) Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build winning coalitions. Deputy assistant to the president for Legislative Affairs for the Bush administration. in the world of trade-offs. American News: THE PRESIDENCY. September. Lexis) On the surface.. Presidents Bush and Clinton. But as veteran Clinton trackers know all too well. 30. for example. any period of soaring Clintonismo is likely to be followed by an abrupt downdraft . The U. that model was unrealistic because of the trade-offs facing both presidents.S. Winning is always followed by losing-Clinton Proves Business Week 97 (Business Week International Editions. faced divided party government conditions during most –or in the case of Bush. Unfortunately most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places. And Clinton is dominating the Washington agenda with his drives for a balanced budget and additional education spending. Number 3515. The most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. Bill Clinton's second term is off to a strong start.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 154 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Winners Lose (1/3) Winners lose Andres 2k (Gary et. The President's approval ratings have hit 61%. Yet. throughout -their administrations. Each could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators’ policy position and bargained or offered other inducements to win simple majority. Pg. Al.

“Beyond Gridlock: Prospects for Governance in the Clinton Years – And After”) Most representatives and senators do not feel beholden to any president. and why the district really would support what Reagan wanted. and member after member would say. And with halting breath he said to me. "I need the next vote to show that I am independent of the White House The president is in a no win situation Light 99 (Paulette. The problem is I am not hearing anything from back home. Director of Governmental Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and Co-Director of the AEI-Brookings Renwing Congress Project. if they have not decided on the basis of either of those. They used to call Reagan the great lobbyist.” The key was to make sure that we explained why things were important to the district.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 155 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Winners Lose (2/3) Winners lose Mann 93 (Thomas. when I was perplexed and trying to figure out a vote that had just taken place in the Senate. while . But the state or the district always comes first. the immediate instinct of most members is to cast the next vote to show their independence from the administration. they vote for their states. 1982. First. Then their answer is. the institution second. Goodard Professor of Public Service at New York University. I really want to support your package. Presidents must now pay more for domestic programs. but also in 1987 and 1988. in which some provisions did not make sense for their districts but had to be swallowed as part of the overall package. Presidents no longer have the resources to expend on "educating" the public. third. If anything. The cost of presidential policy has grown. Together the increased competition and complexity. “Mr. the Presi- dent's resource base has dwindled over the 1970s. President. we have talked of five rather separate trends which have contributed to a No Win Presidency in domestic affairs. as well as about the selection of "winnable" issues and alternatives. I am reminded of advice I received from former Senator Jacob Javits of New York in his last year of life. the President's resource base has not. well maybe they will give him a vote. While the price of policy has risen. and the president happens to be of their own party. and. Presidents must be more careful about timing.” Another thing to remember is how important back home is.” p217) Thus far. This is especially true when you have asked them to vote for a big package. pervasive surveillance. let alone one who ran behind them in the last election. and 1983. and change in the available issues have steadily increased the price of policy. second. they no longer have the time to spend on a full search for new ideas and programs. but I remember sitting in the Oval Office as we lobbied not only in 1981. “The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton. they vote out of institutional loyalty to the Senate. declining influence. “You must always realize that senators vote in a priority order. I asked him to explain why certain senators had voted a certain way. Founding Director of the Brookings Center for Public Service. The bad news also is that once the president gets a vote he wants. and only then the president.

Congress rarely rejects him. Given a fixed amount of time and a limited number of decision makers. When the president makes a compelling case that the national security of the United States demands the approval of a particular bill or treaty. His victories -.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 156 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal the President's ability to influence outcomes has declined. But if the policy is unpopular.” The Washington Quarterly. Carter filled his agenda with a host of controversial issues at the beginning of his administration.the tax cut and the defense budget -- came more easily in Congress. Autumn) The third dysfunction in interbranch relations is the length of time and the amount of presidential capital needed to gain approval of a major foreign policy law or treaty. The president must be very conscious of his agenda and very selective in his approach. the trade-offs between domestic and international interests will become more delicate. Internal Link—Winners Lose (3/3) Winners win doesn’t assume the plan—adding new initiatives can only hurt political capital Pastor 91 (Robert.like the canal treaties or contra aid -. and he will have less time for and influence on other foreign policy issues.he will deplete his political capital and is likely eventually to lose the votes. The increasing complexity of the world and its growing interdependence with the United States means that the agenda will grow. and ironically. It is a remarkable no-win position. the president will almost certainly have to devote a much larger proportion of his time and political capital to gaining approval for it. Reagan learned from Carter's experience and selected a smaller. Professor of Political Science at Emory University and Director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program at Emory’s Carter Center. this systemic delay might be among the most important problems that stem from interbranch politics. This was true for the Panama Canal treaties and the war in the Persian Gulf. Also. both issues were costly.such as contra aid -. his victories left him weaker politically. A few difficult issues -. Although he succeeded in gaining approval of the new Panama Canal treaties and new energy legislation. more manageable agenda. “Congress and US Foreign Policy: Comparative Advantage or Disadvantage. and he looked stronger as a result.can delay consideration of the entire foreign policy agenda for prolonged periods. if he needs to ask Congress repeatedly to approve an unpopular policy -. and the role of Congress will increase proportionately. . as Reagan did.

1999. which often are fixed and limited. expertise. “Compromise doesn’t usually happen overnight. there was a stalemate for three months. the more time. p. whether federal funds or bureaucratic energy. 16) Presidential priorities also involve more conflict.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 157 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Plan costs political capital Controversial Policies cost significant Political Capital Light 99 (Paul C. The President’s Agenda. welfare reform serves as an example. information. .” a Johnson legislative assistant argued. It takes a hefty investment of presidential influence and effort. This growing pressure has placed greater emphasis on the agenda as a topic of political conflict. The President’s Agenda. Sure.. information. each agenda choice commits some white House resources—time.” Domestic policies drain finite political capital Light 99 (Paul C. the other would counterattack. 1999. And the greater the conflict. political capital.. both inside the administration and out. As a President moves through the term. One highly placed Nixon observer maintained that “the |Family Assistance| plan could have been announced much sooner if there hadn’t been such a struggle. 2) The President’s domestic agenda also reflects the allocation of resources. but it could have been handled much faster without the in-fighting. As it was. Given the ever-tightening policy options. Brookings Institution Center for Public Service. and energy necessary to settle the disputes. energy. expertise. Policy- makers increasingly turn to the agenda for the first battles over the distribution of scarce resources. the issue was intricate. we couldn’t move. Each agenda item also commits some policy options.” Once again. When one would attack. interest groups and individuals have “discovered” Congress and the Presidency. Brookings Institution Center for Public Service. this pressure will not abate in the near future. p. “You’d be surprised how long it takes to iron out the differences. With Burns and Moynihan at odds. The sheer number of participants in the policy process both inside and outside the White House has increased rapidly over the last two decades. founding director. founding director.

The essence of the president's job is making decisions. and policy implementation. and the extent of the president's powers is a continual focus of debate and adjudication. Presidents must ensure that they have a full range of options and the appropriate information necessary for evaluating them. the White House must persuade others- members of Congress. Carter’s public approval had dropped back from 80 percent to 50 percent. http://www. . Agenda setting includes establishing national and international priorities and determining the issues to which the president devotes scarce political capital. obtaining appropriate advice. does public approval in a rally-round crisis affect decisions in the domestic arena? Did the hostage crisis help Carter’s domestic Agenda? Did domestic crisis increase capital? If the trends in public approval over the past twenty years serve as an indication of declining capital. it is difficult to predict just how much capital can be regenerated through national crisis. In a system of shared powers. More often. and can be replaced only to a limited extent. Brookings Institution Center for Public Service. founding director. with hostages still in Teheran. 1999. selecting personnel. however. other officials. the press. it is not clear how long the rise in public support will remain. the bureaucracy.. Capital can never be fully replenished Light 99 (Paul C. Within two months of the 1979 Iran crisis. decision making. And scarcely two weeks before the 1980 Democratic national convention.apsanet. Furthermore. and managing crises. Sometimes the president can take unilateral action to achieve his goals. the public. the pattern remains: capital is expended with choice. declarations of war on energy or poverty create only moderate increases in support that rarely last.org/content_5239. must attend to issues on the president's agenda if the president is to influence public policy. and foreign leaders-to support his policies. especially in performing the key functions of agenda setting.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 158 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Capital is finite Political capital is scarce and presidents must use it wisely Edwards 8 (George C. Thus.. Presidents' personal decision-making styles and involvement in decision making are also crucial to their success. especially members of Congress. which involves designing policy. 32-33) Though capital can be refreshed during the term. They also require a working relationship with subordinates and an organization in the White House that serves their decision-making needs. Even when there is a rally-round-the-flag crisis in foreign affairs. coalition building. The President’s Agenda.cfm) At the core of the presidency are the chief executive's efforts to lead. a “dump Carter” movement gained momentary strength as party leaders sought a nominee who would win in the November election. p. Edwards III is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University.

many scholars argue that presidents can use their resources to set both the public agenda and the congressional agenda (Edwards and Wood 1999.umn. Members are assumed to be seeking reelection and therefore interested in enacting policies that voters desire. Brace and Hinckley 1992). Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. For instance. No. 491-509) The literature suggests two types of mechanisms by which presidential approval advances legislative influence.polisci. argues that congressional members regard presidential approval as a signal of public preferences on the president’s policy agenda. several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Edwards and Wood 1999. from Washington. More important for our theoretical argument. Shapiro and Dempsey 1987). Scott de Marchi.8 . the second mechanism involves the effect of approval on a president’s ability to alter citizens’ positions. members are more likely to acquiesce to a president’s legislative requests the higher is his popularity. 491-509) In contrast to this first mechanism. Vol.6 Since approval is an indication of these policy preferences. for example through plebiscitary activity. presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and their margin of victory in the most recent election (1999. which regards approval as a signal of citizens’ policy positions. but that less popular presidents cannot do so (Page and Shapiro 1992. 2 (May. we outline these mechanisms and argue that they apply primarily to salient and complex legislation. 2 (May. 2002). Light’s analysis comports with other accounts of how presidents can use their political capital (which they largely accrue from their popularity) to win battles with Congress. The first mechanism. 2002). Vol.edu/~tjohnson/MyPapers/CongressandPresidency2005. described by Rivers and Rose (1985).Arizona Debate Institute 2008 159 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (1/2) Presidents use public popularity to gain political capital and get their agenda passed in congress Johnson 5 (Spring.pdf) For Light. 32). Page. presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress. Neustadt 1990). No. pp. Public approval helps presidents advance policies Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. Scott de Marchi. 64. a highly unpopular president can even turn constituents against a policy by supporting it (Sigelman and Sigelman 1981). pp. http://www. Previous studies find that presidents with approval ratings of at least 50% can change voters’ positions on an issue. Johnson received his Ph. 64. Public approval allows the president to change citizen’s policy positions therefore aiding legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. Timothy R.7 In fact. Timothy. Jason M Roberts.D. in this section. When these factors increase.

presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and their margin of victory in the most recent election (1999. Popularity generates political capital Johnson 5 (Spring. Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (2/2) Public support builds political momentum Wrone 1 (Brandice Canes-. specifically. http://www.edu/~tjohnson/MyPapers/CongressandPresidency2005. a range of work has found that presidential speeches increase the public's attention towards the issues addressed. 45.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 160 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Given members’ incentives to vote with constituents’ preferences. In particular. many scholars argue that presidents can use their resources to set both the public agenda and the congressional agenda (Edwards and Wood 1999. members are found to be more responsive to constituency preferences on salient policies (Hutchings 1998. Vol. this change in public salience affects legislators' behavior. Jason M Roberts-PhD Minn. Light’s analysis comports with other accounts of how presidents can use their political capital (which they largely accrue from their popularity) to win battles with Congress.polisci. a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University . More important for our theoretical argument. Kollman 1998).. (Apr. this ability to alter citizens’ preferences should affect a president’s prospects for legislative success.American Journal of Political Science. Neustadt 1990). When these factors increase. Brace and Hinckley 1992). 2. For instance. several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Edwards and Wood 1999. these various studies suggest that a president should be able to generate influence through public appeals. Beginning with Schattschneider's (1960. 2001). No.4 According to research on Congress. presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress. In combination. 313-329 JSTOR) Arguably the most consistent finding in research on the plebiscitary activity of presidents is that they can utilize speechmaking and other rhetorical activities to increase the salience of issues. pp.pdf) For Light. 32). a president should be able to achieve policy goals by strategically publicizing issues for which he would like members to become more responsive to voters' policy positions. Timothy-Minn. 14) observation that the president constitutes the "principal instrument" for attracting a national audience to a policy debate.umn. .

(Feb. Neustadt (1960. he found a high correlation between approval among party identifiers and how party repre. Terry Sullivan.ported Democratic presidents more than vice versa. Conversely.. for example. No. i. any general effect ought to work within partisan confines. while declining approval undermines supporters more than bolstering opposition. (Feb. 1984. Kenneth. 110ff) did find that support among the president's allies falls the furthest in bad times and rises the least in good times. Edwards 1980. 109). 1989. upper and lower bounds: no matter how low the president's standing some members will support the administration. Kenneth. 96). 87) argued. Republicans sup.proval than with improving approval. increasing prestige would not necessarily affect a specific bill. Lastly. Similarly. pp. no matter how high approval. Bond. support increases only among the president's partisans. Neustadt suggested an "asymmetry effect": a stronger effect with declining ap. Terry Sullivan. JSTOR) The mainstream approach to understanding prestige and influence relies on cal- culating something like the percentage of times each member supports the admin- istration's position on "key" votes (Bond and Fleisher 1980. call it a linkage with congressional "success." Additionally. In assessing this relationship.sentatives supported the administration. "Rarely is there any one-to-one relationship between appraisals of popularity in general and responses to (presidential) wishes in particular. the Neustadt-Edwards et al. 1995). pp. Neustadt (1960) and Edwards and Wayne (1990) argued that prestige operates "mostly in the background" (using the same words). 1. Rivers and Rose 1985). 93) also identified a "partisan" effect: since party best suggests support. Edwards (1989) suggested that partisanship plays a role because it mirrors a predisposition. 1. an "asymmetry effect." He further suggested that while it may affect general success. Or it may affect member decisions but only after a "shift of range" (or major change) occurs (Neustadt 1960. Fleisher. with one exception. 57. The Journal of Politics. Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 197-209. The Journal of Politics. the partisan effect has two variants: (1) as a ceiling on sup- porter responsiveness or a floor under opposition and (2) improving approval un. In addition to a general relationship. These results challenge the possibility of general and partisan effects. tack on prestige suggests four basic effects: a "general" effect. 57. Edwards (1989. a significant opposition will remain (Edwards 1989. those from the administration's party. and Northrup 1988.. Arguing that approval ratings help the president succeed ignores the fundamental politics of partisan support Collier 95 (Feb." analysts have suggested a number of hypotheses.tistically . Thus. they suggested that as approval increases.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 161 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (1/6) Presidential success doesn’t improve as approval ratings go up Collier 95 (Feb. 1995). First. No. Vol.. Bond and Fleisher's research represents an extensive challenge to these findings. support among the president's opponents rises the quickest in good times and falls the least in bad times.dermines opposition more than it bolsters supporters. Vol. 197-209. a "shift of range" effect. Ostrum and Simon 1985. Pursuing this relationship in prestige has his newest book. In 1980 and in 1990. Hence. JSTOR) Edwards (1980. 1985. They reported uniformly low correlations and sta. Their analysis also suggested that opponents responded negatively to increased approval..e." and a "partisan effect. Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

and it does not address the strategic questions of agenda size and content (see Gleiber and Shull 1992 for a general discussion). . Mouw and MacKuen (1992) recently introduced the question of linking prestige with agenda control and strategic positioning. this note does not represent the final word. 197-209. and as playing no role whatsoever. Kenneth.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 162 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal insignificant coefficients. "anticipated reactions") and the patterns of support that occur in between initiation and voting (what might be called intermediate support). Terry Sullivan. There is no evidence that approval ratings affect presidential success Collier 95 (Feb. JSTOR) Often. Kenneth. the dispute between findings ultimately derives from one . While both of these analyses rely only on stan. the asymmetry effect..dressing both the "conversion" and the "success" linkages and capable of looking inside the legislative process. No. as a marginal influence. 197-209. 208 Kenneth Collier and Terry Sullivan while opponents tend to propose bipartisan amendments. JSTOR) This research note lends further support to the notion that approval has little ef." as in. particularly Ostrom and Simon (1985) and Rivers and Rose (1985). Bond and Fleisher (1990. Different researchers have characterized prestige as an essential determinant of leg. 57. it deals with only a limited portion of that sequence. What to make of this result? First. Moreover. Polsby 1978. In all of its forms. (Feb.ception of the power of prestige. 1. suggests that anticipated reactions may not make much of a differ. this analysis clearly undermines the original Neustadt/Edwards con. Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1. Almost certainly low initial support taps only the administration's core supporters leaving the vast majority uncommitted. they identified a very weak role for presidential prestige: when the president enjoys high approval. 1995). empirical research provides little reassurance. Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Kernell 1986). (Feb. the process data did not find a significant approval effect.g. 189) tested for the shift of range effect. pp. That every administration starts out considerably "in the hole. though intriguing. Others. using more sophisticated empirical modeling techniques. Wilson (1908) believed the presidency's strength rested on its claim to speak for the nation." asking for stronger legislation. Their findings still orig. The Journal of Politics. Vol. It excludes support developed before initiating the process (e. The process data presented here. data capable of ad. 57. While it contributes to the standard debate over the power of prestige. 1995). Terry Sullivan. supporters tend to "go for broke. While politicians clearly believe that prestige plays a significant role in leadership. while the analysis presents a more detailed picture of the process. For example. their empirical results as they now stand seem very preliminary.inate from members' voting patterns rather than from process data. similar process evi- dence has suggested the unlikeliness of anticipated reactions (Sullivan 1991). Some scholars have echoed these sentiments (Neustadt 1960. comparing the initial and final sup. have identified results suggesting a prestige effect. politicians and analysts have linked presidential influence with prestige. and the partisan effect yielding no empirical support Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (2/6) Approval ratings don’t help presidents succeed in congress Collier 95 (Feb. With a standard spatial framework. Vol. Second.ence. Elsewhere. its results only address a portion of the larger debate.dicated earlier..dard data similar to Edwards and Bond and Fleisher (1990) we intend to apply our process data to these more sophisticated operationalizations.islative success. No.fect on presidential influence. Though some analyses utilize different methods. And given the lack of strong empirical evidence. Third. The Journal of Politics..port. presented no significant linkage. pp.

Vol. ceteris paribus.ment. Given this dynamic. 3. whether for elec.”3 Bush’s performance did not live up to this promise. The Journal of Politics. 2002). Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. citizens encoun. but this resource comes at a high cost-an opposition Congress that is less willing to buy what the president is selling. Scott de Marchi. thereby lowering the president's legislative success. Nathan D. 491-509) At the end of the Gulf War a Gallup poll indicated that 89% of Americans approved of President George H. “Presidential Approval and the Mixed Blessing of Divided Government Source”. we focus on the question of whether divided government increases a president's approval ratings. Bush’s job performance. where approval might affect influence. increases presidential approval. 64.toral prospects. Political observers at the time predicted this popularity would translate into policy influence.ter greater difficulty trying to assess blame and credit. Nicholson. (Aug. Because blame is the more salient consideration (Campbell et al. we believe presiden. the highest presidential approval rating ever recorded by the Gallup Organization. Presi. which is itself an important determinant of approval. No. Gary M. History proves that approval ratings don’t translate into legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. Specifically. No. In this environment. 1960.dents clearly prefer to enjoy higher levels of public approval. it is not a hard sell for presidents to blame Congress. co-recipient of the 2006 Emerging Scholar Award Assistant Professor School of Social Sciences. Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (3/6) Years of divided government prove that a president can have high approval but little success with his agenda Nicholson 2 (Stephen P. pp. W. since citizens perceive Congress as the most power. Vol. divided government may present an opportunity for presidents to help themselves in the arena of public opinion. or some other purpose. Segura.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 163 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal operational problem: coalition formation. For example. however. Stephen P. we might have identified something of a paradox. although . we demonstrate in this effort that presidents are likely to have higher approval during periods of divided government and lower levels during periods of unified government. 2002)..1 Washington Post headlines declared “President Plans to Capitalize on Popularity Gain. Furthermore.ful branch of government (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995)..tial approval ratings may vary systematically with partisan control of govern. Cover 1986. a policy resource. 2 (May. Woods. Yet at the same time.2 Divided government. we argue. 701-720) Given the predominance in the last half century of divided government. pp. 64. occurs behind closed doors leaving little evidence. presidents can point to the opposition Congress as the source of all problems.”2 Richard Fenno characterized the moment as “the time for [Bush] to expend some of the popularity he has gained in pursuit of a comparably large cause at home. Mueller 1973). and divided government could be a president's best friend when attempting to avoid blame. If this is the case.split party control of the executive and legislative branches-the resource of large legislative majorities has been unavailable to presidents. What is the net effect of these contradictory forces? In this effort.

Ostrom and Simon (1985). Democratic members publicly opposed the bill within the week that Bush advocated it in a nationally televised address. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. substantiates the ex-post inability of Bush to convert his popularity into legislative success. 491-509) Within the political science literature. headlines were proclaiming “Bush Squanders Power. No. pp. Before long. 2002). 2 (May. In fact. 2002). Collier and Sullivan (1995) show that approval has no impact on a president’s ability to sway congressional members’ positions on legislative votes. Rohde and Simon (1985) show that approval increases a president’s ability to sustain vetoes. Bond. a majority of House members voted against the legislation. 2 (May. For example. Regardless of the measure of popularity employed. and a presumed rationale for this behavior has been that approval facilitates policy success. Recent research. Rivers and Rose (1985). 2002). pp. Cohen. the effect is insignificant in the control model. however. 491-509) Perhaps the most initially striking result is that the three estimates of approval generally have the same effect on presidential success. Vol. Yet. Consistent with the assessment that Bush could capitalize on his popularity. This consistency indicates that the divergent findings among previous studies do not derive from variation in the measurement of approval employed. Similarly. Varying levels of popularity do not affect presidential success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. No. No. by showing that the sample of votes analyzed affects the estimated impact of approval. Fleisher. Similarly. 64. Scott de Marchi. Table 1 does suggest a potential rationale for the diversity of findings. 64. 491-509) . “The Journal of Politics”. 64. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. and Hamman (2000) demonstrate that a Senator’s likelihood of voting with the president’s position is uncorrelated with presidential approval in his or her state. Scott de Marchi. a consistent finding has been that presidents actively seek high approval ratings.” Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (4/6) Recent research disproves the idea that popularity translates into legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. Scott de Marchi. however. Consistent with the negligible impact found in recent work. it does not appear to aid presidents when all roll calls are combined. and Brace and Hinckley (1992) all find that a president’s public approval is positively correlated with his legislative influence. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. those studies that have explicitly examined the relationship between presidential approval and success have not produced a unified finding. Vol. Going Public decreases Presidential success with legislation Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. pp. Covington and Kinney (1999) find that approval increases the probability that the floor considers a presidential proposal but does not increase a president’s success over roll-call votes.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 164 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal presidential aides cited his anti-crime bill as a keystone of his agenda. Vol. 2 (May.

that a president may not systematically gain influence through plebiscitary activity. members may be unwilling to bargain with a president who offers no explicit reward for supporting his position and instead goes over their heads to the people. 64. Moreover. but as Tulis (1987. pp. 2 (May. For example. who show that when presi- dents Reagan and Eisenhower publicly addressed issues. 2002). Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (5/6) There is no evidence that public appeal assists presidential success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 165 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Other research suggests. however. Covington (1987) and Kernell (1993) argue that a president can impede executive-legislative bargaining by "going public.5 The work most suggestive of systematic influence is Mouw and MacKuen (1992). 491-509) Existing empirical work does not resolve whether in fact presidents gain systematic influence from public appeals. Scott de Marchi. prominent failures have also been documented. In addition. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. Mouw and MacKuen do not examine whether this behavior reflected presidents achieving their policy goals however. these cases number ‘`a very few" within the literature. ranging from President Clinton's advocacy for nationalized health care." They observe that members have less flexibility to modify their positions on salient issues. No. Vol. Isolated cases of policy success have been documented. congressional agenda-setters took more moderate positions. . according to Kernell. preventing policy compromise. 45) notes.

is that a president’s popularity will afford him influence over the passage of a bill if and only if there exists this combination of public concern and public uncertainty about the bill. and Kay 1982. We refer to such legislation as salient and complex. Kollman 1998. however. . in addition to multiple econometric models. Ringquist 1995). No. We are the first. 2 (May. entrenched opinions. Bush and Bill Clinton. Specifically. Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University. Moore 1987). simply put. To provide such a statement. and (2) It involves an issue over which citizens have little technical knowledge and correspondingly do not have easily accessible. previous research suggests the factors jointly affect congressional decision making. In particular. Zaller and Feldman 1992). and marginal increases in salience. 2002). section three describes the data. and that preference stability varies across issues (Carmines and Stimson 1980. “The Journal of Politics”. complexity. Our analysis employs a variety of measures of approval. Metlay. we argue that positive changes in presidential approval only increase the probability of success for legislation that meets two criteria: (1) It holds some degree of salience for the general electorate. section four discusses the econometric analysis. and a second model that examines the interactions among approval. 64. Schattschneider 1960). Our hypothesis. Scott de Marchi. pp. W. we tackle the problem by asking what conditions would allow us to distinguish the legislative items for which presidential popularity should generate influence from those for which it should not. 491-509) The literature thus does not provide a clear statement about the relationship between a president’s popularity and his legislative success. to argue that the factors jointly determine a president’s ability to translate high approval ratings into policy success. the latter term is taken from previous research (Kuklinski. Moreover. We test this hypothesis on House roll-call votes during the presidencies of George H.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 166 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (6/6) Public Approval only helps if the public is both concerned and uncertain about the bill Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-. and section five concludes by discussing the broader implications of our findings for presidential power. A range of work finds that issue salience is a significant determinant of legislative behavior (Hutchings 1998. we estimate a traditional model on all roll- call votes versus those classified as complex and highly salient. Vol. with members relatively inattentive to constituency opinion and unlikely to control bureaucratic behavior on issues of high complexity and low salience (Matthews and Stimson 1970. The analysis is divided into four sections: section two details the theoreticalargument.

"There hasn't been wholesale change." Two weeks ago.html) President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks. Yet even there. "To get something done or to get what you want or most of what you want." said Nicholas E. a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans. and it included expanded G.S. A new surveillance bill signed into law Thursday also marked a significant victory for Bush. Dan. “Recent Bush victories smell of compromise”. 11 attacks. and he has threatened to veto several key measures winding through Congress. Although environmental groups said the deal lacked vital specifics. On other things. The changes allowed the bill to easily overcome opposition from Democratic leaders and civil liberties groups. president who came to office questioning the science of climate change.even when it was in GOP hands -." Bush's willingness to compromise remains limited. Yet any hint of accommodation is notable for a president who has often pursued a confrontational strategy with Congress -. . war funding and an international agreement on global warming. a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 167 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Olive Branch Concessions are critical to Bush’s agenda Eggen 8 (7-13. who served as Bush's first legislative affairs director. for example. Bush's conciliatory mood extended to the Group of Eight summit last week in Japan. Bill college benefits and other provisions that he had opposed. the compromise legislation included reforms that the administration had initially opposed. Bush signed a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he hailed as a product of bipartisan cooperation. you finesse it.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616. http://www.and who has stood behind an unpopular war and go-it-alone policies abroad. Mann. it marked a long journey for a U. "What you're seeing is a willingness to bend some when you're getting a broader objective. he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals. from Medicare payments to housing reform. largely because the White House won legal immunity for telecommunications firms that helped in eavesdropping after the Sept. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings.I. Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. you've got to compromise. Calio. including language making clear that the measure is the exclusive legal authority for government spying. and Paul Kane. but there has been definite movement toward compromise. legislative aides and political experts. But the final legislation was far more expensive than Bush had said he would accept." said Thomas E. according to administration officials.washingtonpost. With less than seven months left in office. on surveillance reform. but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided. Washington Post staff writers. and they don't abide the notion that he's a lame duck. where the United States for the first time joined the other major industrialized countries in agreeing to try to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. "The president and the White House are very focused on getting things done.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 168 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Internal Links – Lobbies*** .

S.and their benefits.s largest sugar cane growing and refining operation).S. Since 1990. Masters in International Policy and Practice from George Washington University. International Economic Studies Center.in place. sugar and Florida is a key state in presidential elections.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 169 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Sugar Lobby = Agenda The Sugar lobby is key to the agenda.pdf) Sugar growers have continuously lobbied to keep this program. and rallying other agricultural trade associations to fight FTAs. .s influence is the fact that Florida produces a quarter of U. warning agribusiness-related companies (like Caterpillar) that they will lose business if they support free trade.2004 election cycle. Jose and Alfonso Fanjul. the sugar industry has given more than $20 million to both Democrat and Republican politicians in key positions.000 to candidates for Congress and the presidency. Virata 4 (Gillian. having Congressmen flood the administration with letters. http://internationalecon. For the 2003. farm receipts. raised nearly $1 million in soft- money donations for the 2000 election cycle. Adding to the industry. two brothers who own and operate Flo-Sun in Florida (America. the sugar industry made direct donations of $940.com/virata/The%20Effects%20of%20the%20US%20Sugar. It is the largest agricultural industry donor to political campaigns even though it represents just 1% of U. Lobbying efforts by the sugar industry include having thousands of sugar beet farmers and refinery employees send petitions to the government.

xxvii Not surprisingly.sustainabletable. Where does all this money go? A considerable portion of agribusiness money ends up in the pockets of politicians who have the most control over agricultural policy. 203 interested corporations joined together as the “Food Chain Coalition. $88. agribusiness uses its enormous financial power to influence government decisions.xx This figure is higher than that of the total donations over the same time period by several other powerful industries. 73 percent went to the legislators that co-sponsored the Food Quality Protection Act’s bill. agribusiness has contributed more than $120 million to Congress.300 more than the average co-sponsor in the House.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 170 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Farm Lobby = Agenda The Farm lobby has congress in their pocket—the plan would create significant congressional opposition Sustainable Table 8 (http://www. and two and a half times more than committee members who did not support the bill. DC. a bill that aimed to loosen federal pesticide regulations.xxiv Agribusiness contributions also go to members of the House Committee on Agriculture.org/issues/policy/) Like so many other industries that hope to influence law-makers in Washington.xxi defense ($108 million)xxii and energy/natural resources ($384 million). Each House Commerce Committee member received $11.” and donated $13. Since the 2000 election cycle.xxviii . Of the $9. In order to push this legislation through. According to the Center for Responsive Politics.3 million given to members of the House of Representatives. agribusinesses contributed more than $381 million to the election campaigns of federal candidates and incumbents between 1990 and 2006. and members of the House Commerce Committee (which has control over pesticide legislation).xxvi A report released in June 1996 revealed the agribusiness industry’s lobbying efforts for the (deceptively titled) Food Quality Protection Act. Nutrition and Forestry Committee. including members of the House and Senate agriculture committees. such as transportation ($330 million).4 million to members of Congress between November of 1992 and June of 1996.9 million of which has gone to the re-election campaigns of congressional incumbents. xxv as well as to members of the Senate’s Agriculture. the Food Quality Protection Act was passed in 1996.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 171 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Internal Links – Nuke Deal*** .

but he will probably have to spend more of his limited political capital than he would like." he said. "But with Bush much weaker than he has been. including in the national security area. predicted that Bush can win approval if he presses Congress hard enough. and with Iran looming as a nuclear problem." Ornstein said." . "The reaction in Congress will be cautious. a research fellow in national security at the Heritage Foundation. l/n) Norman Ornstein. "However. a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 172 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (1/2) Bush needs all of his limited political capital to get the India deal through—this assumes their political capital low arguments Chicago Tribune. "I think he gets it in the end. I think it is more likely than not that Congress will approve the deal. this one will be a tougher sell. 06 (March 3. agreed." Baker Spring.

Grover.of setting up a dedicated safeguards facility. sources said. That is why.S.cms) But at all times. will now be presented before India's Cabinet Committee on Security for a final seal of approval and to the U. diplomats said.indiatimes. which Indian negotiators ensured would preclude a repeat of the Tarapur episode.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 173 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (2/2) Political capital is key to the India deal Economic Times 7 (July 22. In Washington. but was a major backroom presence.B.com/US- India_nuke_deal_All_set_to_go/articleshow/2224071. One key element in the negotiations that finalised the deal was the direct involvement of representatives from India's scientific establishment. The country's vocal non-proliferation community is expected to raise hell as usual about concessions to India. when US invoked sanctions despite guarantees. Kakodkar did not take part in the talks directly. administration officials are expected to brief key law-makers and their aides on the agreement and bring it up for a final vote soon. The language. they were conscious of the political will on both sides to consummate the controversial deal that has critics on both sides. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. . From India's side. Congress for a yes-no vote before things start rolling. the government itself faces the tough task of getting its allies and the opposition on board. but the broad picture sources offered suggests both sides made important concessions to arrive at a mutually acceptable text sans square brackets. participated in the technical talks and ran the developments by Dr Anil Kakodkar. still under wraps except for broad outlines. Instead. so the administration expects to get it done without too much trouble. sources suggested without getting into details. While the political establishment hopes that this show of consensus will mollify dissenters in the scientific community. Dr R. the agreement included language to work around this situation. The more contentious portion of the agreement related to sanctions and the 'right of return' of materiel and technology in the event of India conducting a nuclear test – a congressionally mandated law that Washington said it could not overwrite. Officials declined to speak on record about the details of the 123 agreement. That hard-fought 123 Agreement. But the vote in Congress will be a straight up-down. it was decided that 123 Agreement would not be released before the CCS had discussed it and the government had briefed allies and key opposition leaders.http://economictimes. is to New Delhi's satisfaction. yes- no vote with no amendments allowed. there was never any doubt that it would win the right to reprocess spent fuel from the moment it made the offer – a concession . Director of Strategic Planning Group in the Department of Atomic Energy.

S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday the Bush administration would push the U. “Rice says will push Congress hard on India deal. .” 2008. Congress hard to agree to a civilian nuclear deal with India before President George W.com/s/nm/20080724/pl_nm/india_nuclear_rice_dc_1) PERTH. Australia (Reuters) . Bush leaves office.yahoo. http://news.U.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 174 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Bush Pushing Nuke Deal Reuters 7-24 (Sue Plemming.S.

. In return. said: “The negotiators have done what they needed to do. they will let us know what transpired.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 175 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal Political Capital is Key to the Deal Financial Times 7 (7-22. called the “last leg” of negotiations. whose fast-growing economy faces acute energy shortages. There has been stalemate for months over the deal. which officials said had made “substantial progress” without necessarily bridging the thorniest gaps. Pranab Mukherjee.” Securing the civil nuclear deal is a priority for the flagging Bush administration. India – considered a pariah after its 1998 test and refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – would subject its civilian nuclear programme to unprecedented international inspections. diplomats said the future of the deal depended on the political capital both governments would spend to sell it to their constituencies. Ending decades of nuclear isolation is a key goal for India. A strategic partnership with a large country that is seen as a counterbalance to China in Asia would be a foreign policy success. “Both the United States and India look forward to the completion of these remaining steps and to the conclusion of this historic initiative.” the joint statement said. In a short joint statement in Washington. The talks went two days over schedule.” The only official comment came from India’s external affairs minister. Indian prime minister. At the end of what Manmohan Singh. “The work of the negotiators is over. The government will then decide. “We will now refer the issue to our governments for final review. negotiators said they were “pleased with the substantial progress made on the outstanding issues” – a formulation that has been used before.” he told reporters. “Now. l/n) The Indian and US governments are separately grappling with differences that remain over nuclear co-operation after four days of talks in Washington. New Delhi is also under pressure to reduce carbon intensity and slow the rise in emissions. which would give India access to US nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in 30 years.” An Indian official. In particular India has tried to get Washington to climb down from its insistence that all civil nuclear co-operation would be suspended if India conducted another round of nuclear weapons tests. US officials have periodically expressed frustration with what they see as India’s stubborn approach. They gave no details about how – or whether – significant differences had been bridged. in terms of probably reaching an agreement on the major issues. But the political masters will naturally need time to look at it. speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.” Mago told IANS during a visit to Washington.thaindian.” added Mago who is credited with winning almost 40 percent of the co- sponsors for the US enabling law. “Hopefully Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will provide their crucial support to get it through their respective chambers.” he said expressing optimism that the landmark agreement will be finalised this year. Senator Joseph Biden.com/newsportal/world-news/indian- american-seeks-early-action-on-n-deal_10026132. which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Even though it will be very difficult.com/newsportal/uncategorized/now-its- us-speakers-turn-to-talk-n-deal_10027459. spouse of Hillary Clinton. . some sections in the Democratic Party continue to be critical of the deal which they feel grants India too much in return for too little. Former US president Bill Clinton.html) Despite its ritualistic reiterations from time to time voicing bipartisan support for the deal.html) “The only question left is whether the US Congress will be able to accommodate the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. to resume civil nuclear commerce with the world. a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential bid. Democrat support is key to get the bill through Thaindian News 8 (March 11. The critics also contend that the deal compromises the US’ commitment to non-proliferation by making a one-time exception for India. had recently set a July deadline for Congress to consider it before it goes into election mode. we feel it can be done because the option of waiting for a few more years to bring India out of nuclear isolation is also unthinkable.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 176 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Democrats Key Nuke Deal Democrats are bipartisan now but remain skeptical of the deal easy for them to switch Thaindian News 8 (March 14. ttp://www.thaindian. Thursday pointed out this when he said the deal could have been stronger on the non-proliferation side.

sensing the American mood they are criticizing the administration for not formulating a clear-cut exit plan strategy. but seem to be following a 'wait and watch' approach. Two things have changed in the months since. Or maybe he won't make the deal—in which case the prospect of a global partnership might collapse before it's been born. It was probably a mistake to make the nuclear promise—which impinges on so many other countries' interests—the deal's centerpiece. But now.slate. the highly nationalistic Indian parliament rebelled by demanding no strings whatever. March 1.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1975&keyArticle=1010& status=article) This rift between the Republicans and Bush is of great significance to India because it is depending on Bush to convince his Republican colleagues to steamroll their 'historical' nuclear deal. Famous political anaylist. Maybe Bush will reach a compromise with India this week—in which case he'll then have the rest of the world to contend with. Or. the Indian government. On the Iran issue they have not made any specific comments. Many Republicans also tried to corner the President on his controversial domestic eavesdropping programme. March 22. accusing it of breaching rights of privacy. http://www.ipcs. Interestingly. They have clashed in recent weeks on the President's policies. http://www. Bush's candidate to fill a vacant US Supreme Court seat stoked considerable debate and there were problems in deciding the best way forward to address the thorny issue of illegal immigration.com/id/2137105/) Maybe Bush had grown accustomed to plowing over international treaties when they didn't suit his wishes. Bush wants India to let the IAEA inspect all 17 of its currently unmonitored civilian reactors. the Republican Congress—buffeted not only by Bush's plummeting popularity but also by his diminished credibility on security matters in the wake of the Dubai Ports controversy—may not be as accommodating on Indian nukes as it once might have been.org/India_articles3. First. Bush appeasing republicans is key to deal passage Lele 6 ( Ajey. On the international front Republicans are not happy with the President's Iraq policy. they had supported him for invading Iraq. as Bush adjusted to his new position by setting some restrictions on the deal.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 177 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Republicans Key Nuke Deal Republicans can shift on the deal unpopular Bush policies make them less likely to support Kaplan 6 (Fred. Second. responding to its own domestic pressures. No doubt he figured Congress could be prodded into passing whatever laws he demanded in the name of national security. It was a mistake not to think even one move ahead. if that was inevitable. But that was then. Considering these realities it is unclear whether the Congress will support Bush's new nuclear vision for India. . has offered inspection of just four. On the economic front Republicans are dissatisfied with the President's fiscal policies with the budget deficit reaching an all-time high. The 'rendezvous' between Bush and the Republicans is not cozy in his second term in the office. it was definitely a mistake to let the deal go forward without bringing any of these other countries in on the discussion.

I think that’s the point Senator Joseph Biden was trying to make to media when he was in New Delhi last week.com/newsportal/world-news/india-has-30- days-to-act-on-nuke-deal-burns_10022891.” Burns said in an interview on Friday. we want to get on with that. but this depends on the deal being signed.” he said. And so. if you back up from there. we do need the Indian Government to act in the next 30 days on the IAEA process in order to move the other pieces forward. time is running out for its legislative calendar is very short ahead of the November 4 elections in the United States. education. “I think we still retain bipartisan support.com/2008/06/28/stories/2008062853981000. http://www.html) “Well.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 178 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link—Bipartisanship Key Nuke Deal Maintaining bipartisanship is key to passage of the India Deal Thaindian news 8 (March 1. and try to estimate the time that it will take for the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to act. Bipartisan support also holds the key to the deal eventually winning congressional ratification. but also in agriculture.thaindian. for it will have to be implemented well after the present government’s term. There’s a great sense in our country that we have an opportunity to build a relationship with India across the board. In India. Maintaining Bipartisanship is key to congressional ratification The Hindu 7-28 (http://www. The Hyde Act was the product of such consensus-building and political co-option.htm) New Delhi should learn from the way the much-maligned Bush administration has handled the deal domestically — by forging an impressive political consensus. But. I think it’s important to note that the US Congress will go out of session in July 2008. We have strong Republican and Democratic party support. in space research.S. . and we want to fulfil the potential that this relationship has on a global basis. where it enjoys bipartisan support. the deal ought not to be turned into a partisan issue. and that’s certainly in the interest of both the countries. not just in the civil nuclear domain.hindu. Burns said the US is keen to broaden relations with India in various fields. conditions-stacked legislation. Congress. After fulfilling these requirements India needs a final approval from the U. with the administration holding closed-door briefings for lawmakers and allowing its three-and- a-half-page bill to be turned into a 41-page. and.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 179 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***India Deal Top-Level Aff Stuff*** .

we will proceed next year.html) The Indo-US nuclear deal enjoys overwhelming bipartisan consensus within the Congress. There is no reason to believe that these Democrats would prefer to delay or kill the Bill which they themselves are backing very hard. They have the highest per capita income of any immigrant group in the United States. I also want to give a great deal of credit for this to the Indian American community. “Progress on India deal may be too late for Congress to act this year.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 180 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal AFF UQ: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link Uniqueness overwhelms the link—there is no chance that the deal fails Horner 7-14 (Danielle." he said. . l/n) Nevertheless. who has been skeptical of the agreement.2 million people of Indian ancestry in the United States. In the present mid-term polls all major Democratic leaders have ‘publicly’ expressed their support for the Bill.com/convergence/ndtv/story. They are leading business people. "There is no incentive not to approve it once everything else is done. there is "no chance" that Congress won't ultimately approve the agreement.” April 24. It will pass in the next administration—overwhelming bipartisan support Wilson 7-25 (Joe. They are leading members of civic organizations and they have truly contacted their members of the Congress and made it truly a bi-partisan effort that we achieved by having Democrats and Republicans supporting the issue. Volume XLIV. said the staffer. In July 2006.” pg. http://www. http://www. Bill Frist. We have 2. Key Democratic leaders in the Senate like Joseph Biden. There’s overwhelming bipartisan support for the India deal. “Lame Duck Session: Why US Senate Must Pass Civilian Nuclear Deal. much of it relates to the influence of the Indian American community as much as the understanding it is very important for the United States to help develop and build on the partnership that has been established between the United States and India.48. Mainstream Weakly.ndtv. a congressional staffer said. vol. 33.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) My view is that. 9. United States Congressmen. After the "whole world" — as represented by the IAEA and the NSG — has endorsed the idea of renewed nuclear trade with India. Congress would be seen as "isolating" the US. I am confident that there would be a strong support. Richard Lugar and John Kerry adhere to their earlier position on the civilian energy deal even after the elections. I think. even if it does not make it through due to time constraints this year. Party leaders on both sides have expressed interest in getting the deal through Kazi 7 (Reshmi. Harry Reid. the Republicans had overwhelmingly voted in favour of the deal. No. Nuclear Fuels.mainstreamweekly. The general perception that the Democrats are going to nuke the deal is therefore not correct.net/article43. They are fully assimilated and very active in the American society.

subject to an enormous number of clauses and conditions.. and preventing it from an untimely demise. The new Democrat-controlled Congress could be lukewarm to a deal backed by George W. This was specially enacted in 2006 to exempt India from fulfilling certain requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and enable the India -US deal. The deal then needs to be signed by the US Congress to become a law." (Section 104/a/6). It's thus a two-pronged challenge that Singh and his government must surmount . . and this is likely to emerge as a key point of contention as the deal goes into advanced stages of approval. would remain mere hypotheses if the logistics of pushing the deal through doesn't work out. at least compared to thermal power in India . Given that the Congress ends its session in September. has never been known to promise uninterrupted supplies of uranium to keep India 's nuclear reactors running. and it'll surely need to watch its steps. In fact the sections are replete with scenarios that could in theory impact India 's foreign policy and jeopardise regional geopolitics. including proof that " India is taking the necessary steps to secure nuclear and other sensitive materials and technology. the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).for its uranium imports. Bush .and the nation .addressing some real concerns as India forges along with the deal. In fact a curious by-product of this deadline could be the scenario that the IAEA and NSG clear the deal but it stalls at the Congress: India could then potentially trade in nuclear technologies with other countries but not the US. Then there's the Hyde Act. However. passage of the deal is unlikely—too many obstacles Gulf News 7-24 (“Firing the Critical Mass. The exemptions and Congressional approval are however.a collection of nations that monitors the sale of nuclear technology . And then there's the real cost benefit of nuclear power. Unless future governments draw up a comprehensive energy policy to optimise power generation. it's now a race against time to keep the agreement alive. All these concerns. The government's victory in the trust vote in parliament is only the beginning of what promises to be a long and critical journey for India in its quest for energy security. and even if it relents. however. Currently nuclear power is estimated to account for about 3 per cent of India 's total power output. In fact India will always be dependent on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) . the dream Sonia Gandhi bubbled out in Nellore would remain just that. producing nuclear power is not cheap. it could account for nearly 10 per cent of the total production by 2020.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 181 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal AFF UQ: Won’t Pass—Many Reasons Even with the Indian Vote. Despite the widely held belief that signing up to the so-called 123 Agreement will safeguard India 's energy security and act as a buffer against oil market volatilities.” 2008) But in its enthusiasm to push ahead with the deal.is now entering unpredictable territory. no matter whether Delhi comes up with its own counter act. the Indian government . the nuclear watchdog which must clear the deal. If new reactors go critical without any time overrun. New Delhi plans to take the deal to the IAEA board by August and subsequently to the NSG. it must be in session for 30 continuous days to hold a final vote..

I think there are strong indications that that should not be an issue of concern. “Hurdles still in N-deal's way: US lawmaker.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 182 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal AFF UQ: Obama Passes India Deal Now isn’t key—Congressional Leadership and Obama would push the deal after the election Jha 7-25 (Lalit. .ndtv.” http://www. much of the leadership and membership that passed it would be here once again in the new Congress including I hope Senator Barack Obama who would be President Barack Obama.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058649) It would. I think we want to do it in a deliberate way. who passed it and voted for it on the floor of the Senate. NDTV. we do not want to rush through in doing thing. But I think.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 183 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***India Deal – I-P NW Impacts*** .

July 8. . India-Pakistan war would trigger nuclear winter Nabi Fai. July 8. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. Washington Times) The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear- capable India and Pakistan. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 184 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (1/2) India-Pakistan war causes nuclear winter and extinction Fai 1 (Ghulam Nabi. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir. Kashmiri American Council. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. the Department of Defense. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965. the Department of Defense. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. The Director of Central Intelligence. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Kashmiri American Council 01 (Ghulam. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir. The Director of Central Intelligence. 2001 (Washington Times) The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

" The conflict will go nuclear Khan`4(Khurshid Khan 2004 Most recent cited source is from 11/30/04 “Limited War Under the Nuclear Umbrella and its Implications for South Asia” General Staff Officer Grade 1 in the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs Directorate. But whilst we cannot be precise. then a de-escalation of military preparedness. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned today.pdf) Since the creation of India and Pakistan. . Mr Straw cautioned: "The current tension. the risks are all too easy to describe. KASHMIR CONFLICT 'COULD SPIRAL INTO NUCLEAR WAR'. 2002. nuclear weapons have yet to assure strategic stability in South Asia despite tall claims by various quarters.org/southasia/pdf/khurshidkhan. disease. no matter how limited it might be. who is en route to a visit to India and Pakistan. Unlike in the past. Lexis) The bitter dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir could escalate into a nuclear confrontation. will have the potential to escalate into a full-scale nuclear war in light of the changed strategic environment. Indian. "So it is imperative that a better way out of this conflict is found. and then nuclear conflict of a kind we have never seen before. both countries have been involved in several conflicts that continue to pose the risk of inadvertent war. Death. and the build-up of military forces in Kashmir. Although the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998 have radically changed the strategic landscape in South Asia.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 185 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (2/2) Indo-Pakistani conflict goes nuclear Deane`2 (John Deane. could all too easily spiral out of control into a conventional. The question of stability in South Asia cannot be isolated from global conventional and nuclear weapons policies. May 27. a nuclear arms race. destruction. JSHQ. In a speech at the German foreign ministry in Berlin Mr Straw. a way that sees the end of cross-border terrorism and the support for all forms of terrorism. Chinese.stimson. PA News. underlined the gravity of the situation. any future war between the two countries. economic collapse. Pakistan. and water disputes. and to some extent Russian equation constitute a nuclear chain affecting not only the stability of South Asia but also that of other regions. then a constructive dialogue to resolve this longstanding bilateral argument over this beautiful but benighted area of Kashmir. These conflicts include the Kashmir dispute. Chief Political Correspondent. Strategic Plans Division. http://www. territorial disputes such as Siachen. The US. Pakistani. affecting not just the immediate war theatre but many parts of the subcontinent and lasting for years. "We sometimes add the words 'incalculable risks' in such circumstances.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
186
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

Impacts – Indo-Pak NW – A2: Limited

Even a limited nuclear exchange kills billions
Times of India 10/4/07
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Indo-Pak_nuclear_war_could_cause_one_billion_starvation_deaths/articleshow/2428228.cms
LONDON: A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would not only have
catastrophic affects in these two countries or their neighbours, but it could cause one
billion people to starve to death across the world.
Hundreds of millions of more would die from disease and conflicts over food in the
aftermath of any such war.
US medical expert Ira Helfand will on Thursday present this horrifying scenario in London
during a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine.
"A limited nuclear war taking place far away poses a threat that should concern
everyone on the planet," the New Scientist magazine quoted Helfand as saying.
"It is appropriate, given the data, to be frightened," said Helfand, who is an emergency-
room doctor in Northampton, Massachusetts, US, and a co-founder of the US anti-nuclear
group, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Helfand has tried to map out the global consequences of India and Pakistan exploding
100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear warheads.
Referring to earlier studies that have suggested that in such a conflict, the annual
growing season in the world's most important grain-producing areas would shrink by
between 10 and 20 days, he said that the world is ill-prepared to cope with such a
disaster.
"Global grain stocks stand at 49 days, lower than at any point in the past five decades,"
he said, adding: "These stocks would not provide any significant reserve in the event
of a sharp decline in production. We would see hoarding on a global scale."
Countries, which import more than half of their grain, such as Malaysia, South Korea
and Taiwan, would be particularly vulnerable, along with 150 million people in north
Africa, which imports 45 percent of its food, Helfand said.
Many of the 800 million around the world who are already officially malnourished would
also suffer, he added.
He went on to say that the global death toll from a nuclear war in Asia "could exceed
one billion from starvation alone."
Food shortages could also trigger epidemics of cholera, typhus and other diseases, as
well as armed conflicts, which together could kill "hundreds of millions".
Helfand further told the magazine that the smoke would warm the stratosphere by up to
50°C, accelerating the natural reactions that attack ozone.
"No-one has ever thought about this before...I think there is a potential for mass
starvation," he cautioned.
Endorsing Helfand’s views, John Pike, director of the US think tank, globalsecurity.org,
said the fallout from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan "would be far more
devastating for other countries than generally appreciated."
"Local events can have global consequences," he added.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
187
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

***India Nuke Deal Good***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
188
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (1/3)
The deal is critical to U.S.-India Relations
Schaffer, Center for Strategic & International Studies South Asia Program director & former US Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia 7-12-07
(Teresita, YALE GLOBAL, July 12, 2007, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9386)
The US opposed India’s nuclear policy, especially after the 1998 test of an explicitly military
nuclear device. India saw the Indian Ocean as its own “security space,” and looked with a
jaundiced eye on other powers, including the US, maintaining a regular military presence there.
Ironically, the nuclear test provided the occasion for India and the US to have their first serious
discussion about respective strategic perspectives and what would make the world a safer place.
This dialogue ultimately did not change either country’s fundamental approach to nuclear
proliferation. But it did lead the US to accept that it must deal with India as a nuclear power. It
also led both countries to recognize a common interest in preventing the spread of nuclear-
weapons technology. The test set the stage for changes during the 21st century: the simplification
of US procedures for exports of non-nuclear high technology that India wanted to buy and the
agreement making possible India-US civil-nuclear cooperation, which had been off limits for
nearly 30 years. The US Congress passed legislation authorizing the agreement, and the
understanding now makes its way through a multi-layered implementation process. This
agreement has caused heartburn both in the US and India and, if implemented, will lead to
major adjustments in the nonproliferation institutions that the US painstakingly built over
the last 40 years. Still, the agreement should be supported for two reasons: First, removing
India from the list of “nuclear outlaws” is an essential step in securing India’s energetic
participation in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology. Second, the US
could not have developed a real partnership with India – one that could stabilize Asia and
strengthen the region’s democratic orientation – without breaking the nuclear taboo.

India deal is vital to the bilateral relationship – any rejections afterwards would devastate
relations.

Levi & Ferguson 6 Fellows for Science & Technology @ the Council on Foreign Relations (Michael A. &
Charles D., 6/16, “U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation A Strategy for Moving Forward”
ttp://www.cfr.org/publication/10795/usindia_nuclear_cooperation.html)
Since then, though, the dynamics have shifted. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-India deal,
Russia supplied India with uranium for two reactors at Tarapur, partially alleviating near-term
pressures for outside sources of nuclear fuel. More fundamentally, the high-profile announcement
of a U.S.-India nuclear deal has changed the choices available to American policymakers. If
Congress blocks cooperation after the Bush administration has made strong and public
commitments to India, it would damage the bilateral relationship. Rejecting the nuclear deal now
would leave the United States in a substantially worse position than had that deal not been made in
the first place, reinforcing unfortunate Indian perceptions of the United States not only as anti-
Indian but also as an unreliable partner. The U.S. Congress, of course, should not defer passively to
the president, nor should it allow the effect of its actions on U.S.-India relations to trump all
nonproliferation concerns. But the new reality should make it think carefully about its
nonproliferation priorities and about precisely how those intersect with the U.S.-India deal.
Fortunately, a rebalancing of the deal is possible, protecting nonproliferation needs without
sacrificing the U.S.-Indian relationship—as long as the administration and India show a small
amount of flexibility in moving forward.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
189
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008
190
Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal
Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (2/3)
Reversal of deal kills relations
Hindu 7-16-7
('Major US firms ready to lobby for Indo-US nuke deal', “ http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/001200707160325.htm, accessed 7-
16-8)
”This deal is very very important to both countries," Bill Begert, vice-president at Pratt &
Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Co., which hopes to supply engines for the fighter-jet
deal, is quoted as saying. "If this falls apart, it will have real near-term consequences for
everyone in the defence industry." Pakistan presents another foreign-policy wrinkle, the Journal
says, adding any advances in India's nuclear capabilities could further unsettle the government of
President Pervez Musharraf, currently beset by countrywide protests after he cracked down on
the judiciary and pro-Taliban Lal Masjid in Islamabad. Pakistan also had sought similar
consideration from Washington, but was rebuffed. Many US lawmakers, the Journal says, also
have vowed to oppose any deal that loosens restrictions on how India can use US-provided
nuclear fuel. The stakes are high for Bush's embattled foreign policy, it added, stressing that
aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at
a time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and
China. The nuclear deal, they say, is key to cementing a partnership between the world's oldest
democracy, the US, and its largest, India, after decades of chillness.

Failure to implement the deal will crush relations

HINDUSTAN TIMES 6 (1-4-6,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1598242,00050001.htm)
Any failure to implement the civil nuclear pact could hurt the US's vital interests and set the
clock back on its strategic relations with India, former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill
has warned. Blackwill's remarks, made during a talk at the US India Business Council in
Washington, were clearly directed at Washington's non-proliferation lobby that is continuing it s
all-out efforts to thwart the deal. "We are at a historic intersection in our relationship. Indians see
this (the nuke deal) as a litmus test of American seriousness about developing a strategic
partnership," he said adding that the Indians have "a long history of suspicion" on this score.
Blackwill, currently the president of Barbour Griffith and Rogers International, one of the top
lobbying firms, went on to say that non-implementation of the pact could prove to be "very
damaging" for US's vital interests in the decades ahead.

Bush has heavily touted the deal – reversal would collapse reliable relations

Levi Council on Foreign Relations Science & Technology Fellow 7
(Michael, U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION: A STRATEGY FOR MOVING
FORWARD, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10795/usindia_nuclear_cooperation.html)
Since then, though, the dynamics have shifted. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-India deal, Russia supplied India with
uranium for two reactors at Tarapur, partially alleviating near-term pressures for outside sources of nuclear fuel. More
fundamentally, the high-profile announcement of a U.S.-India nuclear deal has changed the choices available to American
policymakers. If Congress blocks cooperation after the Bush administration has made strong and
public commitments to India, it would damage the bilateral relationship. Rejecting the nuclear
deal now would leave the United States in a substantially worse position than had that deal not

reinforcing unfortunate Indian perceptions of the United States not only as anti-Indian but also as an unreliable partner.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 191 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal been made in the first place. .

but merely that such collaboration would be hesitant. The considered answer to this question is "Yes. Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. At a time when U. and unable to realize its full potential without final resolution of the one issue that symbolically. troubled. given the threats and uncertainties looming in the international system.S. episodic. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony April 26. substantively. 2006. p.Indian collaboration will evaporate if civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries cannot be consummated.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 192 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (3/3) Nuclear deal is critical to smooth relations between US and India – we cannot risk relations Tellis. and materially kept the two sides apart for over thirty years. 06 (Ashley J.. Lexis) The question that is sometimes asked in this connection is whether a close U.-Indian cooperation promises to become more important than ever." This is not to say that U.S. .-Indian partnership would be impossible in the absence of civilian nuclear cooperation. the risk of unsatisfactory collaboration is one that both countries ought not to take.S.

the region. Geneva. regional stability. A deal should not threaten India's territorial integrity.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.combating terrorism. Riedel 6 Senior Fellow @ Saban Center for Middle East Policy. That dialogue has already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the underlying issues. he should use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis management between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue that has brought them repeatedly to conflict: Kashmir. 5. population. depends on how far and to what extent the US is able to restrain and counsel Pakistan not to destablise India and. Brookings Institution (Bruce. Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says he is ready to engage India on Kashmir and has put some interesting ideas on the table. skills. 1118. not confrontation. This approach has not worked.” http://www.htm) Now that President Bush has built on this foundation. Vol. and advise him that Pakistan's security lies in cooperation. and India. The ultimate power relation between US and India. Now is the time for quiet American diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since 9/11 to try to resolve the Kashmir quarrel. He should be tested now by both the U. “India and the United States: A New Era. and potential can make a major contribution as a "global partner" with the US.net/2007/07/23/d70723020329.S. India's size. the problem has gotten worse and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster. July 23. Relations are key to preventing Indo-Pak war – they solve the Kashmir issue. India hopes that America can encourage President Musharraf to come to terms with India's geography. Global Politics. preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 193 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations – Impact: Indo-Pak War US-India relations prevent India-Pakistan conflict Rashid 7 (Harun ur. Pakistan could more easily put those groups out of business and isolate al-Qaeda. The list reflects the extent to which geography shapes politics and alliances. To the Bush administration. 12/18. both because of its complexities and because India opposed outside involvement. If Kashmir moved toward peace.brookings. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. http://www. The Daily Star. rather it should focus on improving the Kashmiri's lives. and the challenge posed by China.htm) The Bush administration's priorities are -. with India. . Num. The timing is particularly fortuitous since India and Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades. Helping him resolve Kashmir would also help him end Pakistan's long relationship with jihadist terror groups which have dangerous relationships with al-Qaeda.thedailystar. non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. resources. in turn. many suggest.

and many analysts believe it is poised to grow even faster in the coming decade. in total.because it can help the country solve its chronic failure to supply the electricity needed for a burgeoning economy. U. Both those sources have been good news for global warming . The largest 100 of these CDM projects. won't reduce emissions as much as a successful effort to help India embrace safe nuclear power. India has just 3 gigawatts of nuclear plants connected to the grid. that would avoid about 130 million tons of carbon dioxide per year (for comparison. future generations may remember it for quite different reasons than the debate over nuclear proliferation.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor. often came within days of shutting operations due to Private and highly efficient coal mines are grabbing growing lack of coal. All that is changing.intensive of all the fossil fuels. power demand notches up at just 2 percent annually. and most of India's hydroelectric dams probably emit almost no greenhouse gases. Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide. That leaves coal . India is embracing nuclear power for other reasons . Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. By displacing coal. Blackouts are commonplace. In industrial zones. unstable power supplies are such trouble that the biggest companies usually build their own power plants. known as the Clean Development Mechanism. India is growing rapidly. far from the coal fields and vulnerable to the dysfunctional rail network.such as those offered under the deal with the Bush administration. has not been anxious to spend money to control its emissions of this and other so. the leading cause of global warming. New supplies of natural gas cost about twice what Indians are used to paying.S. But in effect. . and environmental objections are likely to scupper the government's grand plans for new hydro dams. about one third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. At the moment. Traditionally.iht. a fresh start for nuclear power could increase nuclear generating capacity nearly ten-fold. Farmers. but that will remain a fantasy without access to advanced nuclear technologies and. http://www. can barely rely on getting power for half of every day.php) If the deal to supply India with nuclear technologies goes through.called greenhouse gases. who account for about two-fifths of all the power consumed. State coal mines were notoriously dangerous and inefficient. (For comparison. that was designed to reward developing countries that implement projects to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. the deal would marry their interest in power with ours in protecting the planet. the full range of emission cuts planned by the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol will total just 200 million tons per year). the coal sector was plagued by inefficiencies. These improvements make coal the fuel to beat.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 194 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy/Warming The India deal is key to solving warming and stabilizing the Indian economy—outweighs the Kyoto Protocol Victor 6 (David. The economic growth is feeding a voracious appetite for electricity that India's bankrupt utilities are unable to satisfy. shares of the coal market. the lifeblood of India's vibrant economy. The effort. Bush matters. Already more than half of India's new power supplies come from coal. nuclear fuels .) Over the past decade. By 2020. would eclipse the scheme under the Kyoto Protocol. In recent years its economy has swelled at more than 7 percent per year. and that could grow rapidly. And India. Government planners envision that nuclear supply will grow to 30 GW over the next generation. like most developing countries. the bloom is coming off those greenhouse-friendly roses.the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. if successful.natural gas is the least carbon. especially. So the deal struck with President George W. However. Upgrades to the nation's high-tension power grid is making it feasible to generate electricity with new plants installed right at the coal mines. So most analysts expect that the demand for electricity will rise at about 10 percent a year. Coal-fired plants in western provinces. even after discounting for the government's normal exuberance in its forecasts.

Among them are over 1. who arrives later Wednesday. but said strong growth in India and other Asian markets can help weather the storm of a global economic crisis.twocircles. adding: "But I am also realistic that there is an election in the US.India and China. particularly India and China. Chidambaram. But with greater South-South trade between developing countries. The minister's comments came as the role of India and China became a hot topic of discussion among the participants from 88 countries gathered in Davos. for clues about possible Indian strategies to help tide over the worst of the financial crisis.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 195 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy – India Key to World Strong Indian economy prevents global economic downturn. however.5 trillion last year.300 business leaders representing the top 1. "No economy can totally decouple itself from the US.html) Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath Wednesday became the first political leader at the World Economic Forum (WEF) to warn of an impending US recession.500 delegates gathered at the WEF.000 companies of the world. he said: "the magnitude of the trade can't be the same as in the past. IANS. Nath said it would be important to see how much of that was wiped out by the "current crisis". January 23. Nath. added. "I am optimistic this Davos will create a greater momentum towards the conclusion" of the Doha round. . "This is the first time the world is looking at a possible recession with two engines of growth . who is in a power packed Indian delegation of 80 attending the annual event in this snow-clad Swiss mountain resort." he. I am realistic that Europe is in a new phase of protectionism. 27 heads of state or government and 113 cabinet ministers Many are also looking at Indian delegation leader and Finance Minister P. Although the US economy consumed goods and services worth $9. a statement that helped calm market sentiments after two days of stock market volatility Monday and Tuesday.net/2008jan23/world_facing_recession_india_can_help_kamal_nath. Nath said." Nath said in the first significant comment by a political leader to the 2. http://www. A strong Indian economy prevents economic downturns from going global De Sarkar 8 (Dipankar. Chidambaram said before arriving in Davis that the "fundamentals" of the Indian economy are strong. also coupled his comments with guarded optimism over the ongoing Doha round of trade talks that have been stalled in Geneva after developing and developed countries traded charges of protectionism.

as the administration's backers. This concept is incidentally at the core of the Asia- Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.off venture. Coal-rich China is among the many other countries that would welcome more nuclear power and whose emissions of carbon dioxide are growing fast . such as in Europe’s emission trading system). The CDM was a good idea in principle. Director. but it remains young. it will frame a new approach to engaging developing countries in a climate strategy. The problems have encouraged gaming and they have caused CDM investors to focus on activities that are easy to quantify and which are marginal in nature. These countries are wary that the possible high costs of climate change mitigation will jeopardize their development goals.6 Rather than involving hundreds of small and marginal projects. but in practice it is not working well. July 18.iht. This approach would focus on finding game-changing policies that align with reluctant countries’ interests.5 If the India nuclear deal is successful. Online) Until now. the Bush administration has stumbled on part of an effective strategy to slow global warming. http://www. It could frame a new approach to technology sharing and managing a more proliferation-proof fuel cycle that. That Partnership has promise. have suggested. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. energy projects account for just 17% of the CDM pipeline.S. including India and the U. Quite accidentally. account for half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. it seems. Indeed. The deal spills over and solves warming Victor 6 (David. Testimony before the U.php) What is important is that the deal is not just a one.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor. on the defensive.S. in turn. The result of that opposition is the CDM—a system that compensates developing countries for the full extra cost of any policies to control emissions. The scheme has become mired in red tape as countries and investors try to establish their baseline levels of emissions and the reduction in emissions from each project. Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. whose six members. developing countries have adamantly refused to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. Almost none of the energy projects are of the type that will lead to fundamental changes in countries’ energy systems. . this style of engagement would focus on just a handful of large pivotal actions involving just a few critical countries..even faster than India's. Success with this nuclear deal could offer a credible example of practical actions that the Partnership could encourage. will multiply the benefits of a cooler climate. Now it should marry that clever scheme overseas with an effective plan here at home. (The difference between the baseline and the reduced level is the key to the CDM concept—that difference becomes a credit that can be used to offset emission obligations elsewhere in the world. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Stanford University.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 196 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming (1/2) The nuke deal sets a global precedent for effective solutions to warming Victor 6 (David.

Despite its current limited supply.000 MW from power uprates.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 197 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming (2/2) Nuke Deal revives the US nuclear industry Reuters 5 (August 2. Nuclear Power: Statement to Congress http://72.14.203. and view the deal as an opportunity to revive a shaky US nuclear industry. The impact of additional nuclear energy generation Nuclear energy has already made a sizeable contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions in America. Many officials also see India as a counterweight to China. nuclear power is already a proven alternative to fossil fuels. nuclear energy now provides the vast majority (76. In fact.104/search?q=cache:BDQv47YSQFcJ:greenspiritstrategies. development of commercial plants in other parts of the world is gathering momentum. formerly the State Department's top non-proliferation official. While current investment in America’s nuclear energy industry languishes. carbon emissions avoided by nuclear power were 1. But more must be done and nuclear energy is pointing the way. the use of nuclear energy helped the US avoid the release of 189. America must once again renew its leadership in this area. .html+US+nuclear+industry+revitalized&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) Indeed. His aides say India shares US values. plant restarts and productivity gains could assist the electric sector to avoid the emission of 22 million metric tons of carbon per year by 2012. The United States relies on nuclear power for some 20% of its energy needs.blogspot. In 2002. and produces nearly one-third of global nuclear energy. said the strategic case for strengthening US-India relations has broad support. does not transfer nuclear technology to troublesome entities and desperately needs to expand its energy sources.7 times larger than those avoided by all renewables combined.com/fullstory. producing an additional 10. In order to create a better environmental and energy secure future.php?newsid=51911) After India tested nuclear weapons in 1998.expressindia. www. Nuclear power in the US can cause a drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage Moore 5 (Dr. In 2002.5 million tons of carbon into the air. the electric sector’s carbon emissions would have been 29 per cent higher without nuclear power. without nuclear energy that reliance will likely never diminish. But Bush has accelerated an embrace of the world's largest democracy.2 per cent) of the US’s emission-free generation. Patrick PhD 10/19/. Washington led international condemnation. And while hydro. according to the Nuclear Energy Institute – that’s 21 per cent of the President’s GHG intensity reduction goal. A revitalized American nuclear energy industry. geothermal and wind energy all form an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Robert Einhorn.com/2005/ 10/nuclear-energy-dr-moores-statement- to.

Rogue countries currently working on acquiring nuclear weapons will continue to do so independently of U. are likely to follow the U. many states.S.pdf) The concerns that such a move would invite increased nuclear proliferation do not seem justified.C. since a crucial foreign policy and international security initiative dealing with India would have passed from them to America. proposals on nonproliferation of WMD technology and fissile materials.S.S. Russia and China would be outmaneuvered. would welcome a conciliatory move as evidence that the United States wishes to pursue an equitable foreign and international security policy for all nations. Moreover. especially in the Third World.org/pubs/pas/pa381. and China. . France. the members of the nuclear club. Independent Security Policy Analyst Based in Washington D. move.S. and India itself who dream of building the tripartite strategic alliance to oppose the United States. That move would also deal a heavy blow to those in China..Arizona Debate Institute 2008 198 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Russia-China Axis The India deal is key to preventing a Russia/China/India Axis Gobarev 00 (Victor. India would join international talks on ending the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and would install effective controls for nuclear-related materials.-Indian cooperation on counterproliferation. Previous Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and George Washington University. not merely for developed countries.cato. recognition of India’s nuclear status. Britain. Those measures would reduce the threat of proliferation from India and begin U. Russia.S. recognition of India as a nuclear power would remove the main obstacle to making America and India friends and de facto strategic partners. Such an initiative by Washington would likely mean India’s acceptance of U. Russia. http://www. U.

Growing oil imports by the two can push the price of oil even higher than the record levels they are already at now. With a population of more than a billion and an economy growing at 7 to 8 per cent every year. India could be recognised as a nuclear power state without actually signing the nuclear non- proliferation treaty and be able to shop for enriched uranium and other nuclear fuel from any part of the world The US offer may seem charitable. The journey of China (and now India) from economic poorhouse to powerhouse has an inherent impact on us energy security. but it is not. which is dependant on cheap oil to keep the wheels of its industry moving and help its citizens maintain relatively luxurious lifestyles. Hawkish observers may see the move as an effort by the us to position India as a counterweight to China. distribution and use of nuclear power for India's own energy requirements could well be the panacea for the us economy of the future. the Indo-US deal. L/N) If President Bush is able to get the deal ratified by the us Congress. given the fact that the US was the first to impose sanctions on India after it conducted its nuclear test in 1998. President Bush is only ensuring the continued prosperity of his own economy dependent as it is on the availability of abundant and cheap oil. By freeing up nuclear fuel supplies for India's civilian nuclear programme. India's demand for oil has not only been growing at 5 per cent or more every year but is likely to accelerate even more in the years to come.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 199 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Oil Prices The India deal is key to lowering oil prices—crucial to the economy Business Today 6 (March 26. That can pose threats to the us economy. Greater generation. . but the "historic N-deal" signed on March 1 may have more to do with the us economy's energy security than a tweak in the dynamics of global power play. Both countries also have comfortable forex deposits that give them the capacity to pay for their growing oil import bills.

http://www. After such a change in status. as well as maritime surveillance planes. there will be no impediment to U.S. exporters have mentioned selling as much as $1. . helicopters. The main effect of the deal will be to pardon India – to remove it as a violator of international norms.S. hundreds of F-16 or F/A-18 fighter jets.wisconsinproject. advanced radar. The Russian press has even complained that the nuclear deal is a ploy to squeeze Russia out of the Indian arms market. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 200 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – US Nuclear Industry India nuclear deal key to US nuclear industry Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. research assistant and Director. not in nuclear reactors.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.4 billion worth of Boeing airliners. This is where the real money is. missile defense and other equipment. arms sales.htm) Fact: The deal is primarily about making money. June 13. U.

"Once we have the nuclear deal. There will be many others. a top official with the country's biggest business lobbying group. announced during a visit by India's prime minister to Washington last July. "One reason we are here is because we hope the strategic relationship will continue to grow." Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters Monday. driven by aspirations to become a global power and the demands of an economy that is growing at 8 percent annually. many in the business community here believe.S. American firms received less than $100 million in "The potential is huge for them both in sales military orders out of the $12 billion that India spent on defense purchases last year. "What we are going to see is a big agenda of cooperation on almost everything. from civilian airliners to military hardware.com/story/0. companies. and production. not just in potential nuclear sales but in a variety of high-technology products — from jets to rocket launchers to radars. businesses in India. Mutual suspicion. The deal would open new arenas for U. The first signs of serious change came when the Indian Air Force shortlisted Lockheed Martin Corp." said Montek Singh Ahluwalia. But U. young men and women tap away at keyboards. one of the prime minister's top economic advisers. is a landmark nuclear agreement to provide India with much-needed nuclear fuel that stands as the cornerstone of the emerging alliance between New Delhi and Washington.186313. India has never used a U. Fords and Chevrolets now compete for space on the streets with auto-rickshaws. Last month. But the U. India and the U. http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 201 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – US Econ The India Deal is key to the US Economy and solving Trade Deficits. A key step. will help even out a U. writing software code for American companies. has long kept Indians from placing big military orders with U. rooted in frosty Cold War-era relations when India was seen as a Soviet ally.S." Lee Whitney.S. But military purchases are just one aspect of the new economic ties. especially in military hardware and high-technology equipment.S-made combat aircraft. and Boeing Co. "The Air India deal is only one example. "It would be very surprising to me if as a result of that (modernization) process the United States did not get a fair share of the additional orders. But officials on both sides say they are close and will press on even if the pact isn't finalized during Bush's visit.S. Since Bush took office in 2001. which ends Saturday." India has been shopping big. as potential suppliers for 126 new fighter jets it plans to buy. Although relations have rapidly warmed in recent years.foxnews. everything else will fall in place.00. Washington's decision to impose sanctions after India held nuclear tests in 1998 further dampened ties. companies have won few major Indian deals." . the Confederation of Indian Industry.S." Das said. As India modernizes its aging infrastructure to sustain its economic boom. Fox News 6 (February 28. state-run carrier Air India placed an order to buy 68 planes from Boeing Co. in a deal valued at $11 billion. The proposed nuclear agreement.2933.html) President Bush gets his first chance Wednesday to see the vast economic and social transformations that many say make India a key global partner for America. trade deficit with India that nearly doubled to over $10 billion between 2001 and 2005. it is expected to spend about $150 million annually on everything from roads to bridges to airports. a growing closeness that's based as much on trade as it is on politics. Talks to finalize the deal have been held up over which of India's nuclear facilities are civilian and which are considered military." said Tarun Das. have made dramatic steps toward forging a strategic partnership after decades of Cold War animosity. has already helped translate the potential into reality.S. and it's clearly hoped that Bush's visit. a Lockheed vice president. still imports far more from India than it exports.S businesses have received few of those orders. said during a recent defense show in New Delhi that drew more American weapons makers than ever before. U. "We are doing very hard bargaining.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 202 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – AT: Pollution Nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal plants.two uncles. residents receive almost double the national average background radiation. nuclear power plants emit less radiation during normal operation than do coal-fired power plants. some nuclear power plants. “Myths About Nuclear Energy”. aerospace engineer. Proquest) MYTH: Nuclear plants emit dangerous radiation TRUTH: Have you ever known anyone killed in a car accident? I have . The fact is. ORNL physicist Alex Gabbard pointed out "that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment. According to the Department of Energy. you can't name a single person you know who has been injured by radiation. like some coal. 8 (Ed. Moreover. it is important to keep in mind that radiation is all around us every day. In an article published in 1993 in Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review. they’re harmless Hiserodt. Colorado. I wonder. 6 pgs. Vol. Nuclear reactors emit much less radiation than coal-fired power plants. Iss. because of the proximity of the Rocky Mountains and because there is less atmosphere overhead to protect from cosmic rays. the average American receives 300 millirems of radiation each year from natural sources. 23. nuclear power plants do not have smokestacks spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits radiation at the plant boundary to 5 millirems per year.or oil-fired plants. the wastes are contained within the plant itself. or maybe even injured slightly? If you're like me and nearly all other Americans. The New American." According to Gabbard. have cooling towers that emit water vapor. pg. Often mistaken for smokestacks. In the case of nuclear plants. in Denver.) If you were to stand unclothed at the boundary for 120 years. (It seldom gets anywhere near that. capitol building has long been known to emit too much radiation to be licensed as a nuclear power plant. but that amount is higher in some places.or oil-fired plants. the U. you would receive as much radiation as a person living on the Colorado plateau does in one year from natural background radiation. Finally. April 30. radiation from coal is completely negligible. a roommate. and a girlfriend from college." Yet even at that level. radiation from coal combustion "is 100 times that from nuclear plants. How about anyone killed from radiation. does the EPA know about this? Perhaps Coloradans should be evacuated! . 9. For instance. 18. Consider too that unlike coal.S.

The benefits outweigh the risks. they’re based on old myths. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. We've seen The China Syndrome. Nuclear energy doesn't produce the air pollution that burning coal does. Iss. at 48%. but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity. ’08 (The Case for Nukes. though it hasn't been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism. pg. June 9. Prefer our ev. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France's economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil. Vol. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island--the former of which killed 36 people and the latter of which killed none--have become so outsized in the American imagination that our perception of actual risk has been completely distorted. it’s comparative Fortune. capable of accidentally pushing the red button. the likes of which have never happened in the history of nuclear power. 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 203 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (1/2) Nuclear fears unfounded. We're willing to tolerate the health risks and environmental repercussions of other fuels to avoid the infinitesimally small and comically improbable possibility of a catastrophic accident that resembles something out of a 1979 Jane Fonda movie. But irrational fear of improbable safety breaches is responsible for most opposition to nuclear power in this country. and we worry that nuclear- reactor employees may be bumbling Homer Simpsons. Although the ban has been reversed. It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they're doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese. 12. All three are replaceable. Proquest) One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. and even waste products are recyclable. . as we are now. The unlikely culprit? Pop culture. 157. and it's responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. 22. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal- based production was the largest contributor. It's one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production. the fears still linger.

" Anti-nuclear activists love to point to a scenario in which a reactor would lose its coolant allowing the fuel rods to melt through the reactor vessel." Yet that reactor containment vessel worked as designed and by 9:00 a.m." the Smithsonian Institute says in its timeline of events at the damaged reactor. 1979. according to the Smithsonian Institute.some twenty tons in all . April 30. they eagerly seized upon the accident at Three Mile Island as the embodiment of all their fears . Vol. In October 2006. no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story. and the molten uranium." . Consequently. that morning. “Myths About Nuclear Energy”. the concrete containment structure prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers. 9. the danger was past: "The reactor vessel holds firm. "a molten mass of metal and fuel . Proquest) TRUTH: The great nightmare associated with nuclear energy is the "meltdown. The New American. Perhaps the final word on Three Mile Island comes from Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. pg. 18.is spilling into the bottom of the reactor vessel. Iss.m. 23. through several feet of high-strength concrete. By 7:45 a. a series of mishaps resulted in the partial meltdown of the reactor core. Beginning at 4:00 a. on March 28. Moore wrote in Popular Mechanics: "At the time.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 204 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (2/2) Three Mile Island proves the safety mechs for NP plants. aerospace engineer. no injury or death occurred Hiserodt. 08 (Ed.or at least of the fears they wanted the public to have. immersed in water.m. The problem was that Three Mile Island was a demonstration of the safety of nuclear plants. now gradually begins to cool. and through hundreds of feet of earth till reaching an aquifer whereupon a steam explosion would ensue. 6 pgs.

S. said a State Department official and a senior NATO defense official.S. . however. which killed 41 and injured 141. the senior NATO defense official said. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/46178. U. ational security and intelligence corresponden. but Pakistani generals are unlikely to be swayed because they increasingly see their interests diverging from those of the United States. the Afghan capital. which they contend is based near Quetta. who both requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.. Pakistan has been given "a pretty unequivocal message" to end ISI support for the militants and shake up the top ranks of the intelligence agency. officials and experts said there's little chance that Pakistan will take any of the actions it's been asked to take. Pakistan vehemently rejected the allegations of ISI involvement in the Indian Embassy blast. On Friday. and foreign experts said. The United States and Britain privately have demanded that Pakistan move against the Taliban's top leadership. the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province. August 1.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 205 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: US-Pakistani Relations – A2: Terror No Pakistani support for WOT Landay 8 (Jonathan S. The administration sought to ratchet up the pressure last month by sending top U.html) The Bush administration and its allies are pressing Pakistan to end its support for Afghan insurgents linked to al Qaida. U. military and intelligence officials to Pakistan to confront officials there with intelligence linking Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence to the Taliban and other militant Islamist groups. officials told news organizations about the visit.S. McClatchy Newspapers. U. and then revealed that the intelligence included an intercepted communication between ISI officers and a pro-Taliban network that carried out a July 7 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.S. When that failed to produce the desired response.

Kazakhstan. Foreign Affairs. not nuclear weapons. France. South Africa. which is now trying to enrich uranium. (Brazil. the United Kingdom. all of them were in some way swayed by the fear that they would suffer lasting international ostracism if they flouted the NPT regime. Pyongyang's governing ideology is not communism so much as a fanatical embrace of autarky and self- reliance.S.html. the United States. and these factors matter far more than the NPT. Besides. Argentina. it would be hard-pressed to point to India as a relevant precedent. South Korea. he hardly worries about the internal consistency of the NPT regime (much like Saddam Hussein. the impact of the Bush-Singh deal on so-called rogue states is likely to be minimal. Taiwan. There is no question that such an abrupt reversal of U.would require tough and focused diplomacy. India's nuclear recognition may give Tehran a new talking point -- if India gets a free pass. whether or not they have nuclear weapons ("the stalwarts").but that is about it. Libya have all been in-betweens at some point. July/August 2006. Although they eventually forwent nuclear weapons for reasons specific to their own circumstances. Stopping its nuclear program -. Poli Sci – Harvard. To begin with. will also be modest. policy was a blow to nonproliferation efforts. North Korea's tolerance for ostracism by the international community is legendary. who eventually stopped paying it any heed). which seems to include open defiance of international norms such as nonproliferation. has deep roots in the country's sense of insecurity and its national pride. more recently. Belarus. It is safe to assume that as North Korea's Kim Jong Il calculates how far he can go with his nuclear breakout. Tehran's ongoing cat-and-mouse game with the IAEA.by measures short of war -. in which the NPT would play little part. some states might be tempted to stray.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 206 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Prolif Signal No serious risk of proliferation snowballing from the India Deal Carter 6 (Ashton. Ukraine. 2008//grice) The most serious charge against the deal is that Washington. with incentives and sanctions.) . and Germany suggests that Iranian leaders have at least a smidgen of sensitivity to international opinion. why not Iran? -. because Tehran continues to claim that it seeks only nuclear power. The India deal's impact on Iran. The deal's impact will mostly be felt among two other groups of countries: states that are not rogues but have flirted or continue to flirt with nuclear status ("the in-betweens") and states that faithfully uphold the rules. http://www. like that of North Korea.foreignaffairs. comes to mind. Iran's nuclear program. but the damage is manageable and will not affect the most worrisome near-term cases. and. hurt the integrity of the nonproliferation regime. Brazil. Accessed on July 29. another country driving for nuclear power status. With India's sweet deal now suggesting that forgiveness comes to proliferators who wait long enough.org/ 20060701faessay85403-p0/ashton-b-carter/america-s-new-strategic-partner. by recognizing India's de facto nuclear status and effectively rewarding noncompliance.

A key part of the US-India deal was the agreement that the USA would lead an initiative to request the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) make an exception for India from its normal rules. "satisfies India's needs while maintaining all the agency's legal requirements. July 10. which has been delayed by almost a year. circulated since early July. Russia and the USA are ready to complete individual nuclear cooperation deals. which currently limits international trade to NPT signatories. the USA has agreed to push for changes in the rules of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 207 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Proliferation – Safeguards Safeguards are in place to ensure nuclear materials and tech are not used for weapons WNN 8 (Nuclear Policies. .even if time to pass enabling legislation before Bush leaves office is running very short. with the emergence of the safeguards agreement and the news that some of Singh's former political opponents have crossed the floor to support him. with another six under construction. However. with the safeguards work continuing under the new agreement which he expects to cover 14 reactors by 2014. Leading nuclear nations including Britain. In return for the safeguards the IAEA approved today. America would still be expected to act at NSG meetings with the support of other leading nuclear nations which are poised to conclude their own cooperation agreements with India. India has 17 reactors in operation now. India will abide by safeguards – current standards are in place WWN 8 (World Nuclear News. Now. The NSG is a non-treaty organization which limits civil nuclear trade to signatories of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).html) Opening today's meeting. All these were made under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). which facilitates the agency's role to ensure civilian nuclear materials are not misused." The agreement had been carefully negotiated since November 2007 and the board was able to wrap up its deliberations in just one day.com/ht/d/Articles/afterdays/7/pid/206) A draft copy of the document. Aug 1.meatami. India has already sent envoys to each of the NSG nations to garner support for the changes. the US-India deal seems reinvigorated . Almost every country in the world has a comprehensive nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA. IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said the draft. Materials at six of India's nuclear power plants are safeguarded under pre-existing specific agreements with the IAEA. A wide safeguards agreement is an essential step in a project to allow India to buy and sell civilian nuclear power technology and fuel on the international market.world-nuclear-news. This US action was conditional on India voluntarily placing its civilian nuclear infrastructure under safeguards. should the US-India deal fail. France. The safeguards agreement is ready for signature by Indian and IAEA representatives. It will implemented next year. dated 9 July. The document emerged at a crunch time for the US-India nuclear cooperation deal. which India has rejected as unfair from the start. gives details of arrangements between India and the IAEA for the agency to ensure nuclear materials and technology meant for civil production of power are not used in India's nuclear weapons program.org/NP_IAEA_considers_India_safeguards_0108082. The specific agreement between the IAEA and India will allow the country to place its civil nuclear plants under international observation in a series of tranches. Today ElBaradei said these arrangements could be suspended. Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush declared in July 2005 they intended to work towards a position where India could engage in international nuclear trade. http://www. which India has consistently rejected since it opened for signature 40 years ago.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 208 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal .

The purpose.' the G8 chairman said in a statement at the end of the three-day summit held in the northern Japanese resort of Hokkaido-Toyako. and India has a good record in terms of proliferation.thepeninsulaqatar. the broader regime. http://www.com/ Display_news.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 209 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indian Prolif India aligns with the G8 in support of the global non-proliferation regime IANS 8 (Indo-Asian News Service. the statement underlined. http://in.asp?section=world_news&subsection=India&month=July2008&file=World_News2008072712454. Speaking to journalists in Perth. but the regime.html) Toyako (Japan).news. but it also serves the interests of the non-proliferation regime. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said India’s clean non-proliferation record would see the US-India nuclear deal through the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). 9 July.com/43/20080709/812/tnl-g8- backs-india-nuclear-deal-stresses_1. 27 July. the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and other partners to advance India's non- proliferation commitments and progress.yahoo.xml) Washington • Indirectly discounting Pakistan’s attempt to oppose India at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). . In a transcript of her remarks made available on the US Department of State website. Australia. India will not proliferate – clean record proves IANS 8 (The Penisula. was 'to facilitate a more robust approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime'. Rice said: “India is not a party to the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). July 9 (IANS) In a clear sign that the India-US nuclear deal enjoys the support of key NSG countries. is one in which even non-NPT states need to take certain obligations in terms of proliferation. Rice said the agreement not only serves the interests of the US-Indian strategic relationship and that of India in terms of its needs for energy that is not hydrocarbons-based. 'We look forward to working with India. the G8 nations Wednesday came out in support of civil nuclear cooperation with India and hoped it will enhance the global non-proliferation regime. on Friday.

. in which one or two states per decade gradually develop nuclear weapons. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. Consider Argentina. http://www. Winter/Spring. actual proliferation will be slow Waltz 00 (Kenneth.html) It is now estimated that about twenty–five countries are in a position to make nuclear weapons rather quickly. and both decided against it–wisely I believe–because neither country needs nuclear weapons. Brazil. Most countries that could have acquired nuclear military capability have refrained from doing so. Most countries do not need them. I would expect the pattern of the past to be the same as the pattern in the future.ciaonet. Germany does not face any security threats–certainly not any in which a nuclear force would be relevant. Argentina and Brazil were in the process of moving toward nuclear military capability. but most countries are not in this position.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 210 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation = Slow Even if capabilities for quick proliferation exist.org/olj/gjia/gjia_winspr00f. You have to have an adversary against whom you think you might have to threaten retaliation. and South Africa. Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley. South Africa had about half a dozen warheads and decided to destroy them.

It did not disturb the American-Soviet military equilibrium. the exact knowledge of the comparative strength of the two parties.” Miscalculation causes wars. 90-91) Although this school bases its claims upon the U. “To be sure. made older battleships obsolete. it admits of no basic exception to the imperatives of nuclear deterrence. In 1914. Nuclear-armed adversaries. In the former. the speed of technological innovation increased the difficulty of estimating relative strengths and predicting the course of campaigns.’ Proliferation prevents miscalculations of damage which empirically causes the bloodiest wars Waltz 95 (Kenneth. It is difficult to see how escalation of the conflict over Kashmir could have been avoided were it not for the two countries’ fear of nuclear escalation.” The reason for this near-absolute claim is the supposedly immutable quality of nuclear weapons: their presence is the key variable in any deterrent situation. From the late nineteenth century onward. states are too often tempted to act on advantages that are wishfully discerned and narrowly calculated. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. p6-7) Certainty about the relative strength of adversaries also makes war less likely. Both hoped for victory even though they believed the opposing coalitions to be quite evenly matched. “Weapons that do not have to fight their like do not become useless because of the advent of newer and superior types.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 211 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Deters War Proliferation deters large-scale regional war Karl 96 (David. PhD International Relations at the University of Southern California. p. but that is a much simpler problem to solve. regardless of context. technological advance has been even faster. the British Dreadnought.” They may have to survive their like. because fear of their devastating consequences simply overwhelms the operation of all other factors.” George Simmel wrote. while the other side hopes to avoid defeat. but short of a ballistic missile defense breakthrough. Winter. Since World War II. with the greater range and firepower of its guns.S-Soviet Cold War nuclear relationship.” Shai Feldman submits that “it is no longer disputed that the undeclared nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan have helped stabilize their relations in recent years. “the most effective presupposition for preventing struggle. In 1906. . Nothing within the school’s thesis is intrinsic solely to the superpower experience.’Martin van Creveld alleges that “the leaders of medium and small powers alike tend to be extremely cautious with regard to the nuclear weapons they possess or with which they are faced—the proof being that. this has not mattered. neither Germany nor France tried very hard to avoid a general war. “ “Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers. should behave toward each other like the superpowers during the Cold War’s “nuclear peace.” International Security. to date. is very often only to be obtained by the actual fighting out of the conflict. One side expects victory at an affordable price. in every region where these weapons have been introduced. Here the dif- ferences between conventional and nuclear worlds are fundamental. large-scale interstate warfare has disappeared. because one side’s missiles were not made obsolete by improvements in the other side’s missiles. /1997. Many wars might have been avoided had their out- comes been foreseen.” The spread of nuclear weapons technology is thus viewed by optimists as a positive development. As Bernard Brodie put it. This does not happen to missiles. so much so that some even advocate its selective abettance by current nuclear powers. The nuclear “balance of terror” is seen as far from fragile.

Would the United States risk a nuclear confrontation to defend Taiwan. But this formulation comes apart from both l nuclear powers in the region are unlikely to act irresponsibly and. as ends in East Asia: Potentia suggested above. Unlike the situation that prevailed in Europe between 1948 and 1990— which was fundamentally stable and static—East Asia is a volatile region in which all the major players— Japan. tripping us rather than deterring them. Even selective proliferation by stable. China. Russia. the risk of being chain-ganged into a nuclear conflict are much higher for the United States in post-Cold War East Asia if it maintains or extends nuclear guarantees to any of the region’s major states. The need at hand is to weigh the dangers imbedded in an extended deterrence strategy against those posed by the possibility of nuclear proliferation. “Minimal Realism in East Asia. tension along the 38th Parallel in Korea. Korea. preventing global escalation Layne 96 (Christopher. and here the Japanese case provides the most important and sobering illustration. Washington will clearly exercise far less control over the policies of East Asian powers than it exercised over Americas European allies during the Cold War. Notwithstanding current conventional wisdom. This is not necessarily the case. Nearly all maximalists are simultaneously proliferation pessimists (believing that any proliferation will have negative security implications) and extended nuclear deterrence optimists (believing that extended nuclear deterrence “works”). Even more important.-Japanese relationship are manifest. post-Cold War East Asia simply does not have the same degree of strategic importance to the United States as did Europe during the Cold War. Spring. There is no clear and inviolable status quo. Hence. p72-73) This is doubly true when the potential aggressor is a nuclear power because. They could constitute the wrong sort of tripwire. strategic. military capabilities. organizational. the U. encourage nuclear proliferation is widely seen as irresponsible and risky. Reconfiguring American security policies anywhere in the world in ways that. For both protector and protected. conflicting claims to ownership of the Spratly Islands.S. or Senkaku? Knowing that they would not constitute the same kind of threat to U.S. increasing the number and unpredictability of regional rivalries.” The National Interest.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 212 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Prevents Escalation Proliferation frees the US from extended deterrence. even if it means acquiring great power.S. as Charles de Gaulle reasoned well. the United States should encourage East Asian states—including Japan—to resolve their own security dilemmas. in the sense that providing the latter is seen to discourage the former. including nuclear. nuclear umbrella is of uncertain credibility in post-Cold War circumstances in which the Soviet Union no longer exists and strains in the U. and doctrinal issues. The presence of American forces in the region may indeed have the perverse effect of failing to preserve peace while simultaneously ensuring the United States would be drawn automatically into a future East Asian war. But so does relying on America’s nuclear extended deterrence strategy in changed circumstances. . Vietnam—are candidates to become involved in large-scale war. and the Sino- Japanese territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands are only a few of the flash-points that could ignite a great power war in East Asia. interests that the Soviet Union did. in effect. The status of Taiwan. extended nuclear deterrence raises constant and ultimately insoluble dilemmas of credibility and reassurance. Nuclear proliferation and extended deterrence are generally believed to be flip sides of the same coin. non-rogue states admittedly raises important political. the Spratlys. rational states will not risk suicide to save their allies. The conditions that contributed to successful extended nuclear deterrence in Cold War Europe do not exist in post-Cold War East Asia. The lines of demarcation between spheres of influence are already blurred and may well become more so as Chinese and Japanese influence expand simultaneously. future revisionist East Asian powers would probably be more willing to discount America’s credibility and test its resolve. Fellow of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

told a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation research group.. very unlikely that there will be conflict across the strait."Simply put.hk/ breaking_news_detail. Improved relations reduce risk of conflict – we are safer now than ever Adams 8 (Jonathan. according to remarks released by his office. CSM.. which is required by its Taiwan Relations Act to defend the island if it is attacked. compelling need for..” July 21. Recent improvement in Sino-Taiwan relations prove to provide stability throughout the region Agence France-Presse 8 (Inquirer.Keating acknowledged that the US.'' according to a transcript of his remarks.S.But Ma.While the US is "committed to the defense of Taiwan. http://newsinfo.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 213 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2) Weapons sales are largely unnecessary – Indian-Sino conflict is not coming The Standard 8 (“China-Taiwan clash 'very unlikely.inquirer. Timothy Keating. speaking to a group of Japanese academics.thestandard.Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou said Monday that improved ties between the island and China were "good news" for the entire region. the top US military commander in Asia said. July 24. http://www.net. as the odds of military conflict had been greatly reduced.' US Admiral says." Keating said. leader of the US Pacific Command." Ma said.The Strait between Taiwan and China.com. than I was 15 months ago. “Better Taiwan-China ties good for the region. at this moment.. China's current military posture and strategy that indicates there is no pressing."As the Taiwan Strait and the Korean peninsula are the flashpoints (in the region). . cross-Strait ties have changed from confrontations to peaceful development.'' Admiral Timothy Keating. confirmed the current freeze on major arms sales to the island. compelling need for at this moment arms sales to Taiwan of the systems that we're talking about. eased tensions across the Strait are good news for the people and countries in Northeast Asia.csmonitor. He noted that improved cross-strait relations had sharply reduced the potential for conflict.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080721-149847/Better-Taiwan-China-ties-good-for-the-region-Ma-says) TAIPEI -. has long been one of the world's most dangerous potential military flashpoints.” July 18.asp?id=596&icid=2&d_str=20080718) Tension between China and Taiwan has decreased to the degree that a military conflict is unlikely and there currently is no need to sell defensive weapons to the island's government.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts. that my belief is well founded that it is very. said the situation had changed dramatically since he took office two months ago.. http://www. "I'm more comfortable today . has not sold it weapons "in relatively recent times. U. Adm.html) Reuters reported last week that the top US military commander in the Pacific. Ma says." the Hawaii-based commander said at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. heavily armed on both sides. very.'' "there is no pressing. decision-makers "have reconciled Taiwan's current military posture. arms sales." he said. Hopefully the two sides will be able to co-exist peacefully. noting that the chance of a military conflict had lessened.

despite recently improved cross-strait relations. but do provide the necessary basis for work in the nuclear field and may accelerate nuclear weapons development.org/nuke/guide/taiwan/nuke/index. CSM.csmonitor. Ma Ying-jeou.. http://www. . the Associated Press reports.html) Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons. More than a decade later. Taiwan seeks nuclear technology but not for weapon development FAS 00 (Federation of American Scientists."Following the reestablishment of National Tsinghua University in Taiwan in 1956. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that since Mr. the Taiwan Power Company established a nuclear energy department and laid plans for a nuclear power plant.But Ma said that Taiwan still needs US help to defend itself against China. and equipment do not enable Taiwan to create nuclear weapons. Ma took power on May 20. the two sides have moved rapidly to expand cross-strait links. Taipei officials said they believed that the US had temporarily put off arms sales in order to secure Beijing's co-operation in tackling trouble in Iran and North Korea.. To increase transparency. The report adds that Taipei officials believe the delay is motivated by the US's attempt to secure China's cooperation. since the communist-ruled mainland has long demanded the US phase out its arms sales to the island. China-friendly president. July 24. April 4. if such a decision is made. Taiwan is implementing the IAEA's new. He called recently for the US to remove the freeze. and the development of nuclear energy gradually progressed to the stage of large reactors used for the generation of power.fas. Taiwan is a member of the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Taipei is concerned that Washington may have created a precedent that could prove difficult to reverse. However. http://www. the university built the nation's first research nuclear reactor and began training atomic energy specialists. Taiwan has made attempts to organize production of plutonium on an experimental basis. Imported nuclear technologies. more effective safeguards. known as "Program 93+2.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts. knowledge. Thereafter the Atomic Energy Council and the Nuclear Energy Research Institute were established.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 214 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2) Taiwan’s new president’s movements to improve relations have been vastly successful Adams 8 (Jonathan..The Financial Times cited top Taiwanese national security officials as saying that Taiwan was dropping its push for F- 16s for now in order to focus on getting the other weapon systems approved.html) US foot-dragging on arms sales to the island comes amid a thaw in Taiwan-China relations under Taiwan's new.

"So it's important for India to find alternative sources.html) India's energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. July 28. who was traveling with Rice." Smith said. Nuclear power is critical to solve India’s greenhouse gas emissions Scoop Independent News 8 (“United States Supports India's Civil Nuclear Pact. is going to contribute dramatically to the continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions.news. want to look very carefully at the detail and consider that very carefully in the NSG." India imports 75 percent of its oil." . This issue can make Australia a very important partner to India strategically. If the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed. this share of emissions from coal-fired power stations will increase through to 2030 and beyond.24086171-7583. is a key member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.com. "We. if it tries to meet that demand through carbon-based sources for energy.scoop.co. http://www. of course. both to India and to the United States. which holds 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves. It is a country that. Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. Two thirds of India's emissions come from burning coal.theaustralian. said his government would give the India initiative every consideration." Rice said.htm) "India … has a tremendously growing demand for energy. Australia.au/story/0.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 215 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming The deal solves India’s critical warming emissions Robb 8 (Andrew. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India's energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy. And we're also looking at the arrangement with a positive and constructive frame of mind. mainly in power stations. as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Rudd could propose.nz/stories/WO0807/S00815. has argued that India needs a stronger investment in nuclear energy generation. "We will give very careful consideration to the strategic importance of the agreement. As India grows. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation. otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year.00. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. who recently survived a confidence vote in parliament.25197. Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. http://www.” July 29. The Australian. It is what India really wants from us.

This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's head of earth sciences. said the findings must be a wake up call for politicians and citizens alike. which chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and its potential implications. Michael Benton." Other climate experts say they are appalled that a disaster of such magnitude could be repeated within this century because of human activities. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 216 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Impact Global warming causes extinction Sydney Morning Herald 3 (June 20.html) Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet. 250 million years ago. www. Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period." . the chief cause of global warming. scientists have warned. "Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species died out so quickly. principally carbon dioxide. The Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a that only one large land animal runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth. Professor Benton said: "The Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life.There needs to be an immediate phase-out of coal. People can no longer ignore this looming catastrophe.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.smh. Conditions in what geologists have termed this "post apocalyptic greenhouse" were so severe was left alive and it took 100 million years for species diversity to return to former levels. oil and gas and a phase in of clean energy sources. who recently travelled around the world witnessing the impact of climate change. Global warming author Mark Lynas. United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict up to 6 degrees of warming for the next 100 years if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases. "We are heading for disaster and yet the world is on fossil fuel autopilot.com. He said: "This is a global emergency.

China uses far more energy than it does per unit of GDP. Indeed. As sea-levels rise. It has rarely met. India cross-subsidises power and petroleum products: farmers get cheap electricity. improve seed types. for instance. India's agricultural output is projected to fall by 30-40%. the IPCC warns that 35m refugees could flee Bangladesh's flooded delta by 2050. its sagacious prime minister. an article from April this year quoting University of California researchers saying China is already number one. which is why India's negotiators insisted that the Supported by other developing countries. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Chandrashekhar Dasgupta of the Energy and Resources Institute. Given India's historic problems with flooding and drought. the National Action Plan on Climate Change. yet it is part of a broader push that has sparked a flurry of climate-related initiatives: to boost energy efficiency. a factory worker with an air-conditioner will feel global warming less than a subsistence farmer will. In particular it argues that its total emissions are relatively low (see chart above) and that it is relatively energy-efficient (see chart below). After all. perhaps only America and Russia are considered more obdurate. given their special vulnerability to climate problems. Over the period. has formed a powerful council of ministers. Russia. some Chinese academics familiar with the process say that after China reaches a certain per head emissions level it might agree to cut emissions. which launched the Kyoto process.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 217 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (1/2) India and China are leaders in greenhouse emissions yet only China is pathing the way towards reduced emissions The Economist 8 (“China. India's GDP. scientists and businessmen to co-operate on the issue. which expires in 2012. Among big countries. Indeed. The impact of climate change on India. India is due this month to unveil a vaunted policy. The Bush administration's bid to override this principle by refusing to undertake targeted emissions cuts unless India and China accept comparable cuts has therefore caused fury in India. Indian officials consider that the negotiations are to refresh. meanwhile. which is known as the Bali Action Plan.Yet India's response to this doomful scenario has been. a rich-country think-tank. . As a result. the protocol. India has acquired an ugly reputation on the global front against climate change. This position is also consistent with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Also. vastly more. haphazard. says it is a “mischievous mis-statement” even to speak of the protocol expiring. This is one of many government-imposed hardships that have forced Indian firms to use power and other resources efficiently. many of these are built upon existing policies. they also target be removed from a draft of the Bali Action Plan. without negative comment. power-generation capacity at least sixfold by 2030.This would make an IPCC target of reducing global emissions by 25-40% by 2020 unrealisable. not replace. for example. to achieve its target of long-term 8% growth. attitudes are changing. Indeed. in the same spirit. is likely to be worse. http://www. it has made only occasional studies of 11 Himalayan glaciers. its emissions are expected to increase over fourfold. Manmohan Singh. a hotter and poorer country. India will have to boost its risen by 4%. leaving its meaning unclear. India and Climate Change” June 5. the government claims that 2% of GDP is being spent on coping with climate-induced problems. Thereasons for India's frugality are not all that creditable.cfm?story_id=11488548) China also now admits its own contribution to the problem. who was involved in negotiating the Framework Convention and also the blue-print for the current negotiations. and recognised that economic development and poverty eradication were the “overriding priorities” for developing countries. Assuming a global temperature increase of 4.4°C over cultivated areas by 2080. the paragraph in which this phrase appeared was reshuffled. It has also shown little concern for the regional political crisis that climate change threatens. they have a particularly urgent need for economic development.” India has entered negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol. India's agriculture will suffer more than any other country's. Although China has shown no inclination to commit to specific emissions-cutting targets in the post-Kyoto discussions.economist. At India's instigation. while industry pays more for it.India defends this on moral grounds: its people have the same right to wealth as anyone. reportable and verifiable” efforts to cut their emissions.During the past four years both China's GDP and its energy consumption have grown at an average of 11% a year. because many consider that India is expending even greater effort on justifying its refusal to control its emissions. Officials reacted frostily last year when the International Energy Agency.com/displaystory. To display these efforts.It will be welcome. India is one of the world's lowest-cost producers of aluminium and steel. and manage them better. encourage forestation and so on. has grown at an annual average of 9% while its energy consumption has And yet. A senior official in the foreign ministry characterises America's line as: “Guys with gross obesity telling guys just emerging from emaciation to go on a major diet. With such tough tactics. Almost half the population has no access to electricity. For example. said China would overtake America as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2007 or 2008. watered down the draft's most radical feature: a pledge by developing countries to undertake “measurable. at best. bureaucrats. But the Chinese commerce ministry's website now carries. mainly by imposing more ambitious reduction targets on rich countries. Yet even in India.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 218 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Continues… .

he pledged that India's carbon-dioxide emissions per head would never exceed developed countries'. At a G8 summit in June last year. perhaps.Many see India as unhelpful by comparison.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 219 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (2/2) Continued… It is anxious not to be cast as a global-warming villain. China will feel obliged to make some kind of promise too. In effect a challenge to the industrialised world to cap India's emissions by curbing their own. this was more imaginative than has been widely recognised. Mr Singh has shown some flexibility. . This is partly because China is doing a lot to try to curb its energy use—but for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Almost nothing could annoy India more. If America commits itself to carbon cuts. And yet China is perceived to be taking the problem more seriously than India. Tibet. particularly given pressures mounting on it over issues ranging from trade to China is looking to America for its cue. Partly in response.

The nuclear deal probably will lead India to emit substantially less CO2 than it would if the country were not able to build such a large commercial nuclear fleet. it will frame a new approach to engaging developing countries in a climate strategy. That’s because nuclear power emits essentially no carbon dioxide (CO2). if this arrangement is successful it will offer a model framework for a more effective way to engage developing countries in the global effort to manage the problem of climate change. including India and the U. The annual reductions by the year 2020 alone will be on the scale of all of the European Union’s efforts to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments. with time it will become one of the main benefits from the arrangement. the most prevalent of these so-called “greenhouse gases. Success with this nuclear deal could offer a credible example of practical actions that the Partnership could encourage. but it remains young.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal. this style of engagement would focus on just a handful of large pivotal actions involving just a few critical countries. account for half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.cfr. http://www. July 18. to date the existing schemes for encouraging these countries to make an effort have failed. . In addition.cfr.html) If the India nuclear deal is successful..[6] Rather than involving hundreds of small and marginal projects. if done to exacting standards of safety and protection against proliferation. The fuller use of commercial nuclear power. can play an important role as part of a larger strategy to slow the growth in emissions of the gases that cause global warming.” While this benefit is hardly the chief reason for initiating this deal. whose six members. July 18.S. a better approach is urgently needed. No arrangement to manage climate change can be adequately successful without these countries’ participation. http://www.html) Chief among those other reasons is environmental. That Partnership has promise. This approach would focus on finding game-changing policies that align with reluctant countries’ interests. An India-US partnership through the India nuclear deal serves as a credible example for developing nations to reduce CO2 emissions Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. This reverse of current trends is critical to model for other developing nations Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 220 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Modeling India nuclear deal is key to curb Indian CO2 emissions.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal. This concept is incidentally at the core of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

economic growth is expected to cause a shift in the Indian economy away from energy-intensive manufacturing and also engender investments that make the economy more efficient in its use of energy. first. In industry. which envision a doubling of power demand from the present to 2020. There are many projections for total demand for electricity.html) Evaluating the environmental benefits of this deal requires. .cfr. there is considerable evidence that electric demand will grow at roughly the same rate as the economy. I show the International Energy Agency’s projections. And where electricity is more reliable. and India’s democracy is notorious for its political gridlock. While the exact future needs for power remain uncertain. initially introduced in the wake of a financial crisis in 1991 but strengthened over the many years since. let’s use these projections to illustrate the stakes.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal. A series of economic reforms. many companies are taking matters into their own hands and building their own plants. these reforms are beginning to take effect in some parts of the country. To be sure. as China has in recent years. for example. that demand for electricity rises even faster than economic output. I would be surprised if demand for electric power were dramatically lower than these projections. For now. Indians will consume more of it. has changed that situation dramatically. India has made no progress in solving the development problem in the rural areas where most Indians live. reliable power is essential. Some factors will tend to dampen the growth in demand for power. Those effects are evident not only in the improved performance of some of the country’s power utilities. Most analysts expect growth to be sustained at 8% over the next few years if not longer. In Figure 1. Barring an economic catastrophe. and an important fraction is well-educated and increasingly engaged with the world economy. understanding the basic factors that affect investment in the Indian electric power market. While reformers have found it difficult to make progress. India’s population is young. July 18. http://www. Among them is an improvement in power quality that is likely to accompany the extensive efforts to reform India’s electric power system that have been under way for 15 years. Higher growth has led directly to higher demand for electricity. And it is possible that demand could be higher if India discovered. For example. there is palpable evidence that India’s economic reforms have finally taken hold. All that said. India’s economy enjoyed an average annual growth rate of around 7% from 1994-2004. but also in the rising role for privately owned (and generally more reliable) power plants.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 221 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (1/3) Nuclear power is critical to India’s electricity – Bottlenecks will choke off their growth now Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. with low growth came low demand for electricity. From the 1970s through much of the 1990s India’s economy was famous for its low rate of growth. the Indian economy has many deep flaws. But other factors will cause demand for electricity to accelerate.

php) India is growing rapidly. "We have realised this capability despite the embargo that has been around us. Blackouts are commonplace. He said the path of civil nuclear empowerment can be achieved with uranium import but "without any compromise on India's strategic programmes in the process". New supplies of natural gas cost about twice what Indians are used to paying. "Nuclear energy with its several million-fold higher calorific value and negligible greenhouse gas emissions can make a paradigm change for the better. unstable power supplies aresuch trouble that the biggest companies usually build their own power plants. In recent years its economy has swelled at more than 7 percent per year. progressively widen over the next few decades in spite of our best efforts to deploy all available indigenous energy resources.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 222 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (2/3) Electricity demand is critical to India’s econ IHT 6 (International Herald Tribune." Kakodkar said at the 54th annual convocation function of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). in fact. There is no issue that we would pursue the three stage domestic programme leading to unleashing of vast energy "The demand supply gap in electricity would potential in our thorium resources on high priority.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor. and in Fast Breeder Reactors they. and most of India's hydroelectric dams probably emit almost no greenhouse gases. "Here is a technology (nuclear) in which we are one of the world leaders and which can help us close the demand supply gap without the need to acquire external fuel perpetually. Fortunately.)Over the past decade. July 25.However.intensive of all the fossil fuels. the bloom is coming off those greenhouse-friendly roses. power demand notches up at just 2 percent annually.itgo." he said. provided we can access some additional uranium to start with over and above what we already have in our country. about one third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. that will open the doors of global civil nuclear commerce with India after a gap of three decades. and many analysts believe it is poised to grow even faster in the coming decade.Kharagpur. the lifeblood of India's vibrant economy. So most analysts expect that the demand for electricity will rise at about 10 percent a year. who account for about two-fifths of all the power consumed.php?id=7038&option=com_content&task=view&sectionid=5&secid=25) India can boost its nuclear energy production by accessing additional uranium and solve the crisis perpetually. "Nuclear power plants. In industrial zones. (For comparison. "This would thus enable growth of electricity generation capacity without the need for additional external fuel. http://www. U." he said. the five decades of domestic research and development have brought us to the level of being a potent technology powerhouse of global recognition in this area. can barely rely on getting power for half of every day.S. produce more fuel than what they consume. Both those sources have been good news for global warming . "Today our self-reliant capabilities provide us sufficient strength to pursue an autonomous path that is best suited for us. after winning Progressive Alliance (UPA) central government is pushing to operationalise a crucial trust vote in parliament on Tuesday. Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Friday.in /index. http://www.The economic growth is feeding a voracious appetite for electricity that India's bankrupt utilities are unable to satisfy.iht. while they produce electricity. andenvironmental objections are likely to scupper the government's grand plans for new hydro dams. . also produce nuclear fuel. Farmers.natural gas is the least carbon. The United the India-US nuclear deal. Nuclear technology solves Indian electricity demand India Today Group Online 8 (Indo-Asian News Service. including nuclear.

“….cfr. yielding an aggregate growth rate of 6. demonstration and deployment.growth in capital stock together with growth in factor productivity will yield output growth of 5. “India has the potential to show the fastest growth over the next 30 to 50 years.gov. would be significantly greater than the per capita growth rate of 3.. we are concerned about energy and so I’ll confine myself to energy. This is a lower bound estimate and. 2005.doc+%22Energy+in+India+for+the+Coming+Decades%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) Wilson and Purushothaman write. To sustain the growth rate in economy. climate change.3 percent. nuclear power has been controlled by the central government. and health externalities. energy supply has to grow in tandem. It multiplies human labour and increases productivity in agriculture. environmental impact. a 5. development.3 percent growth rate would increase the income of the average person nearly 8- fold. industry as well as in services. mainly for non- energy purposes (namely weapons). Energy is the engine for growth. Atomic Energy Commission.dae. as well as uranium. www.The India nuclear deal would provide for “full” civil nuclear cooperation between the U. For a large country like India with its over one billion population and rapid economic growth rate. In addition.in/iaea/ak- paris0305. . the working age population is projected to grow at 1. and has not been exposed to commercial accountability. By enabling India to import modern nuclear energy technology.6 percent achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. not surprisingly.” Rodrik and Subramanian write.html) Until now. Therefore. India deal makes nuclear power accessible to commercial businesses Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. India. India’s domestic uranium reserves are quite meager–the Atomic Energy Commission estimates that domestic resources could support only 10 GW of installed nuclear capacity. Whether and how that could change is at stake in this deal. http://www. Growth rate could be higher than 5 percent over the next 30 years and close to 5 percent as late as 2050 if development proceeds successfully.S.3 percent. it is necessary that all non-carbon emitting resources become an integral part of an energy mix – as diversified as possible – to ensure energy security to a country like India during the present century. Over the next 20 years. even so. no single energy resource or technology constitutes a panacea to address all issues related to availability of fuel supplies. Available sources are low carbon fossil fuels.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal. renewables and nuclear energy and all these should be subject of increased level of research. particularly.[2]Thus. Over a 40-year period. a properly regulated deal would in effect alleviate the historical restrictions placed on civilian Indian nuclear power. or a per capita growth rate of 5. and India.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 223 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (3/3) Rise in the Indian economy depends on alternative energy such as nuclear technology Kakodkar 5 ( Anil -Chairman. labor growth will contribute another 1. In this conference. July 18.9 percent per year. the two most important being energy and human resource.7 percent per year.”Growth in economy is made possible by several inputs. nuclear energy has played only a small role in the power sector.4 percent. If educational attainment and participation rates remain unchanged.

the subject of conflicting claims by India and Pakistan and the object of two wars between them as well as a continuing insurgency. Leaving Pakistan out of a discussion of Indo-U. and the strength Pakistan's government has gained by confronting militant groups over their activities in Afghanistan will not easily carry over to Kashmir.S. including trade and visa regulations. would increase the risk of some kind of miscalculation or desperate move by Pakistan. U. this situation could tempt India's government to take an unusually strident line toward is that Pakistan and its other neighbors.S. India's unresolved problems with Pakistan start with Kashmir. CSIS and Former U. Any such process would be slow and crisis-ridden. however. A more worrisome issue for the United States. diplomatic strategy. as well as a number of other "normalization" issues. and single greatest potential danger the United States perceives in South Asia. finding a solution is a marathon effort. India's economy will sag. including suicide bombings of the State Assembly building in Srinagar (capital of the part of Kashmir administered by India) and more recently at the Indian parliament in New Delhi. India's most recent initiative for beginning talks with Kashmiri political leaders also seems to be going nowhere. the level and frequency of violence has increased within Kashmir and across the "Line of Control" that separates India and Pakistan. such as the status of the world's most desolate. disputed military installation on the Siachen Glacier in the high Himalayas. In India. Despite the new issues that unite this all-too-familiar one remains at the top of U. not a quick fix. The most likely culprits in both cases are militant organizations that also appear on the U. The regional military easily such incidents can provoke a cataclysmic set of buildup that followed the bombing demonstrates how reactions and how vulnerable regional peace is to another violent incident. cries out for a sustained and sophisticated U.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 224 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (1/2) Economic decline causes India/Pakistan conflict Schaffer`2 (Director South Asia Program. particularly in the aftermath of September 11. The list of problems between the two countries also includes a group of secondary issues related to Kashmir. however. Even worse.S. in the Indian-held parts of the state. . The political compromise required for a settlement would be very painful. the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan remains the greatest obstacle to the the possibility of unintended Indo-Pakistani conflict is still the role India wants to play in the world. Without such an effort. Kashmir has powerful popular appeal. Continues…Particularly striking about the building blocks for the new Indo-U. relationship is how little Pakistan figures in them. this task will become more India's problems with Pakistan. Washington Quarterly 2002) Mediocre growth will extract a high price in terms of political and foreign policies. Since September 11. in turn. supported by Pakistan. government's list of terrorist organizations. high-profile terrorist incidents. which. For Pakistan. Both countries. actions since that latest incident have made clear that the freedom of action these groups have enjoyed in Pakistan is incompatible with the relationship Pakistan is now trying to establish with the United States. Yet.S. Ambassador. Resolving these problems will require a high level of Indian and Pakistani leadership. foreign priorities and India and the United States. as well as Kashmiri representatives. have raised tensions between India and Pakistan dramatically. ties would be disingenuous. urgently need to start a process that will eventually lead to an arrangement that is comfortable for all three parties and that addresses the issue of the Indo-Pakistani relationship and the problems of governance within Kashmir. Statements coming from both governments provide no encouragement that the leadership of either country is close to a sustainable formula for resuming talks about the situation. Without reforms. The obstacles to the success of such an endeavor are daunting.S.S. difficult.S. active in Kashmir but headquartered in Pakistan. coalition politics and broad popular resentment against Pakistan make it difficult for a leader to push even in the best of times for a reasonable settlement of If India's economic performance is mediocre. leading to competitive subsidization and spiraling fiscal deficits. the likelihood of new and dangerous confrontations over Kashmir is unacceptably high.

2000 Lexis) Looking at the domestic politics of each side. The government is basically bankrupt. but in a democracy as politically fractured as India's.but there's strong ideological resistance." Speaking of India's identity as a secular state. it's intimately linked to the national identity of both sides . December 27. because Kashmir is far more than a territorial dispute. where the ruling Bharatiya Janata party is revealing its hand.the government owns everything from hotels to car factories. trying to create political space for himself to push through tough economic measures. which he desperately needs to do. and all they've managed to privatise in recent years was a bakery . But in the end. presumably it's a lot harder for Pakistan to calm things down on their side of the Kashmir conflict than it is for India. We're heading back into a terrible mess. yes. And that's taking India into another dangerous phase. Some observers believe that he may be doing this as something of a distraction for his supporters. trying to exploit Hindu nationalist sentiments around the Ayodhya issue. it may be equally difficult for India and Pakistan to step back from the brink in Kashmir. but Vajpayee is playing a delicate political game.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 225 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (2/2) The government will try to distract the people during an economic decline by toying with nationalism-This makes conflict with Pakistan more likely Business Recorder`2k (Global News Wire.with Pakistan's identity as an Islamic state and India's identity as a secular state. PAKISTAN TO BACK DOWN IN KASHMIR?. in the sense that it may be a lot harder for the government of General Musharraf to rein in the Islamic militant groups who're doing much of the fighting in Kashmir. . That may be tempting Vajpayee to distract people with the Ayodhya issue. WHAT FORCES INDIA. and India is facing an economic slowdown. which was destroyed by a mob of Hindu extremists in 1992? "Yes. "Well. The alternative is privatisation . it's hard to cut government spending. isn't that challenged by Prime Minister Vajpayee's statements in support of a campaign to build a Hindu shrine over the ruins of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.

with the crumbling well underway and rising.The Indian economy has been stable and reliable in recent times.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 226 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Key to World India’s economy is up and critical to the world econ Economy Watch 6 (Indian Economy Overview. while in the last few years it’s experienced a positive upward growth trend. we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. and literally a hell on earth will result. Economic collapse causes extinction Bearden 00 (Tom.All of these positive changes have resulted in establishing the Indian economy as one of the largest and fastest growing in the world.cheniere. growing reserves in the foreign exchange sector. it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all. etc. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles. the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it. death. http://www. poverty. April 25. and a flourishing capital market. In short. An interesting result then—as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. resulting.com/ indianeconomy/india-and-global-economy. misery.economywatch. Right now. a bit earlier. http://www. PhD in Nuclear Engineering. nuclear arsenals.html) The Indian Economy is consistently posting robust growth numbers in all sectors leading to impressive growth in Indian GDP. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified. both an IT and real estate boom. and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse. A consistent 8-9% growth rate has been supported by a number of favorable economic indicators including a huge inflow of foreign funds.htm) Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy. .

and a win for nonproliferation. . . In the context of this growing partnership. Joseph 5 (Robert G. This is not a zero-sum trade-off. Our challenge is to translate our converging interests into shared goals and compatible strategies designed to achieve these aims. Today. The Joint Statement agreed to b by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh is not as some have argued a triumph of power politics over nonproliferation principles. to enhance peace and stability in Asia. and to advance the spread of democracy. We seek to work with India to win the global War on Terrorism. marking a win for US influence in South Asia and the MidEast. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security) We believe it is in our national security interest to establish a broad strategic partnership with India that encourages India's emergence as a positive force on the world scene. Our desire to transform relations with India is founded upon a contemporary and forward- looking strategic vision. spread of democracy and does not increase proliferation. Asian Stability. as the broadly- constituted Joint Statement is implemented.nz/stories/WO0511/S00078. the United States and India reached a landmark agreement in July to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation while at the same time strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that could deliver them.scoop.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 227 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Deal Solves India deal is critical to India cooperation in War on Terror. Rather.http://www.co. whereby improvement in our bilateral strategic relationship results in nonproliferation losses. the United States and India are bound together by a strong congruence of interests and values. India and the United States are on the same side of these critical strategic objectives. for the first time.htm. it will prove a win for our strategic relations. a win for energy security. India is a rising global power and an important democratic partner for the United States.

There is good reason to think that al Qaeda is still reeling from the blows it suffered in the aftermath of 9/11. far from emerging victorious. Saudi Arabia.org/publication/16838/are_we_winning_the_war_on_terror. Baghdad. Near strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. al Qaeda in Iraq has been driven out of its erstwhile strongholds in Anbar. Senior Fellow for National Security Studies.cfr. Peter Bergen and Paul Cruikshank in the New Republic. Hayden mentioned that since the beginning of this year alone. http://www.” In an effort to avoid a similar fate. Near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Council on Foreign Relations. David Ignatius in the Washington Post. As Wright notes. Shiite terrorists loosely affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army are also in retreat. “U.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 228 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Down We’re winning the War on Terror – Laundry list Boot & Kirkpatrick 8 (Max & Jeane J. including Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. Its last refuge is in the northern city of Mosul. Bush. a former New York Police Department counterterrorism chief. “nearly 80 percent of al Qaeda’s members in Afghanistan were killed in the final months of 2001. In his Washington Post interview. since 9/11.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F135%2Fterrorism) On balance.Thus spoke CIA Director Michael Hayden in an interview with the Washington Post published on May 30 under the headline. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally— and here I’m going to use the word “ideologically”—as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.” and since then more have been killed or captured in countries ranging from Yemen and Pakistan to Spain and Indonesia.S.”Hayden’s upbeat assessment is shared by a surprising number of analysts who have written recently about al Qaeda’s decline and possible fall. we are doing pretty well. the top leaders. and Michael Sheehan. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. in Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves. thanks primarily to the operations of the Iraqi security forces under the direction of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. for instance. former CIA analyst Marc Sageman in a new book. Those attacks that have succeeded have been fairly minor compared with past al-Qaeda atrocities: a 2004 assault on the U. attacks were cut in half during the month of May. much less on the American homeland. Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21st Century. including two who succumbed ‘to violence. killed five local employees and no Americans. and Diyala provinces. have gone into progressively deeper hiding.S. “War of Error: How Osama bin Laden Beat George W. propounded by many of these same writers not so long ago. consulate in Jeddah. and even there.’ an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan. al Qaeda has not managed to mount any major attacks on an American target. thanks to a joint Iraqi-American offensive.There is much evidence to support their optimistic conclusions—certainly more evidence than there was to support the previous conventional wisdom. “al Qaeda’s global leadership has lost three senior officers. Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker.”)It turns out that. published an article just last fall entitled. July/August. (Bergen. . Cites Big Gains Against al Qaeda.. that the American-led invasion of Iraq was a great gift to al Qaeda and that as a result we were losing the global war on terror. probably in the rugged tribal areas of western Pakistan. From Basra to Baghdad. Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 229 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Turn The deal will sustain peace between India & Pakistan.icfdc. . a civil nuclear cooperation between the US and India will facilitate them to become major allies so as to promote democracy in the region and beyond. http://www. 2006 (7/14.html) Fourthly. US-India Cooperation a Win-Win for Both. if the US abandons its hidden agenda to scuttle India's gas pipeline project with Iran through Pakistan and seriously forges nuclear cooperation. it would help sustain peace between New Delhi and Islamabad. Indo-Asian News Service. Fifthly.com/html/newsarchives/military/icfdc_Military_20050714_a.

the ceasefire breach.” Pakistan has denied that it had any hand in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul last month. “We face a situation where things have happened in the recent past which were unfortunate and which.” NYT. Aug 2. India's top foreign ministry official Shiv Shankar Menon said on Friday the talks were at their lowest point in four years. India also blames Pakistan for a breach of a 2003 ceasefire on its de facto border in disputed Kashmir. “Indian Official Sees Sinking Relations With Pakistan. quite frankly. The Kabul attack. Shiv Shankar Menon. “If you ask me to describe the state of the dialogue. the Inter-Services Intelligence.com/article/domesticNews/idINSP13308520080802) The premiers of India and Pakistan meet on Saturday in a worsening atmosphere of bomb attacks on Indian targets that New Delhi says has sent their four-year-old peace process to its lowest point. have affected the future of the dialogue.com/2008/08/02/world/asia/02india.” . or ISI. when the two nuclear rivals stepped back from the brink of war and began peace talks.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 230 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (1/2) Ongoing violence from both side have brought relations to all time low Reuters 8 (Mukherjee Krittivas. together killing over 100 people.html?hp) The Indian Foreign Secretary. and media speculation about Pakistani links to the bomb attacks on Indian cities have all contributed to the worsening atmosphere. said his country’s relationship with Pakistan had sunk to a new low since 2003. Relations are under stress as Pakistan has broken several cease fires Sengupta 8 (Somini.” Mr. http://www. it is in a place where it hasn’t been in the last four years. Menon told journalists at the annual summit meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in Colombo. and accuses its spy agency of involvement in the Kabul attack. http://in.reuters. Menon had described the relationship as “under stress. which India and the United States have blamed Pakistan’s leading military intelligence agency . in which two senior diplomats were among 58 people killed. the capital of Sri Lanka. Mr. His unusually blunt public comments come on the heels of several cease-fire violations on the disputed border of Kashmir and a deadly bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. After the Kabul blast. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will send a strong message to his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gillani as the two try to salvage talks after a string of bombs hit Indian cities and its embassy in Kabul last month.nytimes. India accuses Pakistan of three breaches of the 2003 cease- fire on the so-called Line of Control in Kashmir. including four Indians. Aug 2. which killed 58 people.

com. war of the consulates?” Aug 2. The world is waking up to the reality of a metamorphosis of the epochal Indo-Pak wars into a war of the consulates in Afghanistan.dailytimes.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C02%5Cstory_2-8- 2008_pg3_1) But the truth is no one has a sure foothold in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s foreign minister Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi and his Indian counterpart Mr Pranab Mukherjee have agreed that the prime ministers of India and Pakistan would “come out with a comprehensive statement on the future of the Indo-Pak bilateral relations”.pk/default. Pakistan is also seen as an enemy by non-Pashtun nationalities that live in the north of Afghanistan simply because Pakistan has backed the Pashtuns in the civil war that took place in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal from there in 1989. Pakistan relies on its ethnic nexus with the Pashtuns but the fact is that Afghan nationalism is based on an anti-Durand Line Pashtun emotion and that emotion remains anti-Pakistan. . It is futile for either India or Pakistan to vie for control over a country that will take a long time in deciding what it wants to do.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 231 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (2/2) Afghanistan involvement by both countries strain relations but there is hope of normalization of relations Daily Times 8 (“EDITORIAL: And now. At the 30th SAARC council of ministers meeting at Colombo. The Indian activity in Afghanistan is merely a flanking move in a strategy of deterring Pakistan from interfering in Kashmir. The only solution lies in backing off from a futile conflict which will do no one any good but will damage the certain but yet unquantifiable economic and social benefits deriving from a normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan. http://www.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 232 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***India Nuke Deal Bad*** .

sanctions. plan to take a cue from India and use this deal as a template for the future. and would weaken the nuclear safeguards system we've operated under for 40 years. India has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). and chemical weapons. government's reasons. India is very unlikely to sell nuclear technology to other countries. The U.html. If India becomes an exception. a Washington-based foundation opposing the spread of nuclear. Iran is pursuing a uranium enrichment program despite U. http://www. India has never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty. president of Ploughshares Fund. "But you can bet Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan is sure to demand similar treatment. North Korea pushed ahead with nuclear testing after claiming it had withdrawn from the NPT. While it is true that India is strategically important. nor the treaty banning nuclear tests.” 2008) But this agreement will also bestow the United States' unofficial blessing on India 's possession of nuclear weapons.com/2008/0710/p02s01- usfp. Christian Science Monitor. “India-US Nuclear Deal.S. "It's bad enough you've just set an example with Tehran that if you wait it out long enough the US will cave and give you what you want. The NPT foundations are shaky enough as it is." says Joseph Cirincione. Up to now.S. which have sincerely met all obligations to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons The NPT members have all agreed that technological support for the peaceful use of nuclear energy should not be supplied to nonmembers.N. we should not let any incidents occur that will allow any crack in the NPT system. 2008//grice) "This deal in effect draws a dangerous distinction between 'good' proliferators and 'bad' proliferators. biological. not as some one-time agreement. among others. the United States has also stood by this principle Now the United States is treating India differently. 2008.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 233 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Proliferation (1/2) India deal will be used as a precedent for wildfire prolif LaFranchi 8 (Howard." The India deal reverses global non-proliferation efforts and crumbles the foundation of the NPT International Herald Tribune 7-25 (Asahi Shimbum. There is no way India should be treated in the same way as NPT members." says Mr. India is a democracy. move to finalize its nuclear cooperation pact with India puts a damper on international efforts to stop such actions . Accessed on July 29. Secondly. Explaining the U. for one. Kimball. July 10.csmonitor. the Bush administration said that.

The deal does not change India's negative stance on any of these questions. This means that India must choose between using its own uranium to make nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Nuclear exports are inherently capable of military as well as civilian applications. . In addition. India continues to oppose the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has pointedly refused to sign it. June 13. It has just as pointedly refused to limit its production of nuclear weapons. without being able to inspect all of India's reactors. thus increasing India’s nuclear arsenal.htm) Fact: The deal leaves India far outside the international effort to combat nuclear arms proliferation. http://www. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 234 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal India Deal Bad – Proliferation (2/2) Nuke deal frees India’s domestic uranium reactors that make bombs – thus increasing India’s nuclear arsenal Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. or to obligate itself not to test such weapons. http://www. export supposedly intended for peaceful purposes has been diverted to bomb making. India now needs more uranium than it can produce.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths. Post India Deal India maintains their stance on issues key to stop proliferation Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. research assistant and Director. research assistant and Director.htm) Fact: Such exports will help India make bombs. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.wisconsinproject. it legitimizes it.S. Allowing India to fuel its power reactors with imported uranium will free India’s domestic production for reactors that make bombs. instead. it will be impossible to tell whether a U.wisconsinproject. It has also refused to stop making fissile material for such weapons. Nor has India joined Europe and the United States in condemning Iran’s enrichment of uranium. June 13.

To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.wisconsinproject. Thus. the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort. the inspections themselves will waste resources. http://www. In addition.htm) Fact: Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. The other eight reactors. which will be barred from inspection. research assistant and Director. where something may really be amiss. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors. the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 235 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: IAEA Inspections Solve Prolif The IAEA can’t inspect EIGHT reactors – this is where India will make their bombs Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making. . June 13. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India.

Arms Control Association.armscontrol. a voluntary safeguards agreement would be largely symbolic and is unlikely to yield meaningful nonproliferation benefits. http://www.) In addition. October 2005. it is not clear whether the IAEA would actually inspect all the civil nuclear facilities on the Indian eligible list or whether the IAEA would carry out inspections only if it has the funds available to do so. as is the case with the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states. The decision about which facilities to declare civilian rests with India. Voluntary safeguards agreements won’t control Indian nuclear development MCGoldrick and Bengelsdorf 5 (Fred and Harold both were career officials who held senior positions in the U.asp. Arms Control Association. if India sought the route of a voluntary safeguards agreement.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover. Thus. such as halting the production of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 236 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: Safeguards Safeguards don’t solve – Separating military and civilian facilities will not limit indian military nuclear development McGoldrick and Bengelsdorf 5 (Fred and Harold both were career officials who held senior positions in the U. Mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.S.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover. .asp. it is at least questionable whether this pledge to separate civil and military nuclear facilities is a major concession on the Indians’ part because it is unlikely to limit Indian production of fissile materials for military purposes. Mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency.armscontrol.S.) In any event. October 2005.

a nation in an advanced stage of “latent proliferation. use them. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. in desperation.”) Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 237 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation = Extinction Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction Taylor 1 (Former Nuclear Weapons Designer and Chariman of NOVA.” finding itself losing a nonnuclear war. For example.” Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. “… a nation in an advanced stage of ‘latent proliferation.’ finding itself losing a nonnuclear war. use them. such as the Middle East. either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. where major superpower interests are at stake. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war. might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and. If that should happen in a region. as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. . might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and. in desperation. “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The spread of nuclear weapons to any sizable number of countries will tend to give each a way of intimidating the rest of the world. warlord-caused famines. Such nuclear attacks on U. assets abroad suffering nuclear attacks. targets could take place more "rationally" in the wake of normal military and political conflicts.” Washington Quarterly.S. 1994) The Negative Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation If Americans ask themselves the elementary question of why they should be opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Second.S. Following such proliferation. The kinds of political forces that bombed the World Trade Center in New York. nuclear attacks on U. and thus of vetoing the outside world's objections to any of its more obnoxious activities: "ethnic cleansing. Americans also care about nuclear proliferation because foreign cities may get destroyed in future outbreaks of war. targets could also take place less "rationally" -.S. or attacked the entrance to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Virginia. or . The risks that such deterrence failures would involve nuclear use are increased as more countries get nuclear weapons. an obvious first answer might now be that such a spread of weapons of mass destruction could lead to U." brutal dictatorships.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 238 Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation Causes War Proliferation causes nuclear war Quester and Utgoff 94 (George and Victor. Further. Crises sometimes lead to "a war nobody wanted. Spring.if someone like Idi Amin or Mu'ammar Qadhafi were to take charge of a country that possesses nuclear weapons.S. nuclear weapons have always been important. might then use nuclear weapons. but also for the political intimidation imposed by the possibility of nuclear devastation. cities being destroyed and/or U. not just for the devastation they inflict." or to escalations that neither side can control.S. “No-First-Use and Nonproliferation: Redefining Extended Deterrence. military units or other U.

A "meltdown" (in which fissioning nuclear fuel overheats and melts.sized bombs.htm) Each 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor contains as much long lived radioactive material ("fall out") as would be produced by one thousand Hiroshima . depending upon the wind direction and population density.” http://www.net/Nuclear%20Energy%20Radiation%20Toxicology%20Human%2 0Chromosomes%20Helen%20Caldicott%20Circular%20Times.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 239 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad—Nuclear Accidents Bad This is the biggest impact in the debate—reactor meltdown is equivalent to the detonation a thousand nuclear weapons Calidicott 95 (Helen. and contaminating thousands of square miles . penetrating the steel and concrete structures that encase it) could release a reactor's radioactive contents into the atmosphere killing hundreds of thousands of people. PHD anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons proliferation.robertschoch.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 240
Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal
Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Pakistan War
India deal causes a new arms race

LaFranchi 8 (Howard, Christian Science Monitor, July 10, 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0710/p02s01-
usfp.html. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice)
Pakistan has cautioned the international nuclear watchdog against approving the India-
specific nuclear safeguards agreement on the controversial Indo-U.S. nuclear deal.
Pakistan -- a member of the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors -- in a letter to the
agency, warned that any deal allowing the nuclear watchdog to inspect India's nuclear
facilities could lead to a renewed nuclear arms race in the sub-continent. It has also
questioned the utmost hurry that the IAEA is showing in getting the approval for the
agreement.

Nuclear deal increases risk of indo-pak conflict and nuclear chain reaction

The Ottawa Sun 5 (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2005/07/22/1141851.html, 7-22)
But by far the biggest danger unleashed by the president's proposed nuclear deal with India
is Pakistan. Three times in 50 years India and Pakistan have gone to war. Pakistan is a
Muslim state with more than its share of extremists and jihadists. As recently as 1998, this
is how Pakistan, through its foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan, reacted to five nuclear
tests conducted by India. "The leadership seems to have gone berserk in India. And it is
drawing Pakistan into a head-long arms race." Back then, the U.S. wasn't in the business of
rewarding countries that refused to sign the non-proliferation pact of 1970. In fact, this is
what then Secretary of State William Cohen had to say in defending the American decision
to prohibit the sales of high-tech aircraft to Pakistan in 1990: "There will be a chain
reaction, and that's the potential of this a chain reaction of other countries following suit.
It's one of the reasons we have worked so hard to try to keep the nuclear genie as far into
the bottle as possible as far as other nations participating in developing nuclear weapons."
For those who try to take comfort from the fact that General Musharraf became America's
friend after 9/11, they should lean less confidently on the stereotypes of superficial western
news coverage of this very complex nation. The fact is that members of the former Taliban
came from madrassas or seminaries in Pakistan. And although the general has turned over
senior al-Qaida members to the U.S., he has not turned in a single senior Taliban
commander, even though many of them are living openly in Quetta. The leader of the
Afghan government, President Hamid Karzai, has exhibited public anger over the role
Pakistan has played in the resurgence of the Taliban in his country over the last six months.
So why is Pakistan continuing to tacitly support the Taliban and destabilize Afghanistan?
Fear of India. Before the war that toppled the Taliban, Pakistan kept other countries out of
Afghanistan. But after the war, all that changed. And one of the big players in the war-torn
country is none other than India. With an old foe pressing on her western borders, it was
bad enough for Pakistan. But given an India with an accelerated nuclear program and
sophisticated weapons supplied by the U.S., there is no telling where this cornered cat may
jump in a region that has been going "berserk" one way or another since 1947.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 241
Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal
Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Sino War

India deal causes US-Sino war, India-Pakistan conflict, and nuclear prolif

Topol 5 (Allan, author of bestseller Spy Dance; 2005. The India Gamble; http://www.allantopol.com/essay87.htm. Accessed on July 30,
2008//grice)
This is a new formulation of Europe’s balance of power in the nineteenth century. It may
on balance be the right course of action for the United States, but we should recognize that
President has taken a bold gamble fraught with three potential dangers. The first is that the
United States’ position discouraging nuclear proliferation has been weakened. The spread
of these weapons may be inevitable, but we are hastening it. Other countries will no doubt
expedite their own nuclear development. Second, we may be creating anxieties in Beijing
which will increase the risk of war with China—precisely the result we are hoping to
avoid. It was no coincidence that only four days before the deal with India was announced
a Chinese general threatened the use of nuclear weapons if the U.S. intervenes in any
conflict over Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu was speaking for the Chinese
government when he raised the specter of a Chinese response with nuclear weapons
against the United States. It’s unlikely that the timing was coincidental. Washington leaks
like a sieve. China no doubt had advance warning of the deal Bush was proposing to
Singh. Zhu’s words were a clumsy but dangerous effort to make Bush consider the deal.
The Chinese were wasting their time. This is politics Texas style. We have a president in
Washington who isn’t intimidated by threats. If they had any impact at all, Zhu’s words led
to strengthening of the deal for India. Third, the deal is causing widespread consternation
in Pakistan, which happens to be our most important ally in the Islamic world in the war
against terror. Pakistan also happens to be a bitter foe of India. We made a serious error in
Iraq by not appreciating the danger of animosity between Sunnis and Shiites. Let’s not
make a similar mistake by failing to recognize the deep seated hatred between India and
Pakistan. Again, religious differences are at the core. Hindu India against Muslim Pakistan.
There is no doubt that the Pakistanis will believe those Indian nuclear weapons will be
used against them. Likely fallout from the deal is to send Pakistan rushing off to China to
develop a nuclear arsenal on parity with India’s. The possibility is real that there will one
day be a nuclear collision between India and China with adverse affects throughout the
world.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 242
Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2)
India nuclear deal provides Taiwan justification to weaponize

Weisman 5 (Steven, writer . New York Times, July 19. Lexis)
The official said the United States would continue to press Iran and North Korea to give up
their suspected nuclear weapons programs on the grounds that they had signed various
agreements and then cheated on them, while India had an ''impeccable'' record of not
sharing its weapons technology with other countries. But several nuclear weapons experts
said in interviews Monday that the main effect of the India accord would be less on Iran,
North Korea or even Pakistan -- which has admitted to sharing its weapons technology
with others -- than on the many states that have signed up to the bargain implied by the
concept of ''atoms for peace.'' Among the countries that are widely known or thought to be
able to produce nuclear weapons, but which have not done so because of their desire to
comply with the terms of the nonproliferation treaty, are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The fear is that these countries, seeing the
deal offered India, might be tempted to get nuclear arms, especially if the crises over North
Korea and Iran spin out of control. ''If you open the door for India, a lot of other countries
are likely to step through it,'' said Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the Monterey
Center for Nonproliferation Studies. ''China is already thinking of selling additional
reactors to Pakistan.''

And, Taiwan prolif triggers Chinese invasion

IHT, 96 (International Herald Tribune; January 30, 1996. Lexis)
But disincentives for going nuclear are considerable. First, if China's threats are to be taken
seriously, a Taiwan bomb could provoke the very war it was intended to prevent. Beijing
has stated that acquisition of nuclear weapons by Taiwan is one of the conditions that
would prompt China to use force against it. This suggests that if Taiwan did acquire a
clandestine nuclear arsenal, it would not reveal the fact until war appeared imminent.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 243
Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2)
Extinction

Strait Times; June 25, 2000 (No one gains in war over Taiwan; lexis) (PDNSS2410)
The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war
between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would
better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on
such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and horror of horrors raise the
possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it
considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking
China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea,
Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east
Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers
elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may
seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may
be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan,
each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a
full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway,
commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War,
the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US
from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and
political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen
Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea truce or a broadened
war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear
weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little
hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The
US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major
American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese
military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first
use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the
military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided
by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military
leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked
dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that
come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in
such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem
inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything
else. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War
was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. "Just when
everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu, the Chinese
troops suddenly appeared," he recalled. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and
North Korea, and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the
Americans). "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not
do this or that," he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 244
Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal
Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Link Ext.
India deal leads to the nuclearization of Taiwan

Malik 6 (Mohan, Professor of Security Studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. China Brief, Volume 6, Issue 7
(March 29, 2006). http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=415&issue_id=3670&article_id=2370926)
As in the past, China’s attitude toward the nonproliferation regime will determine its
future. The Chinese might step up nuclear proliferation in India’s neighborhood (Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Iran, and perhaps Bangladesh and Burma) to countervail the U.S.-India ties.
Washington may as well forget about securing Beijing’s help to sanction Teheran if India is
to be cut loose with the proposed nuclear deal. Yet before the U.S.-India deal tempts the
hawkish PLA generals to undermine the nonproliferation regime, they should ponder
whether its collapse is in China’s security interests as it might end in the nuclearization of
Japan, Taiwan and even Vietnam.

In his article "Faulty Promises: The US. claiming that Washington should have based its partnership with New Delhi "on the intrinsic value of augmenting the political-economic development of democratic India's one billion people". Sept 8 The bold US. the world's most powerful democracy. Perkovich lauds the Bush administration for recognising India's global importance and moving to change rules of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. the most populous democracy. Furthermore." the article contends. and in Indian nuclear policy. he contended. India signed a strategic partnership with China. says a top US expert. New Delhi. George Perkovich. who authored "India's Nuclear Bomb". "Yet. India's capacity and willingness to cooperate with the US in balancing Chinese power are too uncertain to form the foundation of a strategic partnership. "Unfortunately.India nuclear deal proposed by President George W. Americans in the hawkish camp argue that there is a natural affinity between the US." said Perkovich. In April. It has similar relationships with Russia. They see India as an Asian counterweight to China.India Nuclear Deal ".Arizona Debate Institute 2008 245 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – China – A2: Deal = Containment India deal does not cause India to counterbalance china South China Morning Post 7-22-05 The US has also been sharply critical of China's military build-up. is also working to improve its relations with Beijing. the deal was developed so secretively and quickly that it contains major faults of its own. the prize- winning history of the Indian nuclear programme and US policy toward it. carried in CEIP's Policy Outlook web journal. and threats to use force to prevent Taiwanese independence. a process that embedded major faults in the agreement. and is unlikely to become part of any strategy overtly designed to contain China. however. Top Asia expert says India can't help us contain china Indo Asian News Service 9-8-05 Washington. and India. . in US policy toward India. Japan and the EU. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was signed too quickly and secretively. as does the Indian government's obsession with nuclear energy. a nuclear and South Asia expert at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). has released a report that claims the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal exposed important faults in the global non-proliferation regime. the administration's desire to mobilise India to balance Chinese military power in Asia distorts the strategy.

"The short answer is no.In July. signing a raft of agreements and pledging increased cooperation in the future." according to the transcript of a US State Department daily press briefing.Despite the progress. Taiwanese President Ma has approved the first weekend direct flights in almost 60 years. Associated Press. according to the Associated Press. August 1. Paul Wolfowitz."Speaking in Taipei on Wednesday. http://www." Liang said. High relations are short lived until Bush sells weapons to Taiwan after the Olympics Adams 8 (Jonathan.google.html) But other current and former US officials appeared to contradict Keating's remarks.com/article/ALeqM5i09Bxj5dPrHlRIkuBloQB9qu3sVQD929DGS00) "The Taiwan situation has undergone positive changes. said that he thought President Bush was committed to selling arms to Taiwan and would do so before he left office.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 246 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Brink China is preparing for war – Relations are not close enough to prevent military and political action Bodeen 8 (Christopher. Some analysts say Mr. .csmonitor. a State Department spokesman said. bringing about a watershed change in relations that were often severely strained under his predecessor.But The Wall Street Journal reported that the US could be delaying the sales until after the Olympic Games. former deputy defense secretary in the Bush administration and current chairman of the board of the US-Taiwan Business Council. Chen Shui-bian. The development of relations between the two sides faces a rare historical opportunity. Bush. Bush may only be delaying the sale until after he travels to China next month for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. http://ap. with China's 2. The spokesman continued: "Let me reiterate for you what our policy is.Beijing also fiercely opposes Taiwan's close ties with the United States. opened Taiwan to mainland Chinese tourists and relaxed investment restrictions. July 24.Since taking office in May. the sides remain far apart in the military and political spheres.3 million-member People's Liberation Army continuing a massive upgrade aimed in part at preparing for a conflict over Taiwan if the island seeks permanent independence. The Administration faithfully implements the Taiwan Relations Act.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts. CSM. Asked whether US policy on arms sales to Taiwan had changed. a former senior Asia official at the State Department under Mr. under which the United States makes available items necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient defense." said Randall Schriver. as well as its desire for diplomatic recognition and participation in the United Nations and other international bodies. the two sides restarted formal talks that were suspended in 1999. "The best chance [for the sales] is right after the Olympics.

V. the DAE plans to import large nuclear power plants and fuel. the Government of India must withdraw from the India-US nuclear deal and reject strategic partnership with the United States. actually experienced a concomitant increase in carbon emissions. Nuclear energy has failed in India and offers no solution for the future. The US. local. Princeton University. For comparison. it will merely trade radioactive externalities for carbon emissions. which have implications not just for our health but for generations to come for a long-long time. solar. http://www. India’s reduction of greenhouse gases would be negligible. .To escape its failures.The real energy challenge facing India is to meet the needs of the majority of Indians who still live in its villages. it would require the use of nuclear energy to increase by several orders of magnitude.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 247 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solvency India deal cannot solve energy security or warming concerns – several reasons Polyglot 8 (loves reading. in less than a decade and without state support.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.npec-web. wind energy now accounts for about 5% of India’s electricity capacity. Renewable energy resources are better suited to fulfill this need. Hates megalomaniacs.) An attendee asked Ramana about the extent to which increase use of nuclear energy in India could positively impact the environment. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. biomass and micro hydel energy resources.blogspot. May 10. you must ask: What are they assuming? In addition. Ramana answered that.For all these reasons. This pursuit of nuclear energy comes despite that fact that the cost of producing nuclear electricity in India is higher than non-nuclear alternatives and each reactor adds to the risk of a serious nuclear accident and worsens the problem of radioactive nuclear waste. Firstly. http://sufyanism. for Indian nuclear energy to make a dent in global warming. After 60 years of public funding..pdf.It is misleading to believe that nuclear energy is a solution to global warming. S/he suggested that even if India increases the use of nuclear energy. Russia and Japan hope to profit from this. Program on Science and Global Security. India must reverse its priorities and invest more in wind.html) The nuclear deal assumes that nuclear energy is an economic and safe way for producing electricity for India. India needs an energy policy that works with the rural poor to develop and provide the small-scale. nuclear energy cannot replace carbon emitting technologies realistically to any significant extent. Secondly. The deal is not a drastic enough change to curb India’s carbon emissions Ramana 6 (M. France. sustainable and affordable energy systems that they need. Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) produces less than 3% of India’s electricity. after it substantially increased its use of nuclear energy. writing and learning languages. When someone talks up the ways in which nuclear energy can decrease greenhouses gases. Ramana noted how Japan.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-environment and anti-people. The DAE’s budget is ten times more than the budget for development of renewable energy technologies.org/Presentations/20060512-Ramana-Transcript-Q-and-A-2.

India and other developing country economies may be highly vulnerable to climate change. Unsustainable consumption patterns of the rich industrialised nations in the world are responsible for it. An analysis of India’s emissions show that its per capita emission of carbon is one fourth of the global average. a venture funded startup that will revolutionize how people buy cars. for every 10 cars that go on the road. India and many developing countries have carried out price reforms and removed subsidies. which target improved environmental quality and limit human health hazards from air pollution. Whereas in the US. * China adds 50-100 gigawatts of plant capacity every year. and other similar types of developing countries. India’s food production would be adversely affected. 9 are scrapped and taken off the road. * Although India is critical. http://www. The impacts of climate change could hinder development and delay progress in eradicating poverty. India. It has installed 2300 MW of generating capacity based on various renewables. http://www. & Kirit Senior Professor and Professor Emeritus respectively. Sea level rise would displace a large number of people.oecd. China is 3X less energy efficient as India. * Beijing alone adds 600 cars/day.org/dataoecd/22/16/1934784.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 248 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (1/2) Even if India is critical.com/?p=31) * China & India will have to be key components of the solution as they are (and will be) a significant part of the problem. China has to have the main focus. Even the top 10% of urban population emits well below the global average per capita emission. These have resulted in substantial energy savings and reduction in emissions through greater use efficiency and fuel substitution.pdf) India and other developing countries feel strongly that they are not responsible for the threat of climate change that has been created. Yet. both conventional and renewable. India’s energy intensity in industry and transport sector has come down. as well as energy development. Indian emissions are down and not important globally Parikh and Parikh 2 (Jyoti K. 2002. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. The developing countries are particularly vulnerable to the likely increase in the incidence of extreme events. And almost none are scrapped. Deforestation is arrested and the vast potential of afforestation on wasteland is increasingly utilised. potentially aggravating social and environmental conditions in these countries.  . May 27. China is 3 times more of a problem for warming Barbaros 7 (Raif. UC Berkley Energy Symposium. founder & president of Carsala.raif. are making significant progress in limiting GHG emissions through normal policy developments such as those aiming to improve energy and economic efficiency of the energy and industrial production capacity.

Instead.2 tons annually.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 249 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (2/2) India contributes only a small fraction of carbon emissions compared to the developed world Sengupta 8 (Somini. arguing that it has neither been a significant polluter nor yet able to spread modern energy to millions of its poor. India will remain below the industrializes countries Sengupta 8 (Somini.the average American produces 16 times the emissions of the average Indian . the deputy chairman of India's Planning Commission.com/cgibin/article. though its per capita footprint remains as low as anywhere in the developing world: 1. March 9.sfgate. "It's logical to talk about burden-sharing in terms of per capita emissions entitlements. In turn. The main point is that we must first agree on a principle that is felt to be fair.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/09/MND6VC4HO."India points out that it contributes only 4. compared with 20 tons in the United States and the world average of 4 tons." Montek Singh Ahluwalia. March 9. it has pledged to ensure that its per capita emissions never exceed those of the developed world.com/cgibin/article. . forecast in November that India's energy demand would more than double by 2030.and in turn empowers the central Indian argument for its right to consume more. Nearly 700. per capita emissions will double. not less."It's not logical to talk of emissions cuts without reference to per capita emission levels. Even with rapid increase of emissions. or some other principle. NYT. China and Russia.sfgate. after the United States. if policies remain unchanged.DTL) India's total emissions are the fourth-largest in the world. The International Energy Agency. NYT. said. India's per capita carbon footprint remains a small fraction of that of the industrialized world . http://www. it said. and many more people suffer hours without power. energy in the future. http://www. but will remain well below the level of industrialized countries today.DTL) Almost half of India's population has no access to the electricity grid.India has consistently bucked pressures to set targets for reducing emissions.6 percent of the world's greenhouse gases although its people represent 17 percent of the world's population.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/09/MND6VC4HO. As a result.000 Indians rely on animal waste and firewood as fuel for cooking. a policy and research group in Paris.

poor air quality. Institute of Transportation Studies.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-REP-01-13/) Greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries are increasing most rapidly in the transportation sector. and projected income growth over the next two decades suggests that many more will acquire personal modes of transportation.D. leadership. UC Davis. and other modes of transportation and could play a key role in reducing emission increases. It finds:•Greenhouse gas emissions quadruple in the high-GHG. Ph. improving air quality. but the longer authorities wait to address transportation inefficiencies. India. and social conditions. How this will affect the earth's climate is a great concern.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 250 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solve: Transportation Transportation. Centre for Urban Systems and Infrastructure & Daniel. . but also significantly improve local environmental. and insufficient coordination among the responsible government institutions. and lowering transport and energy costs. There are policy and technology choices that could significantly lower the emissions growth rate while increasing mobility. not electricity. vision. reflected by the increasing numbers of inexpensive but highly polluting scooters and motorcycles. reducing traffic congestion. buses. increasing congestion. Senior Fellow. but only double in the low scenario.•Transportation policies are readily available that will not only slow emissions growth. poor safety conditions. scenario.•Improved technology would maximize the efficiency of automobiles. May 1.This report creates two scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions from Delhi's transportation sector in 2020. The issues facing Delhi represent opportunities for improvement. Travelers in Delhi desire transportation services. and political will must be brought to bear. http://repositories. To realize these benefits. is key Bose & Sterling 1 (Ranjan.•The time to act is now. economic. Even people with low incomes are meeting their need for mobility. transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions are expected to soar. the more difficult and expensive it will be to produce a positive outcome.In Delhi. or business-as-usual.cdlib. Delhi has high vehicle ownership rates for the city's income level.•Keeping many travel mode options available – including minicars and new efficient scooters and motorcycles – will help individuals at various income levels meet their mobility needs.

Dubious Future. A good example is Japan. who observes that nuclear technology is an expensive source of energy and can be economically viable only in a society that relies on increasing levels of energy use.000 MW. indirectly adds to the problem of global warming. which only constitutes a fraction of all sources of carbon emissions. As Japanese nuclear chemist and winner of the 1997 Right Livelihood Award. Jinzaburo Takagi showed. and thus. This situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. . V. There are two reasons why increased use of nuclear power does not necessarily lower carbon emissions. such as transportation. Nuclear power tends to require and promote a supply oriented energy policy. it would have adopted very different strategies. A second and more fundamental reason is provided by John Byrnes of the University of Delaware’s Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy.” The second is that the adoption of nuclear power makes sense as a strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions. In other words. Also.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 251 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (1/2) Nuclear tech is not enough of an economically viable option for the key developing nations contributing to mass emissions. Other sectors of the economy where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted.. carbon dioxide emissions went up from about 400 million tonnes to about 1200 million tonnes. nuclear energy is best suited only to produce baseload electricity. nuclear technology does not reduce carbon emissions – Japan proves Ramana 5 (M. in fact. a strongly pro-nuclear energy country. increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan’s emission levels. First. from 1965 to 1995 Japan’s nuclear plant capacity went from zero to over 40. If indeed Japan was sincere about doing that. then. cannot be operated using electricity from nuclear reactors. The massive expansion of nuclear energy. During the same period. “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past. and an energy intensive pattern of development. was not motivated by a desire to reduce emissions.

000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide.php?context=va&aid=680) The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years a physical and scientific impossibility. April 20. but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated. This nuclear waste must then be guarded. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere. which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90. But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Baltimore Sun. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation. taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. She lives near Sydney. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world. is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger.000 to 20. high level waste waste that is intensely radioactive has been generated by nuclear power thus far.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 252 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (2/2) Nuclear power causes global warming and radioactive waste at development and storage stages.globalresearch. Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle to mine. . Fully 95 percent of U. Australia. George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). a pediatrican. cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time. president.ca/index.S. net environmental impact negative Caldicott 4 (Helen. Nuclear Policy Research Institute. CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle.http://www. which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon. Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. Helen Caldicott. inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer. green nor safe. mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers. genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean.

military force is too blunt of an instrument and ineffective at ending terrorist groups. the report suggests. like crime. International Herald Tribune. News & World Report. surviving longer than most groups. "All terrorist groups end.S.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-war- on-terrorism-is-off-target.While the report's analysis of the history of counterterrorism operations finds that all terror groups eventually fizzle out.S. a major American military role sets the stage for a backlash. Religiously motivated groups like al Qaeda have been particularly tenacious. a well-known Rand expert on Afghanistan who is also an adjunct political science professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.S.usnews.html) "In most cases. they point out. August 1. 11. "The U." Jones and Libicki wrote. never ends."The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent. They were. however. http://www. writes about national and homeland security for U. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries. it was less optimistic on the prospects for a speedy endgame."The most salient fact about religious terrorist groups is how hard they are to eliminate."What's needed. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 2001. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world. far less successful in achieving their goals." says Jones. is a "fundamental rethinking of U." the study says.S. News & World Report." says Seth Jones.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-war- on-terrorism-is-off-target.usnews. August 1. especially in a world of US hard power Kingsbury 8 (Alex. but terrorism. Terrorism inevitable.html) Since 2001.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 253 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism WoT failing Kingsbury 8 (Alex.For one thing. http://www. writes about national and homeland security for U. International Herald Tribune. coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda." Jones says. al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment. .

There is no benefit to U.asp?page=story_3-8-2005_pg3_2) Will the effort bear fruit? Burns has categorically ruled out the possibility of a similar concession to Pakistan. Without the aid of General Musharraf. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. First. .dailytimes. the US will need Pakistan’s support for quite some time in the war against terrorism. Daily Times.htm) Fact: The deal undermines America’s ability to fight terrorism. the United States will have a much harder time accomplishing its goals in Afghanistan and succeeding in its efforts to defeat al Qaeda.asp?page=story_3-8-2005_pg3_2) Pakistan has its own reasons for being upset with the agreement. This interpretation derives from the statement in the agreement according to which India would “assume the same responsibilities and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology” which could only refer to nuclear weapons states.S. At best. The present situation may not be much different from that which obtained following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan when the US decided to ignore Pakistan’s nuclear programme.com.dailytimes.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths. Pakistan key to war on terror Hussain 5 (Ljaz.pk/default. http://www. the agreement implicitly recognises India as a nuclear weapons state. in the words of Condoleezza Rice. This development is quite worrying for Pakistan because out of the three non-parties to the NPT (India. For one thing. August 2. June 13. August 2. security coming from India under the deal that will offset these disadvantages. By favoring India over Pakistan. http://www. the deal undercuts the Pakistani government's position at home. “a central position in the US foreign policy”. the deal is a blow to General Musharraf’s prestige. the American protestation to the contrary notwithstanding. former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. http://www.pk/default. it does not make sense to expect that Pakistan will be treated at par with India. However. Given that this agreement and the 10-year US-India defence pact signed earlier are meant to project India as a counterweight to China. and at worst a public humiliation. it is now the only one denied some sort of recognition as a nuclear weapons state. former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. Israel and Pakistan). This gives Pakistan an important card to wangle concessions from the US in the nuclear field.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 254 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism – Pakistan Relations Deal will sever US-Pakistani relations Hussain 5 (Ljaz.wisconsinproject. The nuke deal undercuts Pakistan’s position in the region that critical to fight terrorism Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. Daily Times. one needs to keep in mind that at present Pakistan has. in its view.com. research assistant and Director.

http://www. Germany.org/publications/index. In effect. thereby undermining the global support needed for tougher nonproliferation rules both now and in the future.cfm?fa=view&id=16789&proj=znpp. The Bush administration threatens to compound the negative impact of its opposition to the pipeline by supplying India with new nuclear reactors as an alternative .zsa) Moreover.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 255 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Iranian Proliferation Deal speeds Iranian prolif and loosens resistance worldwide to resisting nuclear materials trade Perkovich 5 (4-18. Japan and other countries that the United States has pressured not to sell nuclear technology to countries like India that don't accept international safeguards. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. To wean Iran from its nuclear program.a proposal that would go against existing domestic laws and international nuclear nonproliferation guidelines. .carnegieendowment. the administration would be trying to block Iran's nuclear ambitions by rewarding India's. Such a unilateral and mercantile move would incense Canada. Washington must convince Iranians that the United States supports their peaceful economic development. We can't argue that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas and then block Iran's investments in its gas industry. Washington can't have it both ways. George . including its pursuit of uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to produce weapons.

http://www. http://www. Accessed on July 29. . 2008//grice) India experts see the deal as a legacy issue for Singh. Merinews.I1NwP) The President argued that the India nuclear deal will strengthen the security and the economies of both nations.com/s/huffpost/20060303/cm_huffpost/016718. He is wrong. Markey 6.merinews. Relations will remain strong even without the deal. both already are major markets for one another's goods and services. recent progress insures relations will survive LaFranchi 8 (Howard. but improvements in US-India relations in recent years mean "our partnership … is strong enough to survive if the deal falters. July 10. who faces rough parliamentary elections next year. Thus.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 256 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (1/2) Even if the deal fails. to base the entire paraphernalia of relations with United States seems to put bilateral ties on hollow terms. "Legacy" is also a word that arises with respect to Bush.com/catFull. 2008. the bilateral ties have been marked by ‘closer engagement’.html. Failure to approve the deal this year would be a "serious setback. Representative & Senator of Massachusetts." he says. July 10. Both countries are democracies.csmonitor. a South Asia expert who served under three administrations and is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.com/2008/0710/p02s01- usfp." says Bruce Riedel. "This deal offers a unique chance to set the direction of US-India relations on a productive path for the next administrations in Washington and New Delhi. http://news. India already has a strong geopolitical basis for developing close bilateral ties with the United States. and both share common security interests. who came into office with a foreign policy team set on finding ways of countering China's rise._ylt=A86. Christian Science Monitor. Accessed on July 29. This growing warmth will not be reversed even if the deal is not enforced.jsp?articleID=137377. With the rise of multi-lateralism as a force in world politics." India deal only superficially increases ties Mirza 8 (Amna.yahoo. 2008//grice) The other issue of strengthening the Indo-US ties via the deal seems superficial. We do not need to grant India special exemptions from nuclear nonproliferation rules in order to have a strong security relationship with India and assist India in further developing and expanding its economy. [Ed.

harolddoan. Henry 1. Stimson Center. The United States has long been ready to increase trade and investment in India. So why has the administration proposed to weaken these rules? Does it honestly believe that foreign nuclear suppliers will agree only to make an exception for India. In other words. 7 2005. accommodation of the Indian government's preoccupation with nuclear power will not buy lasting Indian partnership.com/archives/200509!Pl_mk. The Bush administration has also relaxed restrictions on space cooperation and is working more closely than ever with New Delhi on regional security problems. 2005. http://www.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 257 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (2/2) Relations high.India nuclear deal not key Krepon 5 [Michael. including the offer of advanced combat aircraft and their co-production in India. September.satribune.com/modules.htm] President Bush has greatly increased military cooperation with New Delhi. . significantly improved ties are being forged without having to relax existing rules to prevent proliferation. http://www. and not for other nations? Nuclear deal won't buy lasting partnership Perkovich 5 [George. U. The United Statesshould base its partnership on the intrinsic value of augmentingthe political-economic development of democratic India's one billion people.S. vice-president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. php ? name=News&file=article&sid=5682] India's capacity and willingness to cooperate with the United States inbalancingChinesepowerare too uncertain to form the foundation of a strategic partnership.

Economic and geopolitical changes have helped lure the United States and India closer together.S. India Relations are resilient. we should be together in fighting all common causes. but I don’t think the kind relation that we have today between the United States and India is something that can be derailed by anyone. the world’s most powerful democracy is now working closely with the world’s largest. There may be areas where there differences. News Hour with Jim Lehrer August 29th] George Fernandes: Our relations with the United States is based on mutual trust and transparency. 2002. and naturally. there could be disputes on trade-related matters. there could be differences in some basic issues. . There are bound t o be hiccups in relationships.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 258 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – Resilient U. It’s a relationship with even more potential for growth as both sides learn to trust one another. On… there could be differences nuances. India’s Defense Minister and Special Correspndent. Simon Marks: After decades of talking past one another. Fernandes and Marks 2 [George and Simon.

a trade route to central Asia and a rear area for its army in any new conflict with India. now the president of the Middle East Institute. the U.. Pakistan. ational security and intelligence corresponden. Pakistan is alarmed by India's close ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and its growing influence in Afghanistan." said former U. "Pakistan over the last several years has increasingly come to believe that it is being encircled by India and a U.S.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 259 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (1/2) Increasing US-India relations because of have a zero-sum trade off with US-Pakistan relations critical to fighting WOT Landay 8 (Jonathan S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation pact that won United Nations approval Friday.html) Pakistani generals and other leaders are also infuriated by President Bush's pursuit of a strategic relationship with India. as embodied by a U. their foe in three wars. Pakistan's military leaders may have decided to scale back their cooperation with the Bush administration's war against terrorism and boost support for the Taliban and other militant groups. http://www. . an expert with the RAND Corp. For these reasons. officials and experts said." said Seth Jones.. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain.-India-Afghan axis.S.S.com/100/story/46178. has long coveted Afghanistan as a market.S. a policy institute. McClatchy Newspapers. "One thing we never understood is that India has always been the major threat for Pakistan. where a $750 million Indian aid program includes the construction of a strategic highway that will open the landlocked country to Indian goods shipped through ports in Iran.mcclatchydc. August 1. which refuses to allow Indian products through its port of Karachi.

``We have a joint responsibility to fight this menace. Bangladesh.'' . ``We must fight jointly against this scourge. India and Pakistan pledge to work together against terrorism Ondaatjie & Thomas 8 (Anusha and Cherian.''Widest MeasuresThe agreement will call on members to give each other ``the widest possible measure'' of legal assistance in fighting terrorism in South Asia.com/apps/ news?pid=20601087&sid=aby30JQv. Aug 2. Bhutan. we need to fight this menace individually and collectively. http://www. Bloomberg News.'' Singh said in his speech at the annual South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation's summit in Colombo. according to the World Bank.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 260 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (2/2) Even when relations are low.''Singh and Gilani met for the first time today as fighting in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir has flared and amid claims Pakistani intelligence agents supported a deadly bombing of India's embassy in Kabul last month. and in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers have been fighting for an independent homeland for 25 years. poverty and food security.``We cannot afford to lose the battle against the ideology of hatred. ``Pakistan condemns the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul though Pakistan has suffered terrorism the most.'' said Zafar Nawaz Jaspal. Nepal.``The relations between India and Pakistan are tense so nobody was expecting a very positive outcome of the meeting. home to the most people affected by conflicts. hampering efforts to eradicate poverty and spur economic growth.Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistan counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani joined leaders from Afghanistan.bloomberg.2T0&refer=home) India and Pakistan pledged to unite in the fight against . fanaticism and against all those who seek to destroy our societal fabric. seeking to defuse tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors that overshadowed a regional summit on tackling terrorism.'' Gilani said in his speech. assistant professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Sri Lanka and the Maldives saying terrorism remained the biggest threat to progress in the region. Bombings take a toll in the region with al-Qaeda active in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Leaders from the eight nations are scheduled to sign an accord tomorrow to classify terrorism as a crime for the first time. ``Both sides realize they cannot afford to derail the peace process and waste the efforts of past so many years.

But. proneness to accidents. uses oil mainly for transportation and manufacturing—sectors where nuclear energy is not yet applicable. Ramana answered that the deal has little do with oil. Program on Science and Global Security. the nuclear deal will do little to promote India's energy security.B.pdf.org/Presentations/20060512-Ramana-Transcript-Q-and-A-2. http://www.” Nuclear tech is not viable for India – too many development problems Bidwai 7 (Praful-Member of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP). an ambitious and unrealistic target that doubles India’s previous estimates made before the announcement of the deal. However.php?story_id=3533) Sponsors of the deal argue that. Graham received a LL. .. with India’s energy needs expected to double in the next two decades. India produces less than 1/10th of that amount in nuclear reactors. Transnational Institute.tni. http://www. from Princeton in 1955.foreignpolicy. from Harvard University in 1961 and an A. That can hardly be a source of energy security! Transportation drives oil consumption – the nuclear electricity cannot curb Ramana 6 (M. would have little or no impact on world oil markets. Congress. For instance.) An attendee asked whether the US-India nuclear cooperation deal has anything to do with oil—that is. routine radioactivity releases and exposure. May 10. nuclear power will only account for 12. President George W. The Indian economy.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 261 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Oil Prices The deal would have little to no affect on global oil prices Graham 6 (July. . from the current level of 3 percent.npec-web. V. high-level wastes that remain radioactive for centuries. India was projected to generate 43. And it’s not as though India’s thirst for oil will be supplanted by nuclear energy. India's nuclear power plans have always been marked by utopian and constantly missed targets. Bush has declared that the deal will “help the American consumer” by reducing Indian oil consumption and keeping prices down. and above all. with nuclear electricity.phtml?act_id=17161) Finally. even if the deal passes in the U. 31 July http://www.com/story/cms. the contribution of atomic energy to total electricity generation will rise by 2030 to 6 percent. Hype that the agreement could help restrain oil prices is just that—hype.org/detail_page. even if India's romantic plans fructify. which is driven by the transport and certain industrial sectors. It will be hard to substitute India’s current level of oil consumption. nuclear power is a dubious route to security because it is fraught with grave problems of operational safety. to what extent can nuclear-generated electricity actually substitute and actually displace oil usage in India. Today. U. nuclear energy will help replace the country’s voracious appetite for oil and coal and feed the country’s growing electrical grid.500 megawatts of nuclear electricity by 2000.S.5 percent of India’s electrical production by 2030. . but a March Congressional Research Service report on the energy implications of the deal concluded that “the reduction in India’s oil consumption . To start with.S. Thomas.B. like the United States. Princeton University.

S.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 262 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Nuke Industry The US is unlikely to receive reactor orders from India Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary. The same is likely to happen with India. Russia already has a foothold in India's reactor market. sellers. the U. China bought exactly no American reactors. At the time when U. After the deal was signed.htm) Fact: It is unlikely that the United States will receive reactor orders from India. Instead. nuclear cooperation with China was being debated. June 13. research assistant and Director. http://www. . The chance that the United States will defeat these competitors is slim. experience with China in the 1980's. and will charge less money and attach fewer conditions than will U.S. That was good for China. and there are easier places to buy imported reactors. American vendors were citing the large number of reactors that China would probably buy from the United States.wisconsinproject. agreement increased the competition and drove down the price for the Chinese buyers.S.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. India is building a string of domestic reactors that are cheaper to construct than American imports would be. The precedent is the U.S. but did nothing for the United States. France and Canada will also enter the competition.

These policies include the creation of Special Economic Zones and other such measures that come at the cost of the poor.economywatch. India should follow policies that will promote a just and equitable social and economic development aimed at meeting the needs of India’s poor and disadvantaged.” The US sees India as an increasingly important source of cheap labour and high profits for its corporations. is an unjust exploitation of the impoversihed Polyglot 8 (loves reading. Indian economy has been predicted to grow at a level of 6. These policies have been followed for almost twenty years and have failed. averaging 5. in comparison to many East Asian economies. In fact. However. In 2006. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. the Indian growth experience lags behind.com/ indianeconomy/india-and-global-economy.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation. The neo-liberal economics effect of the India nuclear deal. http://sufyanism. Growth in the Indian economy has steadily increased since 1979. and create in India an enhanced “investment climate” so that “opportunities for investment will increase.Privileging business interests means pursuing neo-liberal economic policies which favour the interests of Indian and US corporations. The tenth five year plan aims at achieving a growth rate of 8% for the coming 2-3 years.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-poor. Hates megalomaniacs.9 %.8% since 1994 ( the period when India's external crisis was brought under control).html) The US –India nuclear deal was first announced as part of a larger package of agreements that included a commitment to “deepen the bilateral economic relationship” between the US and India. the Indian economy has posted an excellent average GDP growth of 6. which favors the interests of American corporations.html) A growth rate of above 8% was achieved by the Indian economy during the year 2003-04 and in the advanced estimates for 2004-05.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 263 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ India’s economy isn’t even important in Asia Economy Watch no date (Indian Economy Overview. having growth rates above 7%.blogspot.7% per year in the 23-year growth record. . http://www. writing and learning languages. Some grassroots movements are fighting to prevent the corporate take over of ground water resources of Indian people by Pepsi- Coca Cola and they’re prepared to oppose the entry of Wal-Mart into India. India was ranked at number 126 among 177 nations according to the United Nations Human Development Index.

Instead of allowing such frightening prospects manifest themselves as reality. Inadequately performing economies in South Asia also create the risk of India and Pakistan externalising the resentments of their people.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 264 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ – Growth Bad India’s economic growth increases the chances of conflict-Military spending and nationalism Gulf News`3 (Gulf News.. 2003) India's relative economic health could encourage anti-Pakistan hardliners in New Delhi to try and "spend Pakistan into the ground" .C. ASIA. which is further aggravating ties with Pakistan. HUSAIN HAQQANI The writer is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Endow-ment for International Peace in Washington D. GLOOMY OUTLOOK FOR S. . India is already turning increasingly towards Hindu nationalism. He served as ambassador to Sri Lanka and as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. March 29.a calculated policy of increasing the cost of military competition to the point where Pakistan's economy collapses completely. both need to start looking at ways to minimise the unsettling effects of the global economic turndown on South Asia's precarious political and social balance.

htm) A former senior US diplomat says the India-US relationship is on an upward trajectory but the next president must translate into concerted action all the talk about India and US being 'natural allies' and 'strategic partners' to better meet the challenges they share. he should translate into concerted action all the talk in recent years about the world's oldest and largest democracies being 'natural allies' and 'strategic partners'. 'The next president will inherit a relationship that is on an upward trajectory. external affairs minister in India's Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.' Talbott added. July 8. The most dramatic American presidential election in many decades contains good news for US- Indian relations. former president Bill Clinton's special envoy for the US-Indian dialogue of 1998-2000. http://news. as deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration. 'But to better meet the challenges both countries share.' said the official who. .smashits. says Strobe Talbott.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 265 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations—Up India-US relations are rise with hope of closer ties after Bush leaves office Smash Hit News 8 (honestly. conducted the dialogue with Jaswant Singh.com/269972/India- US-relations-on-upward-trajectory-Strobe-Talbott. not really qualled.

The deal is of profound importance since it allows for India to import nuclear fuel.The US Congress took a year and half to discuss and approve the new US policy and change existing US laws to enable nuclear commerce with India. India’s parliament will not be allowed a vote on it. But while this agreement will have to be approved by the US Congress. These rules were created because India secretly used nuclear materials and technology that it acquired for peaceful purposes to make a nuclear weapon.html) In July 2005. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that for almost three decades have sought to prevent states from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions. Subsequently. Hates megalomaniacs. the government simply told parliament that it had made a deal with the United States.blogspot. and will enable India to expand both its nuclear weapons and nuclear energy programme. reactors and other technologies.People of India have been denied the right to debate the nuclear deal and the larger changes in foreign policy and other issues that it involves. http://sufyanism. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. and to express their opinion through their elected representatives. In India. The nuclear agreement should not be accepted under these circumstances. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation. . the US and India have negotiated a ‘123 agreement.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 266 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Democracy The India deal undermines democracy Polyglot 8 (loves reading.It is anti-democratic. writing and learning languages.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.’ a treaty that will cover nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

writing and learning languages. and upset the India-Pakistan peace process. The US in particular is opposed to an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could improve political and economic relations among these three countries and provide relatively cheap and clean energy to India. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. http://sufyanism.We believe that India should not compromise its national sovereignty or its long standing tradition of an independent non-aligned foreign policy. for example putting pressure on Iran. . instead of helping improve relations. which the US considers to be a rogue state.Arizona Debate Institute 2008 267 Russell’s Lab Politics – India Deal Nuke Deal Bad – Regional Instability An Indo-US nuke deal causes several scenarios of conflict including arms races in the region – It is anti-peace Polyglot 8 (loves reading. The deal with the US also threatens India’s relations with Iran.html) The United States sees the nuclear deal with India as part of a process of building a strategic relationship between the two countries. Hates megalomaniacs.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal. It will also create serious tensions between India and China. The India-US strategic partnership and the nuclear deal in particular will escalate the nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-peace. The US seeks to use India as a client state in its new confrontation with a rising China and to achieve other strategic goals.