You are on page 1of 60

ADI 08 Frappier Lab

Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 1 of 60

Free Trade Disadvantage

Free Trade Disadvantage..................................................................................................................1
Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (1/4).............................................................................3
Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (2/4).............................................................................4
Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (3/4).............................................................................5
Multiatleral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (4/4).............................................................................6
Uniqueness – Trade Blocs Now.......................................................................................................7
Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha..................................................................................................8
Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha..................................................................................................9
Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha................................................................................................10
Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha................................................................................................11
Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Multilateralism................................................................................12
Link – Cotton Subsidies – US-Sino Relations...............................................................................13
Link – AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms – Doha Revival...................................................................14
Link – AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms – Doha Revival...................................................................15
Internal Link – RTA Tradeoff.........................................................................................................16
Internal Link – RTA Tradeoff.........................................................................................................17
Impact – AT: Doha Good – Free Trade..........................................................................................18
Impact – AT: RTA Bad...................................................................................................................19
Impact – Hegemony.......................................................................................................................20
Impact – FARC .............................................................................................................................21
Impact – FARC – Colombia Link ................................................................................................22
Impact – FARC – Terrorism EXTN...............................................................................................23
Impact – FARC – Human Rights...................................................................................................24
Impact – Asia.................................................................................................................................25
Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN....................................................................................................26
Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN....................................................................................................27
Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN....................................................................................................28
Impact – FTAA – Economy...........................................................................................................29
Impact – FTAA – Economy EXTN................................................................................................30
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict...............................................................................................31
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict...............................................................................................33
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict...............................................................................................34
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming.................................................................................35
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming.................................................................................36
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming Impact EXTN.........................................................37
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming Impact EXTN.........................................................39
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment.......................................................................................40
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN...........................................................................42
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN...........................................................................43
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN...........................................................................44
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Famine................................................................................................45
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 2 of 60
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Famine EXTN....................................................................................46
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Development......................................................................................47
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Gender Oppression.............................................................................48
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Poverty...............................................................................................49
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Poverty EXTN....................................................................................50
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Terrorism............................................................................................51
Impact – Free Trade Bad – Terrorism EXTN................................................................................52
Aff Answers – Link Turn...............................................................................................................53
Aff Answers – Link Turn...............................................................................................................54
Aff Answers – Multilat Inevitable.................................................................................................55
Aff Answers – Multilateralism Solves FTAA................................................................................56
Aff Answers – Doha Good – Free Trade.......................................................................................57
Aff Answers – Doha Good – Brazil...............................................................................................58
Aff Answers – Doha Good – GCC................................................................................................59
Aff Answers – Doha Good – Burkina Faso...................................................................................60
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 3 of 60

Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (1/4)

A. Uniqueness – Doha collapse has resulted into a shift to regional trade blocs
The National (UAE), 7/30/2008
(Now it’s down to every nation to do its own deals, July 30th,

Last Updated: July 30. 2008 8:48PM UAE / GMT The World Trade Organisation’s Doha
round of talks, which aimed to limit international restrictions on trade and help the
developing world, has ground to a halt in a flurry of finger-pointing between the world’s
trade ministers. The main sticking point was the inability of the United States and India to
compromise on a rule that would allow developing countries to protect their agriculture in
the face of floods of cheap imports. The political fallout stands in stark contrast to the
reaction from the world’s financial markets, which have hardly flinched at the
collapse of the negotiations.
The trouble with the talks is that they have been dragging on for nearly seven years.
In that time, the world’s economy has moved on. Disillusioned by the perpetual
negotiations, the world’s trade ministries set about making bilateral agreements with
other countries. The resulting “spaghetti bowl” series of trade links now threaten to
overshadow any multilateral equivalent. Facing the prospect of attempting to resurrect
the plan, which could take years, the 153-member WTO is in danger of losing its
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 4 of 60

Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (2/4)

B. Link – US subsidy cuts revive multilateral trade commitments
Daniella Markheim July 25 2006 (Senior Analyst in Trade Policy at The Heritage Foundation, “Commit to Farm
Subsidy Reform to Revitalize WTO’s Doha Round”,

This week, the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations collapsed into a race by World
Trade Organization (WTO) members to lay the blame for the failure of the talks on each
other rather than admit that all are at fault for failing to bring the world the benefits of freer trade. Once the dust has settled and WTO members focus on the
global cost of failure, policymakers may be ready to engage in meaningful liberalization, not just free-trade rhetoric. In this setting, President Bush has a unique
The Administration should commit to reducing and
opportunity to establish principled leadership on trade.
reforming America’s farm support programs, giving the Doha Round a chance to
conclude successfully. Doha Crumbles Doha’s negotiating agenda includes some of the member countries’
most politically sensitive and difficult trade issues. To reach an agreement, the U.S. and the European
Union needed to make meaningful offers to cut agricultural protection and developing countries, including India
and Brazil, needed to offer significant reductions in barriers to trade in manufactures and services. Ultimately, no country has stepped forward with an offer
sufficient to bring the round to a successful conclusion. The U.S. proposal circulated in 2005 remains the strongest plan for opening markets across all sectors.
However, it went too far in agriculture for Europeans and too far in services and manufacturing for many other countries. For these countries to even consider
they need to see the U.S. accept serious, politically difficult cuts, namely in
the U.S. plan,
domestic support programs for agriculture. Much like the EU, the U.S. is constrained on what agriculture concessions it can
offer. While U.S. agricultural subsidies differ in both size and scope from the EU Common Agriculture Policy, they are equally protected by well-funded,
solidly entrenched protectionist interests. Real and significant cuts in U.S. domestic programs, as called for by other WTO members, would be extremely
difficult to push through Congress, especially without extensive commitments by other countries in services and manufacturing market access. As such, any
compromise proposal, falling roughly between the relatively strong U.S. and relatively weak EU positions, would be too meager by U.S. standards. As a
consequence of members passing responsibility for putting forward a bold compromise proposal, negotiations bogged down on
agriculture and finally collapsed. No one country is to blame. All share the responsibility of losing sight of the fundamental reason
why trade liberalization is so beneficial. And all share the responsibility for failing to cooperate and promote global prosperity. Moreover, all countries will pay
an economic price if negotiations cannot be resuscitated. The Cost of Protecting Agriculture Subsidies supporting agriculture producers are significant and
widespread. WTO members report subsidies totaling more than $221 billion per year, on average, a little more than 18 percent of the value added to the world
economy by agricultural production. Based on World Bank and WTO data, the EU and the U.S. each paid out a little more than a third of total subsidies in 2001.
A Cato Institute study reports that U.S. farmers received $46.5 billion from the American government in 2004, or 18 percent of total U.S. farm income.
Contrary to perceptions that support goes only to small, low-income farmers, large, high-income farms are increasingly the beneficiaries of U.S. support
programs. A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report found that both the number and market dominance of large farms (those with sales of at least
$500,000) grew significantly between 1989 and 2003. At the same time, the number of small farms (those with sales between $10,000 and $250,000) fell from
40 percent of all farms in 1989 to 26 percent in 2003. With structural changes and economies of scale driving a competitive shift in farm size and earnings,
commodity payments from support programs now flow increasingly to farms with little need for them. Large farms received 32 percent of all commodity
payments in 2003, up from 13 percent in 1989. For consumers, global barriers to trade in agricultural products artificially prop up domestic prices for food and
other agricultural products. This raises the cost of living for families. According to a 2004 OECD study, U.S. farm programs resulted in higher food prices and
caused the transfer of more than $16 billion from American households to domestic farmers over and above what the farmers received from direct government
assistance. Barriers to agricultural trade also depress world prices of agricultural products, impacting farmers in developing countries. William Cline of the
Institute for International Economics has estimated that by removing trade barriers, developed countries could convey economic benefits to developing
countries that are worth about twice the amount of annual aid transfers. Holding the Global Economy Hostage to Agriculture Supports The service sector
accounts for roughly 79 percent of the U.S. economy and 30 percent of the value of American exports. Service industries account for eight out of every ten jobs
in the U.S. and provide more jobs than the rest of the economy combined. Over the past 20 years, service industries have contributed about 40 million new jobs
across America. A University of Michigan study has estimated that removing barriers to trade in services alone would result in a $1.4 trillion gain in global
income. With its strengths in services, the U.S. would benefit significantly Developing countries with nascent or government-supported services sectors are
reluctant to open their markets and expose domestic firms to the rigor of global competition. Other issues, including regulations, immigration policy, and
transparency, cloud the subject of liberalizing services trade for both developed and developing countries. These issues have been barely addressed in the Doha
negotiations since they stalled on agriculture liberalization. A number of studies identify what countries, both rich and poor, would gain by freeing trade. A
University of Michigan study concluded that reducing agriculture, manufacturing, and services trade barriers by just one-third would add $164 billion, or about
$1,477 per American household, annually to U.S. economic activity. Completely eliminating trade barriers would boost U.S. annual income by $497 billion.
The World Bank estimates that the continued reduction of tariffs on manufactured goods, elimination of subsidies and non-tariff barriers, and a modest 10
percent to 15 percent reduction in global agricultural tariffs would allow developing countries to gain nearly $350 billion in additional income by 2015. And
developed countries would stand to gain roughly $170 billion. The impasse over agricultural subsidies, however, now
blocks these benefits. Trade is not a zero-sum game. Gaining market access for exports is important; however, opening access to a wider
variety of cheaper imports is critical to unlock the long-term potential of free trade. The Bush Administration has offered to dismantle domestic protection for
U.S. initiative in cutting farm programs has the
agriculture unilaterally but done little to make that reform a reality.
potential to revive multilateral trade negotiations, and American taxpayers would earn a break from the burden of
higher food prices and these expensive federal programs. Even if global trade talks continue to falter, American consumers and business would win. The
Administration and Congress should work aggressively to reform the U.S. farm program now. Ultimately, leading nations must step up to the plate and take
responsibility for promoting the benefits of free trade to all. Successful conclusion of the Doha Round will increase economic opportunity, expand economic
freedom, and promote prosperity for all involved. Domestic protectionism should not be allowed to stymie that
goal any longer.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 5 of 60

Multilateral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (3/4)

C. Impact – African stability –
1. Doha collapses regional trade agreements, preventing African integration
Zwane 08 (Teetee, “ Doha Round talks undermining regional integration”, The Swazi Observer Jul 29 2008

The ongoing Doha round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks is seen to be
undermining regional integration and economic development efforts by African countries,
analysts have noted. Economist Thembinkosi Dlamini from the Coordinating Assembly of
Non-Governmental Organisations (CANGO) said the negotiations currently going on in
Geneva, Switzerland undermined and compromised the efforts being made by the continent
towards regional integration. Trade ministers started talks at the WTO in Geneva last week to discuss cuts in subsidies and
import tariffs with the aim of mapping out a new deal under the so-called Doha round of WTO talks. However, despite
hopes that a consensus would be reached on Friday, after five days of intense discussions, a
deadlock between rich and poor countries over a new wave of trade liberalisation could not
be resolved. It was reported that for a number of well-known reasons - the main one being
that both the rich and developing countries were not willing to climb down from their
entrenched positions - the Doha round talks, culminating in last week's make-or-break
seemed doomed. In the meantime, developing countries such as Swaziland continue to
bear the brunt as economic development and regional integration as well as other trade issues
are continually compromised, analysts observed. UK Trade Minister Gareth Thomas, who was
part of a ministerial delegation attending the SA-UK Bilateral Forum meeting recently, was reported to have urged greater emphasis on
regional integration to increase intra-Africa trade by, among others, removing barriers to trade and improving trade facilitating
infrastructure, customs efficiencies and developing crucial skills. He said South Africa had a key role in finalising the
Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations under way between the European Union (EU) and Southern African Customs Union
(SACU) plus Mozambique and Angola. However, Dlamini said it was 'laughable' to suggest that SA
should play a pivotal role in finalising the EPA negotiations considering the fact that country
had not even intialed an interim agreement. He said on the other hand, the interests of SA and the
developed world were also almost similar as the neighbouring state was considered an almost developed country itself.
"When it comes to regional integration, you will see that initially we had the SADC bloc
which was very close as a unit, but now it has been divided into three blocs for negotiation of
the EPAs which require longterm commitments," said Dlamini. He said before the EPA negotiations, the SADC
bloc was closer, but this has been defeated by the division resulting from the negotiations,
including division within the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). He added that this in
itself had led to disintegration of some sort within the region seeing as SA had not signed any
agreement while countries like Namibia had been pressured to sign under protest. However,
Dlamini said Thomas' suggestion on the improvement of intra-African trade was a good one as there was greater potential that could
be accrued from such. He said developing countries needed to focus on trade with other developing
countries instead of trying to penetrate markets in the developed world. "We need
to shift focus to south-south trade instead of south-north trade. There are downstream
benefits to this trade partnership if we can beneficiate our minerals instead of taking these to
the developed world for value-add and then buying these back at exorbitant prices," said the economist.
He said such African trade partnerships would also give this part of the world more
muscle in terms of international trade negotiations as a bigger bloc would have been created.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 6 of 60

Multiatleral Trade Bad Disadvantage 1NC (4/4)

2. African instability causes nuclear war
Dr. Jeffrey, Deutsch, PhD in Economics and Founder of the Rabid Tiger Project (political risk consulting
firm), “Rabid Tiger
Newsletter”, December 18th, 2002, p.

The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa.
Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and
Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as
occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across
tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and
potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as
wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking,
Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power.
South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably
already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than,
say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many
of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any
"help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly.
Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an
African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are
interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated
by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled
waters, and some people love to go fishing.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 7 of 60

Uniqueness – Trade Blocs Now

In wake of collapsed Doha round, nations will begin to turn to protectionism and trade
The Washington Post, July 30th, 2008
(Trade Talks Crumble in Feud Over Farm Aid,

The WTO meeting of more than 35 nations in Geneva that ended yesterday had been
described by officials as a "do or die" moment for the round, with the lack of agreement
postponing the $50 billion to $100 billion injection such a deal was expected give the
global economy. The sense that the failed talks may not get another chance anytime soon is
linked to the pending exit of the pro-trade Bush administration, rising opposition to farm
concessions in Europe and an upcoming changing of the guard of several key trade
officials who have worked on this agreement for years.
Some analysts said the spread of free trade for now is likely to shift toward more modest
bilateral agreements, or the expansion of regional trading blocs such as South America's
Mercosur and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Yet even bilateral deals have
recently faced stronger resistance during a growing global wave of protectionism,
including in the United States, where free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea
and Panama are being held up by opposition in Congress.
"We are heading toward the fragmentation of the global trading system into
individual trading blocs -- regional and bilateral -- which offer no guarantee for the
economic benefits we have seen in the post-War era," said Randall Soderquist, senior trade
program associate for the Center for Global Development.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 8 of 60

Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha

Doha is down but not out-Uruguay round proves US concessions would jumpstart Doha
New Strait Times August 1 2008 (“Agricultural Subsidies Imperil Future of Doha Round”, Lexis Nexis)
Agriculture, which is heavily subsidised in the developed nations (the United States, European Union and Japan),
has been a major obstacle and a contentious issue in the negotiations.
The rich and politically powerful farmers in the developed countries benefit from the handouts, while the poor and
subsistence farmers in developing countries continue to suffer and pay a heavy price for the trade-distorting policies
of the rich.
The plight of the poor is made worse by the dumping of subsidised farm produce from developed nations.
Distortions in agricultural trade have been "in place" for more than 50 years and continue to this day. The US and
EU were not in favour of agricultural trade being "regulated" by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
WTO's (World Trade Organisation) predecessor.
WTO director-general Pascal Lamy said last Friday that developed nations would make major cuts to their
agricultural subsidies in return for more access to developing countries' industrial and services sectors.
Lamy's proposal, which some called "skeletal", called for cutting the limit on European farm subsidies by 80 per
cent and US payments by 70 per cent to about $14US.5 billion (RM50 billion). However, this is well above the
amount actually spent last year, which was closer to $7US billion. The proposal would not have resulted in actual
cuts in spending by the US in support of its wealthy farmers.
How can higher spending on trade-distorting agricultural subsidies be a concession from the major developed
A Chinese official pointed out that "the extremely high subsidies by the US have caused serious damage to cotton
farmers in developing countries, including those in Africa and 150 million in China".
He added: "We believe that the US is not in a position to discuss with developing (countries) members cotton tariffs
until they eliminate their cotton subsidies."
Lamy's proposal had also come under fire in his own home country, France. The devil was in the details. One of the
sticking points in the proposal was the treatment of certain luxury produce, such as cheese and wine, which the
French believe ought to be protected by trademarks.
Meanwhile, two US senators, Robert C. Byrd and Russell D. Feingold, both Democrats, questioned US Trade
Representative Susan Schwab's authority in negotiating to finalise an agreement at the WTO. In a letter dated July
23, to President George W. Bush, the senators pointed out that the US Fast Track Promotion Authority had expired
on June 30, last year and that Congress had refused to provide the US government further authority.
The agriculture talks had also been undermined by the five-year programme of subsidies recently passed by the US
Congress, which Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, described as "one of the most reactionary farm bills
in the history of the US".
In the end, it was agriculture and the dispute over protection for farmers in developing countries that led to the
ministers packing up. The draft text envisaged a "special safeguard mechanism" - a right for developing countries to
raise tariffs to protect their farmers against a surge of imports. The US wanted the import volume that triggered the
mechanism set relatively high; India wanted it low. There was no agreement.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 9 of 60

Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha

The US unwillingness to give up farm subsidies was the split that collapsed the Doha talks
Farmers Guardian, July 30th 2008
(World trade talks collapse after row over farm subsidies,

THE world trade talks in Geneva have collapsed, after a row over farm subsidies caused a split
between ministers at the WTO negotiations yesterday (Tuesday, July 29).

The issue had been a sticking point particularly with China and India, but US negotiators said
they were unwilling to sacrifice farm subsidies for a world trade deal.

Already, EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson had given a number of concessions on

farming, proposing a reduction in tariffs that would have opened up the EU to more imports.
Mr Mandelson called the failure a ‘profound disappointment’ but distanced the EU from the split
saying it was ‘pushed towards failure’.
He said: “As well as reforming agricultural subsidies, we aimed to give genuine protection to
farming communities where this was needed because of poverty or a lack of competitiveness.

US intransigence on subsidies was reason for Doha breakdown

Canberra Times 7/31 (“Liberalised trade no pipe dream”, The Canberra Times Jul 31 2008,
But the greatest impediment of all is the power of farm lobbies, particularly in the US and
the EU, to pressure congressmen and MPs into maintaining subsidies and tariff walls. The need
to end Third World poverty and to address income inequality by, among other things, lifting
protectionist barriers in the developed world is not disputed in Washington, London and
Brussels, but the vested interests of the farm lobby and the politicians they finance means that
these well-meaning words never get translated into concrete action. Indeed, the recent passage of
a farm subsidy Bill through the US Congress was, according to EU trade commissioner Peter
Mandelson, one of the principal reasons the Geneva talks ultimately failed.

US failure to offer subsidy cuts led to Doha breakdown

Shah 7/31 (Shahid, “EU, US stance leads to collapse of WTO talks”, The News International, Jul 31 2008
“The responsibility of failure squarely lies with the US and the EU, which could not think
beyond the interests of their huge trans-national businesses that want to grab more and more
market opportunities in poor countries,” he said.
“For the US and the EU to blame China and India for the collapse is just laughable. The US
and EU pretension to offer 70 per cent and 80 per cent cuts made a mockery of the poor farmers. The US suggestion that it would
limit its subsidies to $14.5 billion, while it currently provides $7-8 billion annually, meant there
was no real cut on the table.”
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 10 of 60

Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha

Cutting subsidies means success of Doha
Flintoff 7/30 (Corey, “Trade Talks' Failure Seen As Blow To U.S. Economy”, Jul 30 2008
Bergsten says both the U.S. and the European Union offered too little too late to get the talks
moving seriously. For instance, he says, the Bush administration should have made a "bolder"
proposal six to 12 months ago, offering bigger reductions in government subsidies to American

Perceptions of US inability to reduce subsidies caused Doha standstill

Klapper 7/29 (Bradley S., Associated Press Staff Writer, “Trade talks failure deals blow to global economy”, Associated Press Jul 29
2008 <>)
U.S. officials were bitter after agreeing under the deal to limit U.S. farm subsidies
deemed to unfairly distort international trade to under $14.5 billion. Although it is still above
actual payments to American farmers, it was a far lower level than Washington had ever accepted
and seemed to gain the support of all 153 WTO members.
Some took the U.S. movement as an important step, noting that it came after a contentious five-year, $291
billion farm bill that maintained and even extended a number of U.S. subsidy programs. But others noted that offers were
made without any congressional weight, citing President Bush's lack of a "fast track" authority to
submit a trade deal to Congress for a yes-or-no vote.
India's Nath at one point called Schwab an "impostor."

Cause of Doha breakdown was perceptions of US inaction

Sharma 7/31 (Mihir S., staff writer, “Dead as a Doha”, The Indian Express Jul 31 2008
Developing nations are being blamed for not responding adequately to “brave” moves by the
US. US trade representative Susan Schwab offered to cap the domestic farm subsidy bill at $15
billion, from a previous maximum several times that. This is not as generous as Schwab made it
sound: the amount barely crossed $7 billion last year. More, Schwab represents a president
deeply unpopular with Congress — which means that the latter, which approved an absurdly
bloated farm bill last year, has taken away his negotiating power. She could hardly make offers
Congress might not approve.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 11 of 60

Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Doha

China views Doha collapse as directly linked to US not being willing to give up domestic

The Peoples Daily, July 31, 2008

(Who impede Doha talks?
A nine-day World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting aimed at developing agriculture and non-
agriculture modalities for a Doha round deal has collapsed. "This is a tragic failure," Chinese Minister of Commerce
Chen Deming noted in a statement posted on his ministry's website. China, like other countries, was "very
disappointed", he said, and the "tragic failure" of global trade talks is a serious setback of the troubled world
The failure of the current Doha Round of global trade talks has been attributable directly to the
refusal of the United States to make concessions for the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM)
regarding agricultural products or, in other words, to its refusal to agree to the reduction of the
ceiling on the amount of domestic subsidies to the US farmers, whereas the more incisive and in-
depth reason for the failure of Doha talks lies in conflicts or clashes between the developed
nations and developing countries.
The Doha Development round is the current trade negotiations round of the WTO, which commenced at Doha,
Qatar in November 2001. On July 21 this year, negotiations started at the WTO headquarters in Geneva on the Doha
round of trade. A meeting that had been planned originally for all ministers of the WTO members was replaced on
July 23 by the small-scale ministerial meeting of the seven trading powers, namely, the U.S., the European Union
(EU), Japan, Australia, India, Brazil and China due to disparities of principal members on key subjects. WTO
Director General Pascal Lamy sorted out the data he had collected from the trade talks and presented a 20-point draft
comprise on July 25 but, on Tuesday, or July 29, he announced the collapse of this crucial trade round meeting as the
parties involved in the talks failed to reach agreement on his draft text.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 12 of 60

Link – Subsidy Cuts Lead to Multilateralism

Subsidy cuts lead to multilateralism – Uruguay negotiations prove
Calvert 99 (Dr Ashton Calvert, Secretary Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Australia, “Multilateral Trade Negotiations - The Challenges and Potential Rewards”, speech to
the Fourth Annual Trade Lecture to the Melbourne Business School, April 28 1999 <>)

The Uruguay Round, which ran from 1986 to 1994, was the largest and most complex to date, with market-opening
outcomes estimated to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the world economy. It was a very difficult negotiation which had to be
rescued from the brink of failure on more
than one occasion. There were five key outcomes. Significantly,
agricultural trade was brought under multilateral disciplines for the first time and the Cairns
Group, led by Australia, played a key role in achieving that. It achieved a fundamental change of direction for agriculture - the converting of
impenetrable non-tariff barriers, like quantitative restrictions and variable levies, into tariffs capable of negotiation; and the capping of
previously uncontrolled export subsidies and production-linked domestic subsidies. It did not achieve
the extent of actual protection cuts we sought - but the first steps were taken and a workable negotiating framework is now in place. Secondly, the
Uruguay Round expanded GATT into services and intellectual property, which are both important and growing areas of international trade.
Thirdly, it brought developing countries much more fully into the trading system. Fourthly, it expanded tariff
bindings and developed rules which greatly strengthened the predictability of the system, including a greatly enhanced
dispute-settlement process. Finally, it led to the establishment of a broader and stronger institution, the
WTO, to succeed the GATT.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 13 of 60

Link – Cotton Subsidies – US-Sino Relations

The main point of China/US tension is cotton subsidies
Financial Times, July 30th 2008
(Negotiators sift the debris for traces of hope,

Another unknown is the evolving position of China, one of the few big players whose continuity
between now and next year is pretty much guaranteed. Beijing has taken a back seat in much of
the Doha negotiations, despite urgings from the US to take a leading role.

This week Washington got its wish - but not in the way it wanted. China broke cover on Monday,
publicly accusing the US of hypocrisy for heavily subsidising its own cotton farmers - one of the
Americans' most sensitive and vulnerable points - while asking other countries to expose theirs
to harsh competition. Beijing pointed out that it had already had to undertake rapid liberalisation
as the price of joining the WTO in 2001, at the same meeting that launched the Doha round. If it
sticks with that position it is likely to continue attracting opprobrium from the US.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 14 of 60

Link – AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms – Doha Revival

Both India and the US are willing to resume talks, the moderator is pushing for August
China View, July 30 2008
(WTO members seek way out of Doha Round impasse,

GENEVA, July 30 (Xinhua) -- Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were in a
rush on Wednesday to seek way out of the current impasse of the Doha Round talks after a
crucial bid for a breakthrough collapsed. A meeting of all the WTO members was called
Wednesday to analyze the consequences and what should be the next steps, at which WTO
Director-General Pascal Lamy urged delegates to have a time of reflection instead of making a
hasty decision. WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy attends a press conference at the WTO headquarters in
Geneva, "I think we all now need to engage a serious reflection on the next steps of our collective endeavor,
which is the Doha Development Agenda," WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell quoted Lamy as saying. "I believe
we have collective responsibility to begin this process of reflection right now," he said. After nine days of
marathon negotiations, trade ministers from over 30 major WTO members failed to narrow their differences on
agriculture trade and industrial market access, the two key and harshly disputed areas of the Doha Round. The
meeting had been billed as the last chance for a conclusion of the long-stalled Doha Round this
year, but the effort was stopped by an unresolved dispute between the United States and India on
the so-called special safeguard mechanism, which would allow developing countries to raise
agriculture tariffs to protect domestic farmers in the event of an import surge. Lamy said all
members now need to seriously reflect about "if and when" they can remove obstacles for a final
conclusion of a new global trade pact. "Whether it has been deadlocked, we have to find new
idea and new solutions," he said. The WTO chief said the immediate priority for WTO
members is to reaffirm their commitment to the multilateral trading system. Analysts warned the
fresh failure, third in the history of the Doha Round, would deal a heavy blow to the confidence people have in the
multilateral trading system and may prompt countries to seek bilateral solutions. Lamy said although the talks
failed, there were still achievements made, which can be built on for future success. "Perhaps the dust will need
to settle a bit before we can have a clear idea of those steps, but in my view, the progress we have made ... should be
preserved," he said. At the same meeting, European Union (EU) Trade Commissioner Peter
Mandelson urged WTO members to resume talks in autumn. "So, in the autumn, after a
summer of reflection, we must renew our dialogue, nurture our relationships, talk like adults
about where we go from here," Mandelson said. "My team and I look forward to returning to
Geneva, not to take up where we left off, but to make sure what we have achieved is not entirely
lost," he said. But Rockwell downplayed the possibility that a new try could be made as early as this autumn.
"I am not sure that is the view every member expressed," he said. "I think there are some political constraints. I think
there are some time constraints. People want to examine how to deal with this very complex issue." Separately,
both India and the United States said on Wednesday they would remain on course of
negotiations. "I would only urge the director-general to treat this as a pause, not a breakdown,
to keep on the table what is there," Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath told a press
conference. Describing the collapse as "distressing", U.S. Trade Representative Susan
Schwab called for "path forward." "Clearly, we need path forward," she said. "... in the
meantime, the United States stands by our offers."
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 15 of 60

Link – AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms – Doha Revival

Plans for restarting the Doha round around September, Lamy says even though member
countries are skeptical, they all want to continue

Reuters, July 31 2008

(WTO could start to pick up the pieces soon,
GENEVA, July 31 (Reuters) - The widespread dismay over this week's collapse of global trade
talks could prompt the World Trade Organisation to seek a way out of the impasse soon after the
summer break, a highly placed trade source said on Thursday.
That would involve WTO experts and negotiators taking a fundamental look at the issue over which the talks
deadlocked -- a technical but important proposal to help farmers in poor countries withstand a flood of imports, the
source said.
As the negotiations to seek a breakthrough in the WTO's Doha round fell apart on Tuesday, their
ninth day, key players said it could now be several years before a deal would be possible.
WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy said many countries had called for the package negotiated
so far to be preserved in order to finish the Doha round, already in its seventh year.
"This left me with no doubt: looking at what is on the table now, the members of this
organisation believe that the Doha round is still worth fighting for. No one is throwing in the
towel," he told WTO delegates.
WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell ruled out a resumption of ministerial talks in September,
noting that the WTO largely shuts down in August so little preparatory work could be done.
But the trade source said work at the official and expert level could start soon after that. Lamy is
due to visit India during August, which would give him an opportunity to probe the possibilities
for discussions.
Disbelief that the talks had foundered over the "special safeguard mechanism" was mixed on Tuesday with
frustration that agreement in so many other trade areas would now be set aside.
Even the United States and India, the two countries who were unable to agree on the scope of the safeguard,
expressed regret that progress in the negotiations was going to waste.
"The big boys who did this are not completely happy with the situation," the trade source said.
Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath repeated on Thursday that he was willing to resume the
talks whenever India's partners were ready.
The ultimately fruitless negotiations this week on the safeguard, an issue which no one had foreseen could torpedo
the talks, concentrated on the numbers in the mechanism rather than the principles behind it.
The safeguard is part of the Doha talks mandate, so if the round is ever to reach an agreement it must be included.
But there are different views of its function.
Some see it as a tool to cope with an emergency -- a flood of imports that could suddenly deprive subsistence
farmers of their livelihood.
Others see it more as a tool to regulate markets as they are opened up to imports, to cushion domestic farmers from
the impact of competition.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 16 of 60

Internal Link – RTA Tradeoff

Multilateral initiatives trade off with regionalism in developing countries
Andriamananjara 03 (Soamiely, Research Division, Office of Economics, U.S. International Trade Commission, “On the Relationship between
Preferential Trade Agreements and the Multilateral Trading System” Remarks prepared for the PECC Trade Forum Meetings at the Institute for International
Economics April 22 2003 <>)
Most countries pursuing regional initiatives are attracted by open markets and, more precisely,
by preferentially open markets. It is the economic rents stemming from trade diversion that
those countries find so appealing in preferential deals. To pursue MFN liberalization entails
forgoing those rents, and would likely be resisted. It is perfectly conceivable that countries like
Mexico or Chile, which already enjoy privileged access to the two largest markets in the world
(the United States and the EU), lose interest in or even resist a multilateral trade deal that will
dilute their preferential access to these markets. In a consensus-based forum like the WTO, the
reluctance of a couple of countries could be much more decisive than another country’s strong
leadership. The resulting policy implication is straightforward.

Multilat trades off with regional trade agreements

Doshi 08 (Hirin, Fellow at India China Institute, “Multilateral vs. bilateral trade agreements”, UPI Asia Online January 29
A direct consequence of the slowdown in the Doha round was the resurgence of regional
trade agreements in the form of FTAs and bilateral trade agreements. FTAs, many of which
are bilateral, are arrangements in which countries give each other preferential treatment in trade
by eliminating tariffs and other barriers on goods. Each country continues its normal trade
policies with other countries outside the FTA agreement.

Regional trade takes the place of multilateralism

Kurlantzick 06 (Joshua, Senior Correspondent, “Trade Off” The American Prospect September 10
The collapse could have significant consequences. The White House has tried to position
freer trade as one solution to the poverty and frustration felt by citizens of the Middle East. (This
was one reason why the talks were launched in Doha, the capital of Qatar, only two months after
the 9-11 attacks). With the talks' breakdown, it will be harder for the United States to make that
argument, and some Middle Eastern leaders may blame the United States for the Doha problems.
As Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, told : "This reinforces the view that
America is conducting its foreign policy -- in this case trade -- in its own interests." What's more,
in the absence of multilateral trade talks, many nations will focus on bilateral and regional
agreements, which in Asia tend to exclude the United States. (The free trade deal signed
between China and ten Southeast Asian countries is one example.) Such bilateral and regional
deals could further weaken the entire system of multilateral institutions, already on the defensive
after six years of attacks by the Bush administration.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 17 of 60

Internal Link – RTA Tradeoff

Countries prefer regional trade agreements to the WTO
Koshy & Ranjan 06 (Robin and Prabhash, staff writers, “Doha Round: Has multilateral trade slipped over edge?”, The Hindu
Business Line September 19 <>)
Third, and finally, will bilateralism and regionalism become even more dominant?
This might be a moot question given the explosion of regional trade agreements (RTAs) since
the mid-1990s. The failure of the multilateral talks might increase the focus on the expansion of
bilateral and regional trade deals, but these have all along been galloping. If all the RTAs that are
being negotiated or proposed were to be implemented, there would be nearly 300 RTAs in force
by 2008.
Since 2000, the US has concluded 14 RTAs and is negotiating 11 more. The EU intends to pursue
bilateral deals in Asia following the failure of talks.
There is an unmistakable trend here. Developed countries have been effectively using the
regional and bilateral route to extract commitments that developing countries collectively refuse
at the WTO.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 18 of 60

Impact – AT: Doha Good – Free Trade

Doha isn’t key to free trade-the intellectual and policy atmosphere has favored free trade
throughout Doha’s failure
The Business Times Singapore August 1 2008 (“The Doha Round: Down, but Not Out”, Lexis Nexis)

DON'T cry too much over the collapse of the Doha Round of world trade talks.
After seven years of negotiations, failure may be disappointing, but hardly a surprise. Even at the outset in 2001, the
stated goals of Doha - to redress the deficiencies of the previous Uruguay Round, which had offered too little to
developing countries - looked ambitious.
In the context of 2008, it looked even more so. Demanding that the US cut farm subsidies and poor countries cut
tariffs in the midst of a global slowdown may make economic sense, but it was always going to test the limits of
practical politics.
The immediate cost of failure is small. On most estimates, a deal would have added only about 0.1 per cent to global
GDP - equivalent to about US $100 billion. And although Doha was billed as a 'development round', poor country
farmers might even have lost out. Many already have privileged access to rich country markets but would have faced
more competition from subsidised Western imports. The real winners would have been Western drug companies able
to benefit from new intellectual property rules.
The real risk is that failure will fuel protectionism, both by undermining confidence in existing World Trade
Organization rules and by providing the political climate for tariff hikes.
These fears are real enough. The Doha talks had proposed to cut maximum permitted farm subsidies. As things
stand, most countries will be left with plenty of scope for unilateral increases in subsidies should commodity prices
fall or political considerations demand it. That raises the spectre of global tit-for-tat tariff hikes similar to those
triggered in the 1930s by the infamous US Smoot-Hawley Act.
Even so, this does not feel like a Smoot-Hawley moment. Global trade has continued to boom over the last decade,
despite the repeated failures to secure a Doha deal.
And although protectionist pressures are rising, the intellectual tide is still in favour of free trade. The real surprise
over the latest talks was how close the world came to a deal. That leaves open the slim possibility that Doha could
even be revived under new political leadership. A new US president, eager to display global leadership in the midst
of an economic crisis, should learn from America's historic mistakes.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 19 of 60

Impact – AT: RTA Bad

Regional blocs beneficial – several reasons
Gibbon 04 (Peter, Senior researcher @ Danish Institute for International Studies, “Report of the discussion on 'Multilateralism,
Regionalism and Bilateralism seen from an African Perspective',” Nordic Africa Initiative High Level Seminar, November 24-25 2004
It was widely agreed that regional trade agreements, in Africa and elsewhere, have considerable
untapped potential. Ideally, they can take advantage of physical proximity between members;
they can scale-up markets in ways that allow the exploitation of greater economies of scale and
correspondingly promote greater national specialization; they can encourage investment by
reducing transaction costs; and they can equip some enterprises with the resources and
experience to compete better in international markets. In addition, they have the potential of
pooling negotiating capacity and reducing negotiating costs at other levels.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 20 of 60

Impact – Hegemony
( ). Hegemony
A global trading system requires extended deterrence which increase risks of war and
collapse U.S. hegemony
Layne, Professor at Naval Postgraduate School '97
[Christopher, Professor at Naval Postgraduate School, International Security, pages 86-124]

There is a tight linkage – too often neglected by many international relations theorists –
between security and economic interdependence. I call this the "security/interdependence"
nexus. To preserve an international environment conducive to economic interdependence, the United States must
engage in an extended deterrence strategy that undertakes to defend its allies' vital interests by protecting them from
hostile powers, threats emanating in the periphery, and each other. The need to rely on extended deterrence to
maintain the conditions in which interdependence can take root leads inexorably to strategic overextension. The
United States must extend deterrence to secure interdependence against threats emanating in both the core and the
periphery, and the synergy between credibility concerns and threat inflation causes the United States to expand the
scope of its security commitments. Economic interdependence therefore brings with it an increase risk of war and a
decrease in America's relative power.

B. US Hegemony prevents global nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, policy analyst at RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring ‘95

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude
the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is
the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself,
but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American
values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better
chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation,
threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership
would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 21 of 60

Impact – FARC
( ). FARC
A. Colombian trade is key to contain FARC
Reuters, 2004
(October 24, Colombia must be firm in U.S. trade talks-Stiglitz

Colombia's rural areas form the frontline of the country's 40-year-long guerrilla war.
Much of Colombia's rice, for example, is produced in the central province of Tolima,
where the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, was formed in
1964. Another key farm area is the northern province of Cordoba, where far-right
paramilitaries hold sway.
Both of these heavily-armed groups rule large swaths of Colombia with an iron fist,
funding their activities with money from the cocaine trade.
Faced with the military cost of trying to retake the country while easing the 60-percent
poverty rate that feeds the conflict, President Alvaro Uribe needs to strengthen the export
sector to ensure Colombia's long-term solvency.

B. FARC is pursuing nuclear terrorism and currently possesses dozens of pounds of

uranium-they are uniquely more dangerous than Al-Qaeda
The Christian Science Monitor March 28 2008 (“FARC Acquired Uranium, Columbia Says”, Lexis Nexis)

Weeks after the dust settled from the Colombian bombs dropped on a clandestine rebel camp in Ecuador, the
information found on three laptop computers found in the rubble continues to reverberate in the Andes.
On Wednesday, Colombian military officials said that they recovered 66 pounds of uranium that, they say, was
acquired by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Colombian Gen. Freddy Padilla tied the uranium
to the seized laptops, saying one of the computer files mentions attempts by the FARC to buy uranium, apparently to
resell. Earlier this month, Colombian officials claimed the rebels were seeking uranium to make a "dirty bomb."
The controversial March 1 air raid killed 24 people, including the No. 2 leader of the FARC, Raul Reyes, sparking
Latin America's most serious diplomatic crisis in decades.

C. Nuclear terrorism leads to nuclear war

Easterbrook, 1
(Greg, Fellow at the Brookings Institute, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,” 11-1-2001, Well, what held through the
Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational. They
knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn. Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is
attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the
Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because if an atomic warhead goes off in
Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S.
nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. And that -- it is very much in the interest the
Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 22 of 60

Impact – FARC – Colombia Link

Bilateral Trade with Colombia is key to Colombia's exports, poverty reduction and turning
from violence and Cocaine production
US Department of Agriculture, August 1, 2008
(Secretary Schafer Delivers Remarks at Farm to Fuel Summit, Ed Schafer [Secretary of US
Department of Agriculture],!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/

The experience that we've had with regional trade and bilateral trade agreements really have
shown they work. The NAFTA and the Central American Free Trade Agreement gives us ample
proof of that. Both have led to dynamic growth in trade, particularly in agriculture goods.
You know, if you look at the NAFTA agreement today, Canada and Mexico, our two partners in
that agreement, account for 28 cents out of every dollar in worldwide U.S. agriculture exports. I
know you in Florida here had some problems in the beginning of that agreement. There were some produce and
specialty crop issues here. It was a concern as things got adjusted and balanced out. But you know, 10 years later
on the whole we know there were some individual and specific problems - on the whole it's
proved that these trade agreements work. And we've seen the increased trade outbound from our
country to theirs.
Free trade agreements work, and that's just the long and short of it. And that's why winning the passage
of the pending free trade agreements in Congress of agreements with Colombia and Panama and Korea is one of
President Bush's top priorities this year. We're going to continue to work with Congress to try to make that happen.
And you know this is very important legislation.
A couple weeks ago I led a congressional delegation to Colombia to see firsthand how that
nation's economy and political structure are evolving. And I saw a nation that is making huge
strides in putting aside its violent past and building a vibrant economy in which agriculture plays
a key role.
And I have to tell you this story, the best message we received down there. We were visiting with some palm tree
farmers that harvest palm fruits for palm oil. And years ago these people were driven off their land by the drug lords
and the people who want to grow cocoa for cocaine. And they got pushed out in the jungle, and grew enough food to
eat and harvested and picked and foraged for hand-to-mouth delivery for themselves and their families. Four years
ago 500 of these small little local farmers got together and formed an alliance so that they could put together the
growing operation of palm oil. An investor came in and built the palm oil facility there. The farmers own 49 percent
of it.
We were talking with one farmer who's about 60 years old, and he had 18 children. He had 12 from his first
marriage, and now he's starting a second family. And he was very optimistic and positive about the future. But he
said, "You know, four years ago I wasn't even on my land, and today I'm growing these palm trees, I'm part of an
ownership of half of a palm oil factory, I've paid off my debts, I'm buying some more land, and you know I have
three kids in college in the United States of America." And he said, "That is what uplifts a country."
And these are what our trade agreements do is, they support the people there as well. And while
we get increased production and increased exports and increased income, we are helping change
the face of these countries and their economies and their social structure. And it's important to
stand with them.
Beyond that, it's important to put us on a fair playing field. This agreement, the Colombian agreement, really should
be supported on common sense grounds. Right now more than all the Colombian agriculture products come in to the
United States duty free, no tariffs. They come in through the Andean Free Trade Agreement. U.S. exports to
Colombia on the other hand have racked up a total tab of more than $1 billion since this agreement was signed.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 23 of 60

Impact – FARC – Terrorism EXTN

Failure to stop terrorism Leads to Extinction
Alexander 2003
(Yonah, Washington Times, August 28, LN)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated
dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the
magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even
the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic
challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the
unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.
Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second
intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the
moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of
other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including
misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the
religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda
and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of
The internationalization and brutalization of current and
conventional and unconventional threats and impact.
future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological,
chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and
global security concerns.

The FARC is 10 years more advanced in organization and operations than the Taliban
Braun, July 25th 2008
Michael Braun, assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), a career special agent and a longtime participant in the DEA's counter terrorism
(Michael,, Drug Trafficking and
Middle Eastern Terrorist Groups: A Growing Nexus?)
One of the most prominent regions where the drug-terror nexus is at its strongest is the tri-border area in Latin
America, where the borders of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay join. Both Hamas and Hizballah are active in this
region, where it is possible to make a profit of $1 million from the sale of fourteen or fifteen kilos of drugs, an
amount that could be transported in a single suitcase. The cost of drugs is far lower in this region and can be resold
in other countries for a far greater price. A package of this size does not necessarily attract the notice of an
organization like the DEA, which intercepts much larger shipments routinely. Illustrating how profitable the drug
trade can be, a drug ledger seized in Afghanistan showed ten months of transactions yielding $169 million from the
sale of eighty-one tons of heroin. Whether in Afghanistan or the tri-border area, drugs facilitate massive revenues
that go into the pocket of FTOs.
As FTOs become more heavily involved in the drug trade, hybrid organizations are emerging.
These hybrids are foreign terrorist organizations that have morphed into one part terrorist
organization, one part global drug trafficking cartel. The Taliban and FARC are two perfect
examples, and they are, in essence, the face of twenty-first century organized crime -- meaner
and uglier than anything law enforcement or militaries have ever faced. They represent the most
significant security challenge facing governments worldwide. The DEA has tracked the evolution
of drug cartels and terrorist organizations for a long time, and estimates that the Taliban is
currently at the organizational level of operations at which the FARC operated ten years ago.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 24 of 60

Impact – FARC – Human Rights

FARC Commits Human rights abuses regularly

Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2006

(Sept 22, The Colombian law of Justice and Peace: one step further from peace and one step closer to impunity?,
In seeking to establish a voice within the government, "the various fronts of the armed self-defense movements
issued their agrarian reform program" (41) in 1964. And in 1966, many of these peasant groups
collaborated to form the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), (42) the largest and
most powerful guerrilla movement today. This period of time also saw the rise of other violent guerilla
groups: the Army of National Liberation (ELN), the AUC, and the Popular Libertarian Army (EPL). (43) This
proliferation of non-state actors sheds light on why Colombia's paramilitaries are not a single unified group, but are
instead divided into individual groups and under the direction of separate leadership. The rise to power of these
groups triggered the inception of not only Colombia's international notoriety, but also its greatest and most
influential vice--drugs. Because the thousands of displaced peasants were left without any type of governmental or
institutional support, they gravitated towards the highly centralized guerrilla groups that were beginning to dabble in
the profitable coca trade. (44) Today the Colombian military, the guerrillas, and the paramilitaries are all involved in
the drug trade. The money that the illicit trade generates is what gives these groups so much power and leeway for
corruption. Funded by drug money, both the guerrillas and the paramilitaries are growing in
cogency and sophistication. As a result of this power, paramilitaries persistently commit
countless human rights abuses without consequences. (45) The FARC, for example, rarely
punishes its members for committing human rights abuses and dismisses international
humanitarian jurisprudence as "a bourgeois concept." (46) Because government security forces attempt
to eliminate these narcotics groups in efforts to bring the drug trade to an end, the combination of these violent
tactics and counter-tactics is what makes Colombia one of the most dangerous places to live. (47) Although a
twenty-five year history of peace negotiations exists between the nefarious armed groups and the government, it is
now even more urgent that the government uphold its responsibility to maintain law and order by bringing the
paramilitaries under its jurisdiction.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 25 of 60

Impact – Asia
( ). Asian integration
A. Regional trade blocs key to check Chinese aggression and ensure economic integration
Fukuyama 05 (Francis, “Re-Invisioning Asia,” Foreign Affairs vol. 84 iss. 1 p 75 Jan/Feb 2005)
And then there is China. The world's fastest-growing economy (and one of its largest) has
thus far remained largely outside any security pact or alliance, excepting its membership in
global institutions such as the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO). But this relative
isolation also is likely to change. In recent years, the Chinese have proposed a blizzard of new
Asian multilateral economic arrangements, which could ultimately serve security purposes as
well. Beijing's plans have included two agreements with ASEAN (ASEAN plus one and ASEAN
plus three, with Japan and North Korea), as well as China-ASEAN and East Asian free-trade
areas. Clearly, the Chinese are exerting leadership to ensure that their status in the international
political arena matches their growing economic power. Sensing a geoeconomic threat, the Japanese have responded
with their own trade pacts, such as the Japan-Singapore free-trade area negotiated by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. China has
always presented a great conundrum for the United States. It is the kind of power Washington deals with the least
well: a nation that is neither clearly friend nor clearly foe, simultaneously a strategic threat and a critical trade and
investment partner. The result has been an inconsistent relationship of pragmatic cooperation punctuated by periodic crises, such as the
U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and the Chinese downing of a U.S. spy plane in 2001. The future of this
relationship depends on how Chinese politics evolve: whether China provokes a showdown
with Taiwan and uses its economic might to achieve Asian hegemony, or develops into an
increasingly pluralistic society in which economic interests dictate continuing good relations
with its neighbors. In the meantime, the United States can adopt one of two approaches: either it can seek to isolate China and mobilize
the rest of Asia into a coalition to contain growing Chinese power, or it can try to incorporate China into a series of international institutions
designed to channel Chinese ambitions and elicit cooperation. Despite its appeal among U.S. conservatives, isolating Beijing is a nonstarter. Even
if the United States somehow knew that China were a long-term strategic threat on a par with the former Soviet Union, no U.S. ally would enlist
in an anti-Chinese coalition any time in the near future. Japan,
South Korea, Australia, and ASEAN members all
have complex relationships with China that involve varying degrees of cooperation and conflict;
absent overt Chinese aggression, none is going to be willing to jeopardize those ties.

B. Asian conflict would go nuclear and collapse the economy

Jonathan S. Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, 2000
[“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U.S. Are High in Asian Conflicts”, p. Lexis]

Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan
are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt
the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea
may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five
decades in Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,”
said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “We see the
convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place.
There are elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William
S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. For America, the stakes
could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the
United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North
Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or
Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons
and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization
has made a stable Asia with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources
indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled
$600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 26 of 60

Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN

Regional blocs key for eastern Asian trade independence
Fukuyama 05 (Francis, “Re-Invisioning Asia,” Foreign Affairs vol. 84 iss. 1 p 75 Jan/Feb 2005)
Many of the more recent proposals for eastern Asian multilateral institutions have focused on
economic issues stemming from the 1997-98 financial crisis. In the view of many eastern Asian
countries, the United States and U.S.-influenced international institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank exploited the crisis to push a pro-market
agenda on Asia. When Japan proposed an Asian IMF in 1999, Washington summarily rejected
the idea but offered nothing in its place to act as an institutional coordinating mechanism capable
of mitigating a future crisis. As a result, nations in the region have been building new multilateral
organizations on their own. These include the Chiang Mai Initiative, which allows the central
banks from 13 countries to swap reserves in the event of a speculative attack, and the ASEAN-
plus-three forum. So far, the United States has either ignored or been indifferent to these

Asian trade blocs empirically solve regional integration

Mahbubani 08 (Kishore, Dean and Professor in The Practice Of Public Policy, National Univ. of Singapore, “Can America Handle The Rise Of Asia?”
Rush Transcript; Federal News Agency February 28 2008
Well, I'm very glad you brought up the geopolitical dimension. Because one of the more
surprising things I say in the book is, you know, you look at regional cooperation, for example,
right. And you talk of regional cooperation, and everybody sees the European Union as the gold
standard of regional cooperation, and everyone else is second class or third class, and so on, so
forth. And it's true in terms of internal economic integration, the European Union is number one
and way ahead of anybody else. ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has a long
way to go before it can catch up with the European Union in terms of internal economic
But if you look at the geopolitical performance, the difference between ASEAN and the EU ,
the way I'd say it, is that EU is an economic superpower, ASEAN is an economic mini power.
But in diplomatic terms, the EU is a diplomatic mini power, and ASEAN is a superpower. And
how do I explain that? If you look all around the EU, right, everywhere, look at all these
borders. Look at North Africa, look at the Middle East, look at the Caucuses, look at the
Balkans, look at Kosovo today. Essentially, the European Union fails diplomatically when it
leaves Europe.
By contrast, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is so much weaker, so much
smaller, has been able to create various informal processes that have created an unnatural
development in Asia. The unnatural development in Asia is that you're seeing in Asia the
emergence of all the great powers, all the new great powers are emerging in Asia. Traditionally,
when great powers emerged, you should always see some kind of rising tension and conflict.
Instead, in East Asia, you're seeing reducing tension and conflict, not rising. This goes against
the grain. And this is a result of what I call Asian geopolitical competence.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 27 of 60

Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN

Asian regional trade key to solve regional stability
Mahbubani 08 (Kishore, Dean and Professor in The Practice Of Public Policy, National Univ. of Singapore, “Can America Handle The Rise Of Asia?”
Rush Transcript; Federal News Agency February 28 2008
Now, your question was about Asia. It's important to understand that there is something
remarkable happening in Asia. It's an amazing thing. And in some ways, I'm glad you referred
to Japan. It began with Japan, but Japan's success then inspired the success of the Four Tigers --
Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. And from there, it went to Southeast Asia, and clearly,
several Southeast Asian states began to succeed, too.
And then from there , frankly -- and this is what I call the master modernity in the book -- we
leapt into China. Because Deng Xiaoping left China, came to Southeast Asia, and said, how
come the rest of Southeast Asia is so far ahead of China? China is as good a civilization as
anybody else. We should be ahead, not behind. So China decided to switch policies. And for
the last 30 years, China has had the fastest-growing economy in the world.
Now, from China, when China took off, basically India then said, why not us? Why can't we
do what China is doing? And that's what motivated India to open up, to compete. And when I
talk of the march to modernity, it's important for me to emphasize that what you have to carry,
the visual picture you have to carry in your minds, is our minds, that used to have a certain
perspective, opening up and beginning to think hey, we can do it, too, we can succeed, too.
And clearly, the explosion of cultural confidence that we see, beginning with Japan, Four
Tigers, Southeast Asia, China, India, that is spreading throughout Asia. And the really good
news from a Western point of view is that this march to modernity is about to enter the Islamic
world. Because the younger Muslims who, in the past, in a sense, had a binary choice, right --
either you follow the road of the West or you follow the road of Osama bin Laden -- now are
saying hey, why can't we be like China and India? Why can't we modernize? Why can't we have
successful economies?
So everybody would like to separate Asia out into distinct packets. I am telling you that the
new story in Asia is how it's all coming together. And you see this in terms of people flows,
right. The faster growing people flows are within Asia. The reason by Boeing has great
difficulty meeting its production demands is because of demands of aircraft from Asians who
want to travel more throughout Asia and China and Japan, China and India, Southeast Asia and
China and so on, so forth. These are the new flows in Japan.
So a new Asia is being created even as we speak. And the new Asia basically is going to be a positive addition to the world,
because it is creating hundreds of millions of responsible stakeholders who want to have a stake in a stable global order and who don't want to
disrupt the global order, who want to work with the West. And the problem that Asians feel is that the West is not ready to accept Asians as an
equal partner. And that's why I define it as Asia and the West.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 28 of 60

Impact – Asia – Stability EXTN

ASEAN is key to large-scale trade and political integration
Akkerman 07 (Judith, MA MSc University of Amsterdam, “Geopolitics and New Regionalism - A brief consideration on the ASEAN
case” August 2007 <>
ASEAN is often referred to as the example of successful Third World Regional cooperation. It is
remarkable that a region so diverse, ‘Unity in diversity’ has become a slogan in the region, has
been able to agree on common issues within a regional governmental framework. It is also
remarkable that ASEAN has put its stamp, norms and visions on organizations such as the
APEC, the ASEAN-Europe Meeting (ASEM), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the
ASEAN+3 (APT). If ASEAN is able to keep hold of its role in the contested world order, US’
pursuit for unilateralism and advancing Chinese economy, remains to be seen. But the signs so
far show that ASEAN is willing to start negotiations with the SCO, that it is interested in
extending relations with the EU and through the ASEAN+3, it will continue to strengthen the
relationships with its Eastern neighbours. ASEAN knows it does not provide an own regional
hegemon within the organization and therefore it will seek relationships with its contenders,
envisioning a new world order of multiregionalism and multipolar hegemonies of which ASEAN
will possibly be part.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 29 of 60

Impact – FTAA – Economy

( ). FTAA
A. FTAA boosts global economy and US small farms
Otteman 02 (Scott, Director, International Trade Policy, National Association of Manufacturers, “WHY THE FTAA MAKES SENSE FOR
BUSINESS IN THE AMERICAS”, Economic Perspectives vol. 7 no. 3 October 2003)
The FTAA can translate into even broader benefits. By making the entire hemisphere
available for sourcing inputs and selling products without penalty, the region-wide trade area
will help make companies based in the Americas more competitive than ever on a global
scale. New economies of scale will be created, outside and internal investment will be generated, and just-in-time
manufacturing will be facilitated. Actively enforced, world-class protection of intellectual property will attract
technology and spur indigenous high-tech research and development capabilities.
Most of the businesses that export are small and medium- sized firms, and they stand to benefit greatly from the
FTAA. In the United States, 91 percent of the 52,000 companies that already sell in Central and South America are
medium and small-sized firms. A 1999 study by the U.S. Small Business Administration shows that the number of
small U.S. businesses (having fewer than 500 employees) that export tripled between 1987 and 1997. Yet only 1
percent of all U.S. small businesses export, and of those that do, 63 percent sell only in one other country.
Likewise, Latin American and Caribbean small businesses have participated very little in expanding exports. By
making it equally easy to market goods and services to any country in the Americas, the FTAA has
tremendous potential to expand sales for both current small exporters and new entrants
based throughout the region. For instance, the Brazilian cosmetics industry, 95 percent of
whose companies are micro or small enterprises, projects 20 percent to 25 percent growth in
exports over the next five years.
The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the FTAA can triple U.S. exports of
manufactured goods to Central and South America within 10 years of implementation.
Needless to say, small and medium- sized companies will do much of the expanded business ―
but only if the region stays on track by using the FTAA process to steer toward a future that
can provide growth and greater opportunity on a sustainable basis.

B. B. Economic collapse causes nuclear war and extinction

Bearden, U.S. Army (Retired), 2000
[T.E., LTC, U.S. Army, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,”, June 24]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse,
the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point
where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are
almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear
weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or
suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-
attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will
quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades
that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As
rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD
the studies showed,
arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for
many decades.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 30 of 60

Impact – FTAA – Economy EXTN

FTAA would promote trade growth
Hansen-Kuhn 01 (Karen, “Free Trade Area of the Americas” Foreign Policy in Focus vol. 6 no.
12 April 2001)
Many of the region’s governments believe that an FTAA would serve to ensure sustained access
to U.S. markets by reducing tariffs and preventing trade disputes. The FTAA, like NAFTA,
would also provide member countries a seal of approval and thereby, they hope, help to stimulate
foreign investment. Brazil, in particular, continues to express ambivalence about the FTAA,
suggesting that it would be better to promote Latin American integration first and then consider
negotiations with the behemoth of the North.

FTAA key to econ growth, regional stability and the environment

George et al. 03 (Jillian George, Mike Melo, Paulina Pacheco and White, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, “Free Trade Area of
the Americas” April 2 2003 <>)
The Free Trade Area of the Americas will cause more good than harm. Even though there are
possible negative aspects and consequences to the FTAA agreement, the positive outcomes and
possibilities far outweigh the risk. The FTAA can help to bring growth and prosperity
throughout the Americas, assisting both the developed and less developed countries in this
region. The ideals and concepts behind free trade will benefit all the nations involved especially
if the needs and fears of all are properly addressed and attended to.
Though the FTAA has raised concerns it seems to properly address the issues that its opponents
have raised. It will allow all countries in the region to specialize in producing what they are best
suited for. The FTAA will allow countries, such as Brazil, to achieve continued economic
growth and prosperity. This increase in income will help to address the economic gaps that exist
within the region and will lead to increased competition. It will also lead to an increase in the
educational levels of the citizens of the region and even though it may lead to initial job loss, it
will allow its citizens to gain job skills that will allow them to transition to the new areas of the
economy that are created.
With the FTAA comes guidelines and regulations that will allow for consistency across the
region so that labor standards improve, the environment is protected from damage, and social
programs are enhanced. The FTAA will allow for stabilization in regions that have been rife
with instability and that will permit the occurrence of freethinking and proper governance in
those areas. As long as the United States remains committed to the ideals of free trade and
promotes policies to reach that ideal, both within the U.S. and in the Americas, than the FTAA
will produce the desired positive outcomes in this region. The FTAA will provide the countries in
this region with the gains that arise from free trade. Each nation will benefit from seeking to
attain the highest success it can by utilizing its comparative advantage to increase growth and
prosperity. This increase in economic prosperity will spill over into social prosperity, such as
increases in educational levels and better social programs. The economic growth that is possible
under the FTAA will decrease the gaps that currently exist within the Americas to afford the
citizens of this region with better and brighter prospects for the future.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 31 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict

Global free trade increase risk of war; Less trade would DECREASE the likelihood and
intensity of wars
Blainey, Professor of Economic History, Melbourne, '88
[Geoffrey, The Causes of War, Third Edition, pages 91-96 7/7/08]

Alec Lawrence Macfie fought with the Gordon Highlanders on the Somme in the First World War and then, at the
onset of the world depression, became a lecturer in economics
at Glasgow University. His experience of the two most shattering events of his generation came together in an odd way, for about 1937 he
detected a thread that seemed to connect the outbreak of the war with certain economic conditions. In February 1938 he issued a short article with
an ominous warning. Entitled 'The Outbreak of War and the Trade Cycle', it occupied nine pages of a learned journal at the very time when
newspapers were mesmerised by the revival of Germany and the danger of another world war. Macfie argued that international wars
were most likely to begin when an economic recovery was well under way or had mounted the slopes and reached a
prosperous tableland. A quick study of the outbreak of twelve international wars in the period from 1850 to 1914
suggested this pattern, but what did the pattern signify? Macfie thought that wars tended to break out at those times when the economic
mood was bumptious and when 'hope is alight and obstacles are impatiently confronted'. That mood, he suggested, provides the heat to 'germinate
the seeds of war no matter when they are sown'. Macfie's knowledge of economic fluctuations persuaded him that in Europe the danger point
would appear again in about two years. 'If these considerations are accepted', he argued, 'we may well pray that statesmen may be granted an
access of wisdom between now and 1941. The prayer was not answered. The tendency for economic activity to move regularly from slackness to
boom and from boom to slackness – the depressed years being marked by a scarcity of jobs and falling profits – was first experienced by England
and the advanced industrial countries. Variously called the trade cycle or the business cycle, it reflected the spread of an
intricate web of interdependence between nations and between producers within each nation; economic specialization was
turning much of the world into a 'global village' long before aircraft, radio and television made the web conspicuous. Thus a fall in the demand
for Manchester-made textiles was felt in the cotton fields of the Carolinas, the terraces of Liverpool, and in many corners of the globe. In
glimpsing a link between the business cycle and war, Macfie pointed to something that could not neatly be applied to wars before 1800. He did
not comment on this dilemma; he humbly disowned any intention of setting up his plate as a historian and merely passed on his observations in
the hope that they might 'prove grist to some historian's mill'. Although the eighteenth century had ups and downs in economic activity, and
although the famous Swedish historian Eli Heckschser thought his homeland had a weak semblance of the business cycle as early as 1763, those
oscillations presumably did not move with the regularity and the capitalist clockwork that merit the name of 'business cycles'. Wind, ice and rain
– and their effects on the harvests – were probably the main pendulum of these earlier fluctuations. The ups and downs of economic activity were
probably more influential on war decisions after the Napoleonic wars, partly because the prevailing economic mood was more likely to be shared
by many nations, and partly because the oscillations between economic pessimism and optimism tended to become sharper. Macfie's link is, at
first sight, open to some doubt even in his chosen period of 1850-1914. He realised that economists could argue that he had mistaken the causes
of war with the preparations for war. It could be argued that the rising prosperity which preceded wars was merely the effect of re-arming and
preparing for war. This may have been partly true of the
prosperity that preceded some wars but seems untrue of the majority. It is therefore difficult to reject Professor Macfie's observation that
economic conditions affected the outbreak of wars. Changes in economic moods and conditions affect not only bankers, shopkeepers,
manufacturers and shipowners, farmers and all they employ: they also affect monarchs, first ministers and chiefs of staff of the armed forces.
They affect the revenue and expenditure of governments and they affect the problems which they have to face. They affect social unrest or
cohesion. And perhaps most important they subtly affect expectations of what the coming months will be like and whether they can be shaped
with ease.' When trade is deteriorating and when unemployment is increasing the mood of governments tends to be
cautious or apprehensive. Dwindling revenue and soaring claims for the state's adi
aggravate the mood. On the other hand, when prosperity is high – and this is the time most
dangerous to peace – there comes a sense of mastery of the environment. Indeed the economic
moods closely parallel those mental moods which psychiatrists study. Such words as 'depression' and
'mania' are common to the vocabulary of those who chart fluctuations in the market places
as well as mental asylums. When a contemporary psychiatrist, David Stafford-Clark,
describes the emotional conditions of elation, which virtually everyone experiences at times,
he is describing a mood which all economists have observed: when the sense of well-being
and confidence not only exceeds all degree of appropriateness to the patient's life, but
begins to colour and cloud judgement and responsibility to a point at which the capacity to
adjust to reality and manage affairs becomes impaired, then it consistutes a condition of
illness no matter how little the patient may complain. More than a trace of this illness is
visible in business booms and even in the recurring moods of nations. The eve of the
Crimean, Franco-Prussian, Boer and many other wars was tinged with this mania. One cannot
say that economic events alone shape these oscillating moods. Admittedly economic events - partly because they are
easily measurable - have been studied so intensely that they can for practical purposes be explained mainly in terms
of other economic happenings. But economic behaviour cannot be isolated from the totality of behaviour.
Economists have built a deep reservoir of knowledge of how man behaves in economic affairs, but the mental
conditions which influence that behaviour are not known so well
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 32 of 60
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 33 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict

Trade Expansion does NOT prevent War – World War I proves
McDonald and Sweeney '07 [Patrick J. McDonald, assistant professor in the department of government at the
University of Texas at Austin, and Kevin Sweeney works for the United States Department of Defense, "The
Achilles' Heel of Liberal IR Theory? Globalization and Conflict in the Pre–World War I Era," World Politics 59.3
(2007) 370-403]

Despite a growing body of evidence supporting claims that democracy, expanding commercial ties, and
membership in international organizations all reduce military conflict between states, the liberal peace research
program still faces an important historical challenge. While it has become fashionable to characterize the current
world order as one of extensive globalization and suggest that peace should follow, an earlier period dating from
the middle of the nineteenth century until 1914 stands out as the Achilles' heel of liberal international relations
theory. Then, as now, the world economy was marked by dramatic integration in goods, capital, and labor
markets. For example, British and French exports grew by respective factors of thirty-five and twenty-five
between 1820 and 1913. French, German, and American exports all expanded over 30 percent in the three years
before 1914. British capital exports were nearly nine percent of the gross domestic product (gdp) in 1911—a
ratio unmatched even in the current wave of globalization. If expanding economic ties bind states together in a
commercial web that either makes war unthinkable or simply raises its costs to unacceptable levels, then why did
we have World War I?

Free trade does NOT prevent war

Ebeling, Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, 2002 (Richard M., Ludwig von
Mises Institute, "Can Free Trade Really Prevent War?", March 15, 2002,, accessed
on July 8, 2008)

"A nation's policy forms an integral whole. Foreign policy and domestic policy are closely linked together, they
condition each other. Economic nationalism is the corollary of the present-day domestic policies of government
interference with business and of national planning as free trade was the complement of domestic economic
freedom."[4] The interventionist and planning ideas during the last one hundred years meant that trade among
nations could not be left outside of government oversight and control, lest the directions and patterns of
international trade undermine and frustrate the goals and purposes of national governments in their domestic
affairs.[5] Free trade was unable to prevent war in the twentieth century because by 1914, very few people
believed any longer in the idea of liberty.[6] The spirit of economic freedom reached its zenith in the 1860s and
1870s. From then on a counterrevolution began against freedom. Germany was a major catalyst for the change in
ideological and policy direction with its return to protectionism and implementation of many of programs of the
modern welfare state.[7] But France also started to move in this direction with regulations and pressures that
gave the government increasing influence and, in fact, control over the patterns of French foreign investment in
other countries to reinforce its political foreign policy objectives, as well as restrictions on foreign investments
made inside France. And even in Great Britain, which retained the closest approximation to free trade principles
for the longest time--until the opening shots of the First World War--the London investment houses would
informally make sure that their foreign loans and investments did not conflict with the wider policy goals of the
British government.[8] The First World War was the culmination of this process, with nation and state
completely becoming one as belligerent powers made all aspects of social and economic life subservient to the
ends of war.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 34 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Conflict

More evidence
Ebeling, Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, 2002 (Richard M., Ludwig von
Mises Institute, "Can Free Trade Really Prevent War?", March 15, 2002,, accessed
on July 8, 2008)

"The answer to this question seems to be that it would not have done so. The governments of the belligerent--and
neutral--States overthrew the whole system of bank legislation with a stroke of a pen, and they could have done
so just the same if the banks had been uncontrolled."[11] Great Britain, in spite of the growing protectionism and
interventionism in other European countries in the years leading up to 1914, had followed an open, free-trade
policy throughout its Empire. There had been free movement of goods and free movement of men, the latter
without either passports or visas. And capital moved without restriction both into and out of Great Britain itself
and throughout the far reaches of the Empire. Yet overnight barriers and restrictions went up all across the
European continent, including in Britain, once war was declared and the opening volleys were fired. Almost
seventy years of British free trade, with all of its benefits, were brought to an end with a few strokes of the pen of
war emergency acts. Mises did not discount the significance of institutional barriers to arbitrary government
actions. He pointed out that, indeed, if the countries of Europe in 1914 had still had gold standards fully based on
gold coins in circulation, to which the people were accustomed and which in their minds symbolized the security
and soundness of the monetary system, governments may very will have had a harder time justifying the
abolition of the monetary order and the resort to inflation to finance their war expenditures. "It would not be so
easy for governments to disavow the reactions of war on the monetary system; they will be obliged to justify
their policy."[12] But neither the gold standard as practiced in 1914 nor international freedom of trade as existing
in 1914 could withstand the winds of war. The "spirit of the times" had long before changed from a belief in
individual freedom, limited government, and free markets with the accompanying depoliticizing of interpersonal
relationships, including in matters of international commerce and investment, into a reborn desire for
protectionism, nationalism, planning, and imperialism.

And more evidence

Ebeling, Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, 2002 (Richard M., Ludwig von
Mises Institute, "Can Free Trade Really Prevent War?", March 15, 2002,, accessed
on July 8, 2008)

Free trade cannot prevent war when men no longer believe in peace. Free trade is premised on the idea that
human relationships should be voluntary and based on mutual consent. It is grounded on the understanding that
the material, cultural, and spiritual improvements in the circumstances and conditions of man are best served
when the members of the global community of mankind specialize their activities in a world-encompassing
social system of division of labor. It requires the conviction that the moral condition of individual men and
mankind as a whole is fostered the most when people acquire the things of the world that they desire by peaceful
exchange rather than by theft and plunder; and when men attempt to change the way their fellow human beings
think and live and act by using the methods of reason, persuasion, and example instead of through the use of
compulsion, power, terror, and death. That is why wars still plague us. Too many men still don't believe in peace
because they don't believe in the prerequisites for peace and the freedom of trade that accompanies their
implementation. Just as the Second World War was about to begin, the French free-market economist, Louis
Boudin, pointed out, "The system of non-regulated international trade cannot ensure peace. It can help to create a
peaceful atmosphere, on the one condition: that men have a peaceful mental attitude. . . . Peace within a nation
requires the same condition. . . . The essential task therefore is to create a peaceful mentality.[13] The task we
face today is still the same as when Ludwig von Mises wrote the words quoted above in 1924 and Boudin
penned his words in 1939. We must continue to fight and hopefully prevail through reason and argument against
what Adam Smith referred to in 1776 as the "prejudices of the public" (the economic ignorance of our fellow
men) and the opposition of the "private interests" (those who wish to use the power of the state to plunder others
in society).[14] Until we do, free trade will not replace and then help to prevent future wars.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 35 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming

Free trade leads to global warming—it is a major source of co2 emissions
Venket '03
[Kumar Venkat, "Global Trade=Global Warming," 11 Dec, Common Dreams ]

Just one early impact of increasing long-distance trade is the emerging issue of "food miles." The fossil-
fuel energy spent to transport food products often exceeds the energy contained in the foods themselves.
To add insult to injury, transportation is a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions. Sustain, a U.K.-based
food and farming alliance, has shown that iceberg lettuce flown from Los Angeles to London requires 127 calories of fuel for
every food calorie. Sustain also reports that countries often end up swapping food instead of importing critical items that cannot
be produced locally. The U.K., for example, imported 126 million liters of milk and exported 270 million liters in 1997.
Researchers at Iowa State University have found that fruits and vegetables travel an average of 1,500 miles within the U.S., a 22
percent increase since 1981. When imported foods are added to the mix, the average distance from farm to the dinner table
increases significantly. Studies show that a basic diet with imported ingredients can easily consume four
times the fossil-fuel energy and emit four times the carbon dioxide compared to domestically produced
Merchandise trade currently accounts for only about 20 percent of global GDP, with agriculture
representing just a small part of global trade. But even at these relatively low levels of trade, the
transportation sector consumes nearly 60 percent of the world's oil and produces a quarter of all energy-
related carbon-dioxide emissions. Oil use by transportation has almost doubled since 1973.
Transportation-related emissions are growing at about 2.5 percent annually -- faster than any other sector
in the economy. Any dramatic increase in global trade could add substantially to the
world's annual carbon-dioxide emissions. Particularly problematic is the growing use of trucks and airplanes
at the expense of slower and more efficient trains and ships. Technological breakthroughs for freight transport are not yet on the
horizon. Improvements in fuel efficiency are possible, but studies show that they would encourage more long-distance transport
due to lower operating costs and are unlikely to prevent emissions growth in the face of increasing demand. Given the
general scientific consensus that carbon-dioxide emissions will have to drop below 1990 levels within a
few decades in order to stabilize the climate at the lower end of various warming scenarios, long-distance
trade poses a serious challenge. If the world's future economic development depends largely on global
trade, then in the absence of radically new transportation technologies, we are likely to
face the ultimate conflict between the economy and the environment. If global trade in agricultural
products is the only way out of poverty for hundreds of millions of rural poor in developing countries, the
conflict may well turn out to have an additional tragic dimension. The very essence of trade --
transporting goods from producers to consumers -- takes a toll on the environment. Free trade may appear
to be the solution to many economic problems when social and environmental "externalities" are ignored.
Global warming is only one such externality, but its sheer scale and complexity make it a litmus test for
whether the emerging global economy can be sustained in the long run. Remarkably, the World Trade
Organization and the World Bank -- the two premier institutions that promote global trade -- are silent
about the links between trade, transportation and climate. And there are no policies or plans in place for
the enormous task of replacing the world's freight transportation infrastructure with a cleaner, low-
emissions version.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 36 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming

Global warming leads to biodiversity loss, mass food shortages, rioting, and the death of 3
Dafna Hopenstand, Integrative Biology from the University of California, Berkeley and J.D.
from the University of Wisconsin Law School Spring, 2002 (“Global Warming and its Impact on Near-
Shore Communities: Protection Regimes for Fish and Coastal People Affected by Coral Reef Damage” Wisconsin
Environmental Law Journal 8 Wis. Envtl. L.J. 85 l/n)

The destruction of coral reefs has serious implications. According to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report in 1995, the most pronounced impacts of global
warming will be related to water resources. n46 Entire species will either shift to new locations
and adapt to new habitats, or face localized and potentially widespread extinction. n47 Under
either scenario--moving or dying--coastal people face a serious threat. In addition, as species [*92]
respond to climate change, the productivity of ecosystems such as coral reefs declines. n48 This results in the
reduction of marine biodiversity, the services marine ecosystems provide marine life, and the services marine
ecosystems provide human society. n49
The death of coral reefs and rise in sea levels could disrupt ocean life severely. Species may be forced to change
feeding and breeding grounds, causing fishery stocks to shift. The repercussions of this shift could be enormous on
island nations that depend on fish in their waters as a food source and for export. n50 In the Federated States of
Micronesia, for example, the marine environment and its resources are considered the basis of local culture. n51
Besides using the ocean for recreation and cultural events, Micronesians rely on coral reef resources for in-shore and
near-shore fishing. Locals trade fish as part of the nation's commerce and consume it as an essential source of
nutrition. n52 However, fish stocks in certain reef areas in Micronesia are now already seriously depleted, forcing
locals to find alternative sources of fish and other foods. n53
Whether the cause of a food shortage is fish migration or local death, the result is the same for
coastal people. Food shortages in nations affected by climate change could result in food riots
and the mass movement of hunger driven migrants. n54 A food shortage could require the
negotiation of new treaties among nations facing different levels of fish stock or the
renegotiation of current treaties between such nations. n55
This diminution in food supply near-shore is particularly devastating for coastal areas and island
nations because of their heavy dependence on coral reefs for the supply of food. n56 One-third of
the world's marine fish species are found in coral reefs. n57 Fishermen catch [*93] ninety
percent of the world's fish within two hundred nautical miles of the coast, and the majority of the
catch is within the first five miles. n58 These statistics are significant because coral reefs are
usually found in relatively shallow, near-shore water. n59 Coral animals live in shallow waters
since their symbiotic algae require sunlight for food, and sunlight does not penetrate very deep in
seawater. n60 Reef fish make up ten percent of the global fish catch, and with other reef foods,
support thirty to forty million people. n61 More than three billion people--the majority of
humankind--occupy coastal regions. n62 This figure is expected to double by 2050. n63 By the end
of the century, two-thirds of the population of all developing countries will live along coasts. n64 Half of the world's
shorelines are in the tropics, and a third of those coasts are associated with coral reefs. n65 Since the population in
coastal areas tends to grow faster than inland populations, n66 most coastal growth will occur in the tropics. Further,
continuing population growth in coastal areas and on islands, such as the Maldives, compounds the potential food
shortage crisis. n67 For example, Hanoi's population has grown from 200,000 to over three million in the last fifty
years; this population growth is matched by an enormous demand for food, particularly fish. n68
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 37 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming Impact EXTN

Warming will cause the earth to explode
Dr Tom J. Chalko, MSc, PhD 2005 (, accessed 8/05)

The real danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from
overheating the planetary interior. Galileo discovered that Earth moves. Copernicus discovered
that Earth moves around the Sun. In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report,
discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is in principle a nuclear reactor, it is eccentric, and
that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery has been
published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal
Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are
overheated from underneath. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the
Earth's interior "crystallizes", but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that
needs COOLING.It seems that the currently adopted doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of
Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together,
because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters.
In any nuclear reactor, the danger of overheating has to be recognized early. When external
symptoms intensify it is usually too late to prevent disaster. Do we have enough imagination,
intelligence and integrity to comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible?
Did you see the figure above?
It seems that if we do not do anything today about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire
atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we may not survive the next decade. In a systematically
under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is hyperbolic and
leads to explosion. It seems that there will be no second chance...

Warming kills billions AND collapse agricultural systems which turns the case
Milbrath '94
[Lester W., Director of the Research Program in Environment and Society at the State University of New York at
and a professor emeritus of political science and sociology, The Futurist. Washington: May/June, Vol. 28, Iss. 3;
pg. 26]

As this scenario plays out, it is improbable that the climate system will not change at all or that it will gradually
change to a new pattern and settle down, as is assumed in most current economic thinking. The most-probable
climate scenario is for even more chaos. Many meteorologists and climatologists already perceive the climate
system as chaotic. If humans increasingly perturb that system, we could expect it to become even more, chaotic. But
how chaotic will it become, what kinds of chaos might we expect, and how long will it last? No one knows the
answers to those questions. From chaos theory, we do suspect that systems which become extremely chaotic may
collapse or shift to a new pattern—one that may or may not be stable. The climatic catastrophes of recent years
do suggest one possible scenario of climate behavior. Frequent unexpected climatic disasters may be interspersed
into "normal" climate patterns. The resulting loss of life and property could reduce the human propensity to
multiply and to increase economic throughput. Experiencing these losses may lead people to lose faith in the
premise of continuity. This will retard economic growth despite the desperate efforts of governments to promote
it. Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is
oscillation-type chaos in the climate system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they
are injured or die when climate is too hot or too cold, too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other
creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe declines in agricultural production. Farm animals and wildlife
would die in large numbers. Many humans also would starve. Several years of climatic oscillation could kill
billions of people. The loss of the premise of continuity would also precipitate collapse of world financial
markets. That collapse would lead to sharp declines in commodity markets, world trade, factory output, retail
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 38 of 60
sales, research and development, tax income for governments, and education. Such nonessential activities as
tourism, travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would be severely affected. Billions of
unemployed people would drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaunted economic system
would collapse like a house of cards.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 39 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Global Warming Impact EXTN

Warming leads to intense flooding in densely populated areas.

IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis

Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)

Coasts _ Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including coastal

erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise. The effect will be exacerbated by
increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas (very high confidence). {WGII 6.3,
6.4, SPM} _ By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected to
experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The numbers affected will be largest
in the densely populated and low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small
islands are especially vulnerable (very high confidence). {WGII 6.4, 6.5, Table 6.11, SPM}

Floods caused by global warming devastate sustainable development, biodiversity, and

drinking water supplies.

IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis

Report”, 12/12-17, p. 27)

Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many
regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting
increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. It
is likely that up to 20% of the world population will live in areas where river flood potential
could increase by the 2080s. Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts
are projected to adversely affect sustainable development. Increased temperatures will
further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater lakes and rivers,
with predominantly adverse impacts on many individual freshwater species, community
composition and water quality. In coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate water resource
constraints due to increased salinisation of groundwater supplies. {WGI 11.2-11.9; WGII
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4}
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 40 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment

( ). Environment
A. Free trade risks environmental extinction
George, Dalit-Adivasi activist, 2004 (Goldy M., Countercurrents, "Free Trade – A war against Dalits & Adivasis",
November 10, 2004,, accessed on July 8, 2008)

War because the indigenous people are thrown out of their resource zones and livelihoods. Forceful change in
life style, culture and eco-friendly ethos is reversed through this process. Land and forests turned to be a
commodity of consumption, with concentration on private and individual (corporate) capital; it is not meant for
the welfare of all. War because their right to land, water and forests are yet to be defined by the nation state.
Although there are sufficient facts to realise the symbiotic relationship of Adivasis and Dalits with forest
environment and the eco-system at large – they are systematically and strategically bypassed, excluded and
isolated. They are not recognised as the original inhabitants and owners of land. Many so-called development
projects resulted in mass displacement and migration creating an army of domestic refugees. And let us not
forget free trade is also considered to be a part of economic growth and development. Hence the historical
omission of the already betrayed and battered continues in higher degree and magnitude. War because their skills
and knowledge are patented under the newly coined phenomenon of IPRs. The wealth of Indian natural zones
and skills and knowledge of indigenous communities are immense. Once this is transferred it could easily
brought under the IPRs. War because everything is now in the market. But the Dalits and Adivasis are nowhere
in the market. Other production-based communities have a minimum right to enter the market, but the
indigenous people have no right to market. Is it not really silly that the inherited ones are out of livelihood,
profession, trade and even market? Rank of Dalits & Adivasis in Trade process is nothing more than a big cipher.
War because the exploitation of non-renewable resources is diametrically opposite to the man-resource
relationship. This at large disturbs eco-system and erupts major ecological problems, which threatens the life of
the mother earth to unpredictable magnitude. In other words life on earth is and will be at stake if the present
process continues. This is particularly related to the question of mining. In fact the communities have no right to
mining on their own. The mining and mineral policy has contributed a lot to this process in tune with the
principles of market and trade for the MNCs. War because the jargons like ecological democracy and ecological
equity won't go hand in hand with globalisation and market. Both are wholly opposite to each other. War because
the corporate house needs resources whereas people need their livelihood. It is a war between surplus vs.
survival. Thus the subsistent economy is transferred into market economy. War because in an age of free trade
and market the life values sustained through the community life and love are constantly diffusing and substituted
with competition.

B. Environmental degradation results in extinction

Les Kaufmann, Chief Scientist at Edgerton Research Lab, THE LAST

The fourth argument for preserving biological diversity is the simplest: Our lives depend on it. We are
part of a common fabric of life. Our survival is dependent on the integrity of this fabric, for the loss of a
few critical threads could lead to a quick unraveling of the whole. We know that there have
been previous mass extinctions, through which some life survived. As for our
own chances of surviving this mass extinction, there can be no promises. If the Grim Reaper
plays any favorites at all, then it would seem to be a special fondness for
striking down dominant organisms in their prime. David Joblinski examines
the fates of rudist dames, mammalike reptiles, dinosaurs, and a host of other
scintillating but doomed creatures in his essay. Humans are now the dominant
creatures, at least in terms of their influence. So, lest history bear false witness
and barring some serious conservation efforts on our part, this mass extinction
could well be the last one that we will ever know about.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 41 of 60
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 42 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN

Free trade causes environmental destruction
Venkat, Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts of technology and
globalization, 2004 (Kumar, News Center, "Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?", January 8, 2004,, accessed on July 8, 2008)

One of the most contentious issues surrounding globalization is the concern that free trade hurts the environment,
both locally and globally. The classic argument for free global trade is that it is efficient for countries to specialize in producing goods
where they have a comparative advantage, which they can then exchange for other goods. But skeptics like ecological economist Herman
Daly have questioned this on the grounds that the real costs of trade -- including depletion of natural resources and pollution -- are hidden
and routinely ignored. In the new book "Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence," economists Brian Copeland and Scott Taylor
attempt to replace some of the rhetoric in this debate with systematically produced results. Based on a study of sulfur dioxide concentrations
in over 100 cities around the world from 1971 to 1996, they reach the surprising and provocative conclusion that free trade can actually be
good for the environment. Copeland and Taylor find no evidence for the "pollution haven" hypothesis, which states that free trade will
prompt polluting industries to move to poor countries where environmental regulations are lax. Their results suggest that rich countries have
a comparative advantage in capital-intensive polluting industries, so these industries are likely to stay in rich countries even if environmental
regulations are tighter. For these developed countries, the right environmental policy can produce a net good for the environment. Pollution
policy, in the form of regulation or taxes, can lead to cleaner production methods by encouraging better technologies. The message to
developing countries is that environmental problems can be exacerbated if trade liberalization outpaces environmental policy -- as we will
see shortly, therein lies one of the conflicts between trade and the environment. The complexity of the subject becomes evident as the book
leaves a host of questions unanswered. The authors limit their focus to local pollution caused by production of goods, while ignoring other
significant environmental impacts of trade. If a car is manufactured in Japan and then shipped to the U.S., there would be
some local pollution in Japan due to the manufacturing process. Some natural resources -- both local and
imported -- would also be used up in manufacturing the car. There would be additional resource use and
pollution from transporting the car to the U.S., and even more from driving that car year after year. Pollution
from transportation and consumption of goods, as well as resource use throughout the life cycles of products, are
all potentially major avenues through which global trade can damage the environment. When all these effects are
combined with production-driven pollution, the final outcome could easily reverse the optimistic result that trade
benefits the environment. The argument that polluting industries will stay in capital-rich developed countries also loses steam when
capital itself is highly mobile. China, for example, received $44 billion in direct foreign investment in 2001. Even if companies are investing
in China to take advantage of its cheap labor, an indirect consequence of concentrating an increasing part of the world's manufacturing in
China will be heavy resource use and pollution locally. A more direct instance of the "pollution haven" effect is the routine transfer of e-
waste -- used computers and other electronic appliances that contain highly toxic chemicals -- from the U.S. to countries like India, China
and the Philippines. Low-paid workers in these countries work under hazardous conditions to salvage valuable materials from this fast-
growing waste stream, while polluting the soil, air and water in the process. These recent examples heighten the concern that developing
countries, where the bulk of the world's population lives, may be unprepared for the environmental consequences of global trade. Studies of
air quality show that it deteriorates in the early stages of economic growth, and then starts improving when per-capita income exceeds $5000
per year. If this holds for most kinds of pollution and resource depletion, then incomes will have to increase by a factor of five to ten in large
developing countries like China and India before there is sufficient local demand for environmental protection. Assuming that free trade can
eventually deliver this income growth, a big unknown is whether it will result in income-induced policy changes before the cost of cleaning
up the environment becomes prohibitively high. Equally troublesome is the issue of trans-boundary pollution such as greenhouse-gas
emissions, where countries with widely different income levels will have to come together with a unified policy response. Between 1973 and
2001, a period in which many domestic economies were turned inside out by globalization, annual carbon-dioxide emissions from worldwide
fuel combustion increased by 50 percent. By 2030, these emissions are projected to be 60 percent higher than in 2001 if no new policies are
adopted. Power generation and transportation -- two sectors crucial to trade -- will account for three-quarters of this increase. A great deal of
uncertainty remains about the long-term environmental impacts of globalization. But the evidence we have so far suggests that
free trade unconstrained by environmental protection could be a recipe for disaster.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 43 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN

More evidence that free trade hurts the environment

Global Exchange,2003
Spring 7-5-08,

The GMO Threat As they struggle against NAFTA, Mexican corn farmers are facing another threat—
contamination of ancient corn species by strains of genetically modified (GM) corn. In late 2001 corn with
genetically modified material was discovered in a region of Oaxaca where no GM experiments had ever taken
place. Experts came to realize that the millions of tons of US corn dumped into Mexico mostly likely caused the
contamination. Though the corn was intended only for food use, some farmers replanted the seeds. Now the
contamination is spreading. Local species that over millennia had built up immunities to local diseases and pests
have been compromised. Farmers are outraged that their corn is suddenly more vulnerable than ever before.

Free trade polices exacerbate environmental problems

George, Dalit-Adivasi activist, 2004 (Goldy M., Countercurrents, "Free Trade – A war against Dalits & Adivasis",
November 10, 2004,, accessed on July 8, 2008)

Industrialisation, which made a colourful and dreamy entry, is turning out to be the worst form of human
development. The steady economic growth of industries with active support from the state machinery is directly
proportional to the unchecked exploitation of masses. Most of them belong to marginalized communities such as
Dalits, Adivasis, women, working class, etc. Though during the independence struggle "land to the tillers" and
"factory to the workers" prominently came on to the national agenda, nowhere in India had we witnessed the
later one being implemented in the post independence era. Resultant displacement, migration, repercussion of
workers, loss of land and livelihood, pilfering state revenue, forest resources, etc. has outgrown to monstrous
level. This has amplified particularly with WTO taking the centre stage of all sorts of trade related agreements
and transactions at the international level. Trade is no longer buying and selling of goods and services but it
encompasses issues like Intellectual Property Rights. With this the global market has wide open for exploration
and exploitation of resources under the aegis of free trade. Industrialised nations found their tools to maintain
supremacy on world trade. Prophets of trade and commerce argue that free trade maximises world economic
output. This is what is considered to be progress. But what we have been witnessing with the Dalits and Adivasis
in India is diametrically opposite to these claims. Decline of people's rights on Natural Resources: The symbiotic
relationship between the forest-dwelling communities, especially the Adivasis and the forest Eco-system is an
eternal truth. They had traditional system of preserving the forest and wild life. Many of the indigenous
communities worship the forest; give offerings to the forest-gods, forest-goddess and even the wild animals.
Their life cannot be segregated into watertight compartments su
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 44 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Environment EXTN

And more evidence
George, Dalit-Adivasi activist, 2004 (Goldy M., Countercurrents, "Free Trade – A war against Dalits & Adivasis",
November 10, 2004,, accessed on July 8, 2008)

Due to their emotional attachment with the forest, they always search for resembling locality. So whenever they
are victimised in the name of progress and development they settle down in a similar environment. It is because
of this past that the Adivasis and Dalits in many parts of the country are branded as encroachers. Apparently their
customary and traditional rights were either curtailed or ignored by every ruler – both by the Colonial and
National ruler. The past policies of the state had seriously disturbed the close and lively relationship between
people and natural resources – leading to the unrestricted destruction of forest wealth, affecting their wholesome
life style and stuck at their very survival. The rule of globalisation added extra intensity on the question of
natural resources. These policies were directly or indirectly related to capture the resources throughout the world,
which includes the natural resources too. One of the greatest failures of this period was the scantiness of unified
attempts from the third world to resist this move. The segmentation of the third world and their internal fighting
to established power ensured enthusiasm and enriched the exploiter camp to manipulate the situation.
Nevertheless, this reduced People's control over Natural Resources. People's control over Natural Resources was
further reduced with the direct intervention of IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. Several World Bank funded projects
have already deteriorated the condition of the forests and forest dwelling communities. The capitalistic nation
foresaw the treasure of wealth in forest, the rich biodiversity, bionetwork genealogy, natural knowledge systems,
medicinal value of herbs in Indian forests, etc. Accordingly modifying the operative formula of globalisation,
liberalisation, privatisation and open market economy were the inevitable innovation of these agencies, even in
forest-based regions. The major intention was not just to capture the resources from the indigenous people, but
also to establish an unquestionable political and social control over the world.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 45 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Famine

( ). Famine
A. Trade Liberalization cause famine – spreads poverty and dependence resulting in mass
food insecurity
Kenny '07 [Zoe, "The Economic Causes of World Hunger," From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue
#728, 7/7/08]

On October 16, events in more than 150 countries marked World Food Day, which commemorates the founding
of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, with the theme of "the
right to food". Despite the UN's 1974 World Food Conference setting the ambitious goal of ending world hunger
"within a decade", freedom from hunger remains more like a privilege than a "right".
According to the FAO, at least 800 million people in the world go hungry every day, and the
lives of at least 400 million children being blighted by malnutrition in the first few
months after being born.
The FAO has declared that hunger is "the most critical manifestation of poverty", with about 1.5
billion people having to live on less than US$1 a day and someone dying of hunger every 3.6 seconds.
This dire situation is only set to worsen as an combination of climate change, social conflict, the global push for
biofuels and rising oil prices combine to push more people in poor countries into hunger. The persistence of
widespread hunger is a result of reliance by the FAO and most of the world's
governments on either "market forces" or superficial quick-fixes of increasing food aid
to eliminate hunger. As long as the systemic causes of hunger and poverty are ignored
any goals, no matter how well-meaning, will be bound to fail. As Cuban President Fidel Castro
noted at the UN's 1996 World Food Summit: "Hunger, inseparable companion of the poor, is the daughter of the
unequal distribution of wealth and of the injustices of this world. The rich do not know hunger…
"It is capitalism, neoliberalism, the laws of a savage market, external debt,
underdevelopment, unequal exchange, which are killing so many people in the world."
The worst hunger is found in rural areas of the Third World. Small-plot farmers and
cooperatives have been worst affected by global trends. International financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have pushed
for trade liberalisation in poor countries as a condition for receiving much-needed loans.
First World governments have hypocritically forced poor countries to eliminate subsidies for farmers while
maintaining billions of dollars worth of subsidies to their own farmers. Other factors bearing down on small
farmers in the Third World have been the pressure to grow exportoriented
cash crops rather than food crops for domestic consumption, the higher costs of seeds due to genetic patenting by
Western corporations, and the slow pace of land reform. For one or all of these reasons, increasing numbers of
Third World farmers have found they are unable to compete with the uncompetitively priced First World
agricultural products dumped onto poor countries, and are forced to sell their land leading to the mass exodus to
urban slums.
With less food produced domestically, poor countries are losing the struggle to achieve food
sovereignty, thus becoming more dependent on the corporate-dominated world market for
food supplies. A drop in the exchange rate relative to the US dollar or the euro of a poor
country's currency or a sharp increase in world commodity prices can quickly cause such a
country to descend into a food crisis.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 46 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Famine EXTN

Free trade leads to food shortages
Hattingh, research and education officer at the International Labour Research and Information Group, 2008
(Shawn, Monthly Review, "Liberalizing Food Trade to Death", June 5, 2008,, accessed July 9, 2008)

Up until a few years ago, free trade had led to low food prices internationally. With the advent of free trade,
subsidized agricultural products from the US flooded into the countries of the South. Farmers involved in
producing staple foods in the South, such as maize, beans, and grains, were especially hard hit. For example,
maize farmers in the US have traditionally received massive subsidies, often to the tune of $10 billion a year,
which allowed them to export their produce to countries in the South at exceptionally low prices.12 Most small-
scale farmers in the South, who no longer received subsidies under the SAPs, could not compete with the price
of this imported maize.13 The outcome was that millions of small-scale maize farmers around the world have
gone bankrupt. In Mexico alone, it has been estimated that as many as 5 million small-scale farmers and farm
workers have been forced to leave their farms and move to the urban areas due to cheap imports flooding in from
the US.14 Bankruptcy has not only been limited to the maize sector -- small-scale farmers across every sector
have been destroyed by free trade. Hundreds of millions of small-scale farmers and farm workers in the South
have been driven from the land. In fact, millions upon millions of hectares of farm land has been abandoned in
the South. The result has been that most countries in the South are no longer able to meet their own food needs;
they have to import food from the US and the EU -- which of course benefits multinational companies.

Because of food shortages, humanity is one crop season away from mass starvation
Adams, Health Ranger, 2008 (Mike, Natural News, "Prepare for mass global starvation", April 23, 2008,, accessed on July 10, 2008)

So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as these economic
and climate realities unfold, our world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will
be felt is in poor developing nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a
20% rise in the price of basic food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions of
families. If something is not done to rescue these people from their plight, they will starve to death. Wealthy
nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see
mass starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees die, in which case prepare
to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of living, annoying
consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.).
That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy. But what we're seeing right now, folks, is
just a small foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor
climate changes and foolish biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine
what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a
gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be around the world? The answer, of course, is that it will be triple or
quadruple the current price. And that means many more people will starve. Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only
limiting factor threatening future food supplies on our planet: There's also fossil water. That's water from
underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then it's lost to evaporation. Countries
like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not surprisingly, the water
levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in some cases), that water
will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass
starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of
humanity is just one crop season away from mass starvation.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 47 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Development

Free trade doesn't lead to growth in developing nations for it only destroys the little growth
they have
BusinessWeek, 2003 (Business Week, "Where Free Trade Hurts Thirty million jobs could disappear with the end of
apparel quotas",, accessed July
12, 2008)

By Cambodia's modest standards, Tuch Phearom is a success story. For the past four years she has been sewing
sweaters, a job that now earns her as much as $80 per month, including overtime. The money has helped her
family build a new wooden house that sits on stilts, leaving room for the chickens, pigs, and cattle to sleep and
forage below. And her wages have allowed her father to expand the plot of land he farms to 4.5 hectares. The
winds of global commerce, though, may soon blow right through Tuch's humble prosperity. The U.S. and Europe
next year are set to remove a 30-year-old regime of strict import quotas on clothing and textiles, which could put
Tuch and the 1,300 other workers at the Thai-Pore Garment Manufacturing Co. Ltd. out on the street. The
reason: Once the quotas are lifted, a handful of countries -- most notably China -- are expected to quickly
dominate the clothing industry worldwide, using their low wages, modern factories, and good infrastructure to
put outfits like Thai-Pore out of business. "I'm worried my family will have nothing," says the 24-year-old Tuch.
Adds her boss, managing director Roger Tan: "China is a major, major threat." It's not just a threat to Cambodia.
From the Dominican Republic to Bangladesh, some 30 million workers in dozens of developing countries could
see their jobs suddenly evaporate. Under a 1974 global pact called the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA), 47
nations each gets a share of the European and U.S. markets for clothing and textiles. Cambodia, for instance, this
year can export to the U.S. 1,721,232 cotton pillowcases, 72 silk dresses, 1,136,229 knit shirts, and 37,896
playsuits -- in all, $1.4 billion worth of clothing and textiles. The original idea of the quotas was to afford some
protection to the declining textile industries of the developed countries. The reality was different: With quotas
effectively guaranteeing market access, manufacturers sprang up in such unlikely places as Jamaica and Sri
Lanka, which before the quotas had no significant textile industry.

Not only does free trade kill economies, it exacerbates the status of the least developed
countries in the world
Wehrfritz, Newsweek's Hong Kong Bureau Chief/Asian Economics Correspondent, 2005
(George, Newsweek, "Free Trade Is Not Enough", December 26, 2005,

Free trade can kill economies. Just ask Robert Sisilo, the Solomon Islands' permanent representative to the
World Trade Organization. If a sweeping trade package under discussion at the global body is ever implemented,
his isolated nation stands to lose a mainstay revenue source: fees for access to its territorial waters. They are but
one example of the subsidies that the WTO aims to ban in the name of free trade. The long-term solution is
obvious: the Solomon Islanders need their own fishing fleet, an indigenous canning industry and the means to
export globally. Instead of giving them fish, to cite the old empowerment cliche, they need to be taught how to
fish for themselves. Many economists argue that free trade is a magic bullet--the quickest way to fuel growth and
alleviate poverty. Yet free trade hasn't much helped the 47 least developed countries in the world, the poorest of
the poor. According to United Nations data, their share of world trade has declined sharply since 1950, and now
accounts for a meager 1 percent of global trade volume. Collectively, the number of people living in abject
poverty in those nations is expected to rise to 471 million by 2015--up from 334 million in 2000. Even East Asia,
long the poster child for export-driven growth, owes much of its rise to government-led and -financed industrial
strategies, as well as outright protectionism. Japan still impedes imports of foreign rice, for example, while South
Korea blocks a variety of agricultural products.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 48 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Gender Oppression

Free trade causes gender oppression
Citizens Trade Campaign, 2002 (Citizens Trade Campaign, "Trade Agreements Based on NAFTA Model Have
Proven Harmful to Women, Proposed New Rules Threaten Further Damage", Published December 2002,, accessed on July 12, 2008)

Unless future agreements include core worker's rights with enforceable protections for women workers, it is
likely that the same kinds of job loss, wage depression and human rights violations generated under NAFTA,
will expand throughout the Americas. In addition, new rules under the FTAA, CAFTA, bilateral trade
agreements, and agreements on agriculture and services within the WTO could create new hardships for women.
New rules in trade agreements could adversely affect women in the following areas: Women's access to
affordable medicines. Through new rules on intellectual property rights, agreements currently under negotiation
could make affordable medicines an impossibility for women and their families. The language in the Singapore
Free Trade Agreement, for example, backtracks on progress made in the WTO agenda established at Doha, by
further restricting the ability of governments to produce their own generic drugs or to import them from non-
patented producers. According to the United Nations, 70 percent of the world's poor are women. Without
affordable medicines, this large population of poor women would not be able to provide care for themselves and
their families.

More evidence
Citizens Trade Campaign, 2002 (Citizens Trade Campaign, "Trade Agreements Based on NAFTA Model Have
Proven Harmful to Women, Proposed New Rules Threaten Further Damage", Published December 2002,, accessed on July 12, 2008)

Women's access to essential services. New rules expanding trade liberalization in the service sector could
severely limit access to vital services such as healthcare and education. Language in the FTAA's service section
as it now stands could threaten access to affordable healthcare, education and clean water by subjecting
governments to new rules which may limit their ability to regulate services trade and investment in the public
interest. The deregulation of vital services such as healthcare and education would have a disproportional impact
on women due to the fact that women are usually responsible for providing healthcare and education for their
families. Women may not be able to provide for their families if domestic policies meant to guarantee
affordability and accessibility can be challenged as barriers to trade.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 49 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Poverty

( ). Poverty
A. Free Trade reinforces global poverty
Wehrfritz, Newsweek's Hong Kong Bureau Chief/Asian Economics Correspondent, 2005
(George, Newsweek, "Free Trade Is Not Enough", December 26, 2005,, accessed July 9, 2008)

A new consensus is emerging among the developing nations of the world, expressed most forcefully at the
contentious WTO meeting in Hong Kong in December. An increasing number of voices are arguing that trade is
not enough to end poverty and reduce the massive income disparities that bedevil countries from China to Chile.
In fact, they say, what's needed is more government intervention in economies, not less. Call it a new New Deal.
And get ready to hear much more about it in 2006. In Asia in particular, states recognize the importance of
market-driven policies. Yet big government is back in vogue in the region. India aims to boost rural incomes by
creating 150 million wage jobs in the country's poorest villages. Indonesia is establishing new schemes to
compensate poor households for higher gas prices even as the country dismantles its massive fuel-subsidy
programs. Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has handed cash to every poor village and asked each to
specialize in making products. Asian governments demand that developed markets open more fully to their
exports, but reserve the right to shield vulnerable sectors of their domestic economies from cheap imports. This
is not old-fashioned populism. Serious thinkers have concluded that neoliberal economic policies are little help
to the world's poorest nations. Columbia University economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz argues that the
WTO's agenda as currently constituted should be scrapped. Poverty reduction, he and others argue, requires not
just market liberalization but also massive investments in aid--less government in some areas, more in others.
Many development economists advocate aggressive programs to boost literacy, improve health care and build
infrastructure. All are vital prerequisites to globalization. In other words, poor countries need to have stronger
economic foundations before their markets can be thrown open to international competition.

B. . This invisible cycle of poverty is worse than any nuclear war --Cycles of poverty are an
ongoing thermonuclear war on the poor
Mumia Abu-Jamal, former Reporter and Death Row inmate, 1998

This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected
media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it --
really? Gilligan notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of
relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single
year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed
by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every
year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence
became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe
themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense
self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife
smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence,
unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer in its
grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure --
that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on
the Poor. It is found in every country, submerged beneath the sands of history, buried, yet ever present,
as omnipotent as death. In the struggles over the commons in Europe, when the peasants struggled and lost their battles for their
communal lands (a precursor to similar struggles throughout Africa and the Americas), this violence was sanctified, by church and crown, as the
"Divine Right of Kings" to the spoils of class battle.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 50 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Poverty EXTN

Free trade hurts farming in the US and Mexico.
Global Exchange,2003
(Spring,, accessed 7-5-08)

When the former leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States gathered in Washington, DC in December to
mark the 10th anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the mood was all back-
slapping and smiles. But a few thousands miles away, in Mexico City, the atmosphere was much different.
Capping a month of raucous campesino protests that stretched from Chiapas to Chihuahua, thousands of farmers
stormed the Mexican capitol to demand changes in NAFTA's agricultural rules. In a dramatic illustration of the
failures of the "free trade" model, NAFTA has lit a fire in the Mexican countryside.
What should we make of our rural neighbors' ire? A warning signal. US agricultural subsidies and NAFTA rules
are harming small farmers on both sides of the border. Unless these policies are changed, we can expect
sweeping farmer protests in Mexico that will shake the country to its core.
Mexican farmers are in dire straits, due in large part to NAFTA. Since 1994, US corn exports to Mexico have
increased eighteenfold as US producers dump massive quantities of cheap corn on the market. The drop in corn
prices caused by this dumping has crippled the 15 million Mexicans who rely on corn farming. Another 10
million farmers have been similarly devastated by the collapse in prices for coffee and sugar.
US taxpayers are directly funding the crisis in the Mexican countryside. US agribusiness giants like Archer
Daniels Midland and Cargill are able to dump corn on the Mexican market because of the massive subsidies they
receive from the US government. Such subsidies enable US farmers to produce corn and wheat well below
production costs—an advantage not enjoyed by Mexican farmers. While Mexico gives about $720 per year to
each farmer, the US spends $20,800 per farmer. Last year the US Congress approved a $70 billion increase in
farm subsidies over the next 10 years.
So US farmers are doing well, right? If only. The new farm supports will go overwhelmingly to the largest,
corporate-owned operations. By encouraging over-production, the subsidies end up dropping farm prices on both
sides of the border, to the dismay of family farmers everywhere. While agribusiness giants Conagra and ADM
have seen profit increases of 200 and 300 percent, respectively, since NAFTA went into effect, small farmers in
the US have been pushed into bankruptcy. Thirty-three thousand US farmers went out of business since NAFTA
—three times the pre-NAFTA rate.
To add insult to injury, ordinary consumers have not received any savings from the decrease in wholesale prices.
Between 1993 and 2000, prices for food eaten at home in the US increased 20 percent. Tortilla prices in Mexico
City have also risen.
Now the situation threatens to become worse. On January 1, NAFTA's latest stage eliminated Mexican tariffs on
wheat, rice, potatoes, pork, apples and barley. Pitting hi-tech US agribusiness corporations against small-scale
Mexican farmers is no contest. Thanks to NAFTA, Mexico will soon be converted from a self-sufficient country
to a country that cannot feed itself.
What can we expect if action isn't taken to reverse the collapse in rural communities? The anger and the
desperation will deepen. And the protests will grow larger.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 51 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Terrorism

( ). Terrorism
A. International trading system spurs terrorism
Potvin, Publisher, editor, and writer for The Republic, 2006 (Kevin, The Republic of East Vancouver, "Globalization
and its promoters have bred terrorism", August 2, 2006,
repub/143_kevin_potvin_globalization.htm, accessed on July 12, 2008)
But those effects are surely noticeable when they do arrive. Riots in Paris and Sydney, bombs in Bali and London, and plots hatched in Toronto, no less than
bunker busters dropped on Afghan and Iraqi neighbourhoods and prisoners captured by Canadian troops and handed over to American torture chambers, are the
visible signs of a generation-long decline in cultural and social standards of living (even while economic standards of living could well be rising in every one of
these places). We can bicker about the individual causes of this or that particular person who decides to take up violence against economic and state symbols, but
the accumulation of such individual causes will tell us nothing about why the effects are spreading globally. To understand the phenomenon of "terrorism"
on its global level, we
need to identify a global cause to explain it. And that cause is none other than that set of
policies falling under the rubric of economic globalization as promoted and pushed around the world beginning
two decades ago, in 1986, with the signing of the first Nafta agreement. All the unthinking promoters of
globalization, and all their dollar-sign-blinded defenders in the media over the last two decades—all those newspaper columnists and
radio show hosts, the learned authors of journal articles, the speechmakers, the analysts and the economists, the professors and their graduate
students, and all the think tanks, media companies, and universities, as well as all the companies that underwrote them with bursaries and
grants —are directly to blame for the rising death toll and the spreading culture of fear due to the twin phenomena
of terrorism and war at home and abroad. Critics of globalization warned repeatedly and convincingly that
globalization would send into a hyperdriven offensive the already deleterious effects of capitalism on social and
cultural standards, effects that would come to be felt in ways that would make the economic gains of
globalization pale in comparison. Those critics were routinely abused in the media, ignored in the universities, and dismissed in the
think tanks, and their warnings were never answered. Just as Condalleezza Rice could say with a straight face that nobody
in her administration had conceived that anyone would ever fly a plane into a building as an act of terrorism, so
too might promoters of globalization claim that they never conceived of homegrown terrorism, bombings, or
threats of prime ministerial beheadings as the direct results of globalization. But on both claims we know they were fully
warned. What the alarmed leaders today call terrorism is nothing more, nor less, than the next stage of protest against globalization. And
what we are today alarmed to see perpetrated in the name of anti-terrorism—the destruction of civil rights, the transformation of our
economies into war economies, the forced deposing of foreign governments, the waging of brutal war around the world, and the outright
mass murder of innocent civilians—is only the next stage in the globalization agenda. None of this has anything to do
with religion, freedom, hatred, or economic well-being or the lack of it. It is all about economic globalization and the negative effects of it on
our social and cultural standards of living, and the reaction against these, only with the intensity on both sides ratcheted up a few levels since
the Battle in Seattle of 1999. Globalization's critics were silenced in the blasts of 9/11, but perhaps its time to stand
them up and dust them off again to hear what they have to say, seeing as how they were right. An end to the violence
perpetrated, and in turn encouraged, by globalization's promoters the last two decades will only come when globalization's promoters are
finally rejected, ridiculed, and marginalized right out of the media, the universities, and the halls of government power. Globalization is a
monumental failure that has brought us to this point of massive violence, death and fear around the world. All its
promoters the last two decades should be hunted down and held up against the wall to answer for these awful crimes. It is not the religious
Islamists we need to smoke out, but the economic globalists, and it is the globalists' ideology that needs to be repudiated, not the ideology of
those who are only replying to globalization's offensive. It is everyone who has promoted globalization the last twenty years
who is fully to blame both for terrorism and for the war against it.

B. Nuclear terrorism risks world war and extinction, even if it doesn’t work
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, ‘04
[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705,]

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate
the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between
civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also
speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to
survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war,
from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over
another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we
will all be losers.\
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 52 of 60

Impact – Free Trade Bad – Terrorism EXTN

Trade does not solve roots of Terrorism
AEA '01
[American Economic Alert, "When Free Traders Excuse Terrorism", October 25, 7/7/08]

These trade-liberalization-cures-poverty-and-terrorism arguments are puzzling in another way as well. They

suggest libertarian and moderate Democrat agreement that today's world trading order is fundamentally unjust
and, in particular, unfair to developing Countries like Afghanistan. It's tempting to dismiss these arguments by
observing that Taliban leaders haven't exactly been clamoring for access to U.S. markets. If anything, they (and
other fundamentalist Muslim leaders throughout the Mid East) reject western-style consumerist economic
development. More importantly, however, the globalization cheerleaders are conveniently forgetting the
triumphalist picture of the world economy they have worked so hard to create since the Cold War's end. As
endless studies from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Progressive Policy Institute have told
us, today's version of globalization gives all countries the opportunity to grow rich provided they drop most of
their own trade barriers and choking domestic regulations. If third-world socialist holdovers want to ignore the
virtues of free markets, they have no one to blame for
their poverty but themselves. It's one thing to say that industrialized countries should open their markets more to
third world exports (although American trade statistics reveal few developing countries experiencing any
difficulty exporting to the United States). It's quite another thing to say, as the free traders have begun suggesting
in these writings, that global trade is still so unfair or unfree as to merit some blame for terrorism and other
forms of political extremism. Finally, the cheerleaders' equation of global poverty and terrorism is just plain
wrong factually. Not that global poverty levels are not shamefully high. And not that they don't generate
understandable anger and frustration. But a reality double-check is urgently needed here:
First, the vast majority of the world's poor are not politically active, much less actual supporters of Bin Laden-
style mass murder. Even the rioters in Pakistan are not crossing the Afghan border to sign up with Al Qaeda. And
most desperately poor, alienated people will continue to balk at flying airliners into skyscrapers, thus
guaranteeing that Bin Laden-style movements will always be numerically tiny. So the notion that free trade is
needed to deprive terrorists of oceans of recruits is just nonsense. Second, the terrorists themselves generally
have not come from Afghanistan or other hopelessly impoverished countries. Many are from Saudi Arabia,
which even after many relatively lean years still has a per capita income of $7,000. Others, like alleged highjack
ringleader Mohammed Atta, come from Egypt. That country clearly is much poorer, but Atta himself was the son
of a lawyer, and spent years in Germany studying engineering. Ditto for one of his co-conspirators, Marwan Al-
Shehhi. And Osama Bin Laden himself is the son of a billionaire businessman. As the Washington Post has
reported, most of the September 11 attackers "did not meet the profile of the prototypical suicide bomber --
young, uneducated, poor, disaffected."
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 53 of 60

Aff Answers – Link Turn

Internal link turn-Kickstarting Doha now would fail-it wouldn’t get off the ground, and
would ultimately lead to is complete collapse, rather than its current on-hold statu
The Business Times Singapore August 1 2008 (“Time for a rethink on the Doha trade talks; An agreement in
Geneva would have sent a message of confidence in the world economy”, Lexis Nexis)

ANOTHER summer, another failed attempt to clinch a new global deal to boost world trade. This time, however,
despite brave words by World Trade Organization (WTO) chief Pascal Lamy, who wants to reconvene negotiators in
autumn, the seven-year old Doha round of trade talks appears to have received a quasi-fatal body blow. Few in
Geneva are in any mood to restart negotiations any time soon. They should be encouraged not to hurry back.
WTO members need to engage in some serious thinking about the pros and cons of the deal under discussion.
Attitudes and mindsets need to change. To achieve success in Doha, WTO negotiators must reflect on long-term
global interests rather than their short-term national priorities.
True, an agreement this week in Geneva would have sent a much-needed message of confidence in the world
economy and helped inject some equally badly-needed oomph into world trade. But Doha's collapse is not as
'heartbreaking' as European Union trade chief Peter Mandelson would like us to believe.
For one, the economic costs of the collapse in Geneva are not immense. The deal being negotiated will not trigger an
immediate increase in global exports, imports or investments. Countries everywhere are engaged in opening up their
markets, a trend that is not expected to slow down because of the Doha collapse. In addition, for all their rhetoric
and posturing in the Doha talks, developing countries such as Brazil, India and China are cutting tariffs and
embracing foreign investments. That trend too is expected to last.
In fact, even as the Doha talks were flagging, world trade grew by almost 6 per cent a year over the past decade.
While the rate of trade growth will probably fall to 4.5 per cent this year, the WTO says this is not because of an
impasse in trade talks but because of 'financial-market turbulence'.
Second, on the political front, the world may be a better place without the acrimonious political squabbles and bad-
tempered posturing that has characterised the Doha talks over the last few years.
As countries seek to tackle vitally important issues such as combating global warming and easing food prices, the
Doha talks had become an unwelcome distraction, an arena for global power play between the US and the EU on the
one hand and emerging economic giants such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa, on the other.
In fact, ripples from the WTO's Lake Geneva headquarters could scupper not only scheduled multilateral discussions
on climate change but also any international negotiations being planned to deal with the current food and fuel crisis.
The fall-out from Geneva will include a renewed focus on bilateral agreements and region-to-region trade pacts.
However, the fear is that such a 'spaghetti bowl' of bilateral accords will further complicate world trade and benefit
richer nations, leaving poor countries out in the cold.
Although Mr Mandelson has talked of a 'collective failure' in Geneva, WTO members are already engaged in
acrimonious, bad-tempered exchanges and finger-pointing. The US and Japan have made no secret of their anger at
India and China for refusing a last-minute compromise hammered out by Mr Lamy on farm tariffs.
The two increasingly powerful emerging economies, however, say it's the failure by the US and the EU to open their
agriculture markets which is responsible for the collapse of Doha. 'This selfishness and short-sighted behaviour has
directly caused the failure of this WTO ministerial meeting, which will have a number of serious consequences,'
read a strongly-worded commentary in state news agency Xinhua.
Unusually also, Japan has criticised both China and India. 'They need to take more responsibility,' said Nobutaka
Machimura, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, adding: 'I wonder if they were thinking about the world economy as a
whole while pursuing their own national interests.'
Mr Mandelson, meanwhile, has voiced strong criticism of a bill recently passed by the US Congress offering US
$289 billion to the American farm sector over five years, far above the US $15 billion maximum a year that was on
the negotiating table in Geneva.
It's not just a question of bad atmospherics, however. The shadow cast on the Doha round by US presidential
elections is likely to grow larger in the run up to the November polls. Many in Geneva believe that given his
criticism of free trade deals, an election victory for Senator Barack Obama will mean little US enthusiasm for the
WTO negotiation - at least initially. Mr Obama has also said trade negotiations should include labour and
environment standards. Developing countries oppose such linkage.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 54 of 60

Aff Answers – Link Turn

The Doha talks were launched in 2001 in a bid to give further impetus to world trade. For most of the past seven
years, however, negotiators have engaged in tough bargaining over farm trade liberalisation. The EU and US have
bickered endlessly over phasing out high farm subsidies and tariffs while developing nations have asked both to
open up their markets. Meanwhile, American and European demands for greater access to fast-growing markets in
China and India have also been a key stumbling block.
During the nine-day marathon talks held in Geneva, farm import rules were again on the agenda but this time with
India and China asking that countries should be able to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in
the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports. However, Washington said such a 'safeguard clause' protecting
developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low and amounted to 'blatant protectionism'.
The breakdown in Geneva is a damaging blow to the WTO which is already under attack from non-governmental
organisations and development agencies for forcing developing countries to open their markets. Restoring the
reputation and standing of the world trade body will not be easy.
Significantly, the talks also signal a changing world order. International trade agreements used to be relatively
simple affairs. Agriculture and services were not part of the discussions. Also, real trading power lay in the hands of
a few industrialised countries, including the US, the EU and Japan and Australia who could cook up cosy deals
which were then imposed on developing nations.
Today's WTO discussions are larger, livelier and more heated. Strong-minded negotiators from India, Brazil,
Argentina and Soutsh Africa have transformed the WTO's early power structures. This time around, China also
decided to join the ranks of the brave and bold emerging economies by taking a tough stance on farm imports.
WTO chief Lamy is adamant that the talks can and will still be revived. Salvaging Doha should remain on the
agenda. But negotiations should only resume if all participants are ready to compromise and act in the wider,
global interest. So far, however, signs of such responsible behaviour are few and far between.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 55 of 60

Aff Answers – Multilat Inevitable

Any tradeoff is temporary, multilateralism is inevitable
Bagwell and Staiger 97 (Kyle & Robert W., Departments of Economics at Columbia Univ. and Univ. Wisconsin Madison,
“Multilateral tariff cooperation during the formation of free trade areas” International Economic Review vol. 38 no. 2 May 1997 pp. 291-319)
Specifically, we argue that the emergence of regional free-trade agreements will be associated
with temporarily heightened multilateral trade tensions between member and nonmember
countries, and consequently, with a temporary retreat from liberal multilateral trade policies. This
tension arises during the period of transition, when current trade flows between member and
nonmember countries (and hence current incentives to deviate unilaterally from an agreed-upon
multilateral tariff) are more or less unchanged at the same time that expected future trade flows
between member and nonmember countries (and hence the value of maintaining future
multilateral cooperation) have diminished. Intuitively, under such conditions, countries are apt to
confront long-standing trade disputes more readily, as the risks of a possible trade war no longer
pose the deterrent to confrontation that they once did. Our results suggest, however, that the
tension between regional free-trade agreements and multilateral liberalization is temporary;
eventually, as the full impact of the emerging regional agreement on multilateral trade patterns
becomes felt, the initial balance between current and expected future conditions reemerges, and
liberal multilateral trade policies can be restored.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 56 of 60

Aff Answers – Multilateralism Solves FTAA

WTO talks key to success of FTAA
León 03 (Irene, “FTAA-WTO : Agriculture at the centre of the debate”, ALAI, América Latina
en Movimiento, July 22 <>)

In the case of the WTO, one of the main, critical points lies in the disagreements
regarding the theme of agricultural subsidies, where the US, which heavily subsidises
agriculture, paradoxically supports the reduction of subsidies by the European Union.
Meanwhile, both speak with one voice about the fact that the other countries, that is to say the
rest of the world, should eliminate them completely. This is also a matter of disagreement within
the framework of the FTAA, since while the US maintains the position that this matter must be
resolved within the framework of the WTO, countries of the region maintain that these should be
part of the hemispheric documentation, which should consider implementing special measures
for countries with small- scale economies.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 57 of 60

Aff Answers – Doha Good – Free Trade

The collapse of Doha will not damage the worlds free trade regime-this is because Doha’s
failure collapses WTO legitimacy
The Business Times Singapore August 1 2008 (“Time for a rethink on the Doha trade talks; An agreement in
Geneva would have sent a message of confidence in the world economy”, Lexis Nexis)

ANOTHER summer, another failed attempt to clinch a new global deal to boost world trade. This time, however,
despite brave words by World Trade Organization (WTO) chief Pascal Lamy, who wants to reconvene negotiators in
autumn, the seven-year old Doha round of trade talks appears to have received a quasi-fatal body blow. Few in
Geneva are in any mood to restart negotiations any time soon. They should be encouraged not to hurry back.
WTO members need to engage in some serious thinking about the pros and cons of the deal under discussion.
Attitudes and mindsets need to change. To achieve success in Doha, WTO negotiators must reflect on long-term
global interests rather than their short-term national priorities.
True, an agreement this week in Geneva would have sent a much-needed message of confidence in the world
economy and helped inject some equally badly-needed oomph into world trade. But Doha's collapse is not as
'heartbreaking' as European Union trade chief Peter Mandelson would like us to believe.
For one, the economic costs of the collapse in Geneva are not immense. The deal being negotiated will not trigger an
immediate increase in global exports, imports or investments. Countries everywhere are engaged in opening up their
markets, a trend that is not expected to slow down because of the Doha collapse. In addition, for all their rhetoric
and posturing in the Doha talks, developing countries such as Brazil, India and China are cutting tariffs and
embracing foreign investments. That trend too is expected to last.
In fact, even as the Doha talks were flagging, world trade grew by almost 6 per cent a year over the past decade. While the rate of trade growth will probably fall to
4.5 per cent this year, the WTO says this is not because of an impasse in trade talks but because of 'financial-market turbulence'.
Second, on the political front, the world may be a better place without the acrimonious political squabbles and bad-tempered posturing that has characterised the Doha
talks over the last few years.
As countries seek to tackle vitally important issues such as combating global warming and easing food prices, the Doha talks had become an unwelcome distraction,
an arena for global power play between the US and the EU on the one hand and emerging economic giants such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa, on the other.
In fact, ripples from the WTO's Lake Geneva headquarters could scupper not only scheduled multilateral discussions on climate change but also any international
negotiations being planned to deal with the current food and fuel crisis.
The fall-out from Geneva will include a renewed focus on bilateral agreements and region-to-region trade pacts. However, the fear is that such a 'spaghetti bowl' of
bilateral accords will further complicate world trade and benefit richer nations, leaving poor countries out in the cold.
Although Mr Mandelson has talked of a 'collective failure' in Geneva, WTO members are already engaged in acrimonious, bad-tempered exchanges and finger-
pointing. The US and Japan have made no secret of their anger at India and China for refusing a last-minute compromise hammered out by Mr Lamy on farm tariffs.
The two increasingly powerful emerging economies, however, say it's the failure by the US and the EU to open their agriculture markets which is responsible for the
collapse of Doha. 'This selfishness and short-sighted behaviour has directly caused the failure of this WTO ministerial meeting, which will have a number of serious
consequences,' read a strongly-worded commentary in state news agency Xinhua.
Unusually also, Japan has criticised both China and India. 'They need to take more responsibility,' said Nobutaka Machimura, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, adding: 'I
wonder if they were thinking about the world economy as a whole while pursuing their own national interests.'
Mr Mandelson, meanwhile, has voiced strong criticism of a bill recently passed by the US Congress offering US $289 billion to the American farm sector over five
years, far above the US $15 billion maximum a year that was on the negotiating table in Geneva.
It's not just a question of bad atmospherics, however. The shadow cast on the Doha round by US presidential elections is likely to grow larger in the run up to the
November polls. Many in Geneva believe that given his criticism of free trade deals, an election victory for Senator Barack Obama will mean little US enthusiasm for
the WTO negotiation - at least initially. Mr Obama has also said trade negotiations should include labour and environment standards. Developing countries oppose
such linkage.
The Doha talks were launched in 2001 in a bid to give further impetus to world trade. For most of the past seven years, however, negotiators have engaged in tough
bargaining over farm trade liberalisation. The EU and US have bickered endlessly over phasing out high farm subsidies and tariffs while developing nations have
asked both to open up their markets. Meanwhile, American and European demands for greater access to fast-growing markets in China and India have also been a key
stumbling block.
During the nine-day marathon talks held in Geneva, farm import rules were again on the agenda but this time with India and China asking that countries should be
able to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports. However, Washington said such a 'safeguard
clause' protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low and amounted to 'blatant protectionism'.
The breakdown in Geneva is a damaging blow to the WTO which is already under attack from non-governmental organisations and development agencies for forcing
developing countries to open their markets. Restoring the reputation and standing of the world trade body will not be easy.
Significantly, the talks also signal a changing world order. International trade agreements used to be relatively simple affairs. Agriculture and services were not part of
the discussions. Also, real trading power lay in the hands of a few industrialised countries, including the US, the EU and Japan and Australia who could cook up cosy
deals which were then imposed on developing nations.
Today's WTO discussions are larger, livelier and more heated. Strong-minded negotiators from India, Brazil,
Argentina and South Africa have transformed the WTO's early power structures. This time around, China also
decided to join the ranks of the brave and bold emerging economies by taking a tough stance on farm imports.
WTO chief Lamy is adamant that the talks can and will still be revived. Salvaging Doha should remain on the
agenda. But negotiations should only resume if all participants are ready to compromise and act in the wider, global
interest. So far, however, signs of such responsible behaviour are few and far between.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 58 of 60

Aff Answers – Doha Good – Brazil

Collapse of the Doha talks is bad news for Brazil

Reuters, July 30, 2008

(ANALYSIS-Doha collapse slows Brazil's rise on global stage,
BRASILIA (Reuters) - The collapse of world trade talks will not hit Brazil's booming economy immediately but the failure to
gain new markets for its farm exports and to expose industry to more competition may slow its ascent to becoming a global

Brazil looked to be on the fast track to joining the ranks of major league economies due to its
growing diplomatic clout on the global stage, economic growth above 5 percent a year and a
much-coveted investment grade status.

Now that dream looks more distant for the South American giant, which spent years trying to
build a common front of developing nations in the hopes of forging a global agreement.

"Brazil will take twice as long to reach its goal," said Carlos Langoni, a former governor of
Brazil's central bank and head of the Rio de Janeiro-based Center of World Economics.

"No other emerging market stood to gain as much in the trade talks as Brazil."

Benefits of a deal in the so-called Doha round would have taken effect only in several years. But
no deal could cost Brazil as much as 1 percentage point of gross domestic product growth
annually, including $15 billion in foregone farm exports, Langoni said.

Brazil's highly efficient agricultural sector accounts for close to one-third of its GDP and is often referred to as
the green anchor of the economy. Brazil is a leading producer of numerous key farm goods, from sugar and
coffee to oranges and soybeans.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 59 of 60

Aff Answers – Doha Good – GCC

The collapse of the doha round will expedite the creation of the GCC, a cooperation
powerful enough to take on the US, EU, China or India

The National (United Arab Emirates), July 30th, 2008

(Now it’s down to every nation to do its own deals, July 30th,

The greatest impact of the failure of the talks will be felt in the developing world, especially in
Africa. These are the very countries that will be at the greatest disadvantage when attempting to
negotiate bilateral agreements with the larger nations and the big trading blocs such as the EU
that are increasingly dominating the world economy.

The failure of the Doha Round should have less of an impact in the Gulf. Bahrain and Oman
have both signed mutually beneficial free trade agreements with the US, and the UAE will
hopefully conclude its own negotiations soon. But it is as part of a wider trading bloc that the
individual Gulf nations’ economic futures lie if worldwide trade agreements do indeed give way
to bilateralism.

The existing customs union between the Gulf Cooperation Council states is due to take a
significant leap forward when a full currency union is instigated. The single market thus created
will be a powerful trading bloc in its own right, able to negotiate on equal terms with the US, the
EU and the emerging mega-economies of India, China and South America.
ADI 08 Frappier Lab
Multilateralism Disadvantage Page 60 of 60

Aff Answers – Doha Good – Burkina Faso

Doha failure means death to the economy of Burkina Faso and the other C4 countries

AFP, July 30th, 2008

(Cotton tangles up collapsed WTO talks,
GENEVA (AFP) — Cotton growers in impoverished Burkina Faso will suffer from the failure of
world powers to conclude a global trade pact, its trade minister said Wednesday, highlighting
broad concern over the impact of the breakdown on the developing world.
"We can hardly control our anger," said Burkina Faso's Trade Minister Mamadou Sanou the
morning after Tuesday's dramatic collapse of ministerial talks at WTO headquarters here.
He warned that his country's cotton industry -- which accounts for over half its export earnings --
faced "extinction."
"They wanted me to be here to negotiate on cotton. I have been here for 10 days and I haven't
been able to discuss cotton," he told a news conference.
"There is a risk that the whole system will collapse in our country."
The Doha Round, launched in the Qatari capital in 2001, aimed to help poor countries around the world by using
trade to boost economic development.
With the collapse of the negotiations, countries such as Burkina Faso now face an even longer wait for help for their
farming industries.
"We are most disappointed that the rich countries, the champions of liberalisation who urge us to liberalise our trade
and our economies... are afraid to trade with us on an equal footing," Sanou said.
Sanou is the coordinator for the C4 group of West African cotton-producers, which since 2003
has been fighting for the cotton issue to be included in the Doha Round.
The group -- Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali -- wants industrialised countries, particularly
the United States, to lower domestic subsidies that African nations say depress world cotton
prices at poorer countries' expense.
Some diplomats accused the United States of tactically avoiding the issue.
"The US cannot afford to give way on cotton, so it does not even want to go into the issue," one Asian diplomat told
AFP here.
"It knows that India would not give ground on SSMs, in which case India would be blamed in case of any collapse."
SSMs, or special safeguard mechanisms, are a measure to protect farmers in case of an import surge. India and the
United States were unable to agree on the question, triggering the failure of negotiations here.
On Monday, China -- a major buyer of US cotton -- waded into the row, saying it had heard "absurd arguments" that
the United States would cut its subsidies on cotton only if China and other developing countries cut their cotton
Senior Chinese official Zhang Xiangche said the United States was "not in a position to discuss" tariff cuts with
developing members until it eliminated its own subsidies.
"The extremely high cotton subsidies by the US have caused serious damage to cotton farmers in
developing countries, including those in Africa and 150 million ones in China," said Zhang.
At a news conference on Wednesday, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab said the US "remained committed to
working" with the C4 group to address cotton concerns.