Democracy Promotion/Soft Power—Affirmative Tentative 1AC

Lead By Example—Internet Freedom

Download 0.51 Mb.

Page	6/16
Date	20.10.2016
Size	0.51 Mb.
	#6107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16

Lead By Example—Internet Freedom

The US cannot challenge autocracies with bad domestic policies

Mahoney 13 - Robert Mahoney is CPJ’s deputy director. He writes and speaks on press freedom, and has led CPJ missions to global hot spots from Iraq to Sri Lanka. He worked as a reporter, bureau chief and editor for Reuters around the world. (“In NSA surveillance debate, tech firms urge transparency,” https://cpj.org/blog/2013/06/in-nsa-surveillance-debate-tech-firms-urge-transpa.php 6/28/2013) STRYKER

The Global Network Initiative, or GNI, is a coalition of leading technology companies--including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo--and human rights groups, Internet freedom advocates, and ethical investors that promotes user privacy and freedom of expression online. The GNI acknowledged that governments must weigh national security concerns along with individual freedoms but expressed concern about "inadequate legal safeguards" for privacy under the secret spy programs. It said the lack of transparency involving the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. surveillance laws prevented companies from reporting on the government requests they receive for client information. The group called for more of the court's legal opinions to be declassified to enable greater public debate on oversight of government actions. It also called for an easing of the gag orders placed on companies regarding the national security orders they receive. Finally it urged governments--especially those in the 21-member Freedom Online Coalition, which includes the United States--to lead by example and report on their own surveillance requests. The GNI noted an argument often made by CPJ: Western governments lose the authority to challenge authoritarian regimes around the world on press freedom violations when their own domestic policies fall short of international standards. "Contradictions between countries' domestic surveillance policies and practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support Internet freedom," the GNI said.

America must lead Internet freedom by example

Risen 12 - Tom Risen is a technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report. (“America Leads the Internet By Example,” https://netizenproject.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/americas-internet-leads-by-example/ 6/4/2012) STRYKER

As birthplace of the Internet the United States remains a worldwide standard for how to use it, yet America sends conflicting examples when it advocates digital liberty while practicing domestic surveillance. This influence is evident in Tunisia, which is drafting a new constitution a year after social media-connected Arab Spring protesters ousted Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali from his 23 year-long presidency. During Google’s recent Internet at Liberty conference, Noomane Fehri of the Tunisian National Constitutional Assembly said open Internet made the Arab Spring possible, but the plans he described for his country’s new laws reflect the duality between individual rights and government security Americans face. Tunisia’s new leaders want to uphold First Amendment principles, he said, and will have a constitutional commission for transparency. While Fehri said monitoring the Internet and tracking an individual should “absolutely not be allowed,” he added “except in very few cases,” such as when someone is “known to be unlawful.” “I have no problem [with] collecting data. My problem is who accesses it and in which conditions they access it. That’s where we need to be extremely careful,” Fehri said. Accessing data, Fehri said, could be valuable not just for security but for research, statistics, advancing public health and economic growth to develop Tunisia. “You need to put the right level of anonymity on it,” Fehri said. “But for government issue, again, we need to be extremely, extremely strict. There should be a constitutional commission outside the government who observe and monitor the behavior of any [governmental access] to that data. That’s what we are aiming to do.” The strength of the Internet for individual freedom will undermine any post-20th century “quasi-authoritarian states,” said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel for the National Security Agency, who reflected the dual perception that the state should not always lose when it seeks to regulate the Internet. The hardest part of a revolution, Baker said, is to transfer power back into the hands of a government. “In a properly organized society the state is representing us. Because who else will do it?” said Baker, formerly assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security. “We should be looking for ways to distinguish between the kinds of regulation that are offensive to democratic values and those that support democratic values.” Criticism of the United States’ Internet values stems from the recent House of Representatives passage of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act [CISPA] to expand Internet governance on cybercrime, trials reviewing the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping, and the construction of data collecting fusion centers, such as the Utah Data Center. Baker supported CISPA and said allowing Internet service providers to share information about their customers without a subpoena would make it more efficient to detect hackers sending malware and viruses. “It turns out many of the people who are sending us malware are customers” Baker said. “If you can’t share that information because of a dumb law from the ’80s, you ought to get rid of the dumb law from the ‘80s.” Dismissing a recent article on the Utah Data Center in Wired as “filled with innuendo,” Baker said the complex is not being used to collect information on citizens with no criminal record, but “data collection is where we are headed.” “Being able to sift through large amounts of data to find patterns of behavior that alert us to terrorist activity is part of what we’re going to end up having to do,” Baker said. When democratic Western governments reach for security above all else in cyberspace it sets a bad example for tech policy worldwide, said John Kampfner, author of “Freedom For Sale: Why The World Is Trading Democracy For Security.” “It gives a wonderful get out clause for authoritarian leaders to harbor on,” said Kampfner, former chief executive of Index on Censorship. “It may be entirely illegitimate, but they use the perception of moral equivalence to pursue their own agendas.” Criticizing “preemptive censorship” of online behavior by governments through the use of terrorism accusations, Global Voices columnist Renata Avila said even the simpler communications tech of the ‘80s allowed military dictator Ríos Montt to repress citizens in her native Guatemala. “We are heading toward a society of total control, that is very similar to a totalitarian regime, controlled by some powerful governments and some powerful corporations that are totally ignoring human rights standards and are using the argument, ‘we want to protect our citizens,’” Avila said. Some of the world’s largest tech companies are based in the United States, some of which sell technology to repressive nations such as Syria that could be used it to build surveillance and censorship networks. In April the government issued sanctions against certain equipment to Syria. One recent example of controversial technology sales to Syria is Blue Coat Systems. These technologies give the private sector unprecedented ability to influence law enforcement and human rights, and thus greater responsibility to consider the global impact of their actions, said Cynthia Wong, director of the Project on Global Internet Freedom at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology. “Companies need to think about how to avoid complicity in human rights violations,” Wong said. African Development Bank Consultant Mohamed El Dahshan said other risks to human rights worldwide include companies giving into government requests for user information or setting privacy polices that do not protect anonymity. Citing Google’s Transparency Report indicates as an example, El Dahshan said the Google does not respond to requests for user data or content removal from developing nations such as Pakistan as often as they do from the United States or European countries. “If you are a foreign activist, and all your data is stored on the server of a U.S. company, is it possible that my country which is an autocratic country, would send a friendly request to disclose information about me as a user?” said El Dahshan, co-author of “Diaries of the Revolution,” which recounts the Egyptian uprising of 2011. The dilemma with government oversight of the Internet is that technology advances too fast for law to keep up with it, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of India’s Centre for the Internet and Society. One solution could be co-regulation of the tech industry between companies and governments, Abraham said. “Once a practice is developed, or a standard in the private sector the penalties or remedies when that practice is violated can be administered by a government official,” Abraham said. “A privacy commission for example, could fine a company because it is in violation of a self-regulatory call.” Attendees of Google’s Internet at Liberty conference admired the host company for its commitment to two days of reviewing global Internet freedom, but ironically also feared the search engine represented surrender of privacy and anonymity in exchange for convenience. The United States preaches freedom but also the free market. Kampfner said the republic must be an example of an open Internet so other countries will uphold the freedom to participate in the online public realm as much as the private online freedoms the Internet offers users.

Domestic surveillance undermines promotion of Internet freedom

GNI 13 - Global Network Initiative. (“Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online,” https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online 6/28/2013) STRYKER

3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance requests. GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalition for their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and urges other governments to follow their lead. However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support Internet freedom.

Lead By Example—Soft Power

Hypocrisy of surveillance hurts soft power

Farrell and Finnemore 13 (Henry, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, and Martha, University Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, “The End of Hypocrisy: American Foreign Policy in the Age of Leaks,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 13, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy)//kjz

A HYPOCRITICAL HEGEMON Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role. Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United States because American ideals are attractive and the U.S.-led international system is fair. Realists may be more cynical, yet if they think about Washington’s hypocrisy at all, they consider it irrelevant. For them, it is Washington’s cold, hard power, not its ideals, that encourages other countries to partner with the United States. Of course, the United States is far from the only hypocrite in international politics. But the United States’ hypocrisy matters more than that of other countries. That’s because most of the world today lives within an order that the United States built, one that is both underwritten by U.S. power and legitimated by liberal ideas. American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization. Despite recent challenges to U.S. preeminence, from the Iraq war to the financial crisis, the international order remains an American one. This system needs the lubricating oil of hypocrisy to keep its gears turning. To ensure that the world order continues to be seen as legitimate, U.S. officials must regularly promote and claim fealty to its core liberal principles; the United States cannot impose its hegemony through force alone. But as the recent leaks have shown, Washington is also unable to consistently abide by the values that it trumpets. This disconnect creates the risk that other states might decide that the U.S.-led order is fundamentally illegitimate. Of course, the United States has gotten away with hypocrisy for some time now. It has long preached the virtues of nuclear nonproliferation, for example, and has coerced some states into abandoning their atomic ambitions. At the same time, it tacitly accepted Israel’s nuclearization and, in 2004, signed a formal deal affirming India’s right to civilian nuclear energy despite its having flouted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by acquiring nuclear weapons. In a similar vein, Washington talks a good game on democracy, yet it stood by as the Egyptian military overthrew an elected government in July, refusing to call a coup a coup. Then there’s the “war on terror”: Washington pushes foreign governments hard on human rights but claims sweeping exceptions for its own behavior when it feels its safety is threatened. The reason the United States has until now suffered few consequences for such hypocrisy is that other states have a strong interest in turning a blind eye. Given how much they benefit from the global public goods Washington provides, they have little interest in calling the hegemon on its bad behavior. Public criticism risks pushing the U.S. government toward self-interested positions that would undermine the larger world order. Moreover, the United States can punish those who point out the inconsistency in its actions by downgrading trade relations or through other forms of direct retaliation. Allies thus usually air their concerns in private. Adversaries may point fingers, but few can convincingly occupy the moral high ground. Complaints by China and Russia hardly inspire admiration for their purer policies. The ease with which the United States has been able to act inconsistently has bred complacency among its leaders. Since few countries ever point out the nakedness of U.S. hypocrisy, and since those that do can usually be ignored, American politicians have become desensitized to their country’s double standards. But thanks to Manning and Snowden, such double standards are getting harder and harder to ignore. THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST To see how this dynamic will play out, consider the implications of Snowden’s revelations for U.S. cybersecurity policy. Until very recently, U.S. officials did not talk about their country’s offensive capabilities in cyberspace, instead emphasizing their strategies to defend against foreign attacks. At the same time, they have made increasingly direct warnings about Chinese hacking, detailing the threat to U.S. computer networks and the potential damage to U.S.-Chinese relations. But the United States has been surreptitiously waging its own major offensive against China’s computers -- and those of other adversaries -- for some time now. The U.S. government has quietly poured billions of dollars into developing offensive, as well as defensive, capacities in cyberspace. (Indeed, the two are often interchangeable -- programmers who are good at crafting defenses for their own systems know how to penetrate other people’s computers, too.) And Snowden confirmed that the U.S. military has hacked not only the Chinese military’s computers but also those belonging to Chinese cell-phone companies and the country’s most prestigious university. Although prior to Snowden’s disclosures, many experts were aware -- or at least reasonably certain -- that the U.S. government was involved in hacking against China, Washington was able to maintain official deniability. Protected from major criticism, U.S. officials were planning a major public relations campaign to pressure China into tamping down its illicit activities in cyberspace, starting with threats and perhaps culminating in legal indictments of Chinese hackers. Chinese officials, although well aware that the Americans were acting hypocritically, avoided calling them out directly in order to prevent further damage to the relationship. But Beijing’s logic changed after Snowden’s leaks. China suddenly had every reason to push back publicly against U.S. hypocrisy. After all, Washington could hardly take umbrage with Beijing for calling out U.S. behavior confirmed by official U.S. documents. Indeed, the disclosures left China with little choice but to respond publicly. If it did not point out U.S. hypocrisy, its reticence would be interpreted as weakness. At a news conference after the revelations, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of National Defense insisted that the scandal “reveal[ed] the true face and hypocritical conduct regarding Internet security” of the United States. The United States has found itself flatfooted. It may attempt, as the former head of U.S. counterintelligence Joel Brenner has urged, to draw distinctions between China’s allegedly unacceptable hacking, aimed at stealing commercial secrets, and its own perfectly legitimate hacking of military or other security-related targets. But those distinctions will likely fall on deaf ears. Washington has been forced to abandon its naming-and-shaming campaign against Chinese hacking. Manning’s and Snowden’s leaks mark the beginning of a new era in which the U.S. government can no longer count on keeping its secret behavior secret. Hundreds of thousands of Americans today have access to classified documents that would embarrass the country if they were publicly circulated. As the recent revelations show, in the age of the cell-phone camera and the flash drive, even the most draconian laws and reprisals will not prevent this information from leaking out. As a result, Washington faces what can be described as an accelerating hypocrisy collapse -- a dramatic narrowing of the country’s room to maneuver between its stated aspirations and its sometimes sordid pursuit of self-interest. The U.S. government, its friends, and its foes can no longer plausibly deny the dark side of U.S. foreign policy and will have to address it head-on. SUIT THE ACTION TO THE WORD, THE WORD TO THE ACTION The collapse of hypocrisy presents the United States with uncomfortable choices. One way or another, its policy and its rhetoric will have to move closer to each other. The easiest course for the U.S. government to take would be to forgo hypocritical rhetoric altogether and acknowledge the narrowly self-interested goals of many of its actions. Leaks would be much less embarrassing -- and less damaging -- if they only confirmed what Washington had already stated its policies to be. Indeed, the United States could take a page out of China’s and Russia’s playbooks: instead of framing their behavior in terms of the common good, those countries decry anything that they see as infringing on their national sovereignty and assert their prerogative to pursue their interests at will. Washington could do the same, while continuing to punish leakers with harsh prison sentences and threatening countries that might give them refuge. We have a brand new look! We've made some changes to our website to give you a better experience. LEARN MORE HERE The problem with this course, however, is that U.S. national interests are inextricably bound up with a global system of multilateral ties and relative openness. Washington has already undermined its commitment to liberalism by suggesting that it will retaliate economically against countries that offer safe haven to leakers. If the United States abandoned the rhetoric of mutual good, it would signal to the world that it was no longer committed to the order it leads. As other countries followed its example and retreated to the defense of naked self-interest, the bonds of trade and cooperation that Washington has spent decades building could unravel. The United States would not prosper in a world where everyone thought about international cooperation in the way that Putin does. A better alternative would be for Washington to pivot in the opposite direction, acting in ways more compatible with its rhetoric. This approach would also be costly and imperfect, for in international politics, ideals and interests will often clash. But the U.S. government can certainly afford to roll back some of its hypocritical behavior without compromising national security. A double standard on torture, a near indifference to casualties among non-American civilians, the gross expansion of the surveillance state -- none of these is crucial to the country’s well-being, and in some cases, they undermine it. Although the current administration has curtailed some of the abuses of its predecessors, it still has a long way to go. Secrecy can be defended as a policy in a democracy. Blatant hypocrisy is a tougher sell. Voters accept that they cannot know everything that their government does, but they do not like being lied to. If the United States is to reduce its dangerous dependence on doublespeak, it will have to submit to real oversight and an open democratic debate about its policies. The era of easy hypocrisy is over.

US soft power can influence—getting rid of hypocrisy key

Layne 09 (Christopher, Professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security, at Texas A&M University's George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay,” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 1 summer 2009, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2009.34.1.147#.VYmUaNNVjZE)//kjz

When Zakaria looks at U.S. “decline,” he sees a glass still nearly full rather than one half-empty and leaking. The world, he says, is moving America’s way with respect to modernization, globalization, human rights, and democracy (p. 218). The United States has the opportunity to “remain the pivotal player in a richer, more dynamic, more exciting world” (p. 219). All it must do is to renounce the unilateralism and blunderbuss diplomacy that characterized the George W. Bush administration, and revert to its tradition of working through multilateral institutions and relying on diplomacy and persuasion. Zakaria argues that the United States can remain at the center of the international system for a long time to come because there is “still a strong market for American power, for both geopolitical and economic reasons. But even more centrally, there remains a strong ideological demand for it” (p. 234). The United States can remain the pivot of international politics by assuaging the need of rising powers for validation of their status; avoiding the imposition of its preferences on the rest of the world; and engaging in “consultation, cooperation, and even compromise” (p. 233).25 For the United States, Zakaria argues, the way to retain preeminence in the emerging international system is through soft power, not hard power

US Key—Internet Freedom

US leadership key for Internet freedom

The Nation 13 - (“John Negroponte,” Lexis Nexis, 8/22/2013) STRYKER

The Internet as we know it is open, secure and resilient. This is no mistake. It was designed and evolved this way. Due to its open nature, the Internet has gained traction at a fantastic pace and transformed the world by fostering communication and innovation while generating economic growth. Roughly 2.5 billion people currently use the Internet, and another 2.5 billion are expected to go online by the end of this decade. But the open Internet that governments, corporations and individuals rely on is under threat. Only concerted moves by stakeholders can protect its valued openness. The Internet, as it transforms, has become a victim of its own success. The various groups that rely on Internet services â€“ governments, corporations and individuals â€“ have different needs. Sometimes these needs overlap, sometimes they are at odds. However, sovereign governments are increasingly seeking control of their own domestic spheres as well as the flow of data and information between countries and, in doing so, are attacking the openness that represents one of the foundations of the Internet. Nation-states are increasingly attempting to regulate social, political and economic activity and content in cyberspace and, in many cases, suppress expression they view as threatening. Justifying their actions by claiming to protect children or national security, more than 40 governments have erected restrictions of information, data and knowledge flow on the Internet. Censoring the Internet takes many forms, including censorship of opinions (Vietnam, Saudi Arabia); of specific websites or ISPs (Australia, Pakistan, Russia); of specific information (China, Germany); demanding information be taken down (France, Singapore); demanding users' IP addresses (more than 50 countries); and erecting regulatory barriers to cross-border information flow (Brunei and Vietnam). More drastically, others including Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia have considered building national computer networks that would tightly control or even sever connections to the global Internet. The ongoing controversy surrounding former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden makes for headline news, but obscures these broader global challenges confronting the world's Internet infrastructure. The Internet facilitates communication, commerce and trade, and is an integral part of modern life. The global repercussions of censorship are severe. Regulations that constrict the flow of information not only create disparities among people's access to knowledge, but also have a negative effect on the shape, architecture, safety and resilience of the Internet. In 2012, for example, two proposals in the US Congress to allow filtering of the Domain Name System, or DNS, which would enable the government to require US companies to block access to certain websites, were deemed a significant risk to cyber-security. Moreover, restrictive and discriminatory operating rules complicate trade and slow economic growth. The Internet economy accounted for 4.7 per cent of US gross domestic product in 2010, or $68.2 billion, and is projected to rise to 5.4 per cent of GDP in 2016. The US captures more than 30 per cent of global Internet revenues and more than 40 per cent of net income. Filtering, blocking and other limitations on data flow make it more difficult for companies of all sizes to reach customers, provide services or share critical information globally. There are many possible approaches the US could pursue to address this issue, but one of the most promising is mandating that all future trade agreements should include the goal of fostering the free flow of information and data across national borders while protecting intellectual property and developing an inter-operable global regulatory framework for respecting the privacy rights of individuals. Trade agreements in the past have addressed the free flow of goods, piracy and human rights. The trade agreements of the future should be no different, and some already address this issue. For example, the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement calls on the two countries to "refrain from imposing or maintaining unnecessary barriers to electronic information flows across borders". The US has trade agreements with most countries in the world, and these agreements provide an opportunity to promote our values. To further promote digital trade: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, the US-European trade negotiations and future bilateral agreements should guarantee the free flow of information across borders. The US, along with its trading partners, should create a digital due process for requests on content removal and user data that is consistent across nations. This could prevent countries like Singapore, which has announced that news websites that report on the country must be licensed and could be fined if they do not remove any story deemed objectionable by the government, from independently enacting due process for content removal requests. The US and others should make transfer of data between governments more transparent and efficient by improving the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, or MLAT system. The US already has more than 60 MLAT agreements in place. With its Japanese and European counterparts, the US trade representative should coordinate pressure on India and Brazil to lift procurement regulations, location requirements and other non-tariff barriers to trade. The US should protect intellectual property, while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content. The US Congress debated this issue during negotiations over the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (respectively, SOPA and PIPA). The bills, stalled for now, will be reintroduced in some shape, way or form. The US should help create an environment in which the Internet economy flourishes. This is beneficial for the US and the entire world. US companies and universities remain at the technological cutting edge, and the US continues to be an important role model. The US can exert a great deal of influence as a positive model, and US technology companies have already taken the lead. Google, Twitter, LinkedIn Microsoft and other companies now issue transparency reports that detail the number of requests they receive from government law enforcement for data on users around the world. Previous success in areas such as democracy promotion and human rights depended heavily on leadership by example. The US does not own the Internet, nor is it responsible for fixing or updating it. Indeed, no one nation can fix the Internet, now used by every nation. However, the US can set high standards in hopes that the rest of the world will follow. The open, global Internet is unlikely to continue to flourish without deliberate action to promote and defend it. Political, economic and technological forces are seeking to splinter the Internet into something that looks more like national networks, with each government controlling its own domestic sphere as well as the flow of data and information among countries. A global Internet increasingly fragmented into national systems is not in the interest of the world.

Domestic Key

Domestic surveillance is the cause of decline US democracy

LMW 13 - Legal Monitor Worldwide. (“Disintegration of democratic values threatens future of US,” Lexis Nexis, 6/21/2013) STRYKER

The case of Edward Snowden raises a number of difficult issues for the US. The case impacts on Washington's foreign policy and on its domestic politics. The decline of US democracy is now sharply in focus. Snowden's dramatic flight to Hong Kong raises the issue of US-China relations. The complexities of Hong Kong law could lead to Snowden residing there for an extended time while matters move through the courts. It is ironic that just before the recent summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama, the White House undiplomatically pointed an accusing finger in public at China for alleged cyber warfare. Such clumsy, abrasive, and unnecessary tactics blew up in Washington's face with the Snowden affair. While spy cases often spark lurid headlines and a stir when made public, state-to-state relations are not destabilized. As governments well know, espionage is part and parcel of the game of nations. High-profile cases involving political dissenters, while prickly, do not destabilize fundamental state-to-state relations. Snowden positioned himself as a political dissenter who knowingly took an extreme step in violation of the law to make his political point. The US and China have an appropriate official mechanism for consultation on cyber war issues within the important US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue process. The Snowden affair seems to be an appropriate agenda item for the upcoming July meeting, an opportunity for Washington to provide a full explanation. Americans naturally want military and other capabilities to defend their country, but we do not want such capabilities turned on ourselves in violation of the US constitution. Since the 9/11 attacks, however, the Bush administration and the Obama administration engaged in internal surveillance activities which are controversial if not unconstitutional. The Snowden case has had more impact on US domestic politics than on the state-to-state relations between the US and China. China has maintained a diplomatic low-profile stance. Russia and Iceland have indicated they would consider an asylum request by Snowden. It would be understandable if China would do the same at some point. The impact on US domestic politics is squarely on issues of constitutional law. Already the watchdog American Civil Liberties Union has filed a court case against the government as a result of Snowden's revelations. Irate politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties denounce what they see as improper and unconstitutional behavior. The constitutional issue in the US is complicated by the fact that the US Congress itself passed legislation, opposed by critics, which included vague language and loopholes that the White House took advantage of for domestic surveillance activities. Critics were outraged by what they saw as White House lying about possibly illegal domestic surveillance activities. There was further outrage over the recent congressional testimony of the head of the NSA and the head of the US Intelligence Community. Critics said these two men committed perjury by lying to the US Congress, which is a high crime. In the US system governed by its unique constitution, the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers is a core value. Constitutions and political systems naturally vary around the world, but the separation of powers doctrine is fundamental to the US constitution. It is based on ancient principles found in Greco-Roman tradition as well as in European parliamentary tradition. As a result of the Snowden affair, one aspect of the internal crisis of US democracy is before the world. The construction of the "imperial presidency" and distortion of the separation of powers started during the Cold War. Critics today say US constitutional democracy is in deep decline reflecting not only the disintegration of the rule of law, but also reflecting the disintegration of US civic culture. While some US politicians and officials hypocritically attempt to manipulate the cyber war issue to undermine US-China relations, the real issue is the constitutional crisis and disintegration of democracy in the US.

Domestic surveillance undermines democracy promotion

Cambanis 13 - Thanassis Cambanis is a fellow at The Century Foundation and the author of “A Privilege to Die: Inside Hezbollah’s Legions and Their Endless War Against Israel.” (“Meet the international revolutionary geek squad,” http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/06/22/meet-international-revolutionary-geek-squad/HP4iljWroxdBods6d9kD5I/story.html 6/23/2013) STRYKER

But there are new wrinkles. Some of the safest channels for dissidents have been Skype and Gmail—two services to which the US government has apparently unfettered access. It’s virtually impossible for a government like Iran’s to break the powerful encryption used by these companies. Alex, the trainer who worked with Syrians, says that a doctor in Aleppo doesn’t need to worry about the NSA listening to Skype calls, but an activist doing battle with a US corporation might. Officially, American policy promotes a surveillance-free Internet around the world, although Washington’s actual practices have undercut the credibility of the US government on this issue. How will Washington continue to insist, for example, that Iranian activists should be able to plan protests and have political discussions online without government surveillance, when Americans cannot be sure that they are free to do the same? For activists grappling with real-time emergencies in places like Syria or long-term repression in China, Russia, and elsewhere, the latest news doesn’t change their basic strategy—but it may make the outlook for Internet freedom darker. “These revelations set a terrible precedent that could be used to justify pervasive surveillance elsewhere,” Maher said. “Americans can go to the courts or their legislators to try and challenge these programs, but individuals in authoritarian states won’t have these options.”

Specifically domestic surveillance undermines the US reputation of civil liberties

The Snowden Effect Disclosures by former National Security Administration (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden about NSA spying revealed the U.S. government’s vast capacity to intercept communications around the world. The Snowden revelations appear to have damaged one major element of America’s global image: its reputation for protecting individual liberties. In 22 of 36 countries surveyed in both 2013 and 2014, people are significantly less likely to believe the U.S. government respects the personal freedoms of its citizens. In six nations, the decline was 20 percentage points or more.

Domestic surveillance undermines its reputation of respect for personal freedom

The Snowden Effect The image of the United States has been tarnished by Snowden’s revelations about National Security Agency monitoring of communications around the world, especially in Europe and Latin America. Admiration for America’s respect for the personal freedoms of its own people has gone down significantly in 22 of 36 nations where there is comparable data for 2013 and 2014. NSA actions have particularly hurt the U.S. reputation in Brazil, where belief that Uncle Sam respects Americans’ freedoms is down 25 percentage points, and in Germany, where it is down 23 points. Washington listened in on the phone conversations of both the Brazilian and German leaders. Drops of 20 points or more are also found in El Salvador, Pakistan, Argentina, Spain and Russia. And Americans themselves have lost some faith in their own government’s safeguards for civil liberties. The share of the U.S. public that says Washington respects personal freedoms has declined from 69% in 2013 to 63% in 2014.

Domestic surveillance undermines the appeal of the Western democratic model

Whitehead 10 - Laurence Whitehead is an Official Fellow in Politics at Nuffield College, Oxford University, and Senior Fellow of the College. (“State sovereignty and democracy: and awkward coupling,” New Challenges to Democratization, p. 33, Google Books, 2010) STRYKER

Recent US-led efforts to export democracy by coercive means have not served to enhance the quality of democracy at home. To the contrary, it has seemed to many outside observers that previous standards of human rights observance and rule of law guarantees may have been compromised by the tensions associated with external belligerence and counter-terrorism. The western leaders most vocal about the need to export regime change to other countries have not been the most conscientious about displaying their accountability to their home electorates. Media pluralism and the tolerance of dissent have been shown in a poor light. Practices of domestic surveillance and heightened powers for security forces may have been necessary, but they have not added to the international appeal of the western democratic model. Respect for international law. the sovereignty of other nations. and pluralism of political alternatives could all be regarded as integral components of what makes western democracy so widely attractive. If so. strategies of democracy promotion that jeopardize these assets are clearly counter-productive.

AT//Alt Causes (General)

The Snowden revelations uniquely eroded the US international image—this proves surveillance is the cause of the credibility gap, so the plan overcomes alt causes

Ganguly 15 - Sumit Ganguly is a Professor of Political Science at Indiana University and the currently holds that university's Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations. He and was a founding editor of the journals India Review and Asian Security. (“Foreward,” The Snowden Reader, Google Books, 2015) STRYKER

David P. Fidler addresses “U.S. Foreign Policy and the Snowden Leaks." He lays out U.S. foreign policy approaches to cyberspace and cyber security before Snowden, especially U.S. support for "Internet freedom,” and analyses how these leaks have adversely affected them. The damage arises from revelations about the NSA's surveillance activities within the United States, the NSA's electronic surveil-lance targeting foreign nationals outside the United States, U.S. cyber espionage against other government, U.S. offensive cyber operations, and NSA activities perceived to threaten global cyber security. Fidler argues the Snowden disclosures have diminished U.S. credibility in cyberspace affairs, an outcome that coincides, worryingly, with an erosion of U.S. influence in geopolitical matters in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

International opinion of US still high despite alt causes—surveillance is key

Perry 6/24 (Douglas, a news and entertainment writer at The Oregonian, “U.S. outpaces China in global popularity; European view of American ideals declines,” Oregon Live, 6/24/15, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/us_outpaces_china_in_global_po.html)//kjz

Opinions about the U.S. suffered in the wake of revelations a decade ago about the American government's use of harsh interrogation methods in its battle against terrorism. But America's image has since rebounded, reports the Pew Research Center. From March through May of this year, Pew conducted a survey of more than 45,000 people in 40 countries. The Pew website breaks out views by each country. Vladimir Putin may believe that Russia remains the U.S.'s greatest rival. But Pew has positioned China as America's chief competitor for global goodwill. A global median of 69 percent of those polled viewed the U.S. positively. China draws a favorable opinion from 55 percent of respondents. Global opinion about the U.S.'s protection of individual rights is a key reason America wins the popularity contest. A median of 63 percent of survey respondents heralds America's personal freedoms, while only 34 percent say China respects its citizens' individual rights. The gap between the two countries would have been even larger in the U.S.'s favor, except the American score on this issue was degraded in the 2015 Pew survey thanks to an unlikely source: Western Europeans. "Across the Western European nations polled, ratings for the U.S. on (individual rights) declined between 2013 and 2014, at least partly in response to Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's electronic surveillance programs," Pew writes. "This year's survey highlights further declines, perhaps in response to highly publicized stories over the last year, such as those concerning harsh interrogation techniques in the post-9/11 era, as well as the controversy in the U.S. regarding police treatment of African-Americans and other minorities." Time appears to be on America's side, however. In most countries, the young are more likely to view the U.S. positively -- and to be stronger in their positive feelings. Chinese respondents, meanwhile, believe they are very much in competition with the U.S. -- and that Americans are worried about their gains. Fifty-four percent of Chinese believe the U.S. is "trying to prevent China from becoming equally as powerful." Across the world, China receives higher approval ratings than the U.S. only in the Middle East. The U.S. is widely viewed as the dominant economic force in the world, though "majorities in 27 countries believe that China will eventually replace the U.S. as the world's top superpower." And despite views about the American government's use of torture in the past, 62 percent of respondents back U.S.-led efforts against Islamic State, though in Middle East countries the support falls below 50 percent.

Plan key to restore credibility lost by NSA revelations—overcomes alt causes

Nicholson 14 (Parke T., senior research associate with the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, “NSA scandals caused rift with U.S. allies,” The Baltimore Sun, 11/21/14, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-nsa-europe-20141123-story.html)//kjz

No single issue has caused greater damage to the trust between the United States and its allies than the sweeping revelations of the National Security Agency's global surveillance programs. This story continues to fuel the perception that we no longer care to uphold our values at home or abroad. Our credibility has suffered by failing to sufficiently justify our actions even to ourselves. It is finally time to undo the damage. Recent presidential and congressional measures concerning espionage and data privacy have the potential to bolster our credibility, counter these misperceptions and restore trust with our allies. Congress failed to vote on the USA Freedom Act last week, but the bill itself demonstrates our resolve to protect the privacy of all U.S. citizens and end bulk data collection. The NSA is also taking unprecedented steps to protect the rights of those at home and abroad. It is imperative that we explain and advance these evolving norms, particularly with our allies across the Atlantic. Since the revelations last year by Edward Snowden, a debate has raged in Europe about why the United States had collected information about leaders and citizens abroad. The firestorm of ill-informed opinion about U.S. intentions and capabilities has led to the perception that our allies must protect themselves from the United States. The consequences of this are evident in the slow pace of negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, implementation of countermeasures against U.S. intelligence activities and even discussion of lawsuits against the United States before the International Criminal Court. The U.S. government has struggled to respond to the outrage in Europe. President Barack Obama outlined the new parameters for foreign intelligence collection (Presidential Policy Directive 28) in a speech last January that was met with skepticism. This slowly led to a "statement of principles" delivered quietly by his chief of staff to his German counterpart this past July. Congress has been too distracted and too divided to lend much support to these attempts at public diplomacy. The time is ripe for a renewed exchange to diffuse tensions caused by the NSA revelations. Senior congressional leaders such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, should describe the privacy protections outlined in the USA Freedom Act to their counterparts in the European Parliament and German Bundestag. The bill ends the bulk collection of Americans' private metadata and enhances democratic control over the NSA's activities. While a final vote was delayed until 2015, the bill is a powerful declaration that the United States can align the tools we use to secure our country with our basic rights and freedoms. The NSA's guidelines on foreign intelligence collection released this October are also a unique expression of democratic constraint. They outline how the agency will ensure that privacy is an "integral consideration" in collection operations and that all people are treated "with dignity and respect regardless of their nationality or place of residence." Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder and former NSA Director Mike McConnell are credible, high-level actors to communicate this message of restraint to European audiences in Brussels and Berlin. America benefits when its allies spend their time and resources on emerging threats elsewhere in the world — and stop worrying about the United States. U.S. business leaders should also join this effort. Many are threatened by the possibility of being locked out of European government contracts and are being targeted by strict privacy laws that may prove significant obstacles in the negotiations on TTIP. They have an important opportunity to show how their products actually enhance privacy and why it is important to preserve the benefits of the open Internet. It is has become the norm in Washington to cynically dismiss Europe's uproar over the NSA: Europe should "get over it" because all European countries engage in espionage. The U.S. government shouldn't have to explain how it protects both Americans and Europeans from terrorism and other transnational threats. U.S. tech firms provide goods that all Europeans enjoy and should not have to put up with strict privacy laws and regulations. So why care? The United States and Europe share core, democratic values that undergird our vision of the international order. By strengthening our commitment to shared values — liberty, democracy, human dignity and economic freedom — we reap benefits far beyond our ability to project power in the world. There is no zero-sum tradeoff between privacy and security. We will enhance both when the United States and Europe restore confidence and trust.

AT//Drones Alt Cause

Drones aren’t an alt cause—no effect on US image

Pew 14 - The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. (“Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image,” http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/ 7/14/2014) STRYKER

Another high-profile aspect of America’s recent national security strategy is also widely unpopular: drones. In 39 of 44 countries surveyed, majorities or pluralities oppose U.S. drone strikes targeting extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Moreover, opposition to drone attacks has increased in many nations since last year. Israel, Kenya and the U.S. are the only nations polled where at least half of the public supports drone strikes. Despite these misgivings about signature American policies, across 43 nations, a median of 65% express a positive opinion about the U.S. And these overall ratings for the U.S. are little changed from 2013.

AT//International Surveillance Alt Cause

Global surveillance is inevitable and GENERALLY accepted

Gewirtz 13 - David Gewirtz is a CBSi distinguished lecturer, and hosts the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs. He is an author, U.S. policy advisor and computer scientist. (“Why do allies spy on each other?” http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-do-allies-spy-on-each-other/ 10/28/2013) STRYKER

Allies spy on each other. Back in 2004, the FBI investigated an Israeli worker in the Pentagon, who was reportedly an analyst in an undersecretary's office and who may have been attempting to influence U.S. policy towards Iran and Iraq. The Israeli spy had developed ties to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who, according to an article in Harpers was the primary author of the Bush Doctrine and a staunch advocate of war with Iraq. Allies spy on each other. Germany's Merkel herself hasn't been immune to the urge to spy on allies. As recently as 2008, German international broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported that Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst (better known as the BND, Germany's CIA) had been "monitoring email correspondence between Afghan Trade and Industry Minister Amin Farhang and a German journalist." Yeah. That sounds familiar. Allies spy on each other. Just to round out the mix, let's not hesitate to remember that outraged former Mexican President Calderon himself was present when his diplomatic "functionary" Rafael Quintero Curiel stole White House BlackBerry's from a table right outside the room where Calderon and our President Bush were meeting. I wrote about that last week, in NSA and Mexico: missing facts, reporters are puppets on Snowden's string . So, yes, everyone is outraged that the NSA might be conducting signals intelligence operations against allies. Our so-called allies are using this as an opportunity to swat the U.S. upside the head, and potentially as leverage to talk the U.S. into some sort of concession in the future. On the other hand, the mainstream American press, the suddenly holier-than-thou international press, and the always hyperbolic blogigentsia are screaming "foul" at the tops of their oh-so-righteous lungs. As we've seen in just one set of examples, the French broke into our diplomats' hotel rooms and sifted through luggage, Israel has tried to infiltrate spies into the Pentagon, Mexico stole White House BlackBerry devices, and Germany broke into the email communications of both diplomats and journalists. The thing is, allies spy on each other. They always have and they always will. So all this outrage is either meant to drum up traffic in our attention economy (I'm looking right at you, Guardian!), or out of a complete lack of historical and geopolitical perspective on the part of reporters and bloggers. Either way, spying among allies will continue, probably forever. Why? Well here's a simple reason: to make sure they're still allies. Of course, the need for information and leverage goes deeper than that, but that will do for today. Allies spy on each other because they don't always tell the truth when meeting face-to-face.

International surveillance isn’t that big of a deal

Cohen and Pearson 13 - Tom Cohen and Michael Pearson are staff writers for CNN. (“All nations collect intelligence, Obama says,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/world/europe/eu-nsa/ 7/2/2013) STRYKER

"The United States government will respond appropriately to the European Union through our diplomatic channels, and through the EU/U.S. experts' dialogue on intelligence that the U.S. proposed several weeks ago," the DNI office said in a statement. "We will also discuss these issues bilaterally with EU member states. While we are not going to comment publicly on specific alleged intelligence activities, as a matter of policy, we have made clear that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations." Ventrell referred to the DNI statement Monday, repeatedly telling reporters that the United States would deal directly with European allies on the matter instead of making public statements.

Foreign surveillance has no impact

Hudgins 13 (Sarabrynn, Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program Associate at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, “US Surveillance Unsettles Civilians More Than States,” The World Post, 7/17/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarabrynn-hudgins/us-surveillance-unsettles_b_3610941.html)//kjz

French President Hollande insisted that NSA surveillance programs "stop immediately" and demanded a US explanation, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated her intention to question Obama on the "possible impairment of German citizens." Media speculates that European ire may inspire the European Parliament (EP) to veto the passage of the wide-ranging Trans-Atlantic Trade Deal. The Parliament did, after all, term the surveillance programs a "serious violation" and call for an investigation whose findings could threaten transatlantic cooperation. These fears are overblown. Any recommendations to come from the EP will require passage not only by Parliamentarians, but also EU member states, before becoming law, in a labyrinthine process that is unlikely to occur. Also far-fetched is the notion that EU states will make a principled stand against the trade deal to their own financial detriment, or that they would suspend collaboration on security measures like the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. Brazil, whose President called US surveillance of the Brazilian military an affront to Brazilian sovereignty and human rights, may pose the most serious state challenge to US surveillance. Yet, considering that the NSA's PRISM program had 117,675 active foreign surveillance targets by April 2013, these reactions are rather tame. State indignation (especially in Europe) may be muted, as some allege, because most web-savvy countries, including France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, conduct their own sweeping surveillance programs. These black pots are loathe to disparage the US kettle, no matter how dark. The German government's outcry, the loudest in Europe, has been derided as largely "a flurry of activity apparently designed to reassure German electors." Le Monde ascribes France's "weak signs of protest" to "two excellent reasons: Paris already knew. And it does the same thing." The song and dance of recrimination will continue mainly because governments want to appease "public pressure to respond assertively." US officials understand that they need not worry about real intergovernmental hostilities, at least for now.

AT//Exchange Programs Key

No evidence to support that exchange programs spread democratic ideals—their author

Atkinson 10 (Carol, Vanderbilt University, Department of Political Science, Assistant Professor, “Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs from 1980–2006,” Foreign Policy Analysis, 2010, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22948/Atkinson_Does_Soft_Power_Matter.pdf)//kjz

While educational exchange programs are claimed to promote liberalization in nondemocratic countries, to date there has been little systematic empirical examination of their long-term effects across the international system. Noted democratization scholar Adam Przeworski has pointed specifically to this deficiency: We can match on observables. But should we not worry about unobservables? Suppose that leaders of some countries go to study in Cambridge, where they absorb the ideals of democracy and learn how to promote growth. Leaders of other countries, however, go to the School for [sic] the Americas, where they learn how to repress and nothing about economics. Dictatorships will then generate lower growth because of the quality of the leadership (…) Since this is a variable we could not observe systematically, we cannot match on it. And it may matter. Conditional mean independence—the assumption that unobserved factors do not matter—is very strong, and likely to be often false in cross-national research. (Przeworski 2007:161) Likewise, in their study of US Fulbright scholars, Sunal and Sunal (1991:98) noted that although a lot of information was available about US sponsored exchanges it ‘‘did not provide much help, however, in generalizing about the possible effects of the overseas experience on the individuals involved or in determining relationships between important variables in the Fulbright experience.’’

AT//National Debt Alt Cause

National debt has no impact on credibility—we can NEVER default

Harvey 12 - John T. Harvey is a Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University, where he has worked since 1987. His areas of specialty are international economics (particularly exchange rates), macroeconomics, history of economics, and contemporary schools of thought. He has served as department chair, Executive Director of the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, a member of the board of directors of the Association for Evolutionary Economics, and a member of the editorial boards of the American Review of Political Economy, the Critique of Political Economy, the Encyclopedia of Political Economy, the Journal of Economics Issues, and the Social Science Journal. (“It Is Impossible For The US To Default,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/09/10/impossible-to-default/ 9/10/2012) STRYKER

With so many economic, political, and social problems facing us today, there is little point in focusing attention on something that is not one. The false fear of which I speak is the chance of US debt default. There is no need to speculate on what that likelihood is, I can give you the exact number: there is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt. We could choose to do so, just as a person trapped in a warehouse full of food could choose to starve, but we could never be forced to. This is not a theory or conjecture, it is cold, hard fact. The reason the US could never be forced to default is that every single bit of the debt is owed in the currency that we and only we can issue: dollars. Unlike Greece, we don’t have to try to earn foreign exchange via exports or beg for better terms. There is simply no level of debt we could not repay with a keystroke. Don’t take my word for it. Here are just a few folks from across the political spectrum and in different walks of life saying the same thing: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.” Alan Greenspan “In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets.” Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR “In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default.” Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser “There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency.” Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial “There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spending…When the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate.” Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.51 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16