Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 Hegemony Core Brovero/Verney/Hurwitz
AT – Loss of Alliances Causes Violence
Download 1.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT – Cooperation
AT – Loss of Alliances Causes ViolenceLoss of allies doesn’t cause violence – 1960’s France provesWeisbrode, European University Institute diplomatic historian, 11 (Kenneth Weisbrode is a diplomatic historian at the European University Institute and author of "The Atlantic Century." 2-8-11, World Politics Review, “The U.S. and Egypt: The Limits of Hegemony,” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/7805/the-u-s-and-egypt-the-limits-of-hegemony, accessed 7-8-12, CNM) Some of today's big powers resemble hegemons; others are more imperial. But all, to one degree or another, find their responses toward smaller powers driven by circumstance and not merely by inclination. The United States, for example, has invaded and occupied several countries over the years. But when former President Charles de Gaulle of France withdrew that country from NATO's military command in 1966, then-President Lyndon Johnson did not lead an armed overthrow of the French government. In fact, he barely did more than wish the French a bon voyage. Here, too, gradations of influence and power mattered: France never defected from the North Atlantic alliance itself, but merely from its military organization. If it had joined the Soviet bloc, or declared itself to be genuinely neutral, Johnson may have reacted differently. The French case offers a useful comparison in another respect. To what extent does world order require the semblance of tolerance among allies? Among the many grievances against Mubarak held by own people was that he has been too loyal to his American backers, to the detriment of Egypt's interests. A certain respect for independence, and not just codependence, can have a certain utility in sustaining order. It preserves the voluntary character of hegemony, tempers the tendency of the superpower to overcommit itself and enhances the perception among allies that they are not mere satraps. AT – CooperationMany world problems require US/Chinese cooperation; US cannot lead independent of ChinaCohen, former Secretary of Defense, 9 (William, 4-23-9, The Wall Street Journal, “The World Depends on U.S.-China Cooperation,” 4/23/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044163563445423.html, accessed 7-8-13, AFGA). Recent events confirm that we're living in a new world of disorder. North Korea tested a missile that could reach the U.S., and is threatening to resume its nuclear-weapons program; the Taliban is using drug money to destabilize Afghanistan and turn that country back into a terrorist safe haven; the financial crisis has sparked a global recession; and unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are transforming the global climate. These disparate challenges share one thing in common: They cannot be addressed successfully without cooperation between the U.S. and China. The most immediate opportunity for cooperation is in confronting the international financial crisis. China currently holds $2 trillion worth of largely U.S. dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves, and it is by far the world's largest holder of U.S. government debt. As the Obama administration increases that debt to finance its economic stimulus plan, China will almost certainly be called upon to purchase the lion's share of new U.S. debt instruments. China also has an interest in working with the U.S. to ensure those efforts succeed, because it depends on economic growth in the U.S. (still its largest single trading partner) to ensure stability at home. There is a compelling need to create a new dialogue on finance and economics. This conversation began with President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao's discussions at the G-20 summit this month in London. Meetings between U.S. and Chinese leaders have been dubbed the "G-2" by some to reflect the crucial role of economic negotiations between our two countries. This first meeting between the two men, and the agreement reached by world leaders at the close of the summit, mark a positive beginning to the effort to harmonize our financial management and banking regulatory practices, and explore ways to expand bilateral trade opportunities in areas such as energy and environmental technologies.
China and the U.S. have a shared interest in denuclearizing North Korea. That state's erratic behavior and brinkmanship, of which the missile launch was yet another manifestation, may one day persuade Japan to develop a nuclear deterrent. This is something China should want to avoid. As North Korea's principal supplier of oil and other essential commodities, China has significant leverage with the North Korean regime. The U.S. and China must stand together and increase pressure on the North to stop its missile testing, return to the six-party talks with Japan, Russia and South Korea, and abandon its nuclear-weapons program. The U.S. and China have a shared interest in combating the international drug trade that fuels terror in Afghanistan. Today, Afghanistan competes with Burma as the main provider of narcotics to China. Much of the drug trade is facilitated by trafficking and organized crime networks in Western China. To combat these networks on both sides of the border, the U.S. and China should propose a new NATO-China antinarcotics program. Such a program could increase antidrug cooperation along China's border with Afghanistan. And it could serve as the basis for increased cooperation on other Central Asian security issues, including Pakistan. To be sure, there remain a number of areas of serious divergence between Washington and Beijing. But with so many challenges facing our nations, the stakes are too high to allow old hostilities to impede constructive cooperation. Virtually no global challenge can be met without China-U.S. cooperation. By finding new ways to promote our common interests, the Obama administration can transform our relations with China and promote the global good. Download 1.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|