Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China


AC Affirmative Answers to China Relations Disadvantage



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page99/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   ...   144

2AC Affirmative Answers to China Relations Disadvantage

  1. Non-unique- the South China Sea conflict has escalated- tensions with China already exist



US News and World Report, May 2016

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-23/renewed-weapons-trade-bad-for-china-good-for-american-arms-producers


China mostly managed to put on a good face after news broke that the Obama administration planned to scrap a decades-old arms embargo to Vietnam – a move that will expand the communist country's growing weapons stockpiles while complicating both parties' relationships with Beijing. A Chinese government spokeswoman said on Monday that the embargo, which was established back in 1984 and was partially lifted in 2014, was "a product of the Cold War and should have never existed." She said Beijing welcomed the onset of "normal relations" between Vietnam and international trade partners like the U.S. But trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam have been anything but normal since the Vietnam War. President Richard Nixon launched an embargo back in 1964, and it wasn't until the Clinton administration renewed ties with the Asian country in the mid-1990s that import and export restrictions lifted for most industries. A separate weapons embargo enacted in the 1980s, however, remained intact and has since cut Vietnam off from American arms sales. But as rumors circulated over the weekend that President Barack Obama might lift the weapons embargo during his visit to Hanoi this week, China's state-run media adopted a less convincing poker face, warning that the move "should not be used by the United States as a tool to threaten or even damage the strategic interests of a third party." "The U.S. behavior [in the South China Sea in recent years] has made some countries more assertive and fueled their delusions to continue to exploit illegal interests on South China Sea islands and reefs," Beijing's Xinhua news outlet said Sunday.




  1. Relations with China are resilient- we are too economically dependent on one another for relations to totally collapse. We will always cooperate because it’s mutually beneficial



South China Morning Post, June 2016 (6/13,

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1973855/china-and-united-states-best-frenemies


But as US Secretary of State John Kerry said at the end of the talks, the meetings provided an “essential mechanism” for both sides to air differences and nurture cooperation. The two countries discussed a wide range of issues of global reach and significance, including climate change, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Africa. Meanwhile, trade and investment continued to be the bedrock of bilateral ties, despite rising friction over China’s excess industrial capacity that Washington says has led to distortions of global markets, and complaints from US firms about a worsening business environment on the mainland. Nonetheless, China last year became the US’ biggest trade partner. This week, both sides are scheduled to exchange their revised “negative lists” of sectors that are closed to foreign investment in the hope of concluding the bilateral investment treaty ahead of the Group of 20 meeting in Hangzhou in September. Beijing is under rising pressure to pare its negative list and it is in its own interest to see the agreement concluded at an earlier date. As chair of the G20 meeting, China promised a road map to steer the world economy out of the woods and for that to happen, deeper cooperation with US is essential.


  1. There is no impact to nuclear proliferation- It is slowing in the status quo



Van der Meer, 2011 [Sico, Research Fellow at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ and a PhD Candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam; his PhD project on nuclear proliferation dynamics is financially supported by the Dutch non-governmental organisation IKV Pax Christi. “Not that bad: Looking back on 65 years of nuclear non-proliferation efforts” Security and Human Rights 2011 no.1]
Since the invention and first use of nuclear weapons, predictions on the spread of these weapons have been traditionally pessimistic. Especially during the Cold War, from 1945 to 1991, the persistent pessimism among experts and policymakers is — with the knowledge of looking backwards — surprising. During the first decades of the Cold War it was generally expected that far more countries would acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal rather soon. This pessimism was not that strange, considering that nuclear weapons were generally seen as acceptable, desirable and even necessary among political and military elites in many nations during the 1950s and early 1960s.2 Nuclear weapons are considered as the ultimate weapon that would deter any enemy from attacking. Moreover, nuclear weapons offer not only military power: they are also considered to increase a state’s political power internationally. Having nuclear weapons grants a state — and its leadership — international prestige, and a nuclear weapon state will automatically be considered and treated as a (regional) superpower. Based on this positive attitude towards nuclear weapons, forecasts in these years were therefore easily predicting that 20 to 25 states would become nuclear weapon powers within the next few decades; countries like Sweden, West Germany and Japan are examples of countries that were often considered would soon cross the nuclear threshold, but they never did. One of the reasons for the alarming forecasts during much of the Cold War period was the failure of many estimates to distinguish between the capacity of states to develop nuclear weapons and the desire of these states to do so.3 Even nowadays, however, political and academic forecasts often tend to be rather pessimistic, predicting nuclear domino effects, or chain reactions, when new nuclear weapon powers (for example, Iran) will emerge and cause other states to develop nuclear weapons too. Despite all the pessimistic forecasts, however, only nine states nowadays possess nuclear weapons. Although more states have employed nuclear weapons programmes at some point in the past 65 years, most of them have sooner or later ended their ambition to acquire these weapons. Some states even destroyed their nuclear arsenal (South Africa) or gave up inherited arsenals (Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan). Especially since the second half of the 1980s the number of states with nuclear weapons-related activities has become very marginal


Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   ...   144



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review