The United States federal government should cease its surveillance of foreign diplomats in the United States and at United States embassies
Download 0.83 Mb.
|
eu rels good – protectionismDecline in US-EU relations causes protectionismBergsten 99 - Director, Institute for International Economics (C. Fred, “America and Europe: Clash of the Titans?” FOREIGN AFFAIRS, v. 78 n. 2, March/April 1999, p. 20) //AD Both sides now run the risk of drift and even paralysis in transatlantic trade policy -- with potentially severe repercussions for the rest of the world. A slide into protectionism or even a failure to continue opening new markets would have a major impact on the global trading system. Could we then expect Asian economies, who depend on expanded exports to emerge from their deep recessions, to keep their own markets open? Would the transition economies in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia stick to their liberalization strategies? With the backlash against globalization already evident everywhere, the ominous inward-looking protectionist and nationalistic policies that the world has rejected so decisively could reemerge once again. A failure of transatlantic leadership would make such policy reversals particularly likely. The United States and the EU are the only economic superpowers and the only two regions enjoying reasonable economic growth. They created the GATT system and, more recently, the WTO. Despite their own occasional transgressions, they have nurtured and defended the system throughout its evolution over the past 50 years. While Japan has been important on a few issues and the developing countries played an encouraging role in the Uruguay Round, the Atlantic powers built and sustained the world trade order. Their failure to maintain that commitment would devastate the entire regime. eu rels good – iran prolifUS-EU relations key to negotiations with Iran about its nuclear programKerr 5 – foreign proliferation research analyst, analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies' International Security Program, managed the defense program at the Lexington Institute, writer for the Anteon Corporation's Center for Security Strategies and Operations, M.A. in International Relations from the University of South Carolina, and B.A. in History from the University of Vermont(Paul, "Iran-EU Nuclear Negotiations Begin", Arms Control Today, February, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_01-02/Iran_EU) //AD Washington has repeatedly pushed for resolutions that take a harder line on Iran at past board meetings but has failed to persuade the other board members to agree. The United States also continues to express concern that Iran is pursuing covert nuclear activities. U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders told the IAEA board Nov. 29 that Washington wants Iran “immediately” to provide access to Iran’s Parchin military complex, which U.S. officials believe might have facilities that could be used to test conventional high explosives for use in an implosion-type nuclear weapon. The IAEA has not yet received permission to visit, the State Department official said Dec. 16. (See ACT, October 2004.) Washington failed to persuade the board to adopt language giving the IAEA expanded authority to inspect Iranian facilities. Instead, the November resolution requests that Iran “provide any access deemed necessary by the Agency” in accordance with Iran’s additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement. Safeguards agreements require states-parties to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow the IAEA to monitor their declared civilian nuclear activities to ensure that they are not diverted to military use. Additional protocols augment the agency’s authority to detect clandestine nuclear activities, but there are limits to the agency’s ability to inspect military facilities. Tehran has signed an additional protocol and has agreed to abide by its provisions until Iran’s parliament ratifies the agreement. On the trade front, Washington’s lack of enthusiasm for engagement with Iran could also complicate the negotiations. The suspension agreement states that the Europeans “will actively support the opening of Iranian accession negotiations” at the World Trade Organization (WTO). A State Department official told Arms Control Today Dec. 20 that the Europeans wanted a WTO General Council meeting earlier in the month to call for negotiations to begin, but the U.S. delegation said that Washington is not ready to move forward on the matter. U.S. support is necessary because the WTO makes decisions by consensus. eu rels good – warmingUS-EU cooperation critical to address climate change – joint national approachesSivaram and Livingston 6/23 - B.S. in Engineering Physics, B.A. in International Relations, Honors from the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University, Rhodes Scholar and Ph.D. in Physics from Oxford University, Fellow at Greenberg Center on Geoeconomics and Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Advisor on Water and Energy Policy, Fellow at Global Agenda Council on Urbanization in World Economic Forum;*associate in Carnegie’s Energy and Climate Program, member at World Trade Organization in Geneva and at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, selected as a Future Energy Leader for the 2014-2017 term of the World Energy Council, adjunct lecturer at the University of Southern California (Varun, David, “How California and Germany Can Fix the Climate Agenda,” Foreign Affairs, 6-23-15, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-23/leading-between) //AD For the last two decades, climate talks, and their top-down multinational approaches, have largely failed to curb rising temperatures. Since then, a number of subnational actors (provinces, cities, businesses, and civil society organizations, among others) have sought to tackle climate change from the bottom up. For example, at a summit in New York last year, various subnational associations pledged to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Around 75 mayors from around the world, recognizing that cities account for some 70 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, signed a Mayors Compact to accelerate ongoing efforts to shrink their carbon footprint. And major civil society organizations and businesses also signed various pledges on a range of initiatives, from expanding energy efficiency to halting deforestation. These initiatives are promising, but they will not do enough. According to at least one study, the subnational initiatives agreed to at last year’s summit have the potential to reduce emissions by only a fifth of the required reduction needed to keep global warming under two degrees Celsius—a threshold that if exceeded, may trigger fiercer storms and increased droughts. Subnational progress is limited because ground-up climate diplomacy has largely operated on an independent track from international diplomacy. The risk with these parallel approaches is that ground-up goals will not be incorporated into top-down ones, which risks marginalizing their efficacy. Unlocking the potential of subnational climate action will require integration of subnational and international initiatives. And the two entities that can bridge that gap are California and Germany—two of the world’s pioneers when it comes to climate policies. Both are on track to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050, the level of reduction that the world must achieve in order to stop temperatures from rising another two degrees Celsius. California Governor Jerry Brown recently pledged to reach 50 percent renewable power in the state by 2030, from just over 20 percent today; German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently reaffirmed her vision for Germany to meet all of its power needs with renewable energy by 2050 (the country is around the 30 percent mark today). By contrast, OECD nations on average use only 10 percent renewable energy. (All examples exclude large hydropower.) Because California and Germany have both subnational and national characteristics, they enjoy broad respect from cities, provinces, and nations alike. In this way, they can “lead from between” and bridge the two levels of diplomacy. Both exert a high level of influence within much larger political contexts—the United States and the European Union, respectively—and exemplify how subnational action can elevate national ambition. Both are also among the top ten global economies, able to move markets with policy. Already, California’s aggressive vehicle fuel economy standards have been adopted at the national level, and it single-handedly pushed automakers to produce electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles through its zero emission vehicle regulations. For its part, Germany pushed the European Union to pledge to emission reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It can also claim most of the credit for kickstarting the global solar panel industry through its Feed-in Tariff incentive program. Governments that once criticized California and Germany for far-fetched policies now look to them for tactical guidance. The place to push for this approach and merge local and international efforts is at the December UN Climate Conference in Paris. This conference is already poised to make progress, having evolved from the top-down framework of the past to a more bottom-up model in which nations propose their own targets. California and Germany can complete the transformation from a top-down to a bottom-up paradigm by advocating for the inclusion of local action plans in any Paris climate agreement. Furthermore, they should push for a framework that encourages subnational actors to work constructively with national governments to scale up local innovations to meet and elevate national emission reduction goals. Ideally, the Paris agreement will also set up a transparent system to monitor and verify national progress toward climate action pledges. California and Germany should encourage the adoption of the Paris mandates at the most local level. They can start by appealing to an already enthusiastic pilot group: a group of 12 subnational provinces and states that California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg led, in May, to sign an agreement pledging to cut emissions by at least 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. The provinces and cities that seek to transform their local energy systems can also benefit from California and Germany’s expertise. Both could offer various consulting services to enable local policymakers and energy professionals to share best practices in, for example, the market design and technical integration of renewable energy. Germany could share the success and failures of its experiment with the “renewables club,” now called the International Renewables Energy Agency, which comprises 140 nations that share data and best practices on sustainable energy initaitives. California and Germany should carve out a similar space for local technical cooperation. Facilitating the exchange of expertise will be inexpensive compared with the cost of developing that expertise in the first place. And in California and Germany, energy businesses will likely find this exchange a lucrative one since it provides an opportunity to connect with new markets. The yawning gap between California and Germany’s progress and the lack thereof around the world challenges the idea that climate change must be addressed with independent multinational and subnational approaches. After decades of pioneering action on climate change, it is time these two climate leaders bring the rest of the world up to speed. 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 0.83 Mb. Share with your friends:
|