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.

Page	12/25
Date	20.10.2016
Size	0.83 Mb.
	#6035

1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25

ttip good – econ/manufacturing

US-EU trade deal key to global economic growth and U.S. manufacturing

Needham 13 – Staff Writer, Journalism degree from Northwestern University (Vicki, “Manufacturers Outline Priorities for a US-EU Free-Trade Deal,” The Hill, 3-27-13, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/290617-manufacturers-press-for-us-eu-free-trade-deal-)//AD

Manufacturers want negotiators to target a reduction in tariffs and a smoothing of regulatory policies during U.S.-European Union trade talks as part of an effort to help create jobs and boost the economy. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons sent a letter to President Obama on Wednesday calling for a reduction in trade barriers and costs while ensuring that any agreement does not impose new labor, privacy, environmental or other standards that could hamstring competitiveness. In outlining goals for the talks, which are expected to start in June, Timmons cited rules on trade facilitation, investment and intellectual property along with duplicative and contradictory sanitary and phytosanitary rules as those that must be addressed. Timmons suggested that any regulatory agreements must be designed to "favor markets and adhere to sound principles of science, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis." "More broadly, a growth-producing U.S.-EU agreement will enhance manufacturing competitiveness and commercial opportunities, and not impose rules or seek to harmonize standards that would undermine the United States’ dynamic labor market, strong intellectual property protections or other policies that promote innovation," Timmons wrote. "Proposals to adopt burdensome non-commercial standards — from labor and privacy, to environmental and non-risk based regulations — would not only stall the negotiations, they would undermine the ability to create the economic growth both our economies seek." Last week, the White House sent notice to Congress that it will officially begin talks with the 27-nation European Union. Negotiations could last upward of two years. Timmons also makes an argument for moving forward quickly with renewing trade promotion authority as an avenue to getting a globally example-setting trade deal. "U.S. export growth slowed over the past year, and the answer is access to new markets and removing trade barriers," said David Hoover, chairman of NAM's international economic policy committee. "Trade agreements have a proven track record of success, as exports to just our 20 free trade agreement partners accounted for nearly half of U.S.-manufactured goods exports last year.” The NAM backs with the High Level Working Group’s call for a comprehensive agreement that addresses a broad range of bilateral trade and investment issues that will put the economies on both sides of the Atlantic in a stronger economic position. "A comprehensive trade agreement between the United States and EU would be very beneficial to manufacturers in creating additional opportunities and further developing the economic relationship between the world’s largest trading partners,” said Greg Walters, chairman of NAM's U.S.-EU Task Force. “An ambitious agreement will drive economic growth, lower existing barriers and serve as a model for the rest of the globe to follow."

TTIP strengthens global economic relations and US-EU interdependence

European Commission 13 – (“Independent study outlines benefits of EU-US trade agreement”, European Commission, 3-12-13, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-211_en.htm)//AD

An in-depth study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, on the potential effects of the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been released today. It takes a detailed look at current transatlantic trade and investment flows and existing barriers to these, and then uses economic modelling to estimate the potential impact of different policy scenarios. The study highlights the huge gains to be made from liberalising EU-US trade, not just for the two trading blocs, but also for the global economy. The study was commissioned by the European Commission's Directorate General for Trade. This memo summarises the study's key findings. Overall economic gains An ambitious and comprehensive trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership could bring significant economic gains as a whole for the EU (€119 billion a year) and the US (€95 billion a year) once the agreement is fully implemented. This translates on average to an extra €545 in disposable income each year for a family of four in the EU. The benefits for the EU and the US would not be at the expense of the rest of the world. On the contrary, liberalising trade between the EU and the US would have a positive impact on worldwide trade and income, increasing GDP in the rest of the world by almost €100 billion. To the extent that the EU and the US can work together towards better trade rules and less regulatory divergence in the future, some of the reductions achieved in the cost of doing trade will also benefit other partners. The economic importance of the EU and the US will mean that their partners will also have an incentive to move towards the new transatlantic standards. This has the potential to spread gains across the global economy, which is increasingly interdependent especially given the ever greater complexity of global value chains. Income gains are a result of increased trade. EU exports to the US would go up by 28%, equivalent to an additional €187 billion worth of exports of EU goods and services. EU and US trade with the rest of the world would also increase by over €33 billion. Overall, the extra bilateral trade between the two blocs, together with their increased trade with other partners, would represent a rise in total EU exports of 6% and of 8% in US exports. This would mean an additional €220 billion and €240 billion worth of sales of goods and services for EU and US based producers, respectively. Sectoral benefits EU exports would increase in almost all sectors, but the boost in sales to the rest of the world would be particularly significant in metal products (+12%), processed foods (+9%), chemicals (+9%), other manufactured goods (+6 %), and other transport equipment (+6%). But, by far the biggest relative increase in trade would take place in the motor vehicles sector. In this sector, EU exports to the rest of the world are expected to go up by nearly 42% and imports to expand by 43%. The growth in bilateral trade is even more impressive: EU exports of motor vehicles to the US are expected to increase by 149%. This partly reflects the importance of two-way trade in parts and components and the further integration of the two industries across the Atlantic. This increase in trade in motor vehicles is also accompanied by an expansion in the sector's output (+1.5%) in the EU. The increase in exports and output that would be found (in different degrees) in almost all sectors reflects the big liberalisation effort that the agreement would imply. Unsurprisingly, the car sector, being characterised by an initial combination of high tariffs and high non-tariff barriers, such as different safety standards, is one that would benefit the most. Reducing non-tariff barriers Reducing non-tariff barriers, so-called "behind-the-border" barriers, will have to be the key part of trans-Atlantic trade liberalisation. As much as 80% of the total potential gains come from cutting costs imposed by bureaucracy and regulations, as well as from liberalising trade in services and public procurement. Labour market The increased level of economic activity and productivity gains created by the agreement will benefit the EU and US labour markets, both in terms of overall wages and new job opportunities for high- and low-skilled workers.

ttip good – trade

TTIP failure hurts US-EU trade ties and relations – plan is key

Llana 13 – CSM European Bureau Chief, Masters in journalism from Columbia University, BA in history from the University of Michigan(Sara Miller, “Will US-EU trade talks spur growth - or show globalization's limits,” Christian Science Monitor, 7-8-13, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0708/Will-US-EU-trade-talks-spur-growth-or-show-globalization-s-limits)//AD

Yet even if it fails – and there are plenty who think that the obstacles such as agriculture and, most recently, data privacy are insurmountable – a failure would be pivotal, showing that tariffs can be dropped but non-tariff barriers, which are often more cultural in nature, remain stubborn. A failure, says Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Center for International Political Economy (ECIPE) in Brussels, “could lead to a larger standstill in efforts to address 21st century trade barriers.” Long-standing obstacles Tariffs between the US and EU are already relatively low, but because of the sheer size of trade between the two – representing half of global economic output – advocates say it would be a major booster of growth and jobs, especially in debt-stricken Europe that has seen record high unemployment at 12.2 percent. The two already invest nearly $4 trillion in each other’s economies, according to US statistics, which translates into 7 million jobs. It’s the non-tariff barriers, however, that most are watching in TTIP talks. Today, if a product is made in France, for example, it goes through the various regulatory hurdles to bring it to the marketplace; it then has to go through another set of strenuous – and often redundant – hurdles to reach the US market. Under the TTIP, both sides could agree to mutually recognize the others’ systems. When it comes to car safety, reducing red tape may be an easy compromise. But other issues on the table have long vexed negotiators. That includes French subsidies for its film industry, European resistance to genetically modified foods (GMOs), or data privacy laws – especially in the wake of the information released by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden revealing the US systematically spies on its own citizens, as well as European institutions. “One of the sleeper issues in the deal is how to deal with privacy,” says Bruce Stokes, the director of the Global Economic Attitudes program at the Pew Research Center. Europeans, particularly Germans, are far more sensitive than Americans when it comes to data privacy. “There is a disconnect between Europeans and Americans about this new digital economy,” Mr. Stokes says. And even if the Snowden case is about government, not industry, it bolsters European assumptions that Americans don’t care about privacy, he says. Supporters of the agreement know these talks will be arduous, but at a time of economic weakness, they might have the political will to push forward. “Europe is stuck, and the US is also stuck, although not quite as bad,” says Thomas Wright, a fellow in the Managing Global Order project at the Brookings Institution. “This offers a way that leaders can be proactive and generate growth. I think that resonates with people, particularly in Europe.” Mr. Erixon also says that regulators in specific industries have more of an incentive to find solutions now, because their refusal to compromise would influence every other industry included in the talks. On the issue of the US using chlorine when washing chicken, for example, compromise has been impossible because the context was always too small. “Regulators were trying to defend their position, with no interest at all in participating in negotiations with other countries,” he says. “If you play filibuster now, the cost is higher.” 'Cultural exceptions' – and similarities So far TTIP has not generated widespread controversy in the US. That might be because it’s still early days. But it’s also because of the nature of the deal, says Charles Kupchan, a transatlantic expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. “Since trade is relatively free and since [the US] and the EU are at similar stages of development, this is not a deal that is going to cause major dislocation,” he says. “This is an easier sell politically.” Opposition might be stronger on the European side. Already the French sought to invoke the so-called “cultural exception” in the talks, as a way to protect its movie industry from an incursion from Hollywood. France ultimately agreed to allow media to be included in talks so that they could officially launch, but it will be among the most difficult issues to negotiate. “It’s not a little issue. It’s the cultural meat of a nation,” says Josef Braml, transatlantic expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, who has little hope that a deal is attainable – above all, he says, because of the weakness of President Obama. But the “cultural exception” debate could be a harbinger of sentiments that develop as the trade talks get underway. Guillaume Xavier-Bender of the German Marshall Fund of the US in Brussels says that in many ways the talks will show how similar regulations between Europe and the US are. “There are more things in common between Europeans and Americans than there are differences,” he says. But on the politically most sensitive issues, claims that TTIP is merely an American instrument to change European values could be made. “It is possible in Europe you see anti-globalization and anti-liberalization movements evolve into anti-Americanism,” he says. If an agreement becomes impossible to forge, it may ultimately illustrate more than transatlantic differences. Mr. Stokes says that global economies have continuously become more closely integrated over time. But if in the TTIP it’s possible to get rid of tariffs yet not non-tariff barriers, he says it will be telling for the future of trade agreements globally – a sign, he says, that “we may be encountering the edges of the limits of globalization.”

ttip good – russia aggression

TTIP is critical to curtail Russia aggression

TPP is a chance for the United States to show Asia that we care. Asia does not have to submit to China's ways and that we can work together. But most importantly, TPP is created for the United States. The free trade deal the United States is negotiating with the European Union, known TTIP, offer similar strategic advantages. Even more aggressive than China, Russia took over the sovereign territory of Georgia, Ukraine. I have met with the ambassadors of other countries in the Baltics, the Bulgarians and the Romanians all feel like they could be next for Russian aggression. One of the reasons why it has been so hard to cooperate with the EU on these issues is that Russia uses Europeans' dependence on Russia for energy to blackmail Europe. Countries like Latvia, Finland and Sweden get 100 percent of their natural gas from Europe. Twelve countries in the EU get over half their natural gas from Russia. So Russia threatens Europe, you get to then to do what Moscow wants. Right now in the United States, there is more natural gas than we can use. But the United States Government would not allow American companies to export natural gas. The only exceptions are for companies -- exporting to a country with whom we have a free trade agreement or companies that get special approval from the Department of Energy. Department of Energy approval process has been slow, so slow that drillers have stopped drilling because they know they can't sell it. The long-term solution to this problem is to let American companies sell natural gas around the world. But in the meantime, if we get TTIP done, that also means we can export LNG eventually to every country in the European Union. And then no longer would be -- would Russia have a hold over Europe. No longer would Europe be reluctant to get tougher with Russia and their aggression. This is just one strategic advantage of TTIP. I think there are others.

It creates a signal of US-EU unity

Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe, 3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen

Since this agreement is between two economies that share a strong commitment to the rule of law, transparency and free markets, it can help elevate health, safety, labor and environmental standards worldwide. Beyond trade and investment, TTIP also has significant strategic implications. The importance of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance has been underscored by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, its increasing hostility toward neighboring states and the continued declined of fundamental rights and the rule of law under the Putin regime. The strengthening ties between the United State and the UE that would result from TTIP would only complement the united front that the U.S. and the EU have maintained throughout the Ukraine crisis. TTIP would highlight the virtues of the Western model and send a powerful signal to Putin and other authoritarian regimes that the United States and Europe remain as united as they ever were. Further, our commitment to higher standards and basic democratic principles is the basic for our prosperity and that prosperity is our best defense against governments that seek to destabilize international order.

That signal is critical – and deters further conquest

ttip good – nato

Key to NATO cohesion

And yet, there are questions of trust and commitment across the Atlantic these days. NATO is perceived in some quarters to be a bit wobbly. TTIP would be the other side of the coin of our commitment to Europe through our -- our military alliance. And I think, particularly, given the issues facing European security these days, this is a vital reassurance of U.S. commitment to Europe. It also would reassure Americans who wonder about the European Union and whether it's inward or outward looking that the E.U. would be a very strong outward looking partner, because TTIP would essentially make that case. The second area is how both of us together relate to rising powers. And Dr. Green mentioned a few of those elements. But I think one has to think about this. Those rising powers are each having debates of how they relate to the international system. Do they challenge it? Do they accommodate themselves to it? And the message we have to those countries as they have those debates is actually quite important. In recent years, we've had different messages, or muddled messages. European message, American message -- we don't have a message. So, TTIP is a single strong message about a robust revitalized West, not defensive, but also not aggressive. About upholding standards, not eroding them. And it has an impact on each of the countries that we could discuss.

Extinction

Brzezinski 9 (Zbigniew, former US National Security Adviser, “An Agenda for NATO”, Foreign Affairs, October 2009, ebsco)//twemchen

NATO's potential is not primarily military. Although NATO is a collective-security alliance, its actual military power comes predominantly from the United States, and that reality is not likely to change anytime soon. NATO's real power derives from the fact that it combines the United States' military capabilities and economic power with Europe's collective political and economic weight (and occasionally some limited European military forces). Together, that combination makes NATO globally significant. It must therefore remain sensitive to the importance of safeguarding the geopolitical bond between the United States and Europe as it addresses new tasks. The basic challenge that NATO now confronts is that there are historically unprecedented risks to global security. Today's world is threatened neither by the militant fanaticism of a territorially rapacious nationalist state nor by the coercive aspiration of a globally pretentious ideology embraced by an expansive imperial power. The paradox of our time is that the world, increasingly connected and economically interdependent for the first time in its entire history, is experiencing intensifying popular unrest made all the more menacing by the growing accessibility of weapons of mass destruction--not just to states but also, potentially, to extremist religious and political movements. Yet there is no effective global security mechanism for coping with the growing threat of violent political chaos stemming from humanity's recent political awakening. The three great political contests of the twentieth century (the two world wars and the Cold War) accelerated the political awakening of mankind, which was initially unleashed in Europe by the French Revolution. Within a century of that revolution, spontaneous populist political activism had spread from Europe to East Asia. On their return home after World Wars I and II, the South Asians and the North Africans who had been conscripted by the British and French imperial armies propagated a new awareness of anticolonial nationalist and religious political identity among hitherto passive and pliant populations. The spread of literacy during the twentieth century and the wide-ranging impact of radio, television, and the Internet accelerated and intensified this mass global political awakening. In its early stages, such new political awareness tends to be expressed as a fanatical embrace of the most extreme ethnic or fundamentalist religious passions, with beliefs and resentments universalized in Manichaean categories. Unfortunately, in significant parts of the developing world, bitter memories of European colonialism and of more recent U.S. intrusion have given such newly aroused passions a distinctively anti-Western cast. Today, the most acute example of this phenomenon is found in an area that stretches from Egypt to India. This area, inhabited by more than 500 million politically and religiously aroused peoples, is where NATO is becoming more deeply embroiled. Additionally complicating is the fact that the dramatic rise of China and India and the quick recovery of Japan within the last 50 years have signaled that the global center of political and economic gravity is shifting away from the North Atlantic toward Asia and the Pacific. And of the currently leading global powers--the United States, the EU, China, Japan, Russia, and India--at least two, or perhaps even three, are revisionist in their orientation. Whether they are "rising peacefully" (a self-confident China), truculently (an imperially nostalgic Russia) or boastfully (an assertive India, despite its internal multiethnic and religious vulnerabilities), they all desire a change in the global pecking order. The future conduct of and relationship among these three still relatively cautious revisionist powers will further intensify the strategic uncertainty. Visible on the horizon but not as powerful are the emerging regional rebels, with some of them defiantly reaching for nuclear weapons. North Korea has openly flouted the international community by producing (apparently successfully) its own nuclear weapons--and also by profiting from their dissemination. At some point, its unpredictability could precipitate the first use of nuclear weapons in anger since 1945. Iran, in contrast, has proclaimed that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes but so far has been unwilling to consider consensual arrangements with the international community that would provide credible assurances regarding these intentions. In nuclear-armed Pakistan, an extremist anti-Western religious movement is threatening the country's political stability. These changes together reflect the waning of the post-World War II global hierarchy and the simultaneous dispersal of global power. Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in recent years unintentionally, but most unwisely, contributed to the currently threatening state of affairs. The combination of Washington's arrogant unilateralism in Iraq and its demagogic Islamophobic sloganeering weakened the unity of NATO and focused aroused Muslim resentments on the United States and the West more generally.

ttip good – at: race to the bottom

Wrong – it’s a race to the top

Finally, TTIP and TPP could help push the world toward greater liberalization (ph). Formal global trade negotiations in DOHA are on hold, but together TTIP and TPP represent 90 percent of the world's GDP. These pacts would help set the global standard. And countries who do not want to be left out would have to agree to the tough standards set by these agreements in order to enjoy the benefits. Trade agreements have a geopolitial effect far beyond trade itself.

eu trade good – europe war

Independently, EU trade alone is key to regional stability

AFP 11 - Advokatur Fischer & Partner is a law firm in Switzerland, (“EU President urges trade to halt Asia-Pacific militarization”, November 9, 2011, http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_President_urges_trade_to_halt_Asia-Pacific_militarisation_999.html)//trepka

The Asia-Pacific region is showing signs of militarisation that could lead to an arms race, EU President Herman Van Rompuy warned Wednesday, calling for closer trade ties to defuse any political tensions. "Whereas Europe used to be the most dangerous continent in the past century... the focus of security analysts and hard power strategic planners has recently moved towards developments in Asia and the Pacific," said Van Rompuy in a speech at the University of Zurich. "They do not yet observe a full-blown arms race, but in terms of military spending and confrontational psychology, the premises of an arms race are there," he added, without naming individual countries. "It will thus be key to continue deepening economic relationships within that region, so as to make a war as it were 'materially impossible'," added Van Rompuy. Noting that the EU is a key trading partner to major economies in the region, the EU Council President said Brussels "does not only have a significant stake in regional stability, but itself is a potential major factor contributing to this stability." This fact "should also be reflected in higher political attention paid to and political activity shown in the region," he added.

Goes nuclear and global

Glaser 93 – professor of public policy studies (Charles, International Security, pg. 8-9, Summer 1993)//twemchen

However, although the lack of an imminent Soviet threat eliminates the most obvious danger, U.S. security has not been entirely separated from the future of Western Europe. The ending of the Cold War has brought many benefits, but has not eliminated the possibility of a major power war, especially since such a war could grow out of a smaller conflict in the East. And, although nuclear weapons have greatly reduced the threat that a European hegemon would pose to U.S. security, a sound case nevertheless remains that a major European war could threaten U.S. security. The United States could be drawn into such a war, even if strict security considerations suggested it should stay out. A major power war could escalate into a nuclear war that, especially if the United States joins, could include attacks against the American homeland. Thus, the United States should not be unconcerned about Europe’s future.

russia agro bad – arms race

They’re arms racing

Kureev 6/29 – staff writer @ Russia Direct (Artem Kureev, 6/29/15, “Does Europe need a new arms race?,” http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/does-europe-need-new-arms-race)//twemchen

The start of the Ukraine crisis caused Russia’s Baltic neighbors to declare all previous measures inadequate. Baltic and Polish politicians began to argue that NATO assistance would simply not arrive in time in the event of a Russian offensive. Latvia and Estonia, both with large Russian-speaking communities, even voiced fears that Moscow may try to incite rebellion in their eastern territories, where Russian speakers make up the majority of the population, on the model of the “people’s republics” in eastern Ukraine. That was one of the factors in setting up the rapid reaction force. However, the proposal for a 10,000-strong contingent was deemed short of the mark. In February 2015, NATO defense ministers agreed that the force would number 30,000 troops, 4,000 of whom would be on constant high alert, with command centers manned by a small staff of permanent employees based in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. But even that did not suffice. On April 12 Estonian President Toomas Henrik Ilves stated that in the present circumstances, NATO would not be able to come to the aid of the Baltic states in time, since “everything could be over in 4 hours.” He requested Germany to deploy military units on Estonian soil. Tellingly, this past year Tallinn has been actively demonstrating its role as the Baltic leader in NATO. This is because Estonia is an “exemplary member of the Alliance,” spending 2 percent of GDP on defense as required, taking an active part in NATO missions, and possessing the most combat-ready army of all three countries. That is largely why Obama chose Tallin as the venue for his meeting with the leaders of the three Baltic countries in September of last year, as if to emphasize its leading role in the region. Recommended: "Is CFE dead? A Western perspective" Moreover, Estonia proved its defense capabilities during “Siil 2015” [Hedgehog 2015], one of the largest military exercises in the country’s recent history, in which 13,000 troops took part. Estonian media were quick to tell the world that the number of service personnel involved exceeded the contingent of Russian forces on the other side of the border. At the same time, although the mobilized reservists had been warned a year in advance, Tallinn showed that, if necessary, it was able to “call to arms” a significant number of trained fighters in real time. Against this backdrop, the May 12 request of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to send additional NATO troops seemed somewhat strange. After all, at least one of these countries had already shown high combat capability and the ability to achieve parity with the potential adversary in a timely manner. As already noted, the Baltic states have NATO air cover and will soon see a new rapid reaction force, in addition to which Estonia hosts the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence to combat Russian cyber threats. NATO’s new military units will impose a heavy burden on the budgets of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Estonian Defense Minister Sven Mikser has stated that the cost of basing the allies will be added to the 2 percent of GDP that Estonia is obliged to spend on defense as a NATO member. At the same time, it is still unclear precisely how much heavy equipment will be located in which country, although it can be assumed that one of the tasks of the new contingents will be to retrain Eastern European troops. Looking further ahead, Washington sees these countries as a market for US armored vehicles and hopes to wean the Romanians, Bulgarians and Poles off the Soviet T-72 and T-55, which presently make up more than half of their tank divisions. Why Europe seeks a new arms race A NEW WAVE OF ARMS PROLIFERATION IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SMALL BALTIC NATIONS A new wave of arms proliferation is not in the interests of the small Baltic nations. Hosting other countries’ military forces will not come cheap, even with additional funding from NATO . However, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia’s logic is simple. On the surface it is about election promises. Ahead of Estonia’s parliamentary elections in March, Prime Minister Taavi Roivas shot a campaign video at Amari airbase, where, to the roar of a fighter jet, he promised to protect his country. Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, Latvia elected as its new president Raimonds Vejonis, who in his former capacity as defense minister beefed up the army with second-hand British armored vehicles. The ruling political establishments of the Baltic republics are generally exploiting the “Russian threat” to improve their ratings. Another obvious aim of the redeployment of heavy weaponry to the Russian border is NATO’s desire to provoke a response from Russia. In particular, the Alliance hopes that by being forced to send troops to its north-western borders to maintain parity with NATO, Moscow will be unable to continue supplying hardware to the rebels in the Donbas, which the West believes is happening.

russia agro bad – nato

Russia and NATO are spoiling to fight

Morris 6/27 – staff writer at the Valuewalk (Christopher Morris, 6/27/15, “Russia And NATO Prepare For Possible War,” http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/russia-and-nato-prepare-for-possible-war/)//twemchen

Tensions continues to ramp up between Russia and the United States, as geopolitical manoeuvers unfold. The uneasy peace between the Eastern and Western superpowers seems to be deteriorating further, with both sides taking action which has resulted in distrust increasing further. Russia Nuclear Weapons Iskander missile launcher Putin increases nuclear warhead haul Just last week, the Russian supremo Vladimir Putin announced that Russia intended to expand its existing nuclear arsenal. This move would see the nation establishing forty new intercontinental ballistic missiles to add to its existing quota. Considering that Russia and the United States collectively have in the region of 15,000 nuclear warheads, one might not unreasonably wonder what is the point of Russia acquiring another forty. There is no doubt that should the United States or Russia ever fire a nuclear weapon at one another, the ultimate result would be unprecedented and unimaginable global devastation. Unfortunately, both Russia and the United States have engaged in actions in recent months which have resulted in the diplomatic situation between the two nations deteriorating. The latest increase in nuclear weapons announced by Russia seems to have led to a new phase of posturing and military manoeuvres, which is the latest in a phase of rising tensions that began with the Ukraine conflict back in 2013. Geopolitical conflict As has been reported previously by ValueWalk, the existing situation must be seen in the slightly geopolitical context. Russia and the US are historical rivals anyway, but the pairing of Russia with China in the new BRICS power bloc places pressure on the traditional US-led hierarchy. The old world order of the Anglo-American and EU / NATO-driven institutions is being challenged by the BRICS, and the powerful organization has already made it a stated goal to play a greater role in existing economic institutions, or if this is not achievable to set up a central bank of its own. ValueWalk reported sometime ago that the BRICS nations have been scheming to create their own central bank, as the major political and business figures from the Eastern world continue to be frozen out of the existing global economic infrastructure. Whether this is a serious intention, or rather a bargaining chip in an ongoing debate and struggle, remains to be seen. But what is certain is that the existing tension between the United States and Russia should be seen as a symptom of this situation. Russia’s replacement strategy According to Adam Mount, a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the announcement which has recently been made by Putin does not actually signifying a significant change in Russian nuclear policy. Mount suggests that Russia is fully compliant with the New START treaty, which limits strategic launches such as ICBMs. Russia’s existing nuclear capability is indeed dating owing to its Soviet-Europe vintage. Russia must continue to take delivery of forty new weapons every year simply to replicate the existing capability. This is essentially the explanation for the extra warheads which have been ordered by the Russian president, and doesn't really represent an increase in the nation's nuclear capabilities. Regardless of the realities of this announcement, it still presents an opportunity for NATO to ramp up the rhetoric against the nation. Indeed, NATO officials have already expressed concern over the announcement made by Putin, with The Guardian newspaper reporting concern within the military organization of the extent to which such weapons are being utilized in Russian military exercises. US Building Defense System Against Russia Cruise Missile Image Source: Defense One NATO responds in kind NATO has also taken explicitly aggressive steps of its own, by beefing up its Response Force. There are already thousands of soldiers and advanced military technology and weaponry stationed near Russia's borders in response to the Ukrainian situation, and this fighting force has recently been further increased. It already consists of 13,000 troops, but according to reports that emerged this week, NATO may now increase this to as much as 40,000. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has specifically stated that the move isn't intended to increase tensions, and NATO’s official policy is to seek neither confrontation nor a new arms race. Naturally, Russia has been criticized for its policy in the Ukraine, but it is also notable that the United States and its allies have destabilized this relationship and region by directly supporting the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. The subsequent encircling of the nation with a large quotient of military force was only likely to ramp up tensions further. And despite what has been stated about NATO's intentions by the organization itself, it seems that the military alliance that it represents is absolutely prepared to implement a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy. NATO considers this to be a response to Russian aggression rather than a pre-emptive policy, but this will only serve to diminish the diplomatic relations between the Western and Eastern superpowers. Nuclear response reported It was reported again by The World Socialist Website that NATO is even planning to respond to any attempt by Russia to counter the United States with an even more aggressive military strategy. This could even include nuclear weapons. While this is an extremely alarming prospect, and the continuing tensions between Russia and the United States are worrying, it is also important to understand the historical context of this conflict. While no-one wants to believe that either side is capable of utilizing nuclear weapons, as ValueWalk as reported previously, this in fact came incredibly close to occurring during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the two big beasts in world geopolitics continue to saber rattle, one can only hope that ultimately a peaceful solution is sort to these inevitable tensions. In the iconic 1997 publication “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a shifting in the world order and power base which is unfolding before our very eyes now. Although Brzezinski is, not unreasonably, a reviled figure to many, it is notable that he didn't predict that it would end with armed conflict between Russia, China, the United States and the Western world. With both power blocs continuing to behave with intransigence, one can only hope that this verdict turns out to be accurate.

russia agro bad – militarizing

Massive Russia militarization now

Gady 6/27 – staff writer at the Diplomat (Franz-Stefan Gady, 6/27/15, “Putin to Press on With Russia’s Military Modernization,” http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/putin-to-press-on-with-russias-military-modernization/)//twemchen

Despite a crippling recession, Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to press on with his 22 trillion ruble (more than $400 billion) military modernization plan, according to Sputnik News. Addressing a group of recent graduates of Russian military staff colleges in the Kremlin yesterday, Putin emphasized that structural reform within the Russian Armed Forces and new weapon acquisitions programs will continue unhindered over the next few years. “A strong army equipped with sophisticated weapons guarantees Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also guarantees that millions of our fellow citizens can live in peace. I am sure you understand it quite well,” Putin said, explaining Moscow’s rationale for the massive rearmament program. Sputnik News summarized the rest of his speech: Touting the strengthening of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and space defense units, Putin also praised the increasing combat capabilities of almost all branches of the armed forces. He mentioned the ongoing delivery of state-of-the-art aircraft, submarines and surface ships to the Russian military, which is also being equipped with high-precision weapons, combat robots and unmanned aerial vehicles that were showcased at the recent International Military-Technical Forum Army-2015.

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:

1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25