Arctic Oil/Gas Neg

Gazprom Advantage Answers

Download 2.21 Mb.
Size2.21 Mb.
1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   ...   63

Gazprom Advantage Answers

Gazprom Turn

Threats to Russian arctic resources would lead to military action

Andersen and Perry 12

(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. IFPA. "Implications for National Security and International Cooperation." New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region. Institute for Foreign Policy Relations, n.d. Web. 25 July 2014. ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve

A surge in navigation and resource exploitation raises the probability of environmental and human security hazards, and it increases as well the vulnerability of Russia’s northern border, which previously had the benefit of the Arctic ice’s natural protection, to illegal immigration and illicit traf- ficking. As a result, as suggested at the beginning of this section, Russia will require greater customs and border security in its northern territory, together with improved search and rescue capabilities and better communications and surveillance/monitoring systems. Hence, while in the short term Russia may not be able to expect significant economic pay-offs from its development of the NSR and Arctic natural resources, an issue of great near-term importance, particularly for neighboring Arctic states, is the ongoing and anticipated increase in Russia’s military presence in the region. While a larger military presence is not necessarily a negative for Arctic security, Russia’s increasingly assertive foreign policy and continued criticisms of the United States and NATO are, in combination with this militarization, a cause for some concern. Indeed, it is important not to underestimate Russia’s willingness to use military force to defend its national interests, a truth well illustrated by the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war. At the same time, the potential for conventional conflict in the region remains low, particularly because climatic challenges will continue to constrain the mobility and viability of Arctic navies and other forces. Additionally, it is in the interest of all the Arctic Five to keep the region peaceful and stable.

1NC No Sanctions Coming

No increased sanctions on Russia

RT 6/27

RT, 6/27/2014, “EU postpones economic sanctions on Russia”,, 6/28/2014, BD

Participants in the EU summit on Friday postponed imposing economic sanctions on Russia. The move comes a day after an advertizing campaign by two top US business lobbies warned of the negative impact on US companies.¶ “Preliminary consultations show that today almost no leaders of EU states find it necessary to impose trade and economic sanctions on Russia,” a source in the delegation from a Western European country said with confidence to ITAR-TASS.¶ However the European officials carried out preparatory work on possible sanctions to implement against Russia if the situation in Ukraine demands so.¶ Sanctions will be most effective if the main trade partners from Europe take part, the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. The Obama Administration doesn't want to put US companies in unprofitable conditions in terms of the competition should it introduce further sanctions against Russia, he added.¶ The US needs the EU as a partner in enforcing economic measures as the trade volume between Russia and Europe of $330 billion is almost ten times Russia-America trade.¶ On Wednesday the main US newspapers published advertisements by leading business groups saying new sanctions against Russia will first of all harm national companies.¶ Photo of The New York TimesPhoto of The New York Times¶ The advertisement titled “America’s interests are at stake in Russia and Ukraine” and signed by Jay Timmons, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, and Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were placed in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and other major newspapers.¶ “With escalating global tensions, some US policy makers are considering a course of sanctions that history shows hurts American interests,” reads the advertisement. “We are concerned about actions that would harm American manufacturers and cost American jobs.”¶ Donohue draws parallels between the present threat of sanctions with ineffective grain embargo which US President Jimmy Carter imposed against the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan and which was cancelled by President Ronald Reagan.¶ “US workers and industries pay the cost of unilateral economic sanctions that have little hope of increasing the United States’ ability to achieve its foreign policy goals is said in the statement,” the authors conclude.

No increase in sanctions on Russia

RIA 6/27

RIA NOVISTI, 6/27/2014, “EU Has No Wish to Tighten Sanctions Against Russia – Diplomat”,, 6/28/2014, BD

BRUSSELS, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - The European Union has no intention and political will to expand sanctions against Russia, Russia’s ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told RIA Novosti in an interview Friday.¶ "Of course, there is a theoretical possibility. The question is whether there is a wish or political will. In my opinion, no," Chizhov said answering a question if the bloc may increase sanctions against Russia.¶ The discussion on expanding the EU sanctions against Russia at the bloc’s summit on June 26-27 depends on how the EU leaders will assess the situation in Ukraine, a source close to the EU leadership said.¶ “The wish that the EU introduced sanctions is not in Europe itself but in another place, we won’t specify where, this is in line with those political, and I emphasize, economic interests. The intention to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe didn’t just come into being today and, unfortunately, it will not disappear tomorrow,” Chizhov said.¶ The EU has adopted and repeatedly expanded the sanctions list against people who they believe played a role in “violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.” A total of 61 Russian and Ukrainian nationals have been hit with EU travel bans and asset freezes over the crisis. Several Crimean enterprises have been targeted by the EU sanctions.¶ Moscow has repeatedly stated that the language of sanctions is "inappropriate and counterproductive" and warned its Western partners about the "boomerang effect" that sanctions would have.

No Impact to Sanctions

Sanctions won’t do anything

Banco 4/28

Erin Banco (writer for International Business Times), 4/28/2014, “New Russia Sanctions Will Have Little Impact, Experts Say”,, 6/28/2014, BD

By the official reckoning of the Obama administration, the latest sanctions it unleashed on Russia on Monday will add considerably to the uncomfortable squeeze on its economy, ultimately forcing President Putin to reconsider his aggressive adventures in Ukraine.¶ “Russian economic growth forecasts have dropped sharply, capital flight has accelerated, and higher borrowing costs reflect declining confidence in the market outlook,” said U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew in a written statement. “We are resolved to continue to work with our international partners and take the steps required, including action against individuals and entities in specific sectors, if Russia continues to press forward.”¶ But analysts are far less impressed, seeing minimal disruption to the Russian economy and little reason to assume the latest batch of sanctions will change the equation.¶ The new sanctions should have “almost no immediate impact on the economy,” said Chris Weafer, an analyst with Macro Advisory, a consulting agency in Russia. “The latest sanctions were not as bad as had been rumored or feared. The sanctions are focused on restricting individuals’ travel and economic activities in the West and on a smaller number of banks and companies associated with those individuals.”¶ Broader sanctions of the sort that could alter Russian public opinion by inflicting real economic pain remain unlikely given political realities: While Washington is keen to tighten the pressure on Russia, European nations are resistant, given their dependence on Russian energy stocks and in light of commercial ties between European and Russian firms.¶ “Russia is a big economy. It is the sixth-largest in the world," said Timothy Frye, a political scientist at Columbia University in New York. "For sanctions to be effective, they really need to be coordinated and far-reaching, and it is not clear what set of sanctions would be able to do that.”¶

No Gazprom Monopoly Now

Rosneft is on the rise; Gazprom monopoly broken in the status quo

Reuters 14 "UPDATE 1-Rosneft Challenges Gazprom Monopoly to Export Russian Pipeline Gas." | Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 07 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 June 2014. .

MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia's top crude oil producer Rosneft wants to break the monopoly of another state-owned energy champion, Gazprom, to export gas via pipelines, sources said on Friday, signalling a flare-up between powerful clans. Igor Sechin, a long-standing ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, transformed Rosneft into the world's top publicly traded oil producer through the $50 billion purchase of Anglo-Russian firm TNK-BP last year. In a sign of Sechin's rising clout, Rosneft and Russia's largest non-state gas producer Novatek have already secured rights to export seaborne liquefied natural gas, reversing a 2006 law that gave Gazprom a monopoly on gas exports. Gazprom still holds the exclusive rights to ship Russian gas abroad via pipelines, which connect vast Siberian gas fields with European clients. It meets 30 percent of gas demand in the European Union. Rosneft in particular wants access to Gazprom's Sila Sibiri (Power of Siberia) pipeline designed to carry gas to China at a rate of 38 billion cubic metres a year, sources familiar with the matter said. Gazprom has yet to sign a final deal with China on the pipeline and has delayed its launch to 2020 from 2018 expected earlier. "It is unfair that the pipeline is designated only for one company," a source at Rosneft said. In its struggle against Gazprom, Rosneft in January hired TV presenter Mikhail Leontiyev - who once called Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller a "shell-shocked maniac" for downplaying the importance of U.S. shale gas - to head its public relations office. "We believe there are some factors restricting the gas potential of Russia, which, due to increasing competition from international majors, requires that laws be modernised," Rosneft's spokesman said, without elaborating. Gazprom declined to comment. Rosneft has staked a lot on developing its gas business. After Sechin took the helm in May 2011, it acquired independent gas firm Itera and gained rights to develop large deposits in Russia. It plans to more than double gas output by the end of the decade to take advantage of a gradual liberalisation of the Russian gas market. Thanks to new acquisitions, the company has seen its gas output trebling over the past year to 42 billion cubic metres - enough to meet gas demand in a country the size of France. CHINA Gazprom has been in painstaking talks over the last 10 years about shipping gas to China and has been unable to agree on pricing. The company now aims to reach the agreement in May during Putin's planned visit to China. Gazprom head Miller is also a member of Putin's inner circle. Putin has urged domestic companies to forge close ties with energy-hungry China as Europe, Russia's Cold War-era foe, tries to diversify away from Moscow. Sechin, unlike Gazprom, has successfully clinched deals to increase oil supplies to China, which may see Rosneft tripling its crude exports to Russia's neighbour later this decade. The Rosneft source said the company is eying natural gas supplies to China and that around 1 trillion cubic metres of gas is available for the company in East Siberia. A government source confirmed Rosneft has been actively lobbying for permission to export pipeline gas to China. "They have sent different letters and appealed to the government ... I think they will make a public statement (on gas exports) soon," the source said.

Putin Coop Inevitable

Putin will back down; values oil cooperation over increased aggression

Gvosdev 14 Gvosdev, Nikolas. "Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine." Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine. World Politics Review, 27 June 2014. Web. 27 June 2014. .

Everyone, it seems, wants a piece of the action—and recognizes that it can only come through partnership with the Russian government, since only state-owned companies have the right, according to Russian law, to exploit the country’s offshore zones. However, stronger sanctions, which might ban any collaboration with Russian state firms or prevent technology transfers from occurring, would interrupt such plans. So the Russian approach is to take the necessary steps to either prevent sanctions from being levied or to divert proposed harsh sanctions into more symbolic actions. The CEO of state-owned oil giant Rosneft, Igor Sechin, was certainly not pleased to have personal sanctions applied against him by the U.S. and the EU, barring him from travel to Europe and North America, among other things. But he was relieved that Washington and Brussels so far have not banned Western firms from collaborating with Rosneft or from meeting with him when he acts in an official corporate capacity. After conversations earlier this week, notably with French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin seems to have gotten the message that sanctions can be avoided if a cease-fire between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian separatists in the east were to hold; if Moscow was more open in its support for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s peace process; and if noticeable efforts were taken to curtail the flow of weapons and personnel across the Russia-Ukraine border. Whether the steps that have been taken are sufficient remains to be seen; EU leaders are meeting tomorrow to consider what steps to take next. If Europe declines to push ahead with stronger sanctions, American corporate lobbying of the White House has made it clear that Washington would only damage U.S. economic interests by pursuing unilateral action. So the Russian strategy appears to be consistent: to offer compromises on Ukraine that will keep sanctions at bay, while keeping Russia’s strategic options open and pushing ahead on energy projects. If Putin is successful in his gamble, Russia will not be forced to trade its interests in Ukraine for securing its energy future.

1NC No Russian Drilling Now

Sanctions take out Russian drilling- they rely on US-based companies

Gvosdev 14 Gvosdev, Nikolas. "Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine." Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine. World Politics Review, 27 June 2014. Web. 27 June 2014. .

Similarly, Russian plans to develop the energy reserves of the Arctic depend on the ability of Western firms to operate in Russia and transfer technology. Proposed sanctions being discussed in Washington would not necessarily require companies to exit existing projects but would prohibit any future endeavors. At present, Russian firms lack the technical skills to successfully drill on their own in offshore Arctic conditions. 

1NC No Expansionism Impact

No Russia threat – rapprochement coming now

Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History

Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest

It seems gradually to have dawned on at least some Russian strategic thinkers that nato in its present form does not really present a major threat to Russia or, perhaps, to anyone. (According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, nato is no longer a threat, only a "danger," which is presumably less than a threat.) Nato member states have shelved the idea of offering admission to Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, Washington, following the European example, has toned down its criticism of Russian violations of human rights and lessened its support for domestic opposition groups in Russia and Westernleaning states such as Georgia, which Moscow regards as hostile threats. From Moscow's perspective, the West has largely accepted Russia's claims to a zone of privileged interests-whatever the fears of Russia's neighbors, there is little Western countries can do to help. In short, the West's relative weight is declining, but so is Russia's, making a policy of rapprochement appealing for all sides. For Moscow, this new, conciliatory approach is largely focused on economic and, above all, technological modernization. The emphasis of a position paper prepared by the Russian Foreign Ministry and published by Russian Newsweek in May 2010 was almost entirely such modernization. It outlined how Moscow should improve its relations with more than 60 countries, from Brunei to Mongolia, using measures including state treaties and agreements between research institutes. The document-and the new policy-appears to be based on a compromise between various elements in the Russian leadership. President Dmitry Medvedev's faction, which seems to be behind this statement, is clearly willing to take some more risks; it is also possible that Medvedev's supporters are using the argument of modernization to sell a broader policy of détente to various domestic constituencies. The moderate conservatives, such as Prime Minister Putin; his deputy chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov; his deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin; and his foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, understand that Russia's dependence on oil and gas exports must be reduced and that modernization will inevitably involve a political price-but they are fearful that the price could be too high. Meanwhile, both the right (Russia's ultranationalists) and the left (the Communists) are not, in principle, against modernization but would like it to happen without any political price at all. The new détente has shown itself in a number of cases: Russia's voting for un sanctions against Iran, expressing remorse about the Katyn massacre, reaching an agreement with the United States to reduce nuclear weapons, inviting nato soldiers to march on Red Square on Victory Day, being offered warships from France, proposing a Russian-EU crisis management agreement, and some others. But there are difficulties ahead-old suspicions and new conflicts of interest will not easily be overcome, and may even derail the new course, just as the détente of the 1970s came to a halt despite goodwill on both sides. In August, Putin said that his anti-Western speech in Munich three years ago had been very useful in retrospect. If so, then how far can the changes in Russia's foreign policy be expected to go?

2NC No Expansionism

Russian expansion and aggression is unlikely.

Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History

Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest

How far will the current foreign policy go, be it a "reset" or a "seismic shift"? Present indications suggest more of the same: greater Sovietization seems unlikely, as does dramatic democratization. Internal discontent may exist, but not to the extent that it will turn into a significant political factor in the near future. Although the Kremlin wants to strengthen and perhaps expand its sphere of influence in the former Soviet states and eastern Europe, any sort of physical reconquest seems very improbable. To combine the various aims of the Kremlin will not be easy. On one hand, Moscow realizes that it has certain common interests with the West. Russia prefers to deal with eu countries individually, rather than with the European community as a whole. Russia is also likely to push to join the World Trade Organization and to abolish visas for travel to Europe. For its part, the eu has suggested creating a joint security committee to deal with crisis situations. But past experience with such commissions-namely, the NATO-Russia Council-has not been encouraging. On the other hand, Russia wants to maintain normal ties with the rest of the world and prevent a deterioration in relations with newfound sympathizers such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Despite the oil and gas windfall and its return as a great power, Russia remains a relatively weak country-to use a cricket metaphor, it is batting on a sticky wicket. But Putin has shown supreme confidence, assuming that Russia has little to fear given current global conditions: Europe is in decline, and the United States is weakened by the financial crisis, preoccupied with domestic problems, and, as the Kremlin sees it, under weak leadership. As far as the threats facing Russia are concerned, Putin (much like the Russian far right) still seems too preoccupied with nato and largely oblivious to the lengthening shadow of China and the growth of aggressive Islamism. Perhaps these ideas are changing. But, to repeat, it is precisely the weakness of the West that makes détente with the United States and Europe more realistic and attractive. Russia needs Western capital and Western technological know-how.

Your authors are wrong- Russia doesn’t want to attack the US

Belkovsky ‘9

Stanislav Belkovsky, founder and director of the National Strategy Institute, a Moscow-based NGO and thinktank.

How to handle Russia/July 3

US president Barack Obama arrives in Moscow on Monday 6 July. Here, in Russia, he is awaited with some foreboding – he is, after all, the most powerful man on earth. The Kremlin hopes he will announce a "reset" in US-Russian relations, and recognise today's Russia as a respected, worthy ally. Russia's liberals, by contrast, want him to admonish the Kremlin for shortcomings in its authoritarian regime. Many Russians see Obama as a kind of secret messiah, chosen to guide the nation towards a new phase in its historical development. Surprisingly, among Russia's ruling elite there is no real anti-American sentiment: both those in power and Russia's opposition crave, more than anything else, America's love. If sometimes America aggrieves them, and from time to time they criticise Washington, they do so only because they are afraid of the US not returning their love. Contrary to the beliefs of many politicians, today's Russian Federation has absolutely nothing in common with the late USSR. If anything, the Russian Federation is the world's most anti-Soviet government. The USSR was based on socialism, state ownership, collectivisation, the cult worship of Marxism-Leninism, the export of communism and the need for military and political influence in satellite countries and regions. The Russian Federation is based upon very different ideals: namely, capitalism, private ownership, total individualism, the cult of money, the rejection of traditional state paternalism and widespread corruption at all levels of power. Another important factor is the desire to secure the ruling elite's business interests all over the world. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Dmitry Medvedev have real power. Power belongs to big capital –which, in Russia, means those who benefited from the massive privatisations of Soviet infrastructure. Resetting relations with the US is important for the Kremlin since it is a way for Russia to gain entry to western markets and investment. Therefore, this issue can and should be discussed with Medvedev – and only Medvedev. Putin shouldn't even get a look-in. Today's Russian rulers don't hate democracy or freedom. Rather, they simply don't believe such values exist, are necessary or of use. But they do believe in money and technology. This must be taken into account when entering into any dialogue with them. The Russian elite doesn't conceive of itself in political or geopolitical terms. So there isn't any point in asking the leadership about any strategic game plan in its relations with Iran or the satellite countries of the former USSR. They do not know themselves. There are no political positions that they would not, in principle, be willing to abandon in exchange for proper compensation.

1NC No Russian Econ Impact

Claims of Russian economic decline and disintegration are all conspiratorial and hype

Clover ‘9

Charles Clover, “Conspiracy theorists thrive on Russia anxiety”, 3/8/2009 Financial Times,

The transition of the [economic] crisis into the political arena has already begun happening,” Gleb Pavlovsky wrote in the popular Moskovski Komsomolets tabloid. He warned of a “remake” of the 1991 street protests that helped bring down the Soviet Union, and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. “The sources of social protest should be sought in the corridors of power,” Mr Pavlovsky wrote. His and other gloomy predictions have left some analysts scratching their heads. Alexei Levinson, at the Levada Centre, a research company, said: “Do I see the potential for serious unrest? It is very dangerous to say no, because so many people are saying publicly that this is happening . . . But I simply don’t see it.” However, it was “just as true that the number of people saying they see this potential has shot up”, he added. “So that must be significant. It shows that the relationship to the authorities is changing.” Speculation has surrounded the relationship between president and prime minister since Mr Putin, head of state since 2000, stepped aside for Mr Medvedev last year. It is widely believed that Mr Putin, who was barred from a third consecutive presidential term by the constitution, plans to return to the Kremlin. That the prime minister’s political future is openly speculated on is, for some politicians, a watershed in Russia’s political life. “It is very conspiratorial,” said Vladimir Milov, former deputy energy minister and a leader of the opposition group Solidarnost.

The Russian economy is resilient – even dips caused by oil prices will not cause collapse.

Guriev ’10 - Professor of Economics @ the New Economic School in Moscow

Sergei Guriev, Morgan Stanley Professor of Economics and Rector of the New Economic School in Moscow, “How to reform the Russian economy”. Centre For European Reform Policy Brief. July 2010.

Today’s leadership in Russia has more economic expertise and more experience with crisis management than the Soviet leaders had in the 1980s. The Russian economy is much more liberalised, and hence more flexible and adjustable in times of strain. So it is unlikely that Russia’s economy could implode like the Soviet one did. A more plausible scenario is slow growth over the medium term, interrupted by bouts of macro-economic volatility caused by oil price swings. Russia’s outlook is therefore similar to the experience of Latin America’s resource-dependent economies in the 20th century.

1NC No US-Russia War

Zero risk of arctic war- even oil shortages and ice melting won’t cause war

Dyer ‘12

Gwynne Dyer, Special to QMI Agency, August 2, 2012, “Wars unlikely over Arctic's resources,”

Russian television contacted me recently, asking me to go on a program about the race for Arctic resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will be big strategic conflicts over the seabed resources--especially oil and gas--that become accessible when it's goneThe media always love conflict, and now that the Cold War is long gone, there's no other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry aboutGovernments around the Arctic Ocean are beefing up their armed forces for the coming struggle, so where are the flashpoints and what are the strategies? In the end I didn't do the interview because the Skype didn't work, so I didn't get the chance to rain on their parade. But here's what I would have said to the Russians.¶ There are three separate "resources" in the Arctic. On the surface, there are the sea lanes that are opening up to commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet's last unfished oceanThe sea lanes are mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes the Northwest Passage that weaves between Canada's Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery when the ice is gone. Practically every summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his determination to defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty from--well, it's not clear from exactly whom, but it's a great photo op.¶ Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water naval port and Arctic warfare training centre in the region, but it's much ado about nothing. The Arctic Ocean will increasingly be used as a shortcut between the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans, but the shipping will not go through Canadian waters. Russia's "Northern Sea Route" will get the traffic --it's already open and much safer to navigate.¶ Then there's the hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic seabed, which the U.S. Geological Survey has forecast may contain almost one-fourth of the world's remaining oil and gas resources. But from a military point of view, there's only a problem if there is some disagreement about the seabed boundariesThere are only four areas where the boundaries are disputed. Two are between Canada and its neighbours in Alaska and Greenland, but there is zero likelihood of a war between Canada and the U.S. or Denmark (which is responsible for Greenland's defence).¶ In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the U.S. and Russia, but the Russian Duma has refused to ratify it. However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than lead to war.¶ And there was the seabed boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea, which led Norway to double the size of its navy over the past decade. But last year the two countries signed a deal dividing the disputed area and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between NATO and the Russian FederationWhich leaves the fish, and it's hard to have a war over fish. If countries with Arctic coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an international body to regulate fishing.¶ And they will have to let other countries fish there too, with agreed catch limits.¶ So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the ice is melting. But that's a problem for another day.¶

2NC A2: Bostrom/Extinction

US-Russia war doesn’t cause extinction

Bostrom 7

[Nick, Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy & James Martin 21st Century School, Oxford University, 2009 Gannon Award Recipient, The Future of Humanity, 2007,]

Extinction risks constitute an especially severe subset of what could go badly wrong for humanity. There are many possible global catastrophes that would cause immense worldwide damage, maybe even the collapse of modern civilization, yet fall short of terminating the human species. An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States might be an example of a global catastrophe that would be unlikely to result in extinction. A terrible pandemic with high virulence and 100% mortality rate among infected individuals might be another example: if some groups of humans could successfully quarantine themselves before being exposed, human extinction could be avoided even if, say, 95% or more of the world’s population succumbed. What distinguishes extinction and other existential catastrophes is that a comeback is impossible. A non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilization is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback: a giant massacre for man, a small misstep for mankind.

2NC No Russia War

No war – weak arsenal

Perkovich ‘3 – Director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

George. vice president for studies and director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March/April 2003. Foreign Affairs.

As for Russia, a full-scale war between it and the United States now seems inconceivable. Given the desires for larger cuts in nuclear forces that Russia displayed in negotiating the 2002 Moscow Treaty, Russia hardly seems enough of a threat to justify the size and forward-leaning posture of America's present arsenal.

No war – economics

Maisaia ‘8 – USAFA Defense Fellow

Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?, 3/3/8. Online

The Russian economy is in deep recession due to the global financial crisis and poor management and could not bear the burden of an additional $5 million a day in war costs. The economic crisis is additional reason why waging war is less probable as war against another sovereign state could lead to social disorder, including in the Armed Forces.

No war – politics

Maisaia ‘8 – USAFA Defense Fellow

Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?, 3/3/8. Online

Moscow is seeking to communicate with the new US Administration and with the EU and damaging the already weak international position of Russia does not serve the interests of the incumbent authorities of the Russian Federation. The first Medvedev-Obama meeting, which will probably take place on April 2, will be a most interesting and fascinating event which will engender some corrections in the foreign policy formulation and strategic calculations of the Russian Federation. Hence, Moscow will manipulate the Medvedev-Sarkozy peace plan to present itself as a credible partner in international relations, mostly in terms of combating international terrorism and the Afghanistan mission, which is the number 1 priority for Obama Administration policy making.

1NC Sino-Japanese War

New Chinese leaders prevent conflict

Lam 13 – adjunct professor of history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation

Willy, 3-8-13, “Meet China’s New Foreign-Policy Team”,2

At least in terms of symbolism and atmospherics, however, the new diplomatic trio could take a more flexible approach to tackling the most worrying flashpoint in Asia: China and Japan's ferocious wrangling over the sovereignty of a group of islets called the Diaoyu in China and the Senkakus in Japan.¶ Given widespread perception within the party leadership that the intensification of the U.S.-Japan defense alliance -- which applies to the Senkakus -- is a centerpiece of Washington's pivot to Asia, the personnel changes in Beijing could also affect the style, if not the substance, of how the party will pursue relations with the United States.Wang's return to the Foreign Ministry after five largely successful years as chief executor of Beijing's Taiwan policy is highly significant. A fluent Japanese speaker, Wang helped break the impasse in Sino-Japanese ties in 2001-2006, when Junichiro Koizumi was prime minister of Japan.¶ Koizumi infuriated the Chinese with provocative actions including annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors soldiers killed in World War II, including 14 war criminals. After Koizumi announced in June 2005 his plans to retire, Wang led the Chinese effort to mend fences by conducting secret talks with then Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the favorite to succeed Koizumi.¶ This discreet diplomacy resulted in Abe's visiting Beijing in October 2006, less than two weeks after he succeeded Koizumi as prime minister (Abe, after a five year break, was re-elected prime minister in December 2012). The visit came despite the ideological affinity between Koizumi and Abe, both of whom favored a more assertive foreign policy as well as the revision of the Japanese Constitution, which would enable Japan to convert its self-defense forces into a regular army.¶ The Chinese Foreign Ministry characterized Abe's 2006 trip as "ice-breaking." Abe allegedly made a private pledge not to visit the shrine while in office, and Beijing offered to focus on economic cooperation, while temporarily setting aside ideological and historical issues, according to diplomatic sources in Tokyo and Beijing.¶ Wang has also successfully helped negotiate the rapprochement over the past few years between the party and its former arch-enemy, the Kuomintang, the ruling party of Taiwan. Known for his charm and finesse, Wang could complement Yang, who has the reputation of a cerebral strategist.By promoting Yang to the post of state councilor in charge of diplomacy, the party leadership may also be sending the signal that it's contemplating a more nuanced posture toward Obama's pivot, which some in the party leadership interpret as a move to contain China. Yang has much more experience with the United States than the outgoing state councilor, Dai Bingguo, who spent most of his career on Russian and East European affairs. Yang cut his diplomatic teeth by serving as interpreter for former President George H.W. Bush, when the latter headed the United States' Beijing Liaison Office (the precursor to the U.S. Embassy) in the mid-1970s. Altogether Yang, a graduate of the London School of Economics, has served three tours in the Chinese Embassy in Washington.¶ Yang enjoys cozy ties with American politicians and in particular, business leaders. He wants to devote more resources to lobbying American multinationals, according to sources close to the diplomatic establishment. These sources also say that Beijing hopes this will persuade the White House to put business before ideology in its China policy. And Cui, who attended Johns Hopkins University while serving in the Chinese delegation to the United Nations in the 1980s, could be a suitable candidate for pursing this new-look, "people-to-people" diplomacy with the United States.¶ It is important to note, however, that whatever changes in style and orientation the trio's appointment may portend do not necessarily signal a de-escalation of Beijing's increasingly ferocious saber rattling. The generals appear to overwhelmingly favor bellicosity -- they have enthusiastically echoed Xi's repeated calls over the past two months for China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) to "get ready to fight well and to win wars." Gen. Wei Fenghe, who is commander of China's missile forces, said in February that the PLA must "improve its war-fighting skills" and "it must fulfill the task of winning wars." And recent commentary in People's Liberation Army Daily, a military newspaper, argued that the Chinese military must rid itself of "peacetime inertia and other [bad] habits accumulated over a prolonged period of peace." Popular military commentator Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, who in April 2012 called for a limited war to "punish" the Philippines for allegedly occupying Chinese territories in the South China Sea, even suggested in a January 2013 interview with Chinese state media that China "must raise its guard against stealthy [military] attacks launched by other countries." Even as diplomats such as Fu Ying, the vice foreign minister in charge of Asia, have reiterated Beijing's commitment to "peaceful development" in global affairs, China has increased the frequency of its "patrol" of the Diaoyu-Senkakus by marine surveillance and other quasi-military vessels.¶ It is too early to say whether the promotion of diplomats with decades of experience in pursuing mutually beneficiary relations with Japan and the United States signals a fundamental change in the Xi administration's pugilistic stance on power projection in the Pacific. Yet at the very least, these personnel changes could indicate that top decision-making bodies are contemplating options other than relentlessly beating the drums of war.

No China – Japan war – 7 reasons

  1. China defeat

  2. Economic interdependence

  3. PLA operational effectiveness

  4. Unsettled politics

  5. U.S. intervention

  6. China military policy

  7. China’s socialization

Moss ‘13

Trefor Moss, independent journalist based in Hong Kong. He covers Asian politics, defence and security, and was Asia-Pacific Editor at Jane’s Defence Weekly until 2009, 2-10-2013, “7 Reasons China and Japan Won’t Go To War” The Diplomat,

Even as tensions between Beijing and Tokyo grow by the day, there are good reasons to believe outright conflict can be avoided. The sequel seldom improves on the original. Yet Shinzo Abe, Japan’s newly re-elected prime minister, has already displayed more conviction during his second spell at the Kantei than in the entire year of his first, unhappy premiership.¶ Political energy is a plus only when it’s wisely deployed however, and some fear that Abe is picking a fight he can’t win when it comes to his hardline stance on China.¶ Rather than attempting to soothe the tensions that built between Beijing and Tokyo in 2012, Abe has struck a combative tone, especially concerning their dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands – a keystone for nationalists in both countries. Each time fighter aircraft are scrambled or ships are sent to survey the likely flashpoint, we hear more warnings about the approach of a war that China and Japan now seem almost eager to wage. The Economist, for example,recently observed that, “China and Japan are sliding towards war,” while Hugh White of the Australian National University warned his readers: “Don't be too surprised if the U.S. and Japan go to war with China [in 2013].” News this week of another reckless act of escalation – Chinese naval vessels twice training their radars on their Japanese counterparts – will only have ratcheted up their concerns.¶ These doomful predictions came as Abe set out his vision of a more hard-nosed Japan that will no longer be pushed around when it comes to sovereignty issues. In his December op-ed on Project Syndicate Abe accused Beijing of performing “daily exercises in coercion” and advocated a “democratic security diamond” comprising Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. (rehashing a concept from the 2007 Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). He then proposed defense spending increases – Japan’s first in a decade – and strengthened security relations with the Philippines and Vietnam, which both share Tokyo’s misgivings about China’s intentions. An alliance-affirming trip to the expected soon, and there is talk of Japan stationing F-15s on Shimojijima, close to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.¶ However, Abe would argue that he is acting to strengthen Japan in order to balance a rising China and prevent a conflict, rather than creating the conditions for one. And he undoubtedly has a more sanguine view of the future of Sino-Japanese relations than those who see war as an ever more likely outcome. Of course, there is a chance that Chinese and Japanese ships or aircraft will clash as the dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands rumbles on; and, if they do, there is a chance that a skirmish could snowball unpredictably into a wider conflict.¶ But if Shinzo Abe is gambling with the region’s security, he is at least playing the odds. He is calculating that Japan can pursue a more muscular foreign policy without triggering a catastrophic backlash from China, based on the numerous constraints that shape Chinese actions, as well as the interlocking structure of the globalized environment which the two countries co-inhabit. Specifically, there are seven reasons to think that war is a very unlikely prospect, even with a more hawkish prime minister running Japan1. Beijing’s nightmare scenario. China might well win a war against Japan, but defeat would also be a very real possibility. As China closes the book on its “century of humiliation” and looks ahead to prouder times, the prospect of a new, avoidable humiliation at the hands of its most bitter enemy is enough to persuade Beijing to do everything it can to prevent that outcome (the surest way being not to have a war at all). Certainly, China’s new leader, Xi Jinping, does not want to go down in history as the man who led China into a disastrous conflict with the Japanese. In that scenario, Xi would be doomed politically, and, as China’s angry nationalism turned inward, the Communist Party probably wouldn’t survive either.¶ 2. Economic interdependence. Win or lose, a Sino-Japanese war would be disastrous for both participants. The flagging economy that Abe is trying to breathe life into with a $117 billion stimulus package would take a battering as the lucrative China market was closed off to Japanese business. China would suffer, too, as Japanese companies pulled out of a now-hostile market, depriving up to 5 million Chinese workers of their jobs, even as Xi Jinping looks to double per capita income by 2020. Panic in the globalized economy would further depress both economies, and potentially destroy the programs of both countries’ new leaders.¶ 3. Question marks over the PLA’s operational effectiveness.The People’s Liberation Army is rapidly modernizing, but there are concerns about how effective it would prove if pressed into combat today – not least within China’s own military hierarchy. New Central Military Commission Vice-Chairman Xu Qiliang recently told the PLA Daily that too many PLA exercises are merely for show, and that new elite units had to be formed if China wanted to protect its interests. CMC Chairman Xi Jinping has also called on the PLA to improve its readiness for “real combat.” Other weaknesses within the PLA, such as endemic corruption, would similarly undermine the leadership’s confidence in committing it to a risky war with a peer adversary.¶ 4. Unsettled politics. China’s civil and military leaderships remain in a state of flux, with the handover initiated in November not yet complete. As the new leaders find their feet and jockey for position amongst themselves, they will want to avoid big foreign-policy distractions – war with Japan and possibly the U.S. being the biggest of them all. 5. The unknown quantity of U.S. intervention. China has its hawks, such as Dai Xu, who think that the U.S. would never intervene in an Asian conflict on behalf of Japan or any other regional ally. But this view is far too casual. U.S. involvement is a real enough possibility to give China pause, should the chances of conflict increase.6. China’s policy of avoiding military confrontation. China has always said that it favors peaceful solutions to disputes, and its actions have tended to bear this out. In particular, it continues to usually dispatch unarmed or only lightly armed law enforcement ships to maritime flashpoints, rather than naval ships.There have been calls for a more aggressive policy in the nationalist media, and from some military figures; but Beijing has not shown much sign of heeding them. The PLA Navy made a more active intervention in the dispute this week when one of its frigates trained its radar on a Japanese naval vessel. This was a dangerous and provocative act of escalation, but once again the Chinese action was kept within bounds that made violence unlikely (albeit, needlessly, more likely than before).¶ 7. China’s socialization. China has spent too long telling the world that it poses no threat to peace to turn around and fulfill all the China-bashers’ prophecies. Already, China’s reputation in Southeast Asia has taken a hit over its handling of territorial disputes there. If it were cast as the guilty party in a conflict with Japan –which already has the sympathy of many East Asian countries where tensions China are concerned – China would see regional opinion harden against it further still. This is not what Beijing wants: It seeks to influence regional affairs diplomatically from within, and to realize “win-win” opportunities with its international partners.¶ In light of these constraints, Abe should be able to push back against China – so long as he doesn’t go too far. He was of course dealt a rotten hand by his predecessor, Yoshihiko Noda, whose bungled nationalization of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands triggered last year’s plunge in relations. Noda’s misjudgments raised the political temperature to the point where neither side feels able to make concessions, at least for now, in an attempt to repair relations.¶ However, Abe can make the toxic Noda legacy work in his favor. Domestically, he can play the role of the man elected to untangle the wreckage, empowered by his democratic mandate to seek a new normal in Sino-Japanese relations. Chinese assertiveness would be met with a newfound Japanese assertiveness, restoring balance to the relationship. It is also timely for Japan to push back now, while its military is still a match for China’s. Five or ten years down the line this may no longer be the case, even if Abe finally grows the stagnant defense budget.¶ Meanwhile, Abe is also pursuing diplomatic avenues. It was Abe who mended Japan’s ties with China after the Koizumi years, and he is now trying to reprise his role as peacemaker, having dispatched his coalition partner, Natsuo Yamaguchi, to Beijing reportedly to convey his desire for a new dialogue. It is hardly surprising, given his daunting domestic laundry list, that Xi Jinping should have responded encouragingly to the Japanese olive branch.¶ In the end, Abe and Xi are balancing the same equation: They will not give ground on sovereignty issues, but they have no interest in a war – in fact, they must dread it. Even if a small skirmish between Chinese and Japanese ships or aircraft occurs, the leaders will not order additional forces to join the battle unless they are boxed in by a very specific set of circumstances that makes escalation the only face-saving option. The escalatory spiral into all-out war that some envisage once the first shot is fired is certainly not the likeliest outcome, as recurrent skirmishes elsewhere – such as in Kashmir, or along the Thai-Cambodian border – have demonstrated.

Download 2.21 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   ...   63

The database is protected by copyright © 2023
send message

    Main page