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


NC/1NR Bilateral Investment Treaty Topicality AT--#3A—Context



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page101/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   ...   144

2NC/1NR Bilateral Investment Treaty Topicality AT--#3A—Context

  1. We are in the topic—our evidence is about economic engagement between countries. It doesn’t matter if it’s specific to China. It’s predictable enough.




  1. Case list answers context: our interpretation includes the North Korea Aff, the T version of this Aff, the human rights Aff, and any one-sided action. That means there are plenty of Affs to be read and we’re being fair in the topic.




  1. They explode the number of cases that can be read—that destroys education and makes it impossible to gain depth



Resnick, 2001 [Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Spring, Vol. 54, Issue 2,]
A second problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency to define the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition of engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague that essentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement. The definition put forth by Alastair lain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According to Johnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-status quo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US Foreign Policy, Robert Litwak defines engagement as "positive sanctions."(n15) Moreover, in their edited volume, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan define engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of alternative options in the realm of negative sanctions from which to choose--including covert action, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, containment, limited war and total war--it is only reasonable to expect that they should have a similar menu of options in the realm of positive sanctions than simply engagement. Equating engagement with positive sanctions risks lumping together a variety of discrete actions that could be analyzed by distinguishing among them and comparing them as separate policies.

2NC/1NR Bilateral Investment Treaty Topicality AT #3B—Ground

  1. We give fair ground—the US action is enough to give the neg ground on all us action. In fact, their conditional interpretation would mean that us action would be uncertain and we would lose core Das like elections, Taiwan, and diplomatic capital.




  1. Not predictable ground—yes, China must interact for their interpretation. However, who knows what the plan will look like after months of negotiation. This means the Aff could always link turn the DA because our links will be way too generic.




2NC/1NR Bilateral Investment Treaty Topicality AT #3C—Real World Education

  1. We give real world education—there’s still a debate about how government policy works with China. We just argue that the US must commit first.




  1. Debate Education—we need a fair round now. It’s great in the abstract to learn about negotiation, but it’s more important to have a fair and educational debate round now. If too many teams lose, they’ll give up on researching and learn nothing.




2NC/1NR Bilateral Investment Treaty Topicality AT #4—Reasonability

  1. Reasonability is subjective—it’s impossible to tell how fair is fair enough. Some people may think it’s fair for me to play my grandma in basketball, but I sure don’t.

  1. Judge intervention: The term “reasonable” is vague, and open to interpretation. Instead of having the judge decide which definition they find reasonable, the debaters should debate the merits of each definition.




  1. Education: Competing interpretations is better for cost benefit analysis and decision making skills. The process of weighing the pros and cons of each definition develops these skills.




  1. Look to the best interpretation—whichever interpretation is best for education and fairness should win. The Aff should have to defend their counter interpretation and win that it’s educational and fair.

Err neg on T—there’s an aff bias because the topic is enormous with diplomatic and economic engagement. Also, it’s a challenging international topic. We need to protect the limits and ground of the Neg.


1NC Currency Manipulation Topicality - Engagement is Quid Pro Quo (Conditional Engagement)




  1. Interpretation- Economic Engagement requires a quid pro quo exchange of benefits with China with conditions


Shinn, 1996 [James Shinn, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia at the CFR in New York City and director of the council’s multi-year Asia Project, worked on economic affairs in the East Asia Bureau of the US Dept of State, “Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China,” pp. 9 and 11]

In sum, conditional engagement consists of a set of objectives, a strategy for attaining those objectives, and tactics (specific policies) for implementing that strategy. The objectives of conditional engagement are the ten principles, which were selected to preserve American vital interests in Asia while accommodating China’s emergence as a major power. The overall strategy of conditional engagement follows two parallel lines: economic engagement, to promote the integration of China into the global trading and financial systems; and security engagement, to encourage compliance with the ten principles by diplomatic and military means when economic incentives do not suffice, in order to hedge against the risk of the emergence of a belligerent China.  The tactics of economic engagement should promote China’s economic integration through negotiations on trade liberalization, institution building, and educational exchanges. While a carrots-and-sticks approach may be appropriate within the economic arena, the use of trade sanction to achieve short-term political goals is discouraged. The tactics of security engagement should reduce the risks posed by China’s rapid military expansion, its lack of transparency, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and transnational problems such as crime and illegal migration, by engaging in arms control negotiations, multilateral efforts, and a loosely-structured defensive military arrangement in Asia.8 8. Conditional engagement’s recommended tactics of tit-for-tat responses are equivalent to using carrots and sticks in response to foreign policy actions by China. Economic engagement calls for what is described as symmetric tit-for-tat and security engagement for asymmetric tit-for- tat. A symmetric response is one that counters a move by China in the same place, time, and manner; an asymmetric response might occur in another place at another time, and perhaps in another manner. A symmetric tit-for-tat would be for Washington to counter a Chinese tariff of 10 percent on imports for the United States with a tariff of 10 percent on imports from China. An asymmetric tit-for-tat would be for the United States to counter a Chines shipment of missiles to Iran with an American shipment of F-16s to Vietnam (John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, (1982). This is also cited in Fareed Zakaria, “The Reagan Strategy of Containment,” Political Science Quarterly 105, no. 3 (1990), pp. 383-88).


  1. Violation- the plan only files a complaint with the WTO. To be Topical, engagement must directly give positive incentives in order to expect something in return from China. The plan offers only threats of sanctions, which are not engagement.



Borer, 2004 [Dr. Douglas A. Borer, PhD, Visiting Professor of Political Science at the US Army War College, “Problems of Economic Statecraft: Rethinking Engagement,” Chapter 12, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/12borer.pdf
The policy of engagement refers to the use of non-coercive means, or positive incentives, by one state to alter the elements of another state’ s behavior. As such, some scholars have categorized engagement as a form of appeasement. 21 However, I concur with the view articulated by Randall Schweller that, while engagement can be classified in generic terms as a form of appeasement, an important qualitative difference exists between the two: “Engagement is more than appeasement,” he says:¶ It encompasses any attempt to socialize the dissatisfied power into acceptance of the established order. In practice engagement may be distinguished from other policies not so much by its goals but by its means: it relies on the promise of rewards rather than the threat of punishment to influence the target’ s behavior. . . . The policy succeeds if such concessions convert the revolutionary state into a status quo power with a stake in the stability of the system. . . . Engagement is most likely to succeed when the established powers are strong enough to mix concessions with credible threats, to use sticks as well as carrots. . . . Otherwise, concessions will signal weakness that emboldens the aggressor to demand more. 22

  1. Topicality is voting issue for fairness and education:




  1. Limits - If the affirmative were not required to condition the plan, any small action would be topical. In order for us to gain the most topic education, we need to make only a small number of affirmatives topical. A small number of affirmatives means the negative can do more in depth research on those cases.



Ground- making the affirmative offer an incentive guarantees the negative arguments against these incentive mechanisms of the affirmative, ensuring we have a stable set of arguments against all cases and strong links to Disadvantages


Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   ...   144



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