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



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page82/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   ...   144

North Korea Specific Link

  1. North Korean focus drains political capital



Cohen, March 2016 [Michael, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Security Studies and Criminology at Macquarie University, “China: Between U.S. Sanctions and North Korea”, march 21, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-between-us-sanctions-north-korea-15551]
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, lauded China last week for joining Washington in what is probably the toughest response North Korea has faced in twenty years. But such praise may well have been premature. Last week, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Beijing opposed any unilateral punishments against North Korea. Indeed, some evidence suggests that Pyongyang siphoned off tens of millions of dollars through a Singaporean branch of China's biggest bank to evade the sanctions and conceal payments for arms and luxury goods for the regime. The grim reality is that Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un decided that North Korea must have nuclear weapons, and that China has thus far decided that, as far as Beijing is concerned, the benefits of that program outweigh the costs. China has made many pledges on North Korean sanctions in the past, but has always failed to honor them and to systematically enforce its commitments. On the benefit side of the ledger, a nuclear North Korea increases the cost and improbability of any U.S.-South Korean move against North Korea, and keeps a regime friendly to Beijing on its doorstep. Perhaps just as importantly, a nuclear North Korea impedes U.S. power projection on the Korean peninsula and saps U.S. diplomatic and political resources that cannot be directed to other areas such as the South China Sea. Beijing deeply opposes the sanctioning of anybody using North Korean slave labor. China may be keeping the regime afloat through its provision of economic and military resources—better after all to feed North Koreans in North Korea than risk a massive refugee exodus into China if the regime collapses—and can rationally justify this as a good investment on these grounds.

2NC/1NR AT #1—China Focus Now, Plan Solves



They say Obama is focused on China and the plan refocuses to the Middle East, but

[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]



  1. Extend our Washington Post and Military Times evidence.

[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME]

It’s much better than their Middle East Briefing evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME]

[CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]:

(it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts)

(their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true)

(their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument)

( ) (their evidence supports our argument)



[WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
[EXPLAIN HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]

First, our evidence directly quotes Obama while their evidence is from the Middle East Briefing. Obama knows better than another group what his biggest challenges are. Also, the Middle East Briefing is biased source toward saying that their job is harder than others. Second, we agree that Middle East policy is challenging and uses diplomatic capital—that’s our Military Times evidence. Since it’s so challenging, Obama needs to keep his diplomatic capital for that policy.
[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]

This matters because: if we win the uniqueness and the link, that’s half of the DA. The risk of ISIS is large and the impact would kill millions.

  1. The current strategy is working, but Obama needs to use his remaining diplomatic capital to defeat ISIS



NBC NEWS, April 2016 [International news organization, “Analysis: Will Obama's Efforts in Gulf Talks Prove Fruitful?”, 4/21, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/analysis-will-obama-s-efforts-gulf-talks-prove-fruitful-n560021]
Obama argued that progress like cessations of hostilities in Syria and Yemen, and what he insists is significant progress in the counter terrorism campaign against ISIS, has been made possible by support from allies in this turbulent region of the world. But work remains, the president said. Obama said there have been "broad commitments" from the coalition fighting ISIS present at the summit. However, he is "concerned" about issues like the stability of the government in Baghdad. Iraq's leader Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in the process of trying to form a new government, an extremely contentious process fueled by bitter sectarian infighting. A process that Obama said should be watched closely in the coming weeks. Obama has called on U.S. allies in the region to support Iraq with economic and humanitarian aid, especially in areas of the country retaken from ISIS. The U.S. claims its coalition has recaptured 40 percent of the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and Syria. Obama recently said the coalition would take back Mosul, Iraq's second largest city by the end of the year. The U.S. needs the Gulf nations' help because of the president's commitment not to put American boots on the ground. The president said the group also focused their attention on to the situation in Syria and he sought to underscore American concerns by saying he had even called Russian President Vladimir Putin because of violations of the ceasefire that the U.S. claims have been carried out by supporters of Syria leader Bashar al-Assad. Obama insists Assad must step down from power if there's to be peace in Syria. But the president has often said there's no "military solution," to the Syria conflict. He continues to push America's allies to support the on and off diplomatic process and peace talks underway there. Time will only tell if somewhat skeptical allies in this region were swayed by Obama's reassurances. With time running out on his time left in the White House, Obama is determined to make his approach to foreign policy produce results in one of the most complicated and dangerous regions of the world

  1. Obama is using his diplomatic capital on the Middle East and beating ISIS



Hammond, January 2016 [Andrew, Associate at LSE IDEAS (the Centre for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy) at the London School of Economics, “Middle East is key to Obama’s final year foreign policy focus”, 1/13, http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/middle-east-is-key-to-obama-s-final-year-foreign-policy-focus-1.1652888}
Obama made crystal clear in his speech that the Middle East will yet again attract particularly significant presidential focus in 2016. He shrewdly observed that the region “is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation”, and that instability could “continue for decades” with some countries potentially becoming “safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees”. Rightly, Obama was keen to emphasise that “our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians”. However, he re-asserted that “priority number one” is tackling the threat from terrorist networks, especially Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and Al Qaida, which pose a “direct threat” to the US homeland. Here, the president made clear that the depletion of Daesh’s territorial foothold and capabilities in Iraq and Syria will continue apace, beyond the approximately 10,000 air strikes and other counter-terrorism activity that he had asserted have so far taken place. Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, one poll in December found 60 per cent of the US populace disapproved of Obama’s handling of the fight against Daesh, and in 2016 he made clear in his speech that he would also double down on seeking a “lasting peace” in Syria that could lead to a more unified regional effort to combat the terrorist group. More controversially, Obama also highlighted last year’s landmark Iranian nuclear deal, which he asserted had “avoided another war” in the region. The White House believes that the agreement with Tehran not only opens up the possibility of a further warming in bilateral ties, but also consolidates the president’s broader desire to enhance global nuclear security. As well as inter-state nuclear diplomacy, the administration has created the Nuclear Security Summit process to counter nuclear terrorism, which the president has described as the “most immediate and extreme threat to global security”. This forum’s next heads of state meeting will be in Washington this spring. As well as instability in the Middle East, Obama also highlighted the need to stabilise the national unity government in Afghanistan, headed by new President Ashraf Ghani and de facto-Prime Minister Abdullah Abdullah. To this end, the White House recently announced that the present US force of some 10,000 troops will remain in place for much if not all of 2016 in the face of significant new Taliban insurgency.


Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   ...   144



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