1AC

1AC Mexico Manufacturing Advantage

Contention 1 is Mexico Manufacturing

TTIP agreement talks between the US and EU are coming EC 7/12/13 (EU and US conclude first round of TTIP negotiations in Washington, European
Commission, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=941)//javi

The first week-long round of talks for an EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) comes to a closure today in Washington. Its been a very productive week, said EU Chief Negotiator Ignacio Garcia-Bercero coming out of the talks. We have been striving already for many months to prepare the ground for an ambitious trade and investment deal that will boost the transatlantic economy, delivering jobs and growth for both European and Americans. This week we have been able to take this negotiation to the next step. The main
objective has been met: we had a substantive round of talks on the full range of topics that we intend to cover in this agreement. This paves the way to for a good second round of negotiations in Brussels in October. Working throughout the week, the negotiating groups have set out

respective approaches and ambitions in as much as twenty various areas that the TTIP the biggest bilateral trade and investment negotiation ever undertaken - is set to cover. They
included: market access for agricultural and industrial goods, government procurement, investment, energy and raw materials, regulatory issues, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, services, intellectual property rights, sustainable development, small- and medium-sized enterprises, dispute settlement, competition, customs/trade facilitation, and state-owned enterprises. Negotiators identified

certain areas of convergence across various components of the negotiation and - in areas of divergence begun to explore possibilities to bridge the gaps. The talks have been based on a thorough review of the stakeholders views expressed to date. The negotiators met also in the
middle of the week with approximately 350 stakeholders from academia, trade unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organisations to listen to formal presentations and answer questions related to the proposed agreement.

Mexico needs to be included expands trade and development of common standards Negroponte 5/2/13 (Diana Villiers, Obamas Mexico Trip: Putting Trade and Investment at the Top
of the Agenda, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/02-obamamexico-trip-trade-investment-negroponte)//javi

Investment flows are also mutually beneficial. According to the U.S. Trade Representatives
office, sales of services in Mexico by majority U.S. owned affiliates were $34.4 billion in 2010. Sales of services in the United States by majority Mexico-owned firms were $4.8 billion. According to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, the United States currently provides 41 percent of all foreign direct investment in Mexico, benefiting more than 21,139 companies. Beyond the numbers, the reality of trade and

investment is that the United States and Mexico compete together in the global economy. Production and supply chains in North America are deeply integrated with the U.S. content of Mexico exports to the United States estimated at 40 cents on the dollar. This
compares to 25 cents for Canadian exports to the United States and 4 cents for China and 2 cents for the European Union, according to a Wilson Center report. In short, there exists a growing integrated manufacturing platform that takes advantage of geography, time zones and cultural affinity. The

challenge ahead is how to build on that integration for the forthcoming Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment talks with the European Union. The development of common standards and regulations will impact both Mexican and Canadian industry. Therefore, they need to be either at the table, or close to the negotiations. How close will the consultations with the Mexican trade delegation be? Ideally, the Mexicans would like to be at the negotiating table, but that is improbable. More likely is a commitment from President Obama to consult closely with the Mexican delegation. This could include both pre-talks and post-talk briefings, reinforcing Obamas call to maintain the economic dialogue over a long period of time. On the European side, Turkey wishes to have a
close consultative arrangement with the EU negotiators. This creates a balanced need for consultations with immediate trading partners.

Trade declines if Mexico is not included Felbermayr et. al. 13 (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Who benefits from a
free trade deal?, GED, http://www.ged-shorts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/StudyTTIP_final_ENG.pdf)//javi Table 7 examines the changes in trade in North America and between the USA and the BRICS. A few important insights are striking. First, TTIP leads to trade diversion effects within the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) between USA, Mexico and Canada. In the comprehensive liberalization scenario, both exports and imports decline for NAFTA partner

countries within the region. The two NAFTA countries whose position is not improved by
TTIP, Mexico and Canada, intensify their trade. That is an impressive example of trade diversion effects between countries not directly affected in anyway by TTIP: The access of these countries especially

to the US market becomes less attractive due to increased competition from the EU, leading to a substantial rise in trade between them. What makes this effect so strong is that
the trade barriers, as we know, between Mexico and Canada have already been eliminated.

Interestingly, TTIP leads to an expansion of trade between the EU and Canada. Geographic circumstances are decisive for this result. Because of its closeness to the USA, Canada is especially affected by trade diversion effects involving the USA. This effect leads to creating trade with the EU countries that are geographically farther away, so that transport costs are lower, and the change in the relative cost structures leads to replacement of the American market with the EU. This circumstance means that finalization of an agreement between the EU and Canada, currently under negotiation,

would strengthen the trade of the countries involved with each other but not eliminate the negative trade diversion effects. Exclusion of Mexico hurts trade partnership BFNA 6/17/13 (US, EU Benefit Significantly From TTIP, Bertelsmann Foundation,
http://www.bfna.org/article/us-eu-benefit-significantly-from-ttip)//javi WASHINGTON, DC/GUETERSLOH, GERMANY (June 17, 2013) - The US and all EU member countries

would benefit significantly from a comprehensive trade pact, according to "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Who benefits from a free trade deal?", an ifo Institute study commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation. A TTIP that eliminates non-tariff trade barriers and tariffs would boost per capita GDP and employment on both sides of the Atlantic but impose losses on much of the rest of the world. The US would achieve the
greatest growth from a TTIP, with long-term per capita GDP climbing 13.4 percent. EU member states would, on average, see five-percent growth in long-term per capita GDP. The United Kingdom would be Europes biggest beneficiary; its long-term per capita GDP would rise 9.7 percent. Other EU member countries that would profit more than average from a far-reaching liberalization of trade include small export-oriented economies, such as those of the Baltic states, and crisis-ridden southern European countries. The large economies of Germany and France would benefit less than the EU average from a comprehensive free-trade agreement. Long-term German per capita GDP would increase 4.7 percent; the comparative French figure is 2.6 percent. Intensified trade relations between the

US and the EU would decrease their imports from the rest of the world. As a result, long-term per capital GDP would drop 9.5 percent in Canada and 7.2 percent in Mexico. Japan would also see a fall, of 5.9 percent. Additional losers would include
developing countries, especially those in Africa and central Asia.

US-Mexico trade key to resolve Mexican instability and manufacturing sector ONeill 3/18/13 (Shannon, Mexico and the United States are linked closer than ever through
trade, Voxxi, http://www.voxxi.com/mexico-united-states-linked-trade/)//javi

we have seen a transformation of Mexicos economy over the last couple of decades: It has moved from a very
When it comes to Mexico, people usually think about the security issue, and thats what much of the news coverage has been. B ut underneath that, behind the headlines,

closed, inward-looking economy, one whose exports were dominated by oil, to an economy that is one of the most open and increasingly competitive in the world. In measures like trade to GDP, Mexico outpaces not just the United States or places like Brazil, but it outpaces China. It is quite an open and competitive economy now. A big part of that is due to its deepening ties to the United States. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) was signed almost 20 years ago, we have seen the creation of regional supply chains for a myriad of different types of industries and companies. For every product that is imported from Mexico in the US, on average 40 percent of it would actually have been made in the U.S. It has become a very symbiotic relationship , and it has become an integrated economy in many ways and in many sectors, particularly in manufacturing. There, we see almost seamless integration in some companies, where production happens on both sides of the border. What it means is these economies, companies and industries are now not only intimately tied, but permanently tied at this point. Mexicos positive future tied to the United States Mexicos positive future is closely tied to the United States, in part because of this integration of production. If it does extend beyond the United States, it would most likely be through an expansion of what is already this North American production platform, through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would expand Nafta beyond Canada and Mexico, to include other Latin American countries and many Asia Pacific countries. It is quite a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, and one could see it expanding in production chains in many other countries that are participants, and sales would be going up. The U.S., for all of its hiccups in recent years, is still the largest market in the world, so being tied to the U.S. is not a bad thing at all. Recently, talk about a mega-agreement on
trade between the worlds biggest trading blocthe European Unionand the United States has surfaced. But it is not clear at all that this would hurt Mexico; it already has its own trade

there may be incentives to extend the EU-U.S. trade agreement to include other countries.
agreement with the EU and, on the other hand,

US is an integral part of Mexican manufacturing industry Villarreal 8/9/12 (M. Angeles, U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications,
Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf)//javi Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been an integral part of the economic relationship

between the United States and Mexico since NAFTA implementation. FDI consists of investments in real estate, manufacturing plants, and retail facilities, in which the foreign investor owns 10% or more of the entity. The United States is the largest source of FDI in Mexico. The stock of U.S. FDI increased from $17.0 billion in 1994 to $91.4 billion in 2011,
a 440% increase (see Table 4). Mexican FDI in the United States is much lower than U.S. investment in Mexico, with levels of Mexican FDI fluctuating over the last 10 years. In 2010, Mexican FDI in the United States totaled $12.6 billion (see Table 4). The sharp rise in U.S. investment in Mexico since NAFTA is also a result of the liberalization of Mexicos restrictions on foreign investment in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Prior to the mid-1980s, Mexico had a very protective policy that restricted foreign investment and controlled the exchange rate to encourage domestic growth, affecting the entire

industrial sector. Mexicos trade liberalization measures and economic reform in the late 1980s represented a sharp shift in policy and helped bring in a steady increase of FDI flows into Mexico. NAFTA provisions on foreign investment helped to lock in the reforms and increase investor confidence. Under NAFTA, Mexico gave U.S. and Canadian investors nondiscriminatory treatment of their investments as well as investor protection. NAFTA may have encouraged U.S. FDI in Mexico by increasing investor confidence, but much of the growth may have occurred anyway because Mexico likely would have continued to liberalize its foreign investment laws with or without the agreement. Nearly half of

total FDI investment in Mexico is in the manufacturing industry, of which the maquiladora industry forms a major part. (See Mexicos Export-Oriented Assembly Plants below.) In Mexico, the industry has helped attract investment from countries such as the United States that have a relatively large amount of capital. For the United States, the industry is important because U.S. companies are able to locate their labor-intensive operations in Mexico and lower their labor costs in the overall production process.

Aerospace industry on the brink nowplan solves quickly Mecham 7/16 (Michael is apace writer for Gannett News, California Bureau Chief and correspondent
for Congress, Aviation Week, 7/16/13, Mexicos Welcome Mat Attracts Aerospace Manufacturers,

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_01_2013_p44-562383.xml\

The aerospace influx has not happened overnight. Its roots date to the mid-1970s when U.S.
companies, a mix of multinationals and lower-tier suppliers, began sending basic parts manufacturing and assembly tasks across the border, mostly to border towns like Tijuana and Mexicali but also deeper into the country to cities like Monterrey. Service operations followed, as did company research activities. However, it has been in the past decade that Mexico's aerospace manufacturing

growth has mushroomed. Political reform led it to pursue a global free trade agenda vigorously and
its 1994 signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) benefitted Mexico greatly. Still, it took about a decade for the aerospace sector to take off. Until 2004, growth was scattered, says Queretaro state Gov. Jose Calzada. Not anymore. We've seen incredible changes in just the last five years, he says The boom times are a testament to Mexico's geography, its embrace of free trade and adoption of legal mechanisms that provide a soft landing for foreign -owned

factories. Local leaders clear red tape and amaze U.S. and European executives at how quickly they can
put up factories. A typical response comes from Peter Huij, a senior Fokker Aerostructures executive in Chihuahua, about how quickly the company went from bare earth in May 2011 to a completed 75,000sq.-ft. factory in November: It would be impossible in Europe. Behind all of this is Mexico's

Maquiladora factory system for supporting foreign companies, which allows them to control their own destiny, importing raw materials such as aerospace-quality alloys, or wiring and then exporting the finished product tax-free. Foreign manufacturers commonly turn to a

large service providerIntermex and American Industries Group are leaders for the aerospace sectorthat lease buildings to their clients and handle their human resources, tax and other business needs under Mexican law. About 80% of the aerospace companies in Mexico use such services. Of the 36 Maquiladoras registered by the Mexican government last year, six were in aerospace, including a GKN Aerospace
plant in Mexicali, Latecoere in Hermosillo, coatings specialist Ellison Surface Technologies and RollsRoyce turbine supplier JJ Churchill in Guaymas and a fourth division for Zodiac in Chihuahua. Under the Maquiladora system, Mexico allows resident foreign companies to control 100% of their

businesses. They do not face the local partner rules so common elsewhere that limit foreigners to a maximum 49% share They make it easy for you to do business down here, says John Gardner, strategic program manager at Kaman Aerostructures, another newcomer in Chihuahua. They provide a 'soft landing,' to get a quick startupa good startup. We got a lot of support up front and afterward. Mexican manufacturing key to the aerospace industry PR Newswire 11 ("Mexico Becoming a New Manufacturing World Hub in the Aerospace Market, PR
Newswire. 7/28/11. LexisNexis Library)

Mexico has a strong framework to become a leading world manufacturing hub for the aerospace industry; that was the message coming out of the Second Annual Baja California
International Aerospace Supplier Forum, a business-to-business exhibition and networking event held last week in Tijuana, Mexico. Mexico has the second largest fleet of private aircraft in the

world after the United States, is the tenth largest supplier to the United States market, and has become one of the largest recipients of aerospace foreign direct investments over the past two years. In an exclusive interview, Flavio Diaz Miron, chairman of the Mexican Federation
of Aerospace Industries, A.C. Company, Goodrich Aerospace Mexico, among others, as well as several manufacturing providers. The State of the Mexican Aerospace Market and Key Forecasts The Mexican

aerospace manufacturing market continues its evolution; from simple assemblies, aero-parts manufacturing, and industry consolidation that provides special education and training programs, to the development of a fuselage manufacturing hub manufacturing specialized parts and products. According to FEMIA, there are strong and promising signs of growth for the aerospace manufacturing market that includes: Exports of aerospace parts are predicted to grow by 12 percent in 2011, from $3.1 billion in 2010 to $3.5 billion, and they are expected to increase further to $7.5 billion in 2015.Direct jobs are expected to grow by 28 percent in 2015, from 29,000 in 2010 to 37,000 in 2015.The number of aerospace manufacturing companies operating in Mexico is expected to increase from 232 in 2010 to

more than 350 in 2015. In order for the Mexican market to move into the next phase to become a
full airplane assembly hub with design and innovation standards, Diaz Miron expressed the need to "approve the plans for final assembling of products in Mexico, and the government's support to provide a legal framework to offer internationally-recognized certifications." Key Mexican Investment Drivers When asked about what makes Mexico an attractive destination for international

aerospace investors, Diaz Miron considers the following as key drivers: Ability to meet requirements and delivery of schedules Ability to meet business objectives, particularly cost efficiencies Accessibility to raw materials for production Economic, social, and political stability of the Mexican market Highly educated population with great engineering and technical
skills to minimize the learning curve Strong and visionary government support, and state commitment to providing the infrastructure needed John Walsh, president of world-renowned consulting firm Walsh Aviation which advises more than 70 firms in the world in 10 different countries, also added the following factors that attract international investors to Mexico: Proximity to the San Diego and Southern California region which have relevant resources for the aerospace manufacturing

market The Mexican government's support of the aerospace industry and its significant commitment into strengthening the Mexican economy by adding jobs and advancing education
through technical training programs. International firms with operations in Mexico are already benefiting from the investment drivers. For example, "Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, and Bombardier are already working and buying parts from Mexican suppliers," according to Diaz Miron. And as the

Mexican market looks to be a full airplane assembly hub with design and innovation standards, there are already early signs of success on this path. For example, "the design
area has been growing so much, that companies like General Electric are opening a design center in Queretaro, adding more market value," added Diaz Miron. "A lot of positive things are happening in Mexico as it continues developing strong business partnerships and work skills become stronger," said Diaz Miron. "We are moving in the right direction." Mexico, an International Hub of Opportunities When asked about Mexico as an international aerospace manufacturing player, Diaz Miron said, "it is

important that people recognize that Mexico is a manufacturing country soon changing into an engineering research stage. Mexico has the pillar of human capital with highly-qualified engineers and technicians coming out of schools and universities that offer the curricula aerospace firms need to succeed in the industry." Walsh explained that, "the Mexican aerospace industry grew from producing 700 aircrafts per year to 1,000 per year which is a big step, and I believe it could go up to 1,400 by 2014." Walsh added, "International investors would previously go to
markets like Bangladesh or Indonesia for their aerospace operations, but now they know it hasn't been working. Instead, Mexico offers the right size of operation and is the right place to be, " he concluded.

Aerospace decline causes global nuclear war Pfaltzgraff 10 Robert L, Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies at. The
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, et al., Final Report of the IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy, Air, Space, & Cyberspace Power in the 21st-Century, p. xiii-9
Deterrence Strategy In stark contrast to the bipolar Cold War nuclear setting, todays

security environment

includes multiple, independent nuclear actors. Some of these independent nuclear weapons states are potential adversaries, some are rivals, and some are friends, but the initial decision for action by any one of them may lie beyond U.S. control. The United States may need to influence, signal, and restrain enemies, and it may need to continue to provide security guarantees to nonnuclear friends and allies. America may also face catalytic warfare, where, for example, a U.S. ally such as Israel or a third party such as China could initiate action that might escalate to a nuclear exchange. Although the United States would not be a party to the nuclear escalation decision process, it could be drawn into the conflict. Compared to a bipolar world, very little is known about strategic nuclear interaction and escalation in a multipolar world . The U.S. nuclear deterrent must
restrain a wider variety of actors today than during the Cold War. This requires a range of capabilities and the capacity to address specific challenges. The deterrent must provide security guarantees and assurance sufficient to prevent the initiation of catalytic warfare by an ally, while deterring an adversary from resorting to nuclear escalation. America may also need simultaneously to deter more than one other nuclear state. Deterrence requirements include four critical elements: early warning, C2, delivery systems, and weapons. The Air Force plays an indispensable role in furnishing the U.S. early warning system in its entirety through satellites and radar networks. In command and control, infrastructure is provided by the Air Force, including Milstar satellites and, in the future, advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellites. In the area of delivery systems and weapons, two-thirds

of the strategic triad intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers is furnished by the Air Force and its Global Strike Command. U.S. Overseas Basing and the Anti-Access/Area-Denial Threat The increased availability of anti-access/area-denial assets coupled with growing threats to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace commons are challenging the power projection capabilities of the United States. These threats, in the form of aircraft and long-range missiles carrying conventional or nuclear munitions, present problems for our overseas bases. States such as North Korea, China, and Iran jeopardize the notion that forward-deployed U.S. forces and bases will be safe from enemy attack.
Consequently, the United States must create a more flexible basing structure encompassing a passive and active defense posture that includes these features: dispersal, hardening, increased warning time of attack, and air defenses. Simultaneously, the United States must continue to develop

long-range, offensive systems such as low-observable manned and remotely piloted strike aircraft, precision missiles, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms to penetrate heavily defended A2/AD environments. This approach will increase the survivability of U.S. forward-deployed assets and power projection capabilities and thus bolster deterrence and U.S. guarantees to Americas allies and friends. Asymmetric Challenges The increasing
number of actors gaining access to advanced and dual-use technologies augments the potential for asymmetric attacks against the United States and its allies by those who are unable to match U.S. military capabilities. Those actors pose increasing

challenges to the ability of the United States to project power through the global commons. Such attacks

could target specific U.S. vulnerabilities, ranging from space assets to the financial, transportation, communications, and/or energy infrastructures, and to the food and water supply, to
mention only the most obvious. Asymmetric attacks denying access to critical networks and capabilities may be the most costeffective approach to circumventing traditional U.S. force advantages. The USAF and DoD must develop systems and technologies that

can offset and defend against asymmetric capabilities. This will require a robust R&D program and enhanced USAF cooperation with its sister services and international partners and allies. Space Dominance Space is increasingly a contested domain where U.S. dominance is no longer assured given the growing number of actors in space and the potential for kinetic and non-kinetic attacks, including ASAT weapons, EMP, and jamming. As a result, the United States must protect vital space-based platforms and networks by reducing their vulnerability to attack or disruption and increasing the countrys resilience if an attack does occur. Required steps include hardening and incorporating stealth into next
generation space systems and developing rapid replenishment capacity (including micro-satellite technologies and systems and new launch capabilities). At the same time, America must reduce its dependence on space capabilities with air-based substitutes such as high altitude, long endurance, and penetrating ISR platforms. Increased cooperation among the services and with U.S. allies to develop such capabilities will also be paramount. Cyber Security Cyber operations are vital to conducting USAF and joint land, sea, air, and space missions. Given

the significance of the cyber threat (private, public, and DoD cyber and information networks are routinely under attack), the United States is attempting to construct a layered and robust capability to detect and mitigate cyber intrusions and attacks. The
USAFs cyber operations must be capable of operating in a contested cyber domain to support vital land, sea, air, and space missions. USAF cyberspace priorities include developing capabilities to protect essential military cyber systems and to speed their recovery if an attack does occur; enhancing the Air Forces capacity to provide USAF personnel with the resolution of technical questions; and training/recruitment of personnel with cyber skills. In addition, the USAF and DoD need to develop technologies that quickly and precisely attribute attacks in cyberspace. Cyber

attacks can spread quickly

among networks, making it extremely difficult to attribute their perpetrator, and therefore to develop a deterrence
strategy based on retaliation. In addition, some cyber issues are in the legal arena, including questions about civil liberties. It is likely that the trend of increased military support
to civil authorities (for example, in disaster relief operations) will develop in the cyber arena as well. These efforts will entail greater service, interagency, international, and private-sector collaboration. Organizational Change and Joint Force Operations To address growing national security challenges and increasing fiscal constraints, and to become more effective, the joint force needs to adapt its organizations and processes to the exigencies of the information age and the security setting of the second decade of the twenty-first century. This entails developing a strategy that places increased emphasis on joint operations in which each service acts in greater concert with the others, leverages capacities across the services (two land services, three naval services, and five air services) without duplicating efforts, and encourages interoperability. This would provide combatant commanders (CCDRs) with a greater range of capabilities, allowing heightened flexibility to use force. A good example of this approach is the Air-Sea Battle concept being developed jointly by the Air Force and Navy, which envisions heightened cooperation

There is an increasing demand for ISR capabilities able to access and persist in contested airspace in order to track a range of highvalue mobile and hard-to-find targets, such as missile launchers and underground bunkers. This increases the need for stealthy, survivable systems and the development of next-generation unmanned platforms. The USAF must continue to emphasize precision targeting, both for strike and close-air-support missions. High-fidelity target identification and discrimination enabled by advanced radars and directed-energy systems, including the ability to find, track, and target individuals within a crowd, will provide battlefield commanders with improved options and new opportunities for leveraging joint assets. Engagement and International Security Cooperation Allies
between the two services and potentially with allies and coalition partners. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities

and coalition partners bring important capabilities from which the USAF and other services have long benefited. For example, allies and coalition partners can provide enhanced situational awareness and early warning of impending crises as well as assist in understanding the interests, motivations, traditions, and cultures of potential adversaries and prospective coalition partners. Moreover, foreign partner engagement and outreach are an avenue to influence partner and adversary

perspectives, thus shaping the environment in ways favorable to U.S. national security interests. Engagement also may be a key to realizing another Air Force and joint priority: to sustain or gain access to forward operating bases and logistical infrastructure. This is particularly important given the growing availability of A2/AD assets and their ability to impede U.S. power projection capabilities. Procurement Choices and Affordability The USAF needs to field capabilities to support current operations and pressing missions while at the same time pursuing promising technologies to build the force of the future. Affordability, effectiveness, time urgency, and industrial base issues inevitably shape procurement choices and reform. The Air Force must maintain todays critical asse ts while also allocating resources to meet future needs. Given the long lifespan anticipated for many weapon systems, planners need to make the most reliable cost estimates and identify problems at the outset of a weapons systems development phase so that they can be corre cted as early and cost-effectively as possible. Support to Civil

Authorities As evidenced in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile (the Chile earthquake hit after this conference), the

USAF has a vital role to play in the U.S. response to international relief operations and support to civil authorities. In Haiti, the USAF reopened the airport and deployed contingency response elements,
while also providing ISR support for the joint forces in the theater. In Chile, USAF satellite communication capabilities were critical to the recovery and relief efforts. USAF civil

support roles are likely to grow to include greater use of the

Reserve Components. Consequently, USAF planners should reassess the active and reserve component mix of forces and capabilities to identify potential mobilization and requirement shortfalls. CLOSING
CONFERENCE THOUGHTS A recurring conference theme was the need for the USAF to continue to examine specific issues of opportunity and vulnerability more closely. For example, a future initiative could include focused working groups that would examine such questions and issues as: How can air, space, and cyberspace capabilities best support deterrence, preserve U.S. freedom of action, and support natio nal objectives? How should the USAF leadership reconceptualize its vision, institutional identity, and force posture to align as closely as possible with the future national security setting? What is the appropriate balance between high-end and low-end air and space capabilities that will maximize military options for national decision makers, given emerging threats and fiscal constraints? What are the opportunities, options, and tradeoffs for investment and divestment in science and technology, infrastructure, and programmed capabilities? What are additional interdependent concepts, similar to Air -Sea Battle, that leverage cross-service investments to identify and foster the development of new joint capabilities? What are alternative approaches to officer accessions and development to support shifting and emerging Air Force missions, operations, and force structure, including cyber warfare? How can the USAF best interact with Congress to help preserve or refocus the defense-industrial base as well as to minimize mandates and restrictions that weigh on future Air Force investments? Finally, the USAF must continue to be an organization that views debate, as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force put it in his opening conference address, as the whetstone upon which we sharpen our strategic thinking. This debate must also be used in pursuit of political support and to ensure that the USAF maintains and develops critical capabilities to support U.S. national security priorities. The 38th IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy was conceived as a contribution to that debate. Almost a century has passed since the advent of airpower and Billy Mitchells demonstration of its operational potential with the sinking of the Ostfriesland on July 21, 1921. For most of that time, the United States has benefitted from the rapid development of air and space power projection capabilities, and, as a result, it has prevailed in successive conflicts, contributed to war deterrence and crisis management, and provided essential humanitarian relief to allies and friends around the world. As we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), like its service counterparts, is re-assessing strategies, operational concepts, and force structure. Across the conflict spectrum, security challenges are evolving, and potential adversariesstate and non-state actorsare developing anti-access and other asymmetric capabilities, and irregular warfare challenges

exists for hybrid warfare in which state adversaries and/or non-state actors use a mix of conventional and unconventional capabilities against the United States, a possibility made more feasible by the diffusion of such capabilities to a larger number of actors.
are becoming more prevalent.

The potential

Furthermore, twenty-first-century security challenges and threats may emanate from highly adaptive adversaries who ignore the Geneva Conventions of war and use military and/or civilian technologies to offset our military superiority. As it develops strategy and force structure in this global setting, the Air Force confronts constraints that will

have important implications for budget and procurement programs, basic research and development (R&D), and the maintenance of critical skills, as well as recruitment, education, training, and retention.
Given the dynamic nature of the security setting and looming defense budget constraints, questions of where to assume risk will demand bold, innovative, and decisive leadership. The imperative for joint operations and U.S. military-civilian partnerships is clear, underscoring the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that encompasses international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). THE UNITED STATES AS AN AEROSPACE NATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES In his address opening the conference, General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), pointed out how,

with its inherent characteristics of speed, range, and flexibility, airpower has forever changed warfare. Its advent rendered land and maritime forces vulnerable from the air, thus adding an important new dimension to warfare. Control of the air has become indispensable to national security because it allows the United States and friendly forces to maneuver and operate free from enemy air attack. With control of the air the United States can leverage the advantages of air and space as well as cyberspace. In these interdependent domains the Air Force possesses unique capabilities for ensuring global mobility, long-range strike, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). The benefits of airpower extend beyond the air domain, and operations among the air, land, maritime, space, and cyber domains are increasingly interdependent. General
Schwartz stated that the Air Forces challenge is to succeed in a protracted struggle against elements of violent extremism and

irreconcilable actors while confronting peer and near-peer rivals. The Air Force must be able to operate with great precision and lethality across a broad spectrum of conflict that has high and low ends but that defies an orderly taxonomy. Warfare in the twenty-first century takes on a hybrid complexity, with regular and irregular elements using myriad tools and tactics. Technology can be an enabler but can also create weaknesses: adversaries with increased access to space and cyberspace can

United States faces the prospect of the proliferation of precision weapons, including ballistic and cruise missiles as well as increasingly accurate mortars, rockets, and artillery, which will put U.S. and allied/coalition forces at risk
use emerging technologies against the United States and/or its allies. In addition, the
. In response to mounting irregular warfare challenges American leaders have to adopt innovative and creative strategies. For its part, the USAF must develop airmen who have the creativity to anticipate and plan for this challenging environment. Leadership, intellectual creativity, capacity, and ingenuity, together with innovative technology, will be crucial to addressing these challenges in a constrained fiscal environment. System Versatility In meeting the broad range of contingencies high, low, regular, irregular, and hybrid the Air Force must maintain and develop systems that are versatile, both functionally (including strike or ISR) and in terms of various employment modes, such as manned versus remotely piloted, and penetrating versus stand-off systems. General Schwartz emphasized the need to be able to operate in conflict settings where there will be demands for persistent ISR systems able to gain access to, and then loiter in, contested or denied airspac e. The targets to be identified and tracked may be mobile or deeply buried, of high value, and difficult to locate without penetrat ing systems. General Schwartz also called attention to the need for what he described as a family of systems that could be deployed in multiple ways with maximum versatility depending on requirements. Few systems will remain inherently single purpose. Indeed, he emphasized that the Air Force must purposefully design versatility into its new systems, with the majority of future systems being able to operate in various threat environments. As part of this effort further joint integration and inter-service cooperation to achieve greater air-land and air-sea interoperability will continue to be a strategic necessity. Space Access and Control Space access, control, and situational awareness remain essential to U.S. national security. As potential rivals develop their own space programs, the United States faces challenges to its unrestricted access to space. Ensuring continuing access to the four global commons maritime, air, space, and cyberspace will be a major challenge in which the USAF has a key role. The Air Force has long recognized the importance of space and is endeavoring to make certain that U.S. requirements in and for space are m et and anticipated. Space situational awareness is vital to Americas ability to help evaluate and attribute attacks. Attribu tion, of course, is essential to deterrence. The USAF is exploring options to reduce U.S. dependence on the Global Positioning Syst em (GPS), which could become vulnerable to jamming. Promising new technologies, such as cold atoms, pseudolites, and imagin g inertial navigation systems that use laser radar are being investigated as means to reduce our vulnerability. Cyber Capabilities The USAF continues to develop cyber capabilities to address opportunities and challenges. Cyber threats present challenges to homeland security and other national security interests. Key civilian and military networks are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Preparing for cyber warfare and refining critical infrastructure protection and consequence management will require new capabilities, focused training, and greater interagency, international, and private sector collaboration. Challenges for the Air Force General Schwartz set forth a series of challenges for the Air Force, which he urged conference participants to address. They included: How can the Air Force better address the growing demand for real -time ISR from remotely piloted systems, which are providing unprecedented and unmatched situational awareness? How can the USAF better guarantee the credibility and viability of the nations nuclear forces for the complex and uncertain security environm ent of this century? What is the way ahead for the next generation of long-range strike and ISR platforms? What trade-offs, especially between manned and unmanned platforms, should the USAF consider? How can the USAF improve acquisition of such systems? How can the USAF better exploit the advantage of low-observables? How can the Air Force better prepare itself to operate in an opposed network environment in which communications and data links will be challenged, including how to assure command and control (C2) in bandwidth-constrained environments? In counter-land operations, how can the USAF achieve improved target discrimination in high collateral damage situations? How should the USAF posture its overseas forces to ensure access? What basing structure, logistical considerations, andprotection measures are required to mitigate emerging anti-access threats? How can the Air Force reduce its reliance on GPS to ensure operations in a GPS -denied environment? How can the USAF lessen its vulnerability to petroleum shortages, rising energy prices, and resulting logistical and operational challenges? How can the Air Force enhance partnerships with its sister services and the interagency community? How can it better collab orate with allies and coalition partners to improve support of national security interests? These issues were addressed in subsequent conference sessions. The opening session focused on the multidimensional and dynamic security setting in which the Air Force will operate in the years ahead. The session included a discussion of the need to prioritize necessary capabilities and to gauge acceptable risks. Previous Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) rested on the basic a ssumption that the United States would be able to support operations simultaneously or nearly simultaneously in two major regional contingencies, with the additional capacity to respond to smaller disaster-relief and/or stability operations missions. However, while the 2010 QDR1 maintains the need for U.S. forces to operate in tw o nearly simultaneous major wars, it places far greater emphasis on the need to address irregular warfare challenges. Its focus is maintaining and rebalancing U.S. force structure to fight the wars in which the United States is engaged today while looking ahead to the emerging security setting. The QDR further seeks to develop flexible and tailored capabilities to confront an array of smaller-scale contingencies, including natural disasters, perhaps simultaneously, as was the case with the war in Afghanistan, stability operations in Iraq, and the Haiti relief effort. The 2010 QDR highlights important trends in the global security environment, especially unconventional threats and asymmetric challenges. It suggests that a conflict with a near-peer competitor such as China, or a conflict with Iran, would involve a mix, or hybrid, of capabilities that would test U.S. forces in very different ways

. Although

predicting the future security setting is a very difficult if not an impossible exercise, the 2010 QDR outlines major

challenges for the United States and its allies, including technology proliferation and diffusion; anti-access threats and the shrinking global basing infrastructure; the possibility of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) use against the U.S. homeland and/or against U.S. forces abroad; critical infrastructure protection and the massed effects of a cyber or space attack; unconventional warfare and irregular challenges; and the emergence of new issue areas such as Arctic security, U.S. energy dependence, demographic shifts and urbanization, the potential for resource wars (particularly over access to water), and the erosion or collapse of governance in weak or failing states. TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION Technology proliferation is accelerating. Compounding the problem is the reality that existing multilateral and/or international export regimes and controls have not kept pace with technology, and efforts to constrain access are complicated by dual-use technologies and chemical/biological agents. The battlefields of the future are likely to be more lethal as combatants take advantage of commercially based navigation aids for precision guidance and advanced weapons systems and as global and theater boundaries disappear
with longer-range missile systems becoming more common in enemy arsenals. Non-state entities such as Hezbollah have already used more advanced missile systems to target state adversaries. The proliferation of precision technologies and longerrange delivery platforms puts the United States and its partners increasingly at risk. This proliferation also is likely to affect U.S. operations from forward operating locations, placing additional constraints on American force deployments within the territories of allies. Moreover, as longer-range ballistic and cruise missiles become more widespread, U.S. forces will find it increasingly difficult to operate in conflicts ranging from irregular warfare to high-intensity combat. As highlighted throughout the conference, this will require that the United States develop and field new-generation low-observable penetration assets and related capabilities to operate in non-permissive environments. PROLIFERATION TRENDS The twenty-first-century security setting features several proliferation trends that were discussed in the opening session. These trends, six of which were outlined by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor

of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, framed subsequent discussions. First, the

number of actorsstates and armed non-state groupsis growing, together with strategies and capabilities based on more widely available technologies, including WMD and conventional
weapons. This is leading to a blurring of categories of warfare that may include state and non-state actors and encompass intrastate, trans-state, and inter-state armed conflict as well as hybrid threats. Second, some of these actors subscribe to ideologies and goals that welcome martyrdom. This raises many questions about dissuasion and deterrence and the need to think of twenty-first-century deterrence based on offensive and defensive strategies and capabilities. Third, given the sheer numbers of actors capable of challenging the United States and their unprecedented capabilities, the opportunity for asymmetric operations against the United States and its allies will grow. The United States will need to work to reduce key areas of vulnerability, including its financial systems, transportation, communications, and energy infrastructures, its food and water

twenty-first-century world contains flashpoints for state-to-state conflict. This includes North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is developing them. In addition, China is developing an impressive array of weaponry which, as the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command stated in congressional testimony, appears designed to challenge U.S. freedom of action in the region and, if necessary, enforce Chinas influence over its neighbors including our regional allies and partners weaponry.2 These threats include ballistic missiles,
supply, and its space assets. Fourth, the aircraft, naval forces, cyber capabilities, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and other power-projection capabilities. The global paradigm of the twenty-first century is further complicated by state actors who may supply advanced arms to non-state actors

potential for irregular warfare is rising dramatically with the growth of armed non-state actors. The proliferation of more lethal capabilities, including WMD, to armed non-state actors is a logical projection of present trends. Substantial numbers of fractured,
and terrorist organizations. Fifth, the unstable, and ungoverned states serve as breeding grounds of armed non-state actors who will resort to various forms of violence and coercion based on irregular tactics and formations and who will increasingly have the capabilities to do so. Sixth, the twenty-first-century security setting contains yet another obvious dimension: the permeability of the frontiers of the nation state, rendering domestic populations highly vulnerable to destruction not only by states that can launch missiles but also by terrorists and other transnational groups. As we have seen in recent years, these entities can attack U.S. information systems, creating the possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor. Taken together, these trends show an unprecedented proliferation of actors and advanced capabilities confronting the United States; the resulting need to prepare for high-end and low-end conflict; and the requirement to think of a seamless web of threats and other security challenges extending from overseas to domestic locales. Another way to think about the twenty-first-century security setting, Dr. Pfaltzgraff pointed out, is to develop

scenarios such as the following, which are more illustrative than comprehensive: A nuclear Iran that engages in or supports terrorist operations in a more assertive foreign policy An unstable Pakistan that loses control of its nuclear weapons, which fall into the hands of extremists A Taiwan Straits crisis that escalates to war A nuclear North
Korea that escalates tensions on the Korean peninsula

What all of these have in common is the indispensable role that airpower would play in U.S. strategy and crisis management . Aerospace key to hegemony Lexington Institute 13

*Public policy think tank, America Is A Superpower Because It Is An Air Power, 1/24, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/142016/air-power-makes-america-asuperpower.html]

There is no question that the United States has the best military in the world. The United States is unique in its ability to project military power to multiple regions of the world simultaneously, conduct multiple major combined and joint operations at a time and both defend the homeland and provide ongoing support to civil agencies. Europe, which spends about sixty percent of the U.S. defense budget and actually has more men and women in uniform, was unable without significant U.S. support to conduct a single, modest campaign in Libya. The U.S. military continues to set the world standard with respect to most major military systems:
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious warfare ships, nuclear attack submarines, strategic bombers, fifth-generation fighters, air and missile defenses, tanks and armored fighting vehicles and space and airborne ISR. Even though we dont talk much about it the militarys cyber warfare capabilities are truly

one thing makes it a 21st Century superpower: its dominance as an air power. The United States alone is capable of deploying its aerial assets anywhere in the world. U.S. air power can hold at risk any target set in any country and can do so from multiple directions. The U.S. Air Force is the only one capable of delivering specially-designed conventional bombs large enough to destroy deeply buried and hardened structures. Over the past two decades, the U.S. military has repeatedly demonstrated that it can destroy an adversarys air force and air defenses in a matter of weeks. After that, hostile ground units were toast. The ability to rapidly seize control of the air means that no soldier has died in an air attack since 1953. Over a decade of wars, American air power from the land and sea provided continual responsive fire support for tactical units on the ground. Other nations have fighters and bombers, although Americas are the best. The U.S. also has the largest and most capable fleets of air transports, refueling aircraft and airborne ISR assets
impressive. While the U.S. has the best ground, naval and amphibious forces in the world, in the world. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force flew soldiers and heavy armor deep into Iraq to seize a critical target, the Haditha Dam. Since 2001, the Air Force has maintained a continuous air bridge to Afghanistan, more than 8,000 miles from CONUS. U.S. C-17 transports are today flying French troops and

The U.S. Navy has a fleet of fixed wing transports, the C-2 Greyhounds, specifically for the purpose of moving parts and people to and from its aircraft carriers. The United States has crafted an ISR and strategic warning capability based on a sophisticated array of satellites, manned platforms and unmanned aerial systems. Dominant air power is about much more than just platforms and weapons. It requires also the trained people and processes to plan and manage air operations, process, exploit and disseminate intelligence, identify targets and plan attacks, move supplies and route transports and repair and maintain complex systems. The U.S. had to send hundreds of targeteers to NATO to support the Libyan operation. Over decades, the U.S. military has developed an unequalled training establishment and set of ranges that ensure the highest quality pilots and other personnel. Finally, the U.S. is the dominant air power in
equipment into Mali. the world because of its aerospace industrial base. Whether it is designing and producing fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35, providing an advanced tanker like the new KC-46 or inventing high-flying unmanned aerial systems like the Global Hawk, the U.S. aerospace industry continues to set the bar. In addition, the private and public parts of the aerospace industrial base, often working together based on collaborative arrangements such as performance-based logistics contracts, is able to move aircraft, weapons and systems through the nationwide system of depots, Air Logistics Centers and other facilities at a rate unmatched by

any other nation. The ability to rapidly repair or overhaul aircraft is itself a force multiplier, providing more aircraft on the flight line to support the warfighters.

The U.S. military can go where it is ordered, respond rapidly to the crisis of the moment, move men, equipment and supplies around the world and dominate any place on the face of the earth as long as it desires because it is dominant in the air. As the Pentagon, Congress and the White House struggle with budget issues that could well require deep cuts to the military, they would be well advised to remember that it is air dominance that enables this country to remain a superpower. The pursuit of hegemony is inevitable, sustainable, and prevents great power war Ikenberry, Brooks, and Wohlforth 13 *Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government
at Dartmouth College, **John Ikenberry is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, **William C. Wohlforth is Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College (Lean Forward: In Defense of American Engagement, January/February 2013, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-and-william-cwohlforth/lean-forward)

Since the end of World War II, the United States has pursued a single grand strategy: deep engagement. In an effort to protect its security and prosperity, the country has promoted a liberal economic order and established close defense ties with partners in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. Its military bases cover the map , its ships patrol transit routes across the globe, and tens of thousands of its troops stand guard in allied countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The details of U.S. foreign policy have differed from administration to administration, including the emphasis placed on democracy promotion and humanitarian goals, but for over 60 years, every president has agreed on the fundamental decision to remain deeply engaged in the world, even as the rationale for that strategy has shifted . During the Cold War, the
United States' security commitments to Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East served primarily to prevent Soviet encroachment into the world's wealthiest and

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the aim has become to make these same regions more secure, and thus less threatening to the United States, and to use these security partnerships to foster the cooperation necessary for a stable and open international order. Now, more than ever, Washington might be tempted to abandon this grand strategy and pull back from the world. The rise of
most resource-rich regions. China is chipping away at the United States' preponderance of power, a budget crisis has put defense spending on the chopping block, and two long wars have left the U.S. military and public exhausted. Indeed, even as most politicians continue to assert their commitment to global leadership, a very different view has taken hold among scholars of international relations over the past decade: that the United States should minimize its overseas military presence, shed its security ties, and

Proponents of retrenchment argue that a globally engaged grand strategy wastes money by subsidizing the defense of well-off allies and generates resentment among foreign populations and governments. A more modest posture, they contend, would put an end to allies' free-riding and defuse anti-American sentiment. Even if allies did not take over every mission
give up its efforts to lead the liberal international order. the United States now performs, most of these roles have nothing to do with U.S. security and only risk entrapping the United States in unnecessary wars. In short,

They are wrong. In making their case, advocates of retrenchment overstate the costs of the current grand strategy and understate its benefits. In fact, the budgetary savings of lowering the United States' international profile are debatable, and there is little evidence to suggest that an internationally engaged America provokes other countries to balance against it, becomes overextended, or gets dragged into unnecessary wars. The benefits of deep engagement, on the other hand, are legion. U.S. security commitments reduce competition in key regions and act as a check against potential rivals. They help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in economic negotiations. And they make it easier for the United States to secure cooperation for combating a wide range of global threats. Were the United States to cede its global leadership role, it would forgo these proven upsides while exposing itself to the unprecedented downsides of a world in which the country was less secure, prosperous, and influential. AN AFFORDABLE STRATEGY Many advocates of retrenchment consider the United States' assertive global posture simply too expensive. The international relations scholar Christopher Layne, for example,
those in this camp maintain that pulling back would not only save blood and treasure but also make the United States more secure. has warned of the country's "ballooning budget deficits" and argued that "its strategic commitments exceed the resources available to support them."

Calculating the savings of switching grand strategies, however, is not so simple, because it depends on the expenditures the current strategy demands and the amount required for its replacement numbers that are hard to pin down. If the United States revoked all its security guarantees,
brought home all its troops, shrank every branch of the military, and slashed its nuclear arsenal, it would save around $900 billion over ten years, according to Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan of the Cato Institute. But few advocates of retrenchment endorse such a radical reduction; instead, most call for "restraint," an "offshore balancing" strategy, or an "over the horizon" military posture. The savings these approaches would yield are less clear, since they depend on which

If retrenchment simply meant shipping foreign-based U.S. forces back to the United States, then the savings would be modest at best, since the countries hosting U.S. forces usually cover a large portion of the basing costs. And if it meant maintaining a major expeditionary capacity, then any savings would again be small, since the Pentagon would still have to pay for the expensive weaponry and equipment required for projecting power abroad . The other side of
security commitments Washington would abandon outright and how much it would cost to keep the remaining ones. the cost equation, the price of continued engagement, is also in flux. Although the fat defense budgets of the past decade make an easy target for advocates of retrenchment, such

high levels of spending aren't needed to maintain an engaged global posture .

Spending skyrocketed after 9/11, but it has already begun to fall back to earth as the United States winds down its two costly wars and trims its base level of nonwar spending. As of the fall of 2012, the Defense Department was planning for cuts of just under $500 billion over the next five years, which it maintains will not compromise national security. These reductions would lower military spending to a little less than three percent of GDP by 2017, from its current level of 4.5

Even without major budget cuts, however, the country can afford the costs of its ambitious grand strategy.
percent. The Pentagon could save even more with no ill effects by reforming its procurement practices and compensation policies. The significant increases in military spending proposed by Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, during the 2012 presidential campaign would still have kept military spending below its current share of GDP, since spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have gone down and Romney's proposed nonwar spending levels would not have kept pace with economic growth. Small wonder, then, that the case for pulling back rests more on the nonmonetary costs that the

One such alleged cost of the current grand strategy is that, in the words of the political scientist Barry Posen, it "prompts states to balance against U.S. power however
current strategy supposedly incurs. UNBALANCED

there is no evidence that countries have banded together in anti-American alliances or tried to match the United States' military capacity on their own or that they will do so in the future. Indeed, it's hard to see how the current grand strategy could generate true counterbalancing. Unlike past hegemons, the U nited States is geographically isolated, which means that it is far less threatening to other major states and that it faces no contiguous great-power rivals that could step up to the task of balancing against it. Moreover, any competitor would have a hard time matching the U.S. military. Not only is the United States so far ahead militarily in both quantitative and qualitative terms, but its security guarantees also give it the leverage to prevent allies from giving military technology to potential U.S. rivals. Because the United States dominates the high-end defense industry, it can trade access to its defense market for allies' agreement not to transfer key military technologies to its competitors. The embargo that the United States has convinced the EU to maintain on military sales to China since 1989 is a case in point. If U.S. global leadership were prompting balancing, then one would expect actual examples of pushback especially during the administration of George W. Bush, who pursued a foreign policy that seemed particularly unilateral. Yet since the Soviet Union collapsed, no major powers have tried to balance against the United States by seeking to match its military might or by assembling a formidable alliance; the prospect is simply too daunting. Instead, they have resorted to what scholars call "soft balancing," using international institutions and norms to constrain Washington. Setting aside the fact that soft balancing is a slippery concept and difficult to distinguish from everyday diplomatic competition, it is wrong to say that the practice only harms the United States. Arguably, as the global leader, the United States benefits from employing soft-balancing-style leverage more than any other country.
they can." Yet After all, today's rules and institutions came about under its auspices and largely reflect its interests, and so they are in fact tailor-made for soft balancing by the United States itself. In 2011, for example, Washington coordinated action with several Southeast Asian states to oppose Beijing's claims in the South China Sea by

Another argument for retrenchment holds that the United States will fall prey to the same fate as past hegemons and accelerate its own decline . In order to keep its ambitious strategy in place, the logic goes, the country will have to divert resources away from more productive purposes infrastructure, education, scientific research, and so on that are necessary to keep its economy competitive. Allies, meanwhile, can get away with lower military expenditures and grow faster than they otherwise would. The historical evidence for this phenomenon is thin; for the most part, past superpowers lost their leadership not because they pursued hegemony but because other major powers balanced against them a prospect that is not in the cards today. (If anything, leading states can use their position to stave off their decline.) A bigger problem with the warnings against "imperial overstretch" is that there is no reason to believe that the pursuit of global leadership saps economic growth. Instead, most studies by economists find no clear relationship between military expenditures and economic decline. To be sure, if the United States were a dramatic
pointing to established international law and norms.
outlier and spent around a quarter of its GDP on defense, as the Soviet Union did in its last decades, its growth and competitiveness would suffer. But in 2012, even as it fought a war in Afghanistan and conducted counterterrorism operations around the globe, Washington spent just 4.5 percent of GDP on defense a relatively small fraction, historically speaking. (From 1950 to 1990, that figure averaged 7.6 percent.) Recent economic difficulties might prompt Washington to reevaluate its defense budgets and international commitments, but that does not mean

that those policies caused the downturn. And any money freed up from dropping global commitments would not necessarily be spent in ways that would help the U.S. economy. Likewise, U.S. allies' economic growth rates have nothing to do with any security subsidies they receive from Washington. The contention that lower military expenditures facilitated the rise of Japan, West Germany, and other countries dependent on U.S. defense guarantees may have seemed plausible during the last bout of declinist anxiety, in the 1980s. But these states eventually stopped climbing up the global economic ranks as their per capita wealth approached U.S. levels -- just as standard models of economic growth would predict. Over the past 20 years, the United States has maintained its lead in per capita GDP over its European allies and Japan, even as those countries' defense efforts have fallen further behind. Their failure to modernize their militaries has only served to entrench the United States' dominance. LED NOT INTO TEMPTATION The costs of U.S. foreign policy that matter most, of course, are human lives, and

critics of an expansive grand strategy worry that the United States might get dragged into unnecessary wars. Securing smaller allies, they argue, emboldens those states to take risks they would not otherwise accept, pulling the superpower
sponsor into costly conflicts -- a classic moral hazard problem. Concerned about the reputational costs of failing to honor the country's alliance commitments, U.S.

History shows, however, that great powers anticipate the danger of entrapment and structure their agreements to protect themselves from it. It is nearly impossible to find a clear case of a smaller power luring a reluctant great power into war. For decades, World War I served as the canonical example of entangling alliances supposedly drawing great powers into a fight, but an outpouring of new historical research has overturned the conventional wisdom, revealing that the war was more the result of a conscious decision on Germany's part to try to dominate Europe than a case of alliance entrapment. If anything, alliances reduce the risk of getting pulled into a conflict. In East Asia, the regional security agreements that Washington struck
leaders might go to war even when no national interests are at stake. after World War II were designed, in the words of the political scientist Victor Cha, to "constrain anticommunist allies in the region that might engage in aggressive behavior against adversaries that could entrap the United States in an unwanted larger war." The same logic is now at play in the U.S.-Taiwanese relationship. After cross-strait tensions flared in the 1990s and the first decade of this century, U.S. officials grew concerned that their ambiguous support for Taiwan might expose them to the risk of entrapment. So the Bush administration adjusted its policy, clarifying that its goal was to not only deter China from an unprovoked attack but also deter Taiwan from unilateral moves toward independence. For many advocates of retrenchment, the problem is that the mere possession of globe-girdling military capabilities supposedly inflates policymakers' conception of the national interest, so much so that every foreign problem begins to look like America's to

Critics also argue that the country's military superiority causes it to seek total solutions to security problems, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, that could be dealt with in less costly ways. Only a country that possessed such awesome military
solve. power and faced no serious geopolitical rival would fail to be satisfied with partial fixes, such as containment, and instead embark on wild schemes of democracy

they contend, the United States' outsized military creates a sense of obligation to do something with it even when no U.S. interests are at stake. As Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the un,
building, the argument goes. Furthermore, famously asked Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when debating intervention in Bosnia in 1993, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" If the U.S. military scrapped its forces and shuttered its bases, then the country would no doubt eliminate the risk of entering needless wars, having tied itself to the mast like Ulysses. But if it instead merely moved its forces over the horizon, as is more commonly proposed by advocates of retrenchment, whatever temptations there were to intervene would not disappear. The bigger problem with the idea that a forward posture distorts conceptions of the national interest, however, is that it rests on just one case: Iraq. That war is an outlier in terms of both its high costs (it accounts for some two-thirds of the casualties and budget costs of all U.S. wars since 1990) and the degree to which the United States shouldered them alone. In the Persian Gulf War and the interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, U.S. allies bore more of the burden, controlling for the size of their economies and

the Iraq war was not an inevitable consequence of pursuing the U nited States' existing grand strategy; many scholars and policymakers who prefer an engaged America strongly opposed the war. Likewise, continuing the current grand strategy in no way condemns the United States to more wars like it. Consider how the country, after it lost in Vietnam, waged the rest of the Cold War with proxies and highly limited interventions. Iraq has generated a similar reluctance to undertake large expeditionary operations -- what the political scientist John Mueller has dubbed "the Iraq syndrome." Those contending that the United States' grand strategy ineluctably leads the country into temptation need to present much more evidence before their case can be convincing .
populations. Besides, KEEPING THE PEACE Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of retrenchment claim, they would not be worth

The most obvious benefit of the current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a dangerous conflict. The United States' security commitments deter
bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do.

states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. security guarantees aren't necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity without the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine. If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It's worth noting that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them was the United States, which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations. Similarly, were the United States to leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by Washington notably, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia might act in ways that would intensify the region's security dilemmas. There would even
be reason to worry about Europe. Although it's hard to imagine the return of great-power military competition in a post-American Europe, it's not difficult to foresee governments there refusing to pay the budgetary costs of higher military outlays and the political costs of increasing EU defense cooperation. The result might be a continent incapable of securing itself from threats on its periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders might want European help, and vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. Given how easily

a U.S. withdrawal from key regions could lead

to dangerous competition, advocates of retrenchment tend to put forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't actually
hurt the United States. To be sure, few doubt that the United States could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East but at what cost?

Were states in one or both of these regions to start competing against one another, they would likely boost their military budgets, arm client states, and perhaps even start regional proxy wars, all of which should concern the United States, in part because its lead in military capabilities would narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of nuclear proliferation as powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own. Those countries' regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although
nuclear deterrence can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get

As the number of nuclear powers increases, the probability of illicit transfers, irrational decisions, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up. The case for abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security logic of the current approach. By reassuring allies and actively managing regional relations, Washington dampens competition in the world's key areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy is working, one need look no further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on average, since 1991 they have kept their military expenditures as a percentage of GDP to historic lows, and they have not attempted to match the
shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals with less robust arsenals. United States' top-end military capabilities. Moreover, all of the world's most modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead over its potential

the current grand strategy acts as a hedge against the emergence regional hegemons. Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the U.S. military should keep its forces over the horizon and
rivals is by many measures growing. On top of all this, pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they contend, should deploy forces abroad only when a truly credible contender for regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of Germany and Japan during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Yet there is already a potential contender for regional hegemony -- China -- and to balance it, the United States will need to maintain its key alliances in Asia and the military capacity to intervene there. The implication is that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet that is exactly what the Obama administration is doing . MILITARY DOMINANCE, ECONOMIC PREEMINENCE Preoccupied with security issues, critics of the current grand strategy miss one of its most important benefits: sustaining an open global economy and a favorable place for the United States within it. To be sure, the sheer size of its output would guarantee the United States a major role in the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted. Yet

the

country's military dominance undergirds its economic leadership. In addition to protecting the world economy from instability, its military commitments and naval superiority help secure the sea-lanes and other shipping corridors that allow trade to flow freely and cheaply. Were the United States to pull back from the world, the task of securing the global commons would get much harder. Washington would have less leverage with which it could convince countries to cooperate on economic matters and less access to the military bases throughout the world needed to keep the seas open. A global role also lets the United States structure the world economy in ways that serve its particular economic interests. During the Cold War, Washington used its overseas security commitments to get allies to embrace the economic policies it preferred -- convincing
West Germany in the 1960s, for example, to take costly steps to support the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. U.S. defense agreements work the same way today. For example, when negotiating the 2011 free-trade agreement with South Korea, U.S. officials took advantage of Seoul's desire to use the agreement as a means of tightening its security relations with Washington. As one diplomat explained to us privately, "We asked for changes in labor and environment clauses, in auto clauses, and the Koreans took it all." Why? Because they feared a failed agreement would be "a setback to the political and security relationship." More broadly, the United States wields its security leverage to shape the overall structure of the global economy. Much of what the United States wants from the economic order is more of the same: for instance, it likes the current structure of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund and prefers that free trade continue. Washington wins when U.S. allies favor this status quo, and one reason they are inclined to support the existing system is because they value their military alliances. Japan, to name one example, has shown interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration's most important free-trade initiative in the region, less because its economic interests compel it to do so than because Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda believes that his support will strengthen Japan's security

The United States' geopolitical dominance also helps keep the U.S. dollar in place as the world's reserve currency, which confers enormous benefits on the country, such as a greater ability to borrow money. This is perhaps clearest with Europe: the EU's dependence on the United States for its security
ties with the United States. precludes the EU from having the kind of political leverage to support the euro that the United States has with the dollar. As with other aspects of the global economy, the United States does not provide its leadership for free: it extracts disproportionate gains. Shirking that responsibility would place those benefits at risk. CREATING COOPERATION What goes for the global economy goes for other forms of international cooperation. Here, too, American leadership benefits many

In order to counter transnational threats, such as terrorism, piracy, organized crime, climate change, and pandemics, states have to work together and take collective action. But cooperation does not come about effortlessly, especially when national interests diverge. The United States' military efforts to promote stability and its broader leadership make it easier for Washington to launch joint initiatives and shape them in ways that reflect U.S. interests. After all, cooperation is hard to come by in regions where chaos reigns, and it flourishes where leaders can anticipate lasting stability. U.S. alliances are about security first, but they also provide the political framework and channels of communication for cooperation on nonmilitary issues. NATO, for example, has spawned new institutions, such as the
countries but disproportionately helps the United States. Atlantic Council, a think tank, that make it easier for Americans and Europeans to talk to one another and do business. Likewise, consultations with allies in East Asia spill over into other policy issues; for example, when American diplomats travel to Seoul to manage the military alliance, they also end up discussing the Trans-

Thanks to conduits such as this, the United States can use bargaining chips in one issue area to make progress in others. The benefits of these communication channels are especially pronounced when it comes to fighting the kinds of threats that require
Pacific Partnership.

new forms of cooperation, such as terrorism and pandemics. With its alliance system in place, the United States is in a stronger position than it would otherwise be to advance cooperation and share burdens. For example, the intelligence-sharing network within NATO, which was originally designed to gather information on the Soviet Union, has been adapted to deal with terrorism. Similarly, after a tsunami in the Indian Ocean devastated surrounding countries in 2004,
Washington had a much easier time orchestrating a fast humanitarian response with Australia, India, and Japan, since their militaries were already comfortable

The United States' global role also has the more direct effect of facilitating the bargains among governments that get cooperation going in the first place. As the scholar Joseph Nye has written, "The American military role in deterring threats to allies, or
working with one another. The operation did wonders for the United States' image in the region. of assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the Persian Gulf, means that the provision of protective force can be used in bargaining situations. Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not mentioned openly but present in the back of statesmen's minds." THE DEVIL WE KNOW Should America come home? For many prominent scholars of international relations, the answer is yes -- a view that seems even wiser in the wake of the disaster in Iraq and the

There is little evidence that the United States would save much money switching to a smaller global posture. Nor is the current strategy self-defeating: it has not provoked the formation of counterbalancing coalitions or caused the country to spend itself into economic decline. Nor will it condemn the United States to foolhardy wars in the future. What the strategy does do is help prevent the outbreak of conflict in the world's most important regions, keep the global economy humming, and make international cooperation easier. Charting a different course would threaten all these benefits. This is not to say that the United States' current foreign policy
Great Recession. Yet their arguments simply don't hold up. can't be adapted to new circumstances and challenges. Washington does not need to retain every commitment at all costs, and there is nothing wrong with rejiggering its strategy in response to new opportunities or setbacks. That is what the Nixon administration did by winding down the Vietnam War and increasing the United States' reliance on regional partners to contain Soviet power, and it is what the Obama administration has been doing after the Iraq war by pivoting to

A grand strategy of actively managing global security and promoting the liberal economic order has served the United States exceptionally well for the past six decades, and there is no reason to give it up now. The country's globe-spanning posture is the devil we know, and a world with a disengaged America is the devil we don't know. Were American leaders to choose retrenchment, they would in essence be running a massive experiment to test how the world would work without an engaged and liberal leading power. The results could well be disastrous.
Asia. These episodes of rebalancing belie the argument that a powerful and internationally engaged America cannot tailor its policies to a changing world.

Decline causes lashout and collapses global trademakes transnational problems inevitable Beckley 12
Michael, Assistant professor of political science at Tufts, research fellow in the International Security Program at Harvard Kennedy School's. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, The Unipolar Era: Why American Power Persists and Chinas Rise Is Limited, PhD dissertation One danger is that declinism could prompt trade conflicts and immigration restrictions. The results of this study suggest that the United States benefits immensely from the free flow

of goods, services, and people around the globe; this is what allows American corporations to specialize in high--value activities, exploit innovations created elsewhere, and lure the brightest minds to the United States, all while reducing the price of goods for U.S. consumers. Characterizing Chinas export expansion as a loss for the United States is not just bad economics; it blazes a trail for jingoistic and protectionist policies. It
would be tragically ironic if Americans reacted to false prophecies of decline by cutting themselves off from a potentially vital source of American power. Another danger is that declinism may impair

foreign policy decision--making. If top government officials come to believe that China is overtaking the United States, they are likely to react in one of two ways, both of which are potentially disastrous. The first is that policymakers may imagine the United States faces a closing window of opportunity and should take action while it still enjoys preponderance and not wait until the diffusion of power has already made international politics more competitive and unpredictable.315 This belief may spur positive action, but it also invites parochial thinking, reckless behavior, and preventive war.316 As Robert
Gilpin and others have shown, hegemonic struggles have most frequently been triggered by fears of ultimate decline and the perceived erosion of power.317 By fanning such fears, declinists may

inadvertently promote the type of violent overreaction that they seek to prevent. The other potential reaction is retrenchment the divestment of all foreign policy obligations save those linked to vital interests, defined in a narrow and national manner. Advocates of retrenchment assume, or hope, that the world will sort itself out on its own; that whatever replaces American hegemony, whether it be a return to balance--of--power politics or a transition to a post--power paradise, will naturally maintain international order and prosperity. But order and prosperity are unnatural. They can never be presumed. When achieved, they are the result of determined action by powerful actors and, in particular, by the most powerful actor, which is, and will be for some time, the United States. Arms buildups, insecure sea--lanes, and closed markets are only the most obvious risks of U.S. retrenchment. Less obvious are transnational problems, such as global warming, water scarcity, and disease, which may fester without a leader to rally collective action. Mexican economic collapse causes instability Barnes 11 (4/29/11, Joe, Bonner Means Baker Fellow James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
Rice University, Oil and U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Relations, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pubBarnesBilateral-04292011.pdf)

There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability in Mexico. As noted, the country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the Mexican government eventually succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be expensive, bloody, and corrosive in terms of human rights. A period of feeble economic growth, combined with a fiscal crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex, could create a perfect storm south of the border. If this were to occur, Washington would have no choice but to respond. In the longer-term, the United States has a clear interest in robust economic growth and fiscal sustainability in Mexico. There is at
least one major example of the U.S. coming to Mexicos aid in an economic emergency. In 1994, the United States extended US$20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico when the peso collapsed, in large part to make U.S. creditors whole. Not least, a healthy Mexican economy would reduce the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. To the extent that prospects for such growth and sustainability are enhanced by reform of Pemex, the United States should be supportive. It might be best, in terms of U.S. economic and commercial interests, were Pemex to be fully privatized, but even partial reforms would be welcome. Not all national oil companies are created equal: Pemexs development into something like Norways Statol would mark an important improvement.

That tanks the global economy Rangel 95, Enrique Rangel, fellow at the Monterrey Bureau, Pressure on the Peso, November 28th,
1995, from The Dallas Morning News, lexis
All year long, thousands of

foreign investors have nervously watched Mexicos volatile financial

markets as the Clinton administration and congressional leaders debated the pros and cons of bailing out a battered currency. With the exception of 1982 when Mexico defaulted on its foreign debt and a handful of giant New York banks worried they would lose billions of dollars in loans - few people abroad ever cared about a weak peso. But now its different, experts say. This time, the world is keeping a close eye on Mexicos unfolding financial crisis for one simple reason: Mexico is a major international player. If its economy were to collapse, it would drag down a few other countries and thousands of foreign investors. If recovery is prolonged, the world economy will feel the slowdown. It took a peso devaluation so that other countries could notice the key role that Mexico plays in todays global economy, said economist Victor Lopez Villafane of the Monterrey Institute of Technology. I hate to say it, but if Mexico were to default on its debts, that would trigger an international financial collapse not seen since the Great Depression, said Dr. Lopez, who has conducted comparative studies of the Mexican economy and the economies of some Asian and Latin American countries. Thats why its in the best interests of the United States and the industrialized world to help Mexico weather its economic crisis, he said. The crisis began last December when the Mexican government devalued the currency. Last March,
after weeks of debate, President Clinton, the International Monetary Fund and a handful of other countries and international agencies put together a $ 53 billion rescue package for Mexico. But despite the help - $ 20 billion in guarantee loans from the United States - Mexicos financial markets have been volatile for most of the year. The peso is now trading at about 7.70 to the dollar, after falling to an all-time low of 8.30 to the dollar Nov. 9. The road has been bumpy, and that has

No country understands better the importance of Mexico to the global economy than the United States, said Jorge Gonzalez Davila, an economist at Trinity University in San Antonio. Despite the rhetoric that you hear in Washington, I think that most people agree - even those who oppose any aid to Mexico - that when Mexico sneezes, everybody catches a cold, Mr. Gonzalez said. Thats why nowadays any talk of aid to Mexico or trade with Mexico
made many - particularly U.S. investors - nervous.

gets a lot of attention, he said. Most economists, analysts and business leaders on both sides of the border agree that the biggest impact abroad
of a prolonged Mexican fiscal crisis may be on the U.S. economy, especially in Texas and in cities bordering Mexico.

Global economic decline causes nuclear war Auslin 9

(Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187) What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a

year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even
apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone

a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually

know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a

big bang.

1AC US-EU Relations Advantage

Contention 2 is US-EU ties Negotiations with Mexico are necessary to the success of TTIP Knigge 2/26/13 (Michael, EU-US trade deal is 'unique opportunity', DW, http://www.dw.de/eu-ustrade-deal-is-unique-opportunity/a-16584523?maca=en-rss-en-top-1022-rdf)//javi

Experts are skeptical as to whether such an agreement can ever be reached. They point to similar visions of free, transatlantic trade from the past that fizzled out in the political
chambers of Washington and Brussels. After the multi-year and ultimately fruitless worldwide trade deal called the Doha Development Agenda failed in 2008, Washington is also tired of endless discussion. In order to gauge the seriousness of Europeans on the matter, the Obama administration has recently been anxious for a clear signal from Brussels. Yet even if the EU and US begin

negotiations in the coming months, success is anything but assured.

Negotiators from both the US government and the EU Commission will not be free to negotiate as they please. Without the ultimate approval of US Congress and the EU Parliament, there will be

no agreement. Other countries, such as Turkey, which has a customs agreement with the EU, or Canada and Mexico, which are linked to US trade through NAFTA, will at the very least have to play an informal role in future negotiations. TTIP failure hurts US-EU trade ties and relations Llana 7/8/13 (Sara Miller, Will US-EU trade talks spur growth - or show globalization's limits?, CSM,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0708/Will-US-EU-trade-talks-spur-growth-or-showglobalization-s-limits)//javi 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 debtstricken Europe that has seen record high unemployment at 12.2 percent. The two already invest
nearly $4 trillion in each others economies, according to US statistics, which translates into 7 million jobs. Its 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 dont 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 its still early days. But its 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. Its not a little issue. Its 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 XavierBender 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 its 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.

EU says yes COG 3/3/08 (Bob Thiel, A Combined EU & North American Trade Block Coming?, Church of God
News, http://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/a-combined-eu-north-american-trade-blockcoming/)//javi Fifty-five U.S. Senators and Congressmen currently serve as advisors to a working group for the Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union. An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration. The idea of this union came to light in April 2007, when President Bush, German Chancellor Merkel, and European Commission President Barroso launched the Transatlantic Economic Council. Efforts are already underway to create a

North American Community, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada. This community is to be
based on security and economic issues and is intended to be in place by 2010 (WorldNetDaily.com, July 20, 2005; September 25, 2006). The Transatlantic Common Market is intended to combine the North American Community with the EU, creating the worlds most formidable trade bloca trade bloc

that would be so large that its trading policies would automatically become policies for the world. Plans for this new common market are proceeding and are intended to pass through in a treaty form, much like the most recent EU Treaty, in order to avoid the scrutiny and
debate that often come with more formal agreements (January 16, 2008). Revelation 18 warns of a future Beast, known as Babylon the Great, through which the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury (v. 3). I have been expecting such a development for some time. And today, I would like to explain what I have believed for over 20 years will most likely happen with the above proposed trade block. Negotiations will continue and some type of loose agreements

will happen. In the spirit of accommodation and personal interest, many of the standards of the European Union will be adopted by the USA, Canada and Mexico, as well as by nearly all of
the countries of the world. The Arab nations will most likely agree with many of the standards as they seem to be destined to form a brief end-time alliance with the Europeans (The Arab World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy).

US-EU relations solve nuclear war

John S. Duffield 94, analyst, NATOs Functions After the Cold War, POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY v. 109 n. 5, Winter 1994, pp. 753-787, ASP. Above all, NATO pessimists overlooked the valuable intra-alliance functions that the

alliance has always performed and that remain relevant after the cold war. Most importantly, NATO has helped stabilize Western Europe, whose states had often been bitter rivals in the past. By damping the security dilemma and providing an institutional mechanism for the development of common security policies, NATO has contributed to making the use of force in relations among the countries of the region virtually inconceivable. In all these ways, NATO clearly serves the interests of its European members. But even the United States has a significant stake in preserving a peaceful and prosperous Europe. In addition to strong transatlantic historical and cultural ties, American economic interests in Europe - as a leading market for U.S. products, as a source of valuable imports, and as the host for considerable direct foreign investment by American companies - remain substantial. If history is any guide, moreover, the United States could easily be drawn into a future major war in Europe, the consequences of which would likely be even more devastating than those of the past, given the existence of nuclear weapons.(11) Decline in US-EU relations causes Protectionism
C. Fred Bergsten 99, Director, Institute for International Economics, America and Europe: Clash of the Titans? FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. 78 n. 2, March/April 1999, p. 20+, LN.

Both sides now run the risk of drift and even paralysis in transatlantic trade policy -- with potentially severe repercussions for the rest of the world. A slide into protectionism or even a failure to continue opening new markets would have a major impact on the global trading system. Could we then expect Asian economies, who depend on expanded exports to emerge
from their deep recessions, to keep their own markets open? Would the transition economies in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia stick to their liberalization strategies? With the

backlash against globalization already evident everywhere, the ominous inward-looking protectionist and nationalistic policies that the world has rejected so decisively could reemerge once again. A failure of transatlantic leadership would make such policy reversals particularly likely. The United States and the EU are the only economic superpowers and the only two regions enjoying reasonable economic growth. They
created the GATT system and, more recently, the WTO. Despite their own occasional transgressions,

they have nurtured and defended the system throughout its evolution over the past 50 years. While Japan has been important on a few issues and the developing countries played an encouraging role in the Uruguay Round, the Atlantic powers built and sustained the world trade order. Their

failure to maintain that commitment would devastate the entire regime. Extinction Panzer 8 (Michael J., Faculty New York Institute of Finance, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your
Future from Economic Collapse, p. 137-138)

The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as
factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such

tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling
list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientists at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists

employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.

US-EU relations key to allowing negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program Kerr 5 (Paul, "Iran-EU Nuclear Negotiations Begin", Arms Control Today, January/February,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_01-02/Iran_EU)

Washington has repeatedly pushed for resolutions that take a harder line on Iran at past board meetings but has failed to persuade the other board members to agree. The United States also continues to express concern that Iran is pursuing covert nuclear activities. U.S.
Ambassador Jackie Sanders told the IAEA board Nov. 29 that Washington wants Iran immediately to provide access to Irans Parchin military complex, which U.S. officials believe might have facilities

that could be used to test conventional high explosives for use in an implosion-type nuclear weapon. The IAEA has not yet received permission to visit, the State Department official said
Dec. 16. (See ACT, October 2004.) Washington failed to persuade the board to adopt language giving the IAEA expanded authority to inspect Iranian facilities. Instead, the November resolution requests that Iran provide any access deemed necessary by the Agency in accordance with Irans additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement. Safeguards agreements require states-parties to the

nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow the IAEA to monitor their declared civilian nuclear activities to ensure that they are not diverted to military use. Additional protocols augment the agencys authority to detect clandestine nuclear activities, but there are limits to the agencys ability to inspect military facilities. Tehran has signed an
additional protocol and has agreed to abide by its provisions until Irans parliament ratifies the agreement. On the trade front, Washingtons lack of enthusiasm for engagement with Iran

could also complicate the negotiations. The suspension agreement states that the Europeans will actively support the opening of Iranian accession negotiations at the
World Trade Organization (WTO). A State Department official told Arms Control Today Dec. 20 that the

Europeans wanted a WTO General Council meeting earlier in the month to call for negotiations to begin, but the U.S. delegation said that Washington is not ready to move forward on the matter. U.S. support is necessary because the WTO makes decisions by consensus. Iran proliferation causes nuclear confrontation and instability in the region nuclear balancing Kroenig 2/22/12 Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University and a Stanton Nuclear
Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, author of Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons (Matthew, What Will Iran Do If It Gets a Nuclear Bomb?, The Atlantic,

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/what-will-iran-do-if-it-gets-a-nuclearbomb/253430/)//javi

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to international peace and security. It would lead to further nuclear proliferation as other countries in the region sought nuclear weapons in response. As I discuss in Exporting the Bomb, a nuclear Iran would likely become a nuclear supplier and transfer uranium enrichment technology--the basis for dangerous nuclear programs--to U.S. enemies in regions around the world. Iran currently restrains its foreign policy for fear of U.S. military retaliation, but with a nuclear counterdeterrent it would be emboldened to push harder, stepping up support for terrorist groups, brandishing nuclear weapons for coercive purposes, and adopting a more aggressive foreign policy. A nuclear Iran could constrain U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East by threatening nuclear war in response to major U.S. initiatives in the region. A more aggressive Iran would lead to an even more crisis-prone region, and any crisis involving a nuclear-armed Iran could spiral out of control and result in a nuclear war against Israel or even, once Iran has developed the requisite delivery vehicles, the U.S. homeland. In sum, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a severe threat that Washington would have to live with as long as Iran exists as a state and has nuclear weapons, which could be
decades or even longer.

1AC Plans
Explanation The basic idea is to include Mexico in TPIP negotiations. Versions of the plan all mean the same thing but are worded differently for topicality reasons. There is no real reason to choose between Mexico and the United Mexican States, but we wrote two versions of each plan so that students could choose. This wont matter for the camp tournament, but it might matter during the season when Word PICs are something to think about. The best plan is probably the simplest #1. The second best plan is probably the other simplest #3. The choice about which one to read should be decided based on topicality and the affirmatives angle against the EU invite Mexico to the talks counterplan. 1. The United States federal government should invite the United Mexican States to participate in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations. 2. The United States federal government should invite the United Mexican States to participate in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with the European Union. 3. The United States federal government should provide the United Mexican States with a guarantee that the United States will represent their interests during negotiations over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 4. The United States federal government should provide the United Mexican States with a guarantee that the United States will represent their interests during negotiations over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union. 5. The United States federal government should include the United Mexican States in trade negotiations with the European Union. 6. The United States federal government should invite Mexico to participate in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations.

7. The United States federal government should invite Mexico to participate in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with the European Union. 8. The United States federal government should provide Mexico with a guarantee that the United States will represent their interests during negotiations over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 9. The United States federal government should provide Mexico with a guarantee that the United States will represent their interests during negotiations over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union. 10. The United States federal government should include Mexico in trade negotiations with the European Union.

1AC Solvency
Contention 3 is Solvency US should invite Mexico to EU-US partnership Siekierski 3/15/13 (BJ, Is Mexico looking for NAFTA-EU trade talks?, iPolitics,
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/03/15/is-mexico-looking-for-nafta-eu-trade-talks/)//javi It seems really logical to us that this be a trilateral negotiation and that Mexico join, Minister Guajardo was quoted as saying, in Spanish, by a prominent Mexican business newspaper, El Financiero, Wednesday. Though Mexico already has an agreement with the European Union

which came into force in 2000 the El Financiero article says Mexican and European authorities have agreed to strengthen it. Rather than negotiate simultaneously with the Americans, therefore, the idea would be to bring both negotiations under one roof. And
since Canada is a fellow NAFTA partner, common sense would dictate Canadian involvement as well.

With the EU and U.S. aiming to begin their Transatlantic talks in June, Guajardo indicated that Mexico would be formally petitioning the EU President and Barack Obama to make it a NAFTA-EU negotiation, El Financiero reported. Promising Mexico solves international trade ties and Mexicos interest in being included Meacham 7/25/13 director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Tania Miranda, intern scholar with the CSIS Americas Program, provided research assistance (Carl, The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Mexico Wants InWhy Not?, CSIS, http://csis.org/publication/trans-atlantic-trade-and-investmentpartnership-mexico-wants-why-not)//javi Under this broad umbrella, there has been one question increasingly posed by policymakers in the Western Hemisphere and the private sector alike: why isnt Mexico part of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations?and the ambassador affirmed Mexicos firm

support for the countrys inclusion. The negotiations for the TTIP, the long awaited free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and the European Union (EU), launched two weeks ago. Though the start of the talks were initially marred by intense political tensions caused by the recent revelations of U.S. global espionage operations, both parties decided to move forward, given how much both stand to benefit from the agreement.
The agreement aims to remove existing trade barriers on a variety of economic sectors between the EU and the United States in order to promote investment flows, facilitate commerce, and boost economic growth and job creation on both sides of the Atlantic. If the negotiations are successful, the TTIP will be

the biggest trade agreement in history, encompassing 40 percent of global output. Yet, while Mexico is

a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), remains among the United States' top three trade partners, and already has an FTA with the E uropean Union to build upon, it remains on the negotiating sidelines. And in recent talks at CSIS, including by the National Security Councils Latin America head as well as the EUs manager for the Americas, there does not appear to be much interest in including Mexico in talks that are, admittedly, already complex. But if both the United States and the EU are looking to foster economic growth and employment through trade liberalization, why not transform these EU-U.S. talks into an EU-U.S.-Mexico agreement? Q1: What does the Mexican economy look like today? What free
trade agreements does the country already belong to? A1: While much of the focus on Mexico from the United States remains on security and immigration, it is the country's increasing competitiveness

and economic liberalization that merit attention. Mexico, Latin America's second largest
economy, is currently a member of 12 different FTAs involving 44 other nations, making it among the most open of the world's leading economies. In 2011, a full third of Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) was comprised of exports and imports. In contrast, just 15 percent of U.S. GDP was derived from the same. Mexico's extensive network of FTAs includes most of the Western Hemisphere, Israel, and Japan. It also belongs to an economic partnership with the European Union (enacted in 2000) and to NAFTAthe world's largest FTA to date, with a combined GDP of $17 trillion linking 450 million people. Last year, Mexico joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, a high-standard FTA among a number of Pacific Rim countries that remains in the works. It is also a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI), and the emerging Pacific Alliance, a free trade and integration effort that hopes to become the commercial bridge between the Americas and the Asia Pacific region. Mexico alone is a bigger market for the United States than all the BRIC economies combined, and growing opportunities for trade and investment in the economy solidify this status moving forward. Q2: Why has Mexico been excluded from TTIP negotiations to date? A2: While Mexico's recent economic growth has proven impressive, entering

the TTIP would provide a meaningful surge for the Mexican economy, potentially propelling it into the proverbial big leagues. Mexico's interest in being included in the agreement is no secret, but both the United States and the European Union have ignored the petition, claiming inopportune political circumstances. The reasoning here is
twofold. First, given the years of encouragement that preceded the formal start of EU-U.S. negotiations, neither party wishes to jeopardize what could be the biggest FTA in history by bringing more participants on board--regardless of the value their inclusion adds. Leaders from both the United States and the EU think this would bring a long and burdensome political process that could prove detrimental for the negotiations. And though both have shied away from anything that might complicate the process of reaching an initial agreement, neither has rejected the idea of accepting more members down the road, once the agreement is consolidated. The second argument is more of a corollary to the first. At his talk with the Americas Program last week, Christian Leffler, the EUs managing director for the Americas,

explained that because Mexico already shares FTAs with the United States and the EU, including Mexico in the TTIP can be seen as superfluousat least for now. Particularly given the drag additional parties could put on negotiations, the benefits of including Mexico, so the argument goes, fail to outweigh the potential costs. Q3: Why should Mexico be included in the ongoing TTIP negotiations? A3: In simplest terms, all three parties stand to gain from including Mexico in the TTIP negotiations. While Mexico does have standing trade agreements with the United States and the European Union, both are seen as outdated. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht called for the modernization of the current Mexico-EU agreement last November, and NAFTA modernization including the energy and telecommunications sectors, both of which were excluded when the agreement entered into force nearly 20 years ago, would greatly advance the political and economic interests of the United States. Mexico's stake in

being included the agreement is straightforward. The sheer size of the proposed market, coupled with the added competitiveness Mexico would lose out on should it remain excluded, together provide a compelling rationale for why TTIP membership is in Mexico's interests. It is important for the United States and the EU to remember that Mexico brings a lot to the negotiating table. First, Europe, in dire need of economic reinvigoration and expanded employment, has much to gain from Mexico's liberalized trade with the rest of the world--and its need for foreign direct investment. Second, the U.S.-Mexican economic interdependence implies that indirectly, the more Mexico enhances its global trade relationships, the better off the United States is as well. Finally, because Mexican supply chains are already closely linked to the rest of Latin America and the Asia Pacific region, both the United States and the European Union stand to gain from increased access to those markets as well, and that access could come by means of Mexico's inclusion in the TTIP, given its membership in both the TPP and the Pacific Alliance. Just as NAFTA transformed the relationship between the United States and Mexico, a TTIP that brought our southern neighbor on board could do the same for transatlantic relations. Given its global commercial links, and growing economy and productivity, it makes more sense than ever to bring in one of our
biggest economic partners to the TTIP. Conclusion: Mexico is reemerging as a leading destination for foreign investment given the country's low production costs, proximity to the U.S. market, recent sweeping reforms in key economic sectors (and more expected to come), and emerging economies of scale in high-skilled industries. Engaging in the dynamic free trade opportunities the TTIP

offers will spur North American and transatlantic economic cooperation alike--and strengthen all parties' competitiveness globally. True, including Mexico will likely make negotiations more difficult. But if the United States and European Union think a little more boldly, the economic results would speak for themselves.

US invitation is key to the deal Gabriel 3/26/13 (Dana, Economic Integration: Towards a North America EU Transatlantic Free
Trade Zone, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/economic-integration-towards-a-northamerica-eu-transatlantic-free-trade-zone/5328543)//javi
Pressure is mounting on Canada to finish up a long-delayed trade deal with the EU. Despite outstanding issues that still must be settled, there is a final push to try and complete an agreement

There is the possibility that the U.S.-EU transatlantic trade talks could also include the other NAFTA partners and maybe even other countries. Mexico has already shown interest in joining and if Canada cant put the final touches on their own agreement with the EU, they might also be part of the negotiations. This would facilitate plans for a coming NAFTA-EU free trade zone and the formation of a transatlantic economic union. After almost four years, negotiations between Canada and the European Union (EU) on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are
this summer. If both sides are able to secure a deal, it would lay the groundwork for the proposed U.S.-EU trade pact. bogged down in the final stages. Both sides have missed numerous deadlines to wrap things up. There is uncertainty when or if CETA will even get done. Prime Minister Stephen Harper

He acknowledged that considerable progress towards a free trade deal has already been achieved, but admitted that there are still important issues that need to be resolved before any agreement can be finalized. Harper also explained that it would be to Canadas advantage to sign a deal with
recently tried to boost trade talks. Europe before the U.S. does. He made the comments while meeting with French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who was in Ottawa for an official visit. As part of a joint statement, both leaders said they looked forward to a successful conclusion to CETA negotiations. Before his trip to Canada, Ayrault was sent a letter by civil society groups voicing opposition to CETA and the investor protection chapter that would grant corporations the power to challenge government policies that restrict their profits. There are key issues which remain stumbling blocks and are preventing Canada and the EU from reaching an agreement. Academic researcher and law professor Michael Geist argued that, with the EU the stronger of the two parties, it doesnt see any urgency to compromise. In fact, with a growing number of EU negotiations (including talks with the U.S.), compromise with Canada may undermine its position in more economically important deals. He also laid out different possibilities for the future of CETA. This includes Canada continuing to hold out hope for a compromise which thus far has failed. They could cave to the EU demands, but this might hurt the Conservatives chances in the 2015 election. Geist pointed out another scenario which would involve Canada joining the U.S.-EU talks and CETA being replaced by the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA). He noted, The argument for TAFTA would be that Canada is consolidating its negotiations into major agreements covering the Pacific (TPP) and Atlantic (TAFTA) to ensure that it is part of two potential large trading blocks. The danger with this approach is that Canada becomes a bit player in both negotiations with even less leverage to

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht called on Mexico and the EU to modernize their existing trade agreement. Glyn Moody of techdirt recently reported that Mexico is now looking to join the U.S.-EU transatlantic deal. This would be one way for the EU and Mexico to upgrade trade relations. Moody emphasized that the U.S. strategy is to, make TPP the defining international agreement for the entire Pacific region. TAFTA obviously aims to do the same for the Atlantic. As well as establishing the U.S. as the key link between the giant TPP and TAFTA blocs, this double-headed approach would also isolate the main emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India and above all China. Just like the U.S. dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mexico and Canada could also be a part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks. This would make it a true NAFTA-EU trade bloc-level negotiations. There might be an opportunity for other
promote Canadian interests. During a speech given in November of last year, countries to join as Turkey is also pushing to be included in the trade deal.

Manufacturing

Trade

2ac Mexico trade high

US-Mexico trade high ASCOA 8/1/13 Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate, and
dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere (Reasons why the USMexico border Is critical to the economy, voxxi, http://www.voxxi.com/us-mexico-border-critical-toeconomy/)//javi 1. US-Mexico trade surpasses $1 billion every day, with the vast

majority of bilateral commerce crossing our land border. Mexico is the second largest destination of US goods and services after Canada. In 2012, US exports to Mexico totaled $216 billionmore than US exports to Japan and China combined. Mexico is the United States third largest trading partner. Since NAFTA was signed in 1994, bilateral trade levels have quintupled, reaching $494 billion in 2012. Close to 80 percent of bilateral trade crosses the US-Mexico land border every day.

2ac US depends on Mexico

Mexico is a major trade partner Negroponte 5/2/13 (Diana Villiers, Obamas Mexico Trip: Putting Trade and Investment at the Top
of the Agenda, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/02-obamamexico-trip-trade-investment-negroponte)//javi President Obama recognizes that security is a pervasive problem in the bilateral

relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. But in his April 30 press conference prior to setting out for Mexico, Obama highlighted the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship: A lot of the focus is going to be on economics. Weve spent so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border. We want to see how we can deepen that, how we can improve that and maintain that economic dialogue over a long period of time. Beyond the statistics of expanding trade, what more should the presidents discuss? Total two-way trade reached $494 billion in 2012, which according to Mexican Ambassador Medina-Mora means more than $1.3 billion per day; almost $1 million dollars per minute. In absolute terms, Mexico is Americas third largest trading partner, and in 2012 U.S. exports to Mexico were $216.3 billion.
According to Medina-Mora this is more than the combination of U.S. exports to all the countries with which the United States has a trade agreement in place except for Canada. Surprisingly, it is more than U.S. exports to Japan and China combined, that is $180.6 billion. We agree that exports to Mexico

both maintain and create jobs in the United States. The U.S. government estimates that each additional billion dollars in new exports supports more than 6,000 new jobs. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, almost 6 million U.S. jobs rely on trade with Mexico, the consequence of which is the potential creation of 107,000 new U.S. jobs. Furthermore, individual states benefit from exports to Mexico such as Arizona, California and Texas which hold Mexico as their main export destination. Mexico is also the second destination for exports from
20 other states and is ranked among the top five export destinations for 34 states.

Increased US-Mexico trade integrated their economies ASCOA 8/1/13 Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate, and
dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere (Reasons why the US-

Mexico border Is critical to the economy, Voxxi, http://www.voxxi.com/us-mexico-border-critical-toeconomy/)//javi 3. Key U.S. industries vital to our national economy depend on Mexico . In 2012, the top

US export categories to Mexicomachinery, mineral fuel and oil, vehicles, and plastic added $128 billion to the US economy. The United States and Mexico traded $70 billion in machinery, tools, and equipment in 2009, which were then used to produce other goods to be consumed locally or sold to foreign markets. The production-sharing model of USMexico trade means that cars built in North America cross US bordersboth with Canada and Mexicoat least eight times during production. Even imports from Mexico support US industries, with imported goods comprised of 40 percent US content on average. 4. Mexico is on the rise, with a growing middle class looking to legally cross our southern border to spend tourism dollars in the United States. Over 13 million Mexicans traveled to the United
States in 2010, spending $8.7 billionsecond only to Canadians. Mexico may become the worlds fifth largest economy by 2050, with a higher GDP per capita than all but three European countries. The

border is an important gateway for welcoming Mexican tourists ready to spend their disposable income. From 2007 to 2008, Mexican tourists who entered the United States through land ports of entry spent $2.69 billion in Arizona alone, creating 23,400 direct jobs and 7,000 indirect jobs for Arizonans.

Aerospace

2ac manufacturing solves

Mexican manufacturing is driving aerospace growth labor costs and educated workers NAPS 2013, North American Production Sharing is a company that assists companies to set up and
manage, on an ongoing basis, their own operations in Mexico, June 20 2013, The Future of the Aerospace Industry: Mexico, http://www.napsintl.com/news/index.php/2013/06/20/the-future-of-theaerospace-industry-mexico/, ctc

Expanding production for manufacturing in Mexico is a rapidly growing focus for companies around the world. Over the last decade, Mexico has invested in its infrastructure, education and political agenda to position itself as a large manufacturing competitor. It has gained much of its recognition within the automobile sector, and is continuing to
expand its opportunities to various automakers and auto part manufacturers. Aside from Mexicos notoriety within the auto sector, it also encompasses other growing industries that are being

introduced to manufacturing in Mexico. As 2012 came to close, foreign investors took a closer look at the aerospace industry. This budding industry has become an integral role for manufacturers in Mexico. It, too, has various opportunities for investors. The aerospace industry has become quite popular to investors due to the industrys ideal factors. While low-cost labor is driving the move for manufacturing in Mexico, Mexico also generates a large pool of educated students who often work in various sectors of manufacturing. Students are graduating from some of the best technical schools and
landing careers with much growth opportunity. Mexico becomes a much more attractive proposition as it is equipped with a highly educated, skilled and hardworking pool of graduates entering the workforce. With a strong labor force and low cost location, investors will not only profit from manufacturing in Mexico but also feel comfortable knowing that it is helping shape a vibrant country. By

manufacturing in Mexico, companies are able to maintain full control of their product and grow their business at a comfortable pace.

2ac Mexico aerospace key

Mexico aerospace key Taylor 13 Washington DC-based journalist at The Washington Times and has reported extensively in
Latin America (Guy, Aerospace: An Emerging Mexican Industry, Americas Quarterly, http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/aerospace-emerging-mexican-industry)//javi In Quertaro, Bombardier has made headlines with the recent expansion of its operations, where it is now conducting all of the structural work, as well as a portion of the assembly

work on the Learjet 85, its business jet due out this year. But beyond the Canadian aerospace giants
two-year-old assembly plant, factories that supply it and other assembly plants have grown across

Mexico during the past five years. In 2007, the nation boasted 150 aerospace factories, which exported roughly $2.7 billion worth of mainly low-level airplane parts up the supply chain to the U.S. and Canada. As of 2011, that number had soared to 260 factoriesand is expected to reach 300 aerospace factories by the end of this yearmaking everything from electronic panels to partially assembled engines for shipment directly to the worlds leading original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), including Bombardier, Boeing and Honeywell. Aerospace exports from Mexico reached $4.3 billion in 2011, a 40 percent increase from 2007. With President Enrique Pea Nieto vowing to do everything in his power to accelerate the sectors potential, optimistic government forecasters now say exports may double again by 2015 and hit $12 billion by 2020. Of course, skeptics wonder whether the nations crime rates will frighten away the outside investment that will be required to achieve such growth. The hard-knuckle drug war policies of former President Felipe Caldern
saw some 47,000 Mexicans killed between 2007 and 2012. Still, foreign direct investment in the aerospace sector rose steadily during those years. It topped $1.2 billion in 2010 and is projected to hit $1.4 billion by 2015. Mexico boasts three advantages that make such projections hard to

dispute: a vast labor force willing to work for as low as $4 an hour, a growing number of university-educated engineers, and choice geographic proximity to both the more established aerospace markets and the buying power of the U.S., Canada and, increasingly,
Brazil. What began as an initial push into Mexico by U.S. manufacturers such as General Electric during the years following the 1994 enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement has now emerged as one of the nations most vibrant sectors. With 30,000 Mexicans now employed in aerospace

factories across 16 of the nations 31 states, Mexican government investment in the sector is also growingmost measurably through the establishment of training schools and new
university programs aimed at delivering a future crop of homegrown aerospace workers, plant managers and possibly even designers. The nation graduated more engineers per capita than

Germany in 2012. While the states of Quertaro and Baja California make up the majority of aerospace

production in Mexico, recent developments in Chihuahua City deserve a closer look. Ford Motor Company opened a factory in 1983 and has since built nearly 7 million truck engines. Thirty-six aerospace parts factories have opened in Chihuahua City over the past five years. A recent reporting trip there revealed that the vast majority of the factories are not Mexican-ownedwhich makes Mexicos aerospace market unique in the hemisphere. The downside of this is that the country may be used increasingly for its cheap labor by profit-hungry companies from more established markets. But

the upside finds Mexico emerging as a new center of globalization. A variety of international companies have recently opened new plants in Chihuahua City: U.S.-based
supplier Nordam, which makes everything from airplane windows to cockpit doors; France-based Manior Aerospace, which cuts shiny precision-shaped steel discs that end up on Boeing commercial jets; and Netherlands-based Fokker Technologies. The arrival of other companies appears imminent. More than a dozen vast and neatly demarcated lots surround the recently opened factories east of downtown. Jesus Mesta Delgado, president of Index Chihuahua, the leading business group, explains that the longterm vision is to create a one-stop city. So far it appears to be working. U.S.-based OEMs Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, Textron, and Honeywell have all opened branches in Chihuahua City in the past six years. The situation raises the question of whether the sky may truly be the limit for Mexicos aerospace sector.

2ac Heg solves war

Solves global nuclear wars Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor Russia in Global Affairs, Is a
New Cold War Imminent?, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html) However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the RussiaNATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kievs sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russias strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other centers of power would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly. International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear

strikes between them. Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a
nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.

2ac US key to Mexican manufacturing

Expanding trade ties is key to make Mexican manufacturing hospitable for aerospace businesses and manufacturing key technologies Johnson 12, Tim is a journalist for McClatchy Newspaper, Mexico takes flight as hub for aerospace
industry http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/18/156657/mexico-takes-flight-as-hubfor.html#.UfppmI03uSo#storylink=cpy, 7-18-2012, ctc

Mexico has an edge in human capital. On a per capita basis, it graduates three times more engineers than the United States. Some 30 percent of Mexicos 745,000 university students are
enrolled in engineering and technology fields, and 114,000 of them graduate yearly. Technicians, though, often have to be trained in-house in specialized processes even after receiving training elsewhere. So far, industries with operations in Mexico have focused on assembly of

aircraft structures, precision machining, overhauling engines and landing gear, laying out of electrical systems, and assembly of composite components. There are companies
like Zodiac in Baja California that are putting together interiors of aircraft using composites, said Manuel Sandoval Rios of ProMexico, a trade promotion agency. We are moving into complex

materials such as carbon. Currently, Mexicos aerospace sector employs 31,000 workers. The goal is to have 110,000 jobs in aerospace by 2020, Sandoval said. That compares with some 335,000 jobs in auto manufacturing and auto parts. As the aerospace sector expands, authorities hope to expand the number of foreign and local companies that provide parts. Only a few Mexican companies now manufacture key components. The challenge now, just as it once was in the automotive sector, is to ramp up the supply chain and, when possible, develop national suppliers, Sandoval said. Authorities
encourage Mexican companies to work with specialized metals, like titanium and molybdenum, and develop thermal coatings for aircraft parts. In some cases, auto parts firms made a transition. One of those is Grupo Kuo of Mexico City, only three hours to the south of here. They make auto

transmissions, and they did the design for the Corvette transmission. What we helped them do is create a specialized aerospace division . . . that has grown rapidly and supplies both Safran and Eaton, Sandoval said. The Canadian firm Bombardier, the No. 3 civilian aircraft manufacturer in the world behind Boeing and Airbus, has grown its Mexico operations rapidly. After a worldwide search, it chose Queretaro in 2006 because of its location, low cost of labor and the industrial capabilities of Mexico.

1ar US key to Mexican manufacturing aerospace

US free trade is key to Mexican manufacturing and aerospace Ryder 10 (Mexico Takes Flight, Inbound Logistics, June 2010, http://www.ryder.com/en/supplychain/solutions-byindustry/~/media/Ryder/Files/KnowledgeCenter/WhitePapers/RSC345Mexico%20Takes%20FlightIBLLo wResEprintsingle.pdf)//javi

Among the many attractions that draw aerospace companies to Mexico, the cost of labor is a major factor. Highly skilled workers in Mexicos aerospace industry earn from $5.80 to $7.80 an hour. Mexico is the lowest-cost choice for U.S. companies that outsource manufacturing abroad, surpassing India, China, and Vietnam, according to a report released this year by AlixPartners. Companies can easily ship products and components to Mexico from their plants in the United States or Canada for final assembly, or ship finished products to customers throughout North America. Youre talking hours and days, rather than weeks, for transit
to the United States, says Jim Moore, vice president of sales for the aerospace, automotive and industrials vertical at Ryder Supply Chain Solutions. You can ship on Thursday morning by truck and deliver on Monday. Having targeted aerospace as a strategic growth industry, the Mexican

government is doing its best to make the country an attractive environment for this sector. One of the most important incentives is the maquila system , which has prompted many North American manufacturers, in a variety of industries, to nearshore their production in Mexico. Maquilas are factories that operate in free trade zones. Companies import materials and equipment to those locations without paying taxes or duties, then reexport the finished products. Often, the manufactured goods are
components that are shipped to factories outside Mexico for final assembly in products such as aircraft, automobiles, and computers. But even outside the maquila zones, parts and materials for use

in aerospace manufacturing enjoy special tariff treatment, entering the country dutyfree, says Ricardo Alvarez, director of business development for the aerospace, automotive and
industrials vertical at Ryder Supply Chain Solutions. Also, the value-added tax (VAT) is refundable after five days of the import process, he notes. Mexicos federal and state governments have

established a variety of other tax incentives for the aerospace industry. In fact, from 2006 to 2008a time when Mexico had eliminated incentives for many manufacturing sectors it retained its incentives for aerospace. These included capital equipment grants, help with
infrastructure, real estate grants, and the establishment of an Aerospace Training Center in Quertaro. FEMIA, an association of 48 aerospace manufacturers operating in Mexico, works with the federal and state governments to promote the interests of the industry. One of FEMIAs goals is to develop a National Strategic Aerospace Plan.

2ac key to airpower

Strong aerospace industry key to airpower Lexington Institute 13
*Public policy think tank, America Is A Superpower Because It Is An Air Power, 1/24, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/142016/air-power-makes-america-asuperpower.html]

Finally, the U.S. is the dominant air power in the world because of its aerospace industrial base. Whether it is designing and producing fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35, providing an advanced tanker like the new KC-46 or inventing high-flying unmanned aerial systems like the Global Hawk, the U.S. aerospace industry continues to set the bar . In addition, the private and public parts of the aerospace industrial base, often working together based on collaborative arrangements such as performance-based logistics contracts, is able to move aircraft, weapons and systems through the nationwide system of depots, Air Logistics Centers and other facilities at a rate unmatched by any other nation. The ability to rapidly repair or overhaul aircraft is itself a force multiplier , providing more aircraft on the flight line to support the warfighters.

2ac impact iran prolif

Air power collapse causes Iranian prolif Bartels 9
*Clay, Major, USAF, How The USAF Can Lose The Next War Losing Air Superiority, Aprilhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a540193.pdf]

Iran is another hot spot that could require intervention by the United States. Though Iran currently flies antiquated western aircraft with a mix of Russian technology, reports have been confirmed that Iran has contracted for the advanced SA-20 SAM system.72 With a potentially strong oil market and the desire to assert regional power, Iran is likely to continue upgrading their military defense capabilities throughout the timeframe of the air superiority gap. If Iran obtained a nuclear weapon or if acquiring it was imminent, the international community would require action. For the U.S. in particular, nuclear proliferation is not acceptable because of its destabilizing effect. Depending on the timing of this scenario, it is possible that the U.S. Navy would have the preponderance of firepower in the region. Additionally, it is likely that a more independent Iraq would not allow attacks from their country on neighboring Iran. The fixed wing strike aircraft for the USN consists entirely of F-18 Hornet variants. It does, however, have additional capability via the Tomahawk cruise missile. The issue in this situation becomes that the Navy does not have a true LO strike aircraft until the F-35 is operational. Thus, the potential joint task force could run into the same access issues discussed in the Georgia example. The easy answer to this problem is to utilize Air Force assets, but these land-based forces require basing or over flight assistance. If this is denied, the mobile USN might have to go it alone. Again, this air superiority scenario could end with significant aircraft losses and eventual defeat for the United States. Global nuclear war Sokolsky 3
[Henry, Exec Dir Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Policy Review, 10-1, Lexis]

If nothing is done to shore up U.S. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Similarly, if the U.S. fails to
hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later, perhaps, Taiwan) will have powerful

cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. In such a world, Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile, nuclear, or nearnuclear-armed nations. In addition, it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions, but with more nations like France, with nuclear options of their own, it would be much, much more iffy. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam, Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Just Cause. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would

be spring-loaded to go nuclear

2ac impact Korea

U.S. Airpower prevents Korean conflict Bechtol 5
[Bruce, assistant professor of national security studies at Air Command and staff college, The Future of U.S. airpower on the Korean Peninsula, September 1st http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/air chronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol ]

US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability.
The author details constraints faced by the army of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the ROK. Although much of the surface-based defense capability in the

South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong US airpower presence demonstrates US commitment to Korean security, counterbalances the DPRKs offensive systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has remained one of the dominant military forces on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain
postCold War era that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong Il, the ability of US airpower to serve as a key

pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming
geopolitical landscape and a rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.

Extinction Chol 2
[Director Center for Korean American Peace, 10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html]

Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il.
If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people." The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that

the North

Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class
nuclear power.

2ac impact Russia expansionism

Air superiority checks Russian expansionism Bartels 9
*Clay, Major, USAF, How The USAF Can Lose The Next War Losing Air Superiority, Aprilhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a540193.pdf]

A resurgent Russia flexed her muscles in 2008 by invading a nation friendly to America, Georgia. The conflict was airpower intensive from the beginning. Russia utilized TU-22
bombers and Su-25 attack aircraft under the support of air-to-air Su-27s to rout the Georgian forces.70 Control of the air was not completely undisputed, however, as the Georgian air

defenses did down several Russian aircraft.71 Under different political circumstances such as ethnic cleansing or genocide, the United States could have elected to intervene on behalf of 22 Georgia against the Russian forces. In such a situation, air superiority would have been strongly contested. Russia could have moved advanced mobile SAMs such as the SA-12 or fixed SAMs like the SA-20 to the edge of its border. Such an IADS would have effectively covered the entirety of the nation of Georgia. Against this type of a robust system, legacy aircraft such as the F-15 or F-16 would be completely ineffective. The only survivable systems against this defense are the LO F-22 and B-2. To complicate the problem, there would be significant political constraints involved that would most likely not allow attacking systems inside Russias borders. In this case, it is practically impossible to gain air superiority. The F-22 could destroy enemy aircraft, but advanced SEAD and selfsupport jamming would be essential for legacy aircraft and their robust air-to-ground capability to enter the fight. Unfortunately, the USAF and even the USN do not have such a capability. Thus, if the United States truly wants to project airpower in this scenario aircraft and human losses would have to occur. Furthermore, the Army would be denied key pieces of maneuver and firepower in their helicopter fleet . In the age of the CNN Effect, it is doubtful that the American people would stand for a parade of POWs on Moscow TV or dead bodies in the street. It is a relatively direct train of logic to see how this situation could result in the United States military withdrawing and not accomplishing national objectives. Extinction Israelyan 98

[Victor, Soviet Ambassador and Arms Control Negotiator, Washington Quarterly, Winter, Lexis]

The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many

would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force,
including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's military planners

would shift Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy
toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any

political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian
ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together." n12

2ac impact terror

Air power is critical to an effective war on terrorism RAND 3 (Project Air Force Annual Report,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/annual_reports/2005/AR7089.pdf)

Counterterrorism Will Require a Mix of Air Force Capabilities and Long-Term, Sustained Effort The war on terrorism is more likely to be a long-term effort in which the use of force, at least by U.S. military personnel, is only sporadic and successful military operations will resemble counterinsurgency operations. The primary role of U.S. military forces will often be indirect and supportive. U.S. forces will be called upon to train, equip, advise, and assist host-country forces in rooting out terrorist groups; forge strong relationships with host-country personnel; show great discretion in their conduct of operations; and maintain a low profile in the host country. They will be able to react swiftly and effectively when promising targets arise. The Air Force, then, should expect sustained heavy demand to provide important capabilities, assets, and skill sets to support counterterrorism operations abroad. Chief contributions will include surveillance platforms, operators, and analysts; language-qualified personnel to help train and advise host-country forces and to analyze human intelligence; security police and other force protection assets; base operating support personnel and equipment to provide communications, housing, and transportation; heliborne insertion and extraction capabilities; and humanitarian relief assets. In some cases, U.S. airpower may be called upon to strike terrorists in base camps, hideouts, vehicles, and other locations.

Alt-Causes

2ac at: drug violence

No drug alt causemanufacturing gets shielded Selko and Vinas 12 (Adrienne and Tonya, "Nearshoring Fuels Mexican Manufacturing Growth",
Industrial Week, 3/10/12, www.industryweek.com/global-economy/nearshoring-fuels-mexicanmanufacturing-growth)

Closer, cheaper, friendlier. That might have been the formula underlying moving to or opening manufacturing operations in Mexico. The United States' southern neighbor offers transportation distances a fraction of those from Asia, a labor force a good deal cheaper than
domestic workers, and a country causing fewer headaches about intellectual property and other trade concerns. But in recent years, drug-related violence along the border has caused some

manufacturers to be more cautious about making the move to Mexico. Even with those concerns, Mexico continues to benefit from U.S. companies and other foreign investors who see it as an attractive manufacturing destination. In fact, 63% of those surveyed by AlixPartners, a business advisory firm, named Mexico the most attractive country for siting manufacturing operations closer to the United States. Only 19% of the companies
reported supply-chain disruptions in Mexico as a result of security issues. And 50% reported they expect things to improve over the next five years. Mexico's proximity to the United States solves the

most pressing issue facing manufacturers, which is speed to market, according to Rich
Bergmann, global lead for manufacturing for Accenture. "The stability of the time schedule of supply has become paramount in manufacturing. Whether we like it or not, a 12-month forecast, steady-state demand is no longer a reality. Everyone is running lean supply chains and inventories. Being close to

customers is key to reducing lead time. Add to that the overall total landed cost and that explains why reshoring is occurring in Mexico," he says. In fact, Mexico helps multinational firms cope with a variety of factors stemming from intense global competition, says
Arnold Matlz, an associate professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University.

They include the pressure to reduce and control operating costs, the need for operational flexibility, the need for different service outcomes for different customers, and shorter product/service development cycles. To date, manufacturers operating in Mexico have been largely shielded from the drug-related violence. "As reports have indicated, Mexico's violence is characteristically cartel versus cartel. It is something that has not had a very large amount of leakage into civil society, nor has it affected, in a noticeable way, the companies that are already doing business there. As a matter of fact, in spite of what is in the news, Mexico's manufacturing economy is humming along," says Steve Colantuoni, director of corporate marketing for the Offshore Group. "Companies
that are already in Mexico are increasing their numbers and their production."

2ac at: China

Chinas not an alt causeMexicos gaining influence Cook 8 (Bob, President of El Paso Regional Economic Development Corporation, Mexico Vs. China,
6/6/8, www.manufacturing.net/articles/2008/06/mexico-vs-china)

Mexicos standing as a leader in the global manufacturing market has been long established, even amidst increased global competition. Many Fortune 500 companie s and other multi-national companies have turned to Mexico in an attempt to cut costs while maintaining U.S. standards of quality and efficiency. Since the inception of the twin plant or maquila industry in the 1960s, global companies have established labor intensive assembly operations in Mexico while paying substantially less for labor, components and real estate
compared to the United States and many parts of Europe. In the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was established, making Mexico even more attractive for

foreign direct investment by reducing and often eliminating existing tariffs -- resulting in larger volumes of trade between North American countries. In 2007, trade between the United States and its NATFA partners (Mexico and Canada) stood at $908.9 billion, growing from $613.6
billion in 2001 -- a 48 percent increase. For more than 30 years following the creation of the maquila industry, Mexico enjoyed an environment that was relatively free of global competition in the race to make products for consumption in North America. But in 2001, the competitive landscape changed. After 15 years of aggressive negotiation, China was granted membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since then, manufacturing operations have grown exponentially in

China, catapulting it to a globally significant player in the exportation of manufactured goods, placing it in direct competition with Mexico. In 2001, U.S.-Mexico trade stood at $232.9 billion, almost double that of U.S.-China trade. In 2006, China surpassed Mexico in total trade with the U.S. for the first time, and in 2007, U.S. trade with China ($386.7 B) was approximately 13 percent higher than trade with Mexico. A closer look at the data, however, shows that U.S. exports to Mexico are still more than double the level of US exports to China -- which is probably an indication of the close manufacturing relationship that continues to exist between the U.S. and Mexico. A recent survey by Deloitte Research indicates that China and Mexico are the top two potential destinations for foreign direct investment by U.S. manufacturers. Thirty-eight percent of respondents indicate they are contemplating China for manufacturing operations and an additional 25 percent are considering Mexico. As a result, a high level comparison of Mexico versus China is merited. The
wage comparison tends to attract the attention of most multi-national corporations. Direct labor wages in China currently stand at $0.90 per hour, which in most cases includes room and board. Mexicos

direct labor wage is $2.50 per hour, including taxes, meals, transportation, and medical benefits -as well potential productivity and punctuality bonuses. A closer look at the labor force of the two countries reveals a substantial difference in productivity. Per capita GDP in Mexico stands at $7,467, more than six times greater than Chinas per capita GDP of $1,240. Research also

shows that Mexicos labor force may be more technologically savvy. There are only 62
computers and 220 cell phones per 1,000 people in China, while there are 228 computers and 600 cell phones per 1,000 people in Mexico. Mexicos strengths tend to favor companies that manufacture highly customized products that are particularly sensitive to shipping costs and lead times. Production

in Mexico will also tend to favor bulkier, heavier products that are destined for consumption
in North America. Because of its considerably lower labor cost, China typically favors labor intensive, commodity type products. While Chinas labor assets are enormous (the population is almost thirteen times larger than Mexicos), their skills are typically less developed than their Mexican

counterparts. As a result, China is typically better suited for high volume, low mix manufacturing operations. While it is not true in every instance, the following list provides an overview of the types of industries that tend to favor one country over the other. Mexico Aerospace Automotive Medical Devices Data Management Repair & Maintenance High-end consumer electronics China Footwear Toys Furniture Textile & Apparel Small Appliances Information Technology No matter the industry, U.S. and Canadian companies that operate in Mexico have a significant advantage over operating in China to efficiently address engineering changes and other quality control issues, especially when those issues necessitate the direct attention of North American management. Geographic proximity and a more than 40year track record of the maquiladora industry allow Mexican operations to consistently perform at U.S. levels of quality and safety. The protection of Intellectual Property is yet another advantage of operating in Mexico. The Office of the United States Trade
Representatives 2008 Special 301 Report of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement

placed China on the Priority Watch List designating it as the worst offender of IP protection among the 78 countries surveyed. While Mexico was also listed, it was designated on the
lower level Watch List. The complete report can be downloaded here. Industrial rental rates are comparable in the two countries, averaging $4.50 per square foot NNN in China and $5.00 per square foot NNN in Mexico. Mexico provides the option to own land and buildings, while only

renting is possible in China. Industrial sites in Mexico (land and building) typically range between $30-32 per square foot. Mexico boasts numerous high quality manufacturing locations. For
instance the Borderplex -- a metropolitan area that includes the cities of El Paso, Texas; Ciudad Juarez, Mexico; and Las Cruces, New Mexico -- comprises one of the top five manufacturing employment centers in North America with over 260,000 production workers. Located at the midpoint of the 2,000 mile U.S./Mexico border, the Borderplex offers a world-class manufacturing environment with robust

international logistics and communications infrastructure. Three commercial ports of entry in

the Borderplex clear more than 2,000 commercial trucks per day and more than $50 billion in annual trade between Mexico and the U.S.

US-EU

Cooperation

2ac plan solves

TTIP strengthens economic relations and interdependence European Commission 3/12/13 (Independent study outlines benefits of EU-US trade
agreement, European Commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13211_en.htm)//javi *card includes acronyms

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 twoway 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 transAtlantic 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.

2ac relations on brink

Relations are on the brink economic decisions now determine resilience
--a2 US econ recovering now provides the brink for relations collapse absent EU recovery, cements Asia pivot and transatlantic relations collapse --warrants for collapse now: political paralysis, economic malaise, populism/inward-looking policy focus, political polarization, threat of Eurozone breakup, and BRIC rise

Bettiza & Alessandri 2-6-13 (Gregorio Bettiza, Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute and LSE IDEAS
Transatlantic Relations Programme Research Associate, Ph.D. International Relations, LSE IDEAS, M.A. Conflict, Security and Development, War Studies Department, King's College, B.Sc. Economics, Royal Holloway; and Emiliano Alessandri, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, former visiting fellow at the Center on the US and Europe of the Brookings Institution, Ph.D. University of Cambridge, educated at the University of Bologna, the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University, and Princeton University; Four scenarios for transatlantic relations in Obamas second term, Aspenia Online, Aspen Institute Italia, 2-6-2013, https://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspeniaonline/article/four-scenarios-transatlantic-relations-obama%E2%80%99s-second-term)

As President Obamas new foreign policy team takes shape, the economic and political challenges facing Europe and the United States, the volatile democratization under way in the Middle East, the nuclearization of Iran, the growth of Asia and China, and the broader diffusion of power in an increasingly multipolar international system, are pushing and pulling the transatlantic relationship - and the West more broadly - in four different directions: collapse, dilution, consolidation and expansion.

The collapse of the transatlantic partnership is a real prospect, albeit one that might materialize in the longer-term rather than in the immediate short-run. Continued political paralysis and economic malaise are making Americans and Europeans ever more inward looking and polarized. While the war in Iraq pushed anti-American sentiments to an all-time high in Europe, the Obama presidency and its social and economic reforms have exposed and amplified deep and virulent anti-European feelings within American society, and particularly the Republican camp. Likewise brinkmanship in Washington and the threat of institutional collapse in the eurozone and the EU are a perfect recipe for a further erosion of transatlantic commitments. An emerging Asia could put an additional wedge between the two sides of the Atlantic, especially if America recovers economically and Europe continues to stagnate. If this were the case, the Pacific region would most certainly become Americas main economic, political and military hub, while the Atlantic region along with the Mediterranean and the Middle East would be increasingly seen by Washington as an unproductive crisis-ridden backwater. The often-discussed American pivot to Asia or as it is now called rebalancing could turn into a much broader embrace. In such a setting,
American presidents would be looking ever more avidly for reliable partners in Asia, rather than in Europe, to restructure and manage the international order and institutions of the 21st century. A

second plausible scenario is one of dilution, whereby the transatlantic relationship simply continues to muddle through, with no particular coordination by either party, while economic, military, political and normative power continues to diffuse in the international system. In such scenario the West does not fall apart, no clear break-up between America and Europe takes place, but its influence and leadership within the institutions and practices of international society are progressively watered down and diluted . In such a world, in which alliances would largely be built ad hoc, the transatlantic link left without any clear direction would be sustained or easily disposed with according to circumstances. Moreover, the likelihood of increased competition over economic resources and ties with rising powers could further dilute the Wests already declining footprint in the international system. This process is already partly unfolding and can
be traced in the expansion of the exclusive G7/8 club to a more amorphous G20, in the growth in voting power of emerging/emerged non-Western economies in the Bretton Woods institutions, and in the ongoing discussions about expanding the UN Security Council and consolidating the European vote.

Yet, and somewhat paradoxically, the same domestic and international forces tearing America and Europe apart could lead to an entirely opposite scenario, one of consolidation. Moments of crises can also mean new opportunities. Hence, just as the euro
crisis seems to be nudging the EU towards greater integration, Western economic stagnation is also spurring real efforts towards deeper transatlantic ties. Finally, the idea of a Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) agreement, which has been floating around for decades, seems likely to become reality. This follows in the footsteps of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), a forum institutionalized in 2007 and designed to advancing economic cooperation between the US and the EU. Likewise, while in the past decade the Iraq invasion and the War on Terror caused major transatlantic rifts, American and European approaches to the contemporary challenges posed by the Middle East appear to be converging now. The United States and Europe closely cooperated in the 2011 military intervention in Libya and have also been meticulously coordinating their diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities. Both wish to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible, and share a similar outlook for a more democratic, even if somewhat more Islamist, Middle East. Chinas rise could surely weaken the transatlantic alliance. Yet it could also prompt a revitalized partnership, as Secretary Clinton suggested in a November 2012 speech at the Brookings Institution. Our pivot to Asia is not a pivot away from Europe, Clinton remarked. On the contrary, we want Europe to engage more in Asia, along with us, to see the region not only as a market, but as a focus of common strategic engagement. A fourth plausible direction is that of an expansion of the core military, political and/or economic institutional structures that underpin the transatlantic relationship. While this scenario is unlikely to happen

without greater consolidation of American and European cooperation, it is nevertheless

producing some of the most lively and interesting policy debates across Western capitals. These discussions are also spurring a rather fascinating reconceptualization of what the West is, what it stands for and what its boundaries are and should be. Several ambitious proposals are circulating among scholars, pundits and policy makers in America and Europe. One is the rather controversial pitch for an

entirely novel League of Democracies. Mostly neoconservative and liberal internationalist American scholars have championed this idea, which also found its way in Senator McCains 2008 presidential campaign. Another conversation has revolved around turning NATO into a Global NATO. Global not only in its military reach, but also in its partnerships and perhaps future membership, which could include countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. There is also an emerging debate centering on the prospect of a Wider Atlantic initiative that would economically and strategically connect countries in North America and Europe to those in Latin America and the Western portions of North and sub-Saharan Africa, to create a new center of gravity in the Atlantic basin possibly as powerful as Asias.

Serious questions need to be addressed about the economic and political models prevailing in the West, amid economic difficulties and political divisions in both America and Europe. The internal issues are compounded by the threats and opportunities emanating from the Middle East and Asia. These domestic and international forces currently at work carry the seeds of all four transatlantic scenarios. Indeed, the processes of collapse, dilution, consolidation and expansion outlined thus far, are all in the making simultaneously as we write. It is at this moment, therefore, that the leadership of President Obama and his newly appointed economic and foreign policy team, along with that of current, and others soon to be elected, European leaders becomes crucial. It is very much up to them to make those decisions - as well as the non-decisions - which ultimately will push the transatlantic relationship and the West ever more decisively down only one of these paths.

2ac AT: WTO turn

Plan key to global trade integration Yglesias 6/18/13 (Matthew, Getting in Bed With Europe, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/06/ttip_transatlantic_trade_and_investment_ partnership_would_create_the_biggest.html)//javi No matter how dull it sounds, if it happens, its going to be a really big deal. TTIP would be the

biggest trade pact of all time, by far. It creates a trading bloc far larger than NAFTA extending from California to Romania, and encompassing almost half the worlds total economic output. It would reach much deeper behind the border into public policy areas people dont think of as pertaining to trade. The $2.8 trillion of GDP generated by our NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada is swamped by the European Unions $16 trillion economy. TTIP would rework virtually every federal regulatory scheme, providing opportunities for huge new economic efficiencies but also for dramatic levels of malfeasance if, for example, banks use it as a pretext to undermine post-crisis financial regulations. Recent free trade deals between the United States and Latin American countries have included much more than conventional formal barriers to international transportation of goods. But TTIP takes that trend much further, aspiring to harmonize regulations on both sides of the Atlantic. Thats a very ambitious goal. The
optimists case, as explained to me last week by numerous European Union officials and politicians, is that theres too much duplication of regulatory effort on both sides of the Atlantic. Right now an American tourist can get in a taxi in, say, Berlin and feel reasonably certain that hes in a safe car. The same applies to a Berliner visiting New York. Broadly speaking, the U.S. and the EU are

both wealthy liberal democracies whose citizens care about product safety. But even though many of the same car companies operate on both sides of the Atlantic, theyre actually operating under very different car safety regulatory schemes. These divergent regulations arent a barrier to trade in the traditional sense, but they do impede international commerce. For big firms, this is about the cost of complying with multiple sets of regulations. For smaller firms, the issue is that figuring out a new set of rules is more trouble than its worth. The United States is so
large that a single set of rules can apply across a very large market. The European Union is a more recent innovation, but its core economic achievement has been the creation of a U.S.style, continent-wide, integrated marketplace. TTIP could bridge the two, creating a single set of

standards for a marketplace covering half the worlds GDP. Related advantages could be seen in food and drug safety. Right now, both the FDA and its European counterpart insist on inspecting pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. Thats sensible, but
does any given plant really need to be inspected by both agencies, or could they work out terms for a

mutual recognition agreement in which a thumbs-up from the FDA would be good enough to sell a product in Europe?

2ac AT: Terrorism Turn

Reducing illegal immigration lets the border patrol focus on counterterrorism status quo undermines ability to prevent threats Barry 13 (Tom, January 9, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC. With the Resurrection of Immigration Reform We'll Hear a Lot About Securing Our Borders, But What Does It Really Mean? http://www.alternet.org/immigration/resurrectionimmigration-reform-well-hear-lot-about-securing-our-borders-what-does-it) One likely reason the Border Patrol does not address its counterterrorism in any detail is that the

agencys border security buildup on the southwestern border has not resulted in the apprehension of members of foreign terrorist organizations, as identified by the State Department. Experts in counterterrorism agree there is little risk that foreign terrorist organizations would rely on illegal border crossings particularly across the U.S.-Mexico border for entry into the United States. While the fear that foreign terrorists would illegally cross
U.S. land borders drove much of the early build-up in border security programs under the newly created homeland security department, counterterrorism seems to have dropped off the actual and

rhetorical focus of todays border security operations. Indicative of this reduced focus on terrorism and return to the traditional focus on illegal immigration and illegal drugs is found in the recently released *2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan*. There is only one reference to terrorism in the new strategys executive summary. In contrast, the previous
Border Patrol Strategy, issued in September 2004, has 13 such references. The Border Patrol offers no explanation for this stunning change in focus. Counterterrorism is still cited as the overarching

goal of CBP, yet there is little in the new strategy statement to demonstrate this strategic focus. *From Terrorists to Transnational Criminals* * *As cross-border terrorism has faded as a
homeland security concern, the Border Patrol has shifted the focus of its threat assessments to transnational criminal organizations based in Mexico. What formerly were called drug trafficking organizations by the federal government are now labeled TCOs. Although never mentioned previously, the Border Patrol over the past three years has warned of the threat posed by TCOs to border security. Unfortunately, the Border Patrol has supported its escalated threat assessments about TCOs by counting the arrests of all drug couriers as blows to the TCOs, implying or stating that immigrants and other illegal border crossers carrying varying amounts of marijuana (or in rare cases other illegal drugs) are transnational criminals. Since the creation of DHS, CBP, together with ICE, have also attempted to demonstrate that immigration and drug enforcement at the border and elsewhere is risk-based. Yet

rather than prioritizing focusing their intelligence gathering on likely foreign threats to the borders, the post-9/11 border security apparatus has quickly returned to its traditional targeting of illegal drugs and unauthorized immigrants as dangerous goods and people, while recklessly labeling illegal border crossers as part of the operations of Mexican criminal

organizations. The Border Patrol should, as part of its risk-based and intelligence-driven strategy, maintain a near-exclusive focus on the TCO hierarchies and their enforcers. Likewise, the Border Patrol should end its characterization of all drug-trade networks as TCOs but instead focus on those designated as TCOs by the State Department. CBP, ICE and the Border Patrol have also used its post-9/11 commitment to risk-based enforcement to shift many immigrants into criminal categories, such as criminal aliens and fugitive aliens. In the borderlands and elsewhere, DHS has found broad support for its professed commitment to prioritize the arrest and deportation of the most dangerous immigrants, both those here legally and illegally. The widespread use of illegal recreational drugs in the United States combined with harsh anti-immigrant statutes have resulted in routine deportation of otherwise law-abiding legal immigrants for even minor drug violations, thereby making a travesty of the risk-based criteria. This all counts, in the estimation of DHS, as improved border security. The crossing of illegal drugs has long characterized the border and will continue to do so as long as there is a U.S. market for these substances. Currently, the Border Patrol routinely labels illegal border crossers carrying marijuana as being accomplices or members of TCOs, thereby demonstrating its lack of strategic focus. *Bipartisan Support for Border Security Deserves New Scrutiny* * *As part of its stated

determination to pursue risk-based border protection, the Border Patrol should deprioritize immigration enforcement. A credible risk-management process cannot justify
operations that make no distinction between truly dangerous individuals and ordinary immigrants seeking work and family reunification. The Border Patrol should instead target border bandits who prey upon vulnerable immigrants and the smugglers of truly dangerous illegal and prescription drugs. Marijuana is not a security threat, and there is mounting momentum for its decriminalization on both sides of the border. More than 95% of the Border Patrols drug war activities involve marijuana. This is

a waste of scarce government resources; it diverts DHS from actual security threats, and contributes to the unnecessary militarization of the border. Administratively, DHS could, and
should, mandate that the Border Patrol end what is, in effect, its strategic focus on the marijuana drug war.

Iran Prolif

2ac solves iran prolif

US EU relations key to solve Iranian prolif Hague 7 (William, This was a damning failure at a critical time The Government has allowed Britain's
reputation to be undermined just as we should be taking a key role in tackling Iran, Sunday Telegraph, 4/15/07, Sunday Telegraph, LN) And our Government should be putting the case for all EU countries to adopt measures

similar to those put in place by the US - denying Iranian access to the international banking system, ending European export credits to Iran, and stopping investment in her oil and gas fields. Such a combination of UN and EU measures would be a serious blow to Iran. If nuclear proliferation is to be averted, the intensification of pressure - multilateral, legitimate and peaceful in nature - is both urgent and necessary.

2ac Iran prolif coming now

Iran prolif coming in the Squo Samay Live 13
(Samay Live a leading Hindi news portal this report is internally quoting The Institute for Science and International Security This same article is released on Agence France Presse and is basically an international wire release. January 15, 2013 lexis)

Iran is on track to produce material for at least one nuclear bomb by mid-2014 as sanctions hit its economy but fail to stop the atomic program, said a US think tank, further adding that Islamic republic could reach 'critical capability' within this time frame without detection by the West.

Iran will get the bomb. Prefer CIA operatives. Turnage 13

(James Turnage. managing editor at Guardian Express internally quoting Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran The Guardian Express May 21st The parenthetical in the body of the evidence is from the original article http://guardianlv.com/2013/05/iranian-nuclear-program-may-be-inevitable/) (According to a report by Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran, published in WND.) Is the United

States government hiding the reality of Irans nuclear program? Is it inevitable that they will have the ability to build and launch these weapons of mass destruction in the very near future? The answer, according to one of Americas foremost experts on nuclear weapons is yes. He based his opinion after examining aerial views of Irans nuclear facility called Quds. In an exclusive March 20 report with updates on March 24, March 25 and April 10, WND revealed the vast Quds site. Iranian scientists are trying to perfect nuclear warheads at this underground facility previously unknown to the West. WND has a source inside Irans
Ministry of Defense. He says that the facility is approximately 14 miles long and 7.5 miles wide. Inside the compound are two facilities built deep inside the mountain. Inside these hardened tunnels are 380 missile silos/garages. The facilities are surrounded by barbed wire, 45 security towers and several security posts. The most frightening part of his story is that Iran has already succeeded in

increasing uranium stockpiles into weapons grade. Their source said that this weapons grade metal places them in the final stages of completing more sophisticated weapons

than United States DOD experts previously believed. An unnamed source, who worked as an
expert for the U.S. Nuclear Agency, told WND that the facilities appear similar to what he inspected in Russia. These hardened tunnels are used to house missiles which can be quickly deployed, and are defensible from aerial attack. I understand exactly what Iran has at the site (including) a very important part of the structures the apparent hardened underground stub tunnels for secure storage of mobile systems which can be quickly moved to launching sites. The source said that Iran is working in close collaboration with North Korea, and certain members involved in the Chinese programs to develop weapons. He said that soon he will be able to reveal the context of their association. He said he will also be able to pass along information as to the plans and timing of Iran and North Koreas efforts to arm missiles with nuclear warheads. Fritz Ermarth, who served in the CIA and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, reviewed the satellite photos and said, This imagery strongly suggests that Iran is working on what we used to call an objective force, a deployed force of nuclear weapons on mobile missiles, normally based in deep underground sites for survivability against even nuclear attack, capable of rapid deployment. This open-source analysis by itself illustrates that Iran is very serious about building survivable facilities for its nuclear enterprise, said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a congressional advisory board. Pry, who has served with the House Armed Services Committee and in the CIA, also reviewed the imagery and added, The location of the site amid an Iranian missile armory, protected by a vast array of defensive and offensive missiles, is consistent with the intelligence reporting that the site is for the final stages of nuclear weapons development. The complex appears to be the most heavily protected site in Iran. Reza Kahlili (who revealed the Quds site) has provided the West with one of the most critical pieces of evidence of the Iranian governments drive to break out its nuclear development into a fully operational capability, said Maj. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (Ret.). All the red lines have been crossed.

Beware America, Israel and the West, a nuclear Iran is here!

2ac at: Iran prolif defense

Iran Prolif causes war and does cause domino effect. Cirincione 6
Joseph Cirincione is the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace The Continuing Problem of Nuclear Weapons Issues in Science & Technology Spring http://www.issues.org/22.3/cirincione.html

The world would be a more dangerous place with nuclear weapons in Iran . A Persian power with a keen sense of its 2,500-year history, Iran occupies a pivotal position straddling the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The country has the largest population in the Middle East, the worlds third largest oil reserves, the second largest natural gas reserves, and aspirations to again become the regions major power. Add nuclear weapons, and this mixture become highly combustible. There is no evidence that Iran currently possesses any nuclear devices or even
enough fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) to produce such weapons. But for the past two decades Iran has been engaged in a secret, multifaceted program to assemble the equipment and facilities necessary to make these nuclear materials. Iranian officials have justified this effort as part of an ambitious plan to build 20 nuclear reactors. Though controversial enough in and of itself, Irans activities also include the pursuit of several nuclear material production technologies that, if mastered, could provide Tehran with the ability to enrich uranium for fuel rods and to process these fuel rods for disposal. If these facilities are completed, Iran would become only the sixth nation in the world able to convert uranium into gas commercially and only the ninth to be able to enrich that gas for fuel. These same facilities could be used to enrich uranium and to extract plutonium for weapons use. That is the crux of the issue: Do other nations trust that Irans program is, as they claim, entirely peaceful? In 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed that the countrys nuclear program was much more extensive than Tehran had previously declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA inspections have provided a clearif still incompletepicture of the program. However, after three years of intensive investigations, the IAEA reported in September 2005 and reaffirmed in February 2006 that it is still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. Irans failure to cooperate fully with inspections and to disclose all of its past activities caused the IAEA Board of Governors on February 6 to vote overwhelmingly to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran maintains that all its nuclear activities, even those previously hidden from the IAEA, are intended for peaceful purposes, and it has agreed to place all its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards. Moreover, in 2003 Iran signed and pledged to implement the IAEAs Additional Protocol, which includes expanded inspection rights and tools. Iran suspended these more intrusive inspections in February 2006, after the IAEA vote. Within Iran, the program is now fused with passionate nationalism. Irans program is a source of national pride across the political spectrum, with both conservatives and reformers supporting development of full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities as an inherent right accorded by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Irans radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now

addresses rallies of tens of thousands of followers chanting for nuclear power. This potentially explosive domestic political dynamic greatly complicates efforts to convince Iranian officials to end the pursuit of these sensitive nuclear programs. The danger is not that Iran would build and use a nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies. Iranian leaders know that such an act would be regime suicide, as a powerful counterattack would follow immediately. This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, but a nuclear regime crisis. The danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran would lead other states in the Gulf and

Middle East, including possibly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkey, to reexamine their nuclear options. This potential wave of proliferation would seriously challenge regional and global security and undermine the worldwide effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. If
the international community is unable or unwilling to impose penalties on Iran, and if Tehran continues its nuclear development unconstrained, the nuclear chain reaction from the region could ripple around the globe.

Iran prolif causes instability and nuclear conflict. Inbar 6

(Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan Un iversity and the Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies The Need To Block A Nuclear Iran, MERIA Journal, March, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue1/jv10no1a7.html)

Iran's nuclear program coupled with long-range delivery systems, in particular, threatens regional stability in the Middle East. Iran's possesses the Shehab-3 long-range missile (with a
range of 1,300 kilometers) that can probably be nuclear-tipped and is working on extending the range of its ballistic ar senal. American allies, such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf States are

within range, as well as several important U.S. bases. The Chief of the ID F Intelligence Department
, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi (Farkash) reported that Iran has also acquired 12 cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and with an ability to carry nuclear warheads. [14] Further

improvements in Iranian missiles would initially put most European capitals, and eventually, the North American continent, within range of a potential Iranian attack. Iran
has an ambitious satellite launching program based on the use of multi-stage, solid prope llant launchers, with intercontinental ballis tic missile properties to enable the l aunching of a 300-kilogram satellite within two years. If Iran achieves this goal, it will put many more states at risk of a

future nuclear attack .

Solvency

US Mexico

2ac US should invite Mexico

US should join the TTIP with Mexico FNL 3/27/13 (Mexico Hopes for Joint NAFTA-EU Deal, Fox News Latino,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/03/27/mexico-hopes-for-joint-nafta-eu-deal/)//javi In a bid to expand global commerce, Mexico hopes for a trade deal between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union that could leverage the economic

powers of both unions and consolidate trade deals already in the works. Mexico currently has a
free trade deal with the EU, while Canada and the United States the other two nations in NAFTA are currently in talks their own trade deals with Europe. A NAFTA-EU trade deal would

leverage the economic power of the NAFTA nations and separate deals wouldnt take full advantage of the economies of scale and scope that
have resulted from NAFTA, said Mexican Foreign Minister Jos Antonio Meade, according to Bloomberg News. Mexicos suggestion of a joint trade deal may be a maneuver to parry a

looming agreement between the U.S. and the 27-nation EU that President Barack Obama promised in his State of the Union address. Despite varying ideas on farm subsidies, health protections and regulatory standards, a deal between the U.S. and the EU could add $111.7 billion a year to the blocs struggling economy that has
been hit hard by the global recession and bailouts in Greece, Spain and Cyprus.

Agreement

2ac at: wont pass

Will pass a. skepticism was preliminary coordination leads to agreement Erlanger their author 6/12/13 (Steven, Conflicting Goals Complicate an Effort to Forge a TransAtlantic Trade Deal, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/global/to-createjobs-europe-pushes-for-trade-deal-with-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)//javi

After initial skepticism from Washington, both sides agreed in March to push for what is known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. David Cameron, the prime minister of Britain, would like to begin the talks formally at the Group of 8 meeting next Monday and Tuesday, if Paris does not block him over its demand to exclude audiovisual services. Officials say they hope to conclude a deal by November 2014. Done properly, TTIP is a good thing, but there are deeply entrenched interests on both sides of the Atlantic, and they will always fight harder to keep what they have rather than get something new, said Douglas J. Elliott, a senior fellow
in economics at the Brookings Institution. There will be small benefits for a lot of people but big losses in certain sectors, and theyll fight.

b. necessity trumps Erlanger their author 6/12/13 (Steven, Conflicting Goals Complicate an Effort to Forge a TransAtlantic Trade Deal, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/global/to-createjobs-europe-pushes-for-trade-deal-with-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)//javi But most other trade officials want to widen the scope of the talks to keep as many

bargaining chips as possible. They want to give the European Commission a free hand to negotiate with Washington in hopes of opening up protected American sectors like
transporting goods along the United States coast and government procurement markets at both federal and state levels. Mr. Barroso would like the negotiations to finish before a new European Commission is chosen in late 2014. But a final deal could take years, which undercuts some of the urgent European support, founded on benefits, even if relatively modest, for economic growth and jobs.

A senior American official based in Europe said that the stars were aligned for a deal because both economies are struggling for growth. Still, he said, U.S. regulators are deeply skeptical. Mircea Geoana, former Romanian foreign minister and ambassador to Washington, perhaps put the inside view best. Strategically, we need it like air, to keep America and Europe together, he said. Practically, its going to be very difficult.

2ac talks coming

Agreement talks ahead October EC 7/12/13 (EU and US conclude first round of TTIP negotiations in Washington, European
Commission, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=941)//javi

The first week-long round of talks for an EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) comes to a closure today in Washington. Its been a very productive week, said EU Chief Negotiator Ignacio Garcia-Bercero coming out of the talks. We have been striving already for many months to prepare the ground for an ambitious trade and investment deal that will boost the transatlantic economy, delivering jobs and growth for both European and Americans. This week we have been able to take this negotiation to the next step. The main
objective has been met: we had a substantive round of talks on the full range of topics that we intend to cover in this agreement. This paves the way to for a good second round of negotiations in Brussels in October. Working throughout the week, the negotiating groups have set out

respective approaches and ambitions in as much as twenty various areas that the TTIP the biggest bilateral trade and investment negotiation ever undertaken - is set to cover. They
included: market access for agricultural and industrial goods, government procurement, investment, energy and raw materials, regulatory issues, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, services, intellectual property rights, sustainable development, small- and medium-sized enterprises, dispute settlement, competition, customs/trade facilitation, and state-owned enterprises. Negotiators identified

certain areas of convergence across various components of the negotiation and - in areas of divergence begun to explore possibilities to bridge the gaps. The talks have been based on a thorough review of the stakeholders views expressed to date. The negotiators met also in the
middle of the week with approximately 350 stakeholders from academia, trade unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organisations to listen to formal presentations and answer questions related to the proposed agreement.

TTIP agreement is coming

*takes out DA uniqueness that is generic *immediacy key warrant

Ralph 6/18/13 (Talia, European Union, US 'intend to move forward fast' on transatlantic trade
deal, Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/globaleconomy/130618/european-union-us-transatlantic-biggest-bilateral-trade-deal)//javi

The transatlantic trade deal between the European Union and the United States was announced at the G8 summit this week, as British Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama vowed to "fire up our economies and drive growth and prosperity around the world." The two leaders formally announced the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership, also known as TTIP, at a press conference in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland on Monday, where the world's wealthiest nations gathered for their annual conference. "Were talking about

what could be the biggest bilateral trade deal in history, a deal that will have a greater impact
than all the other trade deals on the table put together," Cameron said. "I'm hopeful we can achieve the kind of high-standard, comprehensive agreement that the global trading system is looking to us to develop," Obama said. "I'm confident we can get it done." If reached, the deal a result of months of "backroom wrangling" by British diplomats, according to the Wall Street Journal could see massive profits on both sides of the Atlantic. Trade in goods between the United States and the 27-country EU was worth some 500 billion euros ($670 billion) in 2012, with another 280 billion euros ($374.5 billion) in services and trillions in investment flows. The EU said that the establishment of a Free Trade Agreement would add about 119 billion euros ($159 billion) annually to the EU economy, and $127 billion dollars for the United States. The two partners don't intend to waste any

time setting their talks in motion, said European Commission President Jose Manuel
Barroso. "Our joint endeavor is part of our overall agenda for growth and jobs to both sides of the Atlantic by boosting trade and investment," Barroso said in a statement. "It is also a powerful

demonstration of our determination to shape an open and rules-based world." "We

intend to move forward fast," he said. "We can say that neither of us will give up content for the sake of speed, but we intend to make rapid progress."

Add-ons

Drug Cartels
Drug cartels instability will spill over throughout Latin America Bonner 10 senior principal of the Sentinel HS Group
(Robert C., former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, The New Cocaine Cowboys, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66472/robert-cbonner/the-new-cocaine-cowboys)

The recent headlines from Mexico are disturbing: U.S. consular official gunned down in broad daylight; Rancher murdered by Mexican drug smuggler; Bomb tossed at U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo. This wave of violence is eerily reminiscent of the carnage that plagued Colombia 20 years ago, and it is getting Washington's attention. Mexico is in the throes of a battle against powerful drug cartels, the outcome of which will determine who controls the country's law enforcement, judicial, and political institutions. It will decide whether the state will destroy the cartels and put an end to the culture of impunity they have created. Mexico could become a first-world country one day, but it will never achieve that status until it breaks the grip these criminal organizations have over all levels of government and strengthens its law enforcement and judicial institutions. It cannot do one without doing the other. Destroying the drug cartels is not
an impossible task. Two decades ago, Colombia was faced with a similar -- and in many ways more daunting -- struggle. In the early 1990s, many Colombians, including police officers, judges, presidential candidates, and journalists, were assassinated by the most powerful and fearsome drug-trafficking organizations the world has ever seen: the Cali and Medelln cartels. Yet within a decade, the Colombian government defeated them, with Washington's help. The United States played a vital role in

supporting the Colombian government, and it should do the same for Mexico. The stakes in Mexico are high. If the cartels win, these criminal enterprises will continue to operate outside the state and the rule of law, undermining Mexico's democracy. The outcome matters for the United States as well -- if the drug cartels succeed, the United States will share a 2,000-mile border with a narcostate controlled by powerful transnational drug cartels that threaten the stability of Central and South America.

That causes nuclear war and extinction Manwaring 05 adjunct professor of international politics at Dickinson

(Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel, Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare, October 2005, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub628.pdf) President Chvez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most

dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee ows. They can host evil networks of all kinds,
whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafcking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people

in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafcking in women and body parts, trafcking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconned and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conict.62 Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Chvez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring 23 about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chvezs intent is to focus his primary
attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a

consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. In connection with the creation of new peoples democracies, one can rest assured that Chvez and his

Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narcostates and peoples democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

Deterrence
The agreement is key to global economic growth and U.S. manufacturing Hill 3/27/13 (Manufacturers Outline Priorities for a US-EU Free-Trade Deal,
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/290617-manufacturers-press-for-us-eu-free-tradedeal-)

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 Groups 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 worlds 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." US Manufacturing is key to overall military superiority and deterrence Eaglen et al 12 American Enterprise Institute, Rebecca Grant, IRIS Research, Robert P. Haffa, Haffa
Defense Consulting, Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution, Peter W. Singer, The Brookings Institution, Martin Sullivan, Commonwealth Consulting, Barry Watts, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (Mackenzie, The Arsenal of Democracy and How to Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy, January 2012)

. Despite the likely potential of lesser resources, the demand side of the equation does not seem likely to grow easier. The international security environment is challenging and complex. Chinas economic, political and now military rise continues. Its direction is uncertain, but it has already raised tension, especially in the South China Sea. Irans ambitions and machinations remain foreboding, with its nuclear plans entering a new phase of both capability but also crisis. North Korea is all the more uncertain with a leadership transition, but has a history of brinkmanship and indeed even the occasional use of force against the South, not to mention nuclear weapons-related activities that raise deep concern. And the hopeful series of revolutions in the broader Arab world in 2011, while inspiring at many levels, also seem likely to raise uncertainty in the broader Middle East. Revolutions are inherently unpredictable and often messy geostrategic events. On top of these remain commitments in Afghanistan and beyond and the frequent U.S. military role in humanitarian disaster relief. Thus, there are
Yet there are severe challenges that could result to the nations security interests even with 10 percent cutbacks broad challenges for American defense planners as they try to address this challenging world with fewer available resources. The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the

Defense industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to protect in congressional districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the technologies our armed forces utilize does have national security resonance. Qualitative superiority in weaponry and other key military technology has become an essential element of American military power in the modern eranot only for winning wars but for deterring them. That requires world-class scientific and manufacturing capabilitieswhich in turn can also generate civilian and military export opportunities for the United States in a globalized marketplace. While procurement budgets have
past. finally, in recent years, reached their historic norms as a percent of the overall defense budget, the legacy of the 1990s pr ocurement holiday remains real. In that

enjoying the fruits of the 1980s buildup as it sought to reduce defense spending. But Reagan-era weaponry is wearing out, and the recent increase in procurement spending has not lasted long enough to replenish the nations key weapons arsenals wit h new weaponry. The last decade of procurement policy focused more on filling certain gaps in
period, the United States as a matter of policy bought much less equipment than it would normally,

counterinsurgency capabilities than replacing the mainline weapons programs that make up the bulk of conventional capabilities. Meanwhile, the main elements of DoDs weapons inventoriesfighter jets, armored vehicles, surface vessels and submarines continue to age. We often say that, in todays American armed forces, people are our most cherished commodity and greatest asset. That is certainly
true at one level, through the dedication and excellence shown by our brave men and women in uniform. But it is also true that adjusting the personnel size of the

scientific and manufacturing excellence in the defense space is not something easily moved up and down. Todays industrial capabilities took decades to build and would be hard to restore if lost
military up or down has been done with success multiple times, and seems likely to happen again. By contrast, (Great Britains difficulty restoring its ability to build nuclear submarines is a frequently cited example.). Unlike the per iod just after the Cold War, there are no

While there are roughly five major firms, there are often just one or two suppliers in any given major area of defense technology. Similar challenges exist within the subcontractor community, which has become highly specialized, with certain key components or capabilities similarly reflecting monopolies or oligopolies, or being acquired by the primes in a way that risks future competition. The defense economy is also experiencing meta-changes in everything from shifts in traditional sectors, such as the move from manned to unmanned planes, to new sectors arising like
obvious surpluses of defense firms, such that a natural paring process will find the fittest firms and ensure their survival. cybersesecurity, to a broader move from the exclusive production of goods to the growing provision of defense services. Such issues in the defense economy also touch on broader areas of national economic and geopolitical competitiveness.

Top class American firms rely on top class

scientists and engineers. At present, the United States ranks in the lower half of industrial countries for the average math and science scores of its public school students and graduates just a fraction as many scientists and engineers a year from university-level studies as does either China or India. These trends should not be overstated; the quality of American scientists and engineers remains world class. But the trends still pose deep worries in the American defense industrial field as its looks towards the future of its work force , which is aging rapidly in numerous sectors. Not only then are the U.S. military services, but also American defense industry at a crossroads. Normally, defense policy decisions in times of retrenchment begin with strategy, threats, missions, and force structure and only address defense industrial issues as an afterthought. In past days of flush
budgets and numerous duplicative suppliers, this approach may have made sense. It makes sense no longer. Careless defense red uctions or poor planning wont just cost jobs or competitiveness, but could actually result in lost American military industrial capability in core areas. The Department of Defense has recently made some encouraging moves towards emphasizing the role of the industrial base in its strategic and budgetary planning. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review examined the subject, for example, and Secretary Panetta and his deputies have convened several meetings in recent months with industry leaders to discuss their

But industrial base considerations remain little discussed outside the specialist community and too frequently take a short term or single interest approach, such as asking a
concerns. candidate to weigh in on an individual product or firm. Rather, it is the overall state of the field and its future that should be of concern to all, regardless of where

any serious discussion of national security and the current state and future of the military must also give direct attention to matters of the American national security scientific and industrial base. This discussion should be direct and forthright, recognizing the context of severe budgetary dilemmas for the nation, the success and challenges of the defense economy, changing military demands, and the gradual erosion of American manufacturing in many sectors over the last several decades. Among the
they stand on the political spectrum. Thus, as presidential candidates and other national leaders develop their platforms for the 2012 elections and beyond, core questions for candidates to develop their policy answers around are: 4 1. Are there any sectors within American defense industry or types of technologies for the Department of Defense that should be prioritized? If this is the case, what should be prioritized and what are the areas that are not quite as important as

othersor even over resourced at present? 2. The Department of Defense is likely to reduce the size of the nations ground forces conside rably in the years ahead, as the war in Afghanistan gradually winds down. Does this imply prioritizing investment in Air-Sea battle capabilities at the expense of ground force capability, or should the United States try to do all with less? 3. Do the Pentagon and Congress have enough tools for evaluating the streng th of the nations industrial base and its access to key raw materials and technologies? If not, what should be done to give this subject greater scrutiny and sustained attention? 4. Should the Department of Defense move to more fixed-price contracts in its procurement policies? Should private companies be allowed to compete for a higher share of maintenance contracts, even if that means downsizing government depots? 5. Is the Pentagons increased focus on enlarging its acquisition oversight workforce making the acquisition process more innovative, economical, and efficient or more burdensome and bureaucratic? 6. Are there tools of export and trade policy that need to be adjusted to strengthen the U.S. defense industrial base? If so, what? Is the FMS program basically sound? Does the consolidation of export control lists within Commerce bode well or are other steps needed? 7. Are there certain allies from which the United States should be willing to import more defense technology, especially if the improved trade opportunities are reciprocated? Should we explore pooling and joint production options with our close allies, along the lines of what Britain and France have recently launched? 8. How should the nation strengthen STEM education in the United States, in high schools and colleges, to encourage more Americans to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math? Does the nation need to revise any of its immigration and green-card policies to increase the ability of foreign scientists to remain in this country after studying here and contribute to its scientific and industrial strength? 9. Do government regulations and requirements deter new and innovative firms from entering the defense market to the detriment of t he nations military? If so, what should be done to induce their entry? 10. Are there any other policy interventions that might be needed to ensure American military technological preeminence in the years ahead? A certain floor under R&D budgets? Targeted sustainment funding for specific capabilities such as independent weapons design teams at

The United States, and its civilian leaders, cannot afford to avoid the hard questions that now come with maintaining a strong successful military, a top flight defense industrial base, and a fiscally sound national economy. Our defense industrial base is certainly not broken, but there are clear, unavoidable challenges that loom, which might undercut broader national security, and the looming big budget cutbacks raise the stakes and heighten the sense of urgency in addressing the issue. In sum, the arsenal of democracy that arms the best military in the world, took decades to build. If allowed to atrophy, it would take decades to rebuild. Those who would seek to lead the U.S. armed forces must answer the key questions to ensure these capabilities are not lost in a matter of years.
numerous firms? Greater DoD contributions to research and prototyping by defense firms?

Resource Wars
Solves resource wars trade diversion Mexico key Fletcher no date (Ian, PREFERENTIAL TRADING ARRANGEMENTS, Trade Blocs,
http://business.usi.edu/cashel/241/revised%20text%20files%202011/TradeBlocs.pdf)//javi THEORY OF TRADE BLOCS The formation of a trade bloc is achieved by

granting preferential treatment to member nations as opposed to non-members. The realignment of countries into a trade bloc will have effects that are both immediate and also that develop over time. The static effect leads to a change in the trade patterns among members as well as with nonmember countries. We use the welfare economic tools of consumer and producer surplus to analyze the implications of forming a trade bloc. The change in the patterns of trade has two major static effects, one that leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, and the other which is movement away from global comparative advantage. Trade creation, which increases efficiency in the allocation of resources, arises from the removal of trade barriers between member countries. The major result of this is, barring any other impediments, that resources among member countries will be applied to activities for which they have the lowest opportunity costs among the member nations, in essence to their comparative advantages. Suppose there are two countries in a trade bloc, the US and Mexico. Further suppose that Mexico is a lower cost producer of an item. Thus the US would import the good. Figure 1 portrays the USs demand and supply of the good. With a tariff, imports are restricted to qdt-qst. The elimination of the US tariff (t) on Mexican imports, leads to a gain for US consumers of the areas A+B+C+D. Of these, A and C
represent transfers for producers and government, respectively. Hence the net gain which accrues to the country are areas B and D which results from the elimination of deadweight loss. This is similar to our previous discussion of the costs of a tariff. The other static effect, trade diversion, leads to a

less efficient allocation of resources. The discussion of trade diversion requires introducing an outside non-member nation into the analysis. In essence by giving preferential treatment to member countries over non-members, the possibility exists that production of the good will shift from the lowest cost producer to a higher cost producer. This would represent a shift away from comparative advantage and a less efficient allocation of resources. Suppose there are three countries, the US, Mexico and Chile. Of
these, let Chile be the lowest cost producer of the good, while the US is the highest cost producer. In Figure 2 Chiles price (Pc) is lower than Mexicos (Pm), whereas the US autarkic price (Pa) is higher than both the others. Prior to the US entering a trade bloc with Mexico, Chile has both the comparative advantage as well as the competitive advantage in producing and selling the good. Competitive

advantage is defined here as the full price of the good to US consumers. This would be inclusive of taxes and tariffs. With a uniform tariff against both Mexico and Chile, Chiles competitive price (Pc + t) would still be lower than Mexicos competitive price (Pm + t). In this case, the US will import the good from Chile.producer. This would represent a shift away from comparative advantage and a less efficient allocation of resources. Suppose there are three countries, the US, Mexico and Chile. Of these, let Chile be the lowest cost producer of the good, while the US is the highest cost producer. In Figure 2 Chiles price (Pc) is lower than Mexicos (Pm), whereas the US autarkic price (Pa) is higher than both the others. Prior to the US entering a trade bloc with Mexico, Chile has both the comparative advantage as well as the competitive advantage in producing and selling the good. Competitive advantage is defined here as the full price of the good to US consumers. This would be inclusive of taxes and tariffs. With a uniform tariff against both Mexico and Chile, Chiles competitive price (Pc + t) would still be lower than Mexicos competitive price (Pm + t). In this case, the US will import the good from Chile.

Resource wars cause extinction Collins and Autino 10 - * Life & Environmental Science, Azabu University AND ** Andromeda Inc.,
Italy (Patrick and Adriano, What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world peace, Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 15531562, science direct)

The major source of social friction, including international friction, has surely always been unequal access to resources. People ght to control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea. The natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even more so. As the population grows, and demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of Resource Wars. Having
begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [37]. A particular danger of

resource wars is that, if the general public can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become increasingly scarce. Many
commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates of war on terror to the language of the novel 1984 which describes a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves.7.1. Expansion into near-Earth space is the only alternative to endless resource wars As an alternative to the resource wars already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security. The US National Security Space Ofce, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power (SSP) published in early 2007, stated: Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conict in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the foremost threat to national security *38+. The report ended

by encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of SSP: Considering the timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for drilling up vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately [38].Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale may still be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending the threat of resource wars. That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benets of civilisation which are being eroded today by resource war-mongers, most notably the governments of the Anglo-Saxon countries and their neo-con advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st century is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufciently to start the commercial use of space resources.Industrial and nancial groups which prot from monopolistic control of terrestrial supplies of various natural resources, like those which prot from wars, have an economic interest in protecting their protable situation. However, these groups continuing prots are justied neither by capitalism nor by democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by preventing the development of low-cost space travel. Once the feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, resource wars are clearly foolish as well as tragic. A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens using longrange rockets to ght each other over dwindling terrestrial resourcesrather than using the same rockets to travel in space and have the use of all the resources they need!7.2. High return in safety from extraterrestrial settlementInvestment in low-cost orbital access and other space infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the Moon, Mars, asteroids and in man-made space structures. In the rst phase, development of new regulatory infrastructure in various Earth orbits, including property/usufruct rights, real estate, mortgage nancing and insurance, trafc management, pilotage, policing and other services will enable the population living in Earth orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space habitable are the logical extension of humans historical spread over the surface of the Earth. As trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to follow, of which the inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which humans have created in the many different environments in which they live.Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have the additional benet of reducing the danger of human extinction due to planetwide or cosmic accidents [27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as nuclear war, plagues or growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or asteroid impact. It is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons developed in recent decades are so destructive, and have such horric, long-term side-effects that their use should be discouraged as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence, reducing the incentive to use these weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use space-based resources on a large scale is surely equally important [11,16]. The achievement of this depends on low space travel costs which, at the present time, appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism industry.8. Summary As discussed above, if space travel services had started during the 1950s, the space industry would be enormously more developed than it is today. Hence the failure to develop passenger

space travel has seriously distorted the path taken by humans technological and economic development since WW2, away from the path which would have been followed if capitalism and democracy operated as intended. Technological know-how which could have been used to supply services which are known to be very popular with a large proportion of the population has not been used for that purpose, while waste and suffering due to the unemployment and environmental damage caused by the resulting lack of new industrial opportunities have increased.In response, policies should be implemented urgently to correct this error, and to catch up with the possibilities for industrial and economic growth that have been ignored for so long. This policy renewal is urgent because of the growing dangers of unemployment, economic stagnation, environmental pollution, educational and cultural decline, resource wars and loss of civil liberties which face civilisation today. In order to achieve the necessary progress there is a particular need for collaboration between those working in the two elds of civil aviation and civil space. Although the word aerospace is widely used, it is largely a misnomer since these two elds are in practice quite separate. True aerospace collaboration to realise passenger space travel will develop the wonderful profusion of possibilities outlined above.8.1. Heaven or hell on Earth?As discussed above, the claim that the Earths resources are running out is used to justify wars which may never end: present-day rhetoric about the long war or 100 years war in Iraq and Afghanistan are current examples. If political leaders do not change their viewpoint, the recent aggression by the rich Anglo-Saxon countries, and their cutting back of traditional civil liberties, are ominous for the future. However, this hellish vision of endless war is based on an assumption about a single numberthe future cost of travel to orbitabout which a different assumption leads to a heavenly vision of peace and ever-rising living standards for everyone. If this cost stays above 10,000 Euros/kg, where it has been unchanged for nearly 50 years, the prospects for humanity are bleak. But if humans make the necessary effort, and use the tiny amount of resources needed to develop vehicles for passenger space travel, then this cost will fall to 100 Euros/kg, the use of extra-terrestrial resources will become economic, and arguments for resource wars will evaporate entirely. The main reason why this has not yet happened seems to be lack of understanding of the myriad opportunities by investors and policy-makers. Now that the potential to catch up half a century of delay in the growth of space travel is becoming understood, continuing to spend 20 billion Euro-equivalents/year on government space activities, while continuing to invest nothing in developing passenger space travel, would be a gross failure of economic policy, and strongly contrary to the economic and social interests of the public. Correcting this error, even after such a costly delay, will ameliorate many problems in the world today.As this policy error is corrected, and investment in protable space projects grows rapidly in coming years, we can look forward to a growing world-wide boom. Viewed as a whole, humans industrial activities have been seriously underperforming for decades, due to the failure to exploit these immensely promising elds of activity. The tens of thousands of unemployed space engineers in Russia, America and Europe alone are a huge waste. The potential manpower in rapidly developing India and China is clearly vast. The hundreds of millions of disappointed young people who have been taught that they cannot travel in space are another enormous wasted resource. We do not know for certain when the above scenario will be realised. However, it could have such enormous value that considerable expenditure is justied in order to study its feasibility in detail *5+. At the very least, vigorous investment by both private and public sectors in a range of different sub-orbital passenger vehicle projects and related businesses is highly desirable. Fortunately, the ambitious and rapid investment by the Indian and

Chinese governments in growing space capabilities may nally jolt the space industries of Russia, America, Europe and Japan out of their long economic stagnation, and induce them to apply their accumulated know-how to economically valuable activitiesnotably supplying widely popular travel services to the general public.

U.S. Economy
Mexican trade key to the US economy Wilson 11 (Christopher E., works at the Mexico Institute as well as the Woodrow Wilson International
Center, November 2011, Working Together: Economic Ties Between The United States and Mexico, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf)

Trade with Mexico is vitally important to the U.S. economy and the livelihood of millions of Americans. A full 6 million jobs are supported by U.S.-Mexico trade.51 This means one in every twenty-four American workers depend on trade with Mexico to maintain their employment. 52 Jobs related to trade with Mexico are geographically spread throughout the nation. The border states of California and Texas are home to the most, with 692,000 and 463,000 trade-related jobs, respectively. But states far away from the Southwest border also depend on bilateral trade to sustain their local economies. New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio each have over two hundred thousand U.S.-Mexico traderelated jobs, and a total of twenty-two states have over one hundred thousand. Employment related to U.S.-Mexico trade also occurs across a wide variety of industrial sectors,
including transportation, sales, manufacturing and other services. In fact, just as in the entire U.S. economy, service sector jobs represent a greater share of U.S.-Mexico trade-related employment than do manufacturing jobs.53 As valuable as Mexico related employment currently is to the

United States, its importance promises to increase as the Mexican economy grows. This
is because Mexico tends to buy more U.S. exports as its GDP grows, thus increasing the number of export-related jobs in the United States. With Mexicos GDP predicted to grow at a steady rate for the next several years, the number of U.S. jobs dedicated to producing goods for Mexican

consumers and factories should also be expected to increase. A quick, back-of-theenvelope style calculation shows how Mexican GDP growth creates new U.S. jobs: Mexicos
5.4% GDP growth in 2010 was accompanied by a $34 billion dollar increase in U.S. exports to Mexico. President Obama said, every $1 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000

additional jobs.54 The IMF forecasts Mexicos GDP to grow 3.8% in 2011.55 This suggests that
roughly 144,000 new U.S. jobs could be created due to Mexicos economic growth in 2011.56 Despite the large and growing number of U.S. jobs dependent on trade with Mexico, many have argued that the United States-Mexico economic relationship and especially NAFTA have had a negative impact on domestic employment. On one side of the traditional trade debate are those who argue that exports represent job creation and imports represent domestic job losses, as production moves to other countries.57 On the other side of the debate are the economists who say both the increased exports and imports associated with free trade benefit the economy and create jobs. They argue that in addition to the export-supported jobs, cheaper imports lower U.S. manufacturers costs, thus

increasing sales and producing jobs.58 Proponents and opponents of NAFTA proffered these arguments in the early 1990s, often promising economic disasters or miracles vastly greater than anything experienced. However, the importance of production sharing takes us largely beyond these debates.

The interwoven supply chains and synchronized business cycles of the United States and Mexico imply that the manufacturing sectors in each country feel the effects of both good times and bad together.59 Since forty percent of the value of U.S. imports from Mexico is actually made in the United States, both exports to and imports from Mexico each support U.S. manufacturers and related industries. In a way unlike trade with
any extra-continental partner, U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade keeps production, and therefore jobs, in the United States. With the vast majority of growth occurring outside of the United States, international

trade must be an integral part of any initiative to create U.S. jobs. Despite the fact that the
United States is still the largest economy in the world, 95% of the worlds consumers, 87% of its economic growth, and 80% of total production occur outside its borders.60 Armed with such evidence, in 2010 President Obama launched the National Export Initiative, a plan to double U.S. exports within five years.61 Mexico can serve as a strong partner to this end. Its growing domestic market has consumption patterns similar to the United States, suggesting U.S. firms are well positioned to

fulfill Mexicos increasing demand for consumer goods. Production sharing could also play an
important role in boosting U.S. exports. To best take advantage of the large and emerging markets outside its borders, U.S. manufacturers would be well served by linking U.S. and Mexican

production in ways that improve the competitiveness of regional products and take advantage of the free trade agreements signed by both nations to gain preferential access to world markets.

Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy. BW 13

(internally quoting Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist at The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen Business Wire February 5, 2013 lexis) "North America is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago, North America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven mainly by a three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness in Europe and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the United States will serve as the

critical engine of improved global economic activity in 2013."

AT: Offcase

AT: Topicality
TTIP is economic engagement Bierbrauer 13 (TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS: THE USA AND CANADA, EU Parliament, May,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.4.7.html)//javi

The major economic issue for discussion may be the negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both the European Parliament and the US Congress have expressed their interest in deepening transatlantic economic engagement with such an agreement.

AT: Politics

2ac plan popular

Plan is popular- Republican push for TAA proves Good 11- staff writer at the Atlantic, (Chris, Republicans Support Obama's Trade Agenda. Do
Democrats?, September 17th, 2011, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/republicans-support-obamas-trade-agenda-dodemocrats/245248/, //CJD) When George W. Bush asked Congress to pass a Colombia free-trade agreement in the

waning months of his presidency, Democrats revolted. "The president took action," thenHouse-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a press conference when Bush submitted the deal to Congress in April 2008. "Tomorrow, I will take mine." Labor leaders blasted Bush's deal, citing the murders of Colombian trade unionists. "The AFL-CIO position on the Colombia FTA [free trade agreement] remains unchanged: The violence, murders, impunity and violations of workers' rights in Colombia must end," said John Sweeney, then the labor federation's president. Pelosi proceeded to block the deal, which went the way of other Latin American trade deals Bush had orchestrated, plus another stalled deal with South Korea. Flash forward to 2011. President Obama is stumping for three Bush trade deals -- with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama -- as he calls on Congress to immediately pass his latest jobs agenda. "Now it's time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -- while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition," the president said during his speech to a joint session of Congress last week. "If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with the three proud words: 'Made in America.' That's what we need to get done." What's changed? For one, Republicans have removed one of the main stumbling blocks for Democrats in 2009. Republicans agreed this summer to authorize trade adjustment assistance (TAA) -- a program that supplies federal income support to workers who lose their jobs or suffer drops in work hours as a result of increased imports. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) agreed to support the measure in June, while extracting some concessions that included spending cuts to offset the cost and a smaller pricetag, reverting to pre-stimulus levels of support. In July, 12 Republican senators sent a letter to Obama notifying him they would support the TAA bill and urging him to send the FTAs to the Senate. Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the first step in pursuing Obama's trade agenda by

introducing the TAA bill. According to spokesman Adam Jentleson, Reid hopes to pass it by the end of the week and move on to the three FTAs. Not all Democrats will cooperate. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a labor ally and a staunch Obama backer in 2008, has lambasted the three trade deals even as Obama has pushed for them. "I continue to believe it is a dangerous mistake to pursue the same kind of trade deals that ballooned our deficit and led to massive job loss," he wrote in December. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) spoke out against the trade deals in July. "I think this is a road we shouldn't take," he told the Pittsburgh Gazette. While AFL-CIO President RIchard Trumka refrained from mentioning the trade agreements in a measured response to Obama's jobs speech last week, he has maintained the AFLCIO's opposition. "These trade deals are absolutely not solutions to the jobs crisis. Instead of continuing to advocate for policies that got us into this mess, we need to focus on investing in our future and keeping and strengthening the jobs we have, " AFLCIO spokeswoman Alison Omens said.

FTA policies are bipartisan- push for Columbia FTA proves Berman 10- staff writer at the hill, (Russell, Bipartisan group of lawmakers urge Obama to back
Colombia free trade pact, 06/05/10, The hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/101551-bipartisangroup-of-lawmakers-urge-obama-to-back-colombia-free-trade-agreement, //CJD) A bipartisan group of House members is urging President Barack Obama to support

approval of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. In a letter to the president this week, the group of 39 representatives said the pact would open a new market for American goods and help the administration accomplish its goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years. The letter pushed for the agreement, which was signed more than three years ago, to be approved before August, when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe leaves office. The lawmakers also cited Colombia's status as an ally in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism, saying the agreement would bolster the ties between the two nations. For the benefit of our economy and our national security, we urge you to resolve any outstanding obstacles to the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, submit the agreement to Congress, and support its prompt approval, wrote the lawmakers, led by Reps. Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and David Dreier (R-Calif.). We believe the implementing legislation would have strong, bipartisan support in Congress, and we stand with you to ensure its passage. Other congressmen signing the letter included Reps. Silvestre Reyes (DTex.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Norm Dicks (D-Wa.) and Pete Sessions (R-Tex.). The House letter comes after 15 Republican senators wrote to Obama earlier this week asking him to speed passage of trade agreements with

Colombia, Korea and Panama - all of which have been held over from the George W. Bush administration. Backers of the pacts have complained that Obama has not moved faster to implement them, despite his professed support for the accords. Obama reiterated his support for the agreements in a recent speech to the Business Roundtable. Approval in Congress could be tricky in a weak economy, however, as lawmakers from industrial states have criticized trade agreements for sending U.S. jobs overseas. Partisanship for free trade doesnt apply Brady 11- Roll call staff, (Jessica, House Passes Trade Pacts in Bipartisan Vote, October 12th, 2011, Roll Call,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_passes_trade_pacts_in_bipartisan_vote-209409-1.html, //CJD)

The House voted today to approve three pending free-trade agreements, a rare show of

bipartisan unity in an otherwise divided Congress. The Senate is expected to also approve the measures today, sending them to President Barack Obama. The trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea are central to the job plans of both Obama and House Republicans. In a victory for Obama, the House also passed a measure that would provide expanded benefits to workers displaced by such trade deals. The president had insisted on the Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation before he submitted the freetrade deals to Congress. Members of both parties took to the floor before the lateafternoon vote to tout the measures and the bipartisan effort to bring them to the floor. Our actions today are proof that when we look for common ground and work together, we can produce results, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said. The Virginia Republican called on Senate Democrats and Obama to help pass other pro-growth measures to help the American people get back to work. The House is taking steps on other measures outlined in Obamas jobs plan. The Ways and Means Committee will mark up legislation Thursday that would grant a 3 percent withholding provision for government contractors. That measure, plus another that would increase small-business owners access to capital, could see floor action after next weeks recess. Plan is bipartisan- SKFTA proves AP 11- Associated Press, (US Congress backs free trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, 13
October 2011, the guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/13/us-free-trade-agreementskorea, //CJD)

The US Congress has approved free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and

Panama, ending a four-year drought in the forming of new trade partnerships and giving

the White House and Capitol Hill the opportunity to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. The House of Representatives and Senate voted in rapid succession on the three trade pacts, which the administration says could boost exports by $13bn (8.25bn) and support tens of thousands of American jobs. None of the votes was close, despite opposition from labour groups and other critics of free trade agreements who say they result in job losses and ignore labour rights problems in the partner countries. President Barack Obama said passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses". "Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label 'Made in America', support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labour rights, the environment and intellectual property I look forward to signing these agreements," Obama said. The agreements would lower or eliminate tariffs that US exporters face in the three countries. They also take steps to better protect intellectual property and improve access for American investors in those countries. The last free trade agreement completed was with Peru in 2007. The House also passed and sent to Obama for his signature a bill to extend aid to workers displaced by foreign competition. Obama had demanded that the worker aid bill be part of the trade package. Years in the making, the votes come just a day after Senate Republicans were unified in rejecting Obama's $447bn jobs creation initiative. The agreement with South Korea, the world's 13th largest economy, was the biggest such deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada in 1994. The votes were 278-151 for South Korea, 300-129 for Panama and
262-167 for Colombia. The Senate votes were 83-15 for Korea, 77-22 for Panama and 66-33 for Colombia. "We don't do much around here that's bipartisan these days," said Republican senator Rob Portman, who was US trade representative during the George W Bush

administration. "This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats realising that with 14 million Americans out of work, we need to do things to move our economy forward." Despite the strong majorities, the debate was not without rancour. Republicans criticised Obama for taking several years to send the agreements, all signed during the Bush administration, to Congress for final approval. Many among Obama's core supporters, including organised labour and Democrats from areas hit hard by foreign competition, were unhappy that the White House was espousing the benefits of free trade. Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the "job-killing" agreements were a "complete flip-flop for President Obama, who won crucial swing states by pledging to overhaul our flawed trade policies".

Plan is popular with McCain- Push for CFTA proves CNN 08- (McCain takes free-trade message south of border, July 1, 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/mccain.colombia/, //CJD) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for

president, arrived in Tuesday in Colombia on a three-day trip that includes Mexico to talk about trade and drugs. "What happens in Colombia and Mexico is very important to the future of America," McCain said Monday. His free-trade stance is increasingly unpopular
with Americans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday. The survey found 51 percent of the Americans questioned view foreign trade as a threat to the economy -- the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of respondents reported holding negative views on free trade.

McCain backs the Colombia Free Trade agreement, which currently is in limbo. Congressional Democrats are blocking the deal, citing the intimidation and killing of Colombian labor activists by right-wing militias. The Arizona senator admitted there "were human rights abuses by the paramilitaries, and these people need to be brought to justice, no matter who they are or where they are." "But I balance that against [Colombian President Alvaro] Uribe and his administration's rescue of Colombia from a failed-state status," he said. "You got to stand on principle. I believe in the principle of free trade," he said, adding that protectionism could make a bad economy worse. He pointed to the example of Herbert Hoover, the Depression-era president who signed protectionist legislation into law. "We went from a recession into one of the great depressions of our history," he said. "I've got to convince people that I have a plan to give them the kind of education and training they need." In response to a question about President Bush, he compared his stance on trade to that of a different president. "I'm also closely aligned with President Clinton. President Clinton is the one who signed the free trade agreement with North America," McCain told reporters
on his campaign bus. A top aide to Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said the McCain trip is actually an effort to win Latino votes at home. "He's not doing it

because he thinks the region is important, he's doing it because he wants ... to try to send a message to Latinos in the United States, to say, 'Focus on these things,' rather than on things that he doesn't have an answer for in the Latino community," said Dan Restrepo, Obama's senior adviser on Latin America. Obama has vowed to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement if elected president. McCain launched a Web-only advertisement touting the Colombia Free Trade Agreement Tuesday, in English with Spanish subtitles. The campaign confirmed that it was not buying any television advertising time for the spot. "We must encourage more trade agreements to create

more jobs on both sides of the border; that's why I'm behind the Colombia Free Trade Agreement," McCain says in the advertisement. McCain is key to the agenda- Gang of Eight Proves Kapur 13- staff writer at talking points memo, (Sahil, An Obama-McCain Alliance: Two Bitter Rivals Team Up To Upend The
Status Quo, July 26th, 2013, TPM, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/obama-mccain-alliance.php, //CJD)

The unlikeliest of alliances forged between two once-bitter rivals stands to upend the

status quo of congressional gridlock and potentially resolve a bitter partisan chasm that has characterized the modern era of crisis governance. Yes, President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are essentially working together against GOP leadership and the tea party to break the Senate out of its current situation and resolve major budget rifts that have plagued Washington for years. McCain has emerged as a kingmaker of sorts in a chamber where various rank-and-file members of the Republican minority have lost their patience with leaders strategy of routinely blocking or slowing down legislation and high profile nominees advanced by Democrats. Most recently, he played a leading role in securing the confirmation of seven Obama nominees to run important departments and agencies. He was a seminal figure in writing and shepherding immigration reform through the chamber with a large bipartisan majority. Hes broken with nearly all other Republicans in saying his party shouldnt filibuster Obamas three nominees to fill vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And hes been actively pushing his members to stop blocking budget negotiations with the House. Now, as the White House and members of Congress prepare for a potentially ugly battle to keep government open and continue paying its bills this fall, Democratic leaders see McCain as a pivotal figure in their effort to reach a compromise and force tea party conservatives to stop holding routine government funding and debt ceiling bills hostage. Some of them privately joke that hes the new minority leader. Senator McCain is the Senate Republican leaderships worst nightmare, said a senior Democratic aide, who wasnt authorized to speak on the record. He is very interested in fixing sequestration, he has railed against the tax loopholes, he is clearly not afraid to defy them when he thinks its the right thing to do, and he takes 10 Republican members with him. We definitely see him as an important part of the path forward on a budget deal. The White House, meanwhile, told
Politico recently that its aides talk to McCain about every other day. President Obama, who namechecked McCain when he thanked senators for approving immigration reform and his nominees, gave a nod Wednesday to the efforts the senator has led to ease gridlock. The good news is a growing

number of Republican senators are looking to join their Democratic counterparts in

trying to get things done, Obama said during a major speech in Galesburg, Ill. aimed at framing the
upcoming debates over the budget and debt limit.

2ac no link
No link trade doesnt face opposition Llana 7/8/13 (Sara Miller, Will US-EU trade talks spur growth - or show globalization's limits?, CSM,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0708/Will-US-EU-trade-talks-spur-growth-or-showglobalization-s-limits)//javi So far TTIP has not generated widespread controversy in the US. That might be because its still early days. But its 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.

AT: EU Invite CP
EU cant get Latin America on board EA 5/27/13 (EU-US trade deal seen with concern in Mexico, EurActiv,
http://www.euractiv.com/development-policy/eu-trans-atlantic-deal-seen-conc-news-520010)//javi

Mexico, which sees itself as a privileged US partner, is concerned about the possible consequences of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Spanish MEP Ricardo Corts Lastra told EurActiv in an interview. Corts Lastra, who is the author of the report on the basis of which the European
Parliament Resolution On defining a new development cooperation policy with Latin America was adopted in June 2012, shared his impression from his recent visit to Mexico, where he held

Mexican colleagues were worried that the EU-US trade deal could have as a result that the EU would become a more important to the US at the expense of Mexico. Logically Mexico, which has the US as great business partner and has a little diversified market, watches with some concern what kind of consequence these agreements might have, he said. The ideas expressed by Corts Lastra reflect the state of mind reported in other developing countries, especially in Africa. Both the EU and the US give trade preferences to some African nations, but their benefit schemes differ. Therefore the expected policy harmonisation is raises the question on the negative consequences for some of the countries. Corts Lastra also said that the EU needed to put in place a new bilateral agreement, the current one, called Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, dating to 1997. Criticism at the Commission The Spanish MEP blasted the Commission for scaling down its development activities in Latin America. He said that the European Parliament wanted to send a message that Latin America remains, and will remain important to Europe, but that the Commission was issuing the opposite message. Even though some Latin American countries have progressed economically, enormous pockets of poverty remained, and the EU should not allow itself to stop its aid, he insisted.
talks with his counterparts. The Sociliast and Democrat MEP said that his

Doesnt solve Mexico only wants to cooperate through the US Moody 3/13/13 (Glyn, Mexico Will Ask To Join US-EU Transatlantic Trade Agreement, Tech Dirt,
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/10181122311/mexico-will-ask-to-join-us-eu-transatlantictrade-agreement.shtml)//javi

Things are moving fast with the proposed US-EU transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA). It
was only a few weeks ago that the formal announcement was made, and already another country wants to join, as pointed out by @PostActa (original in Spanish): The Mexican government wants to be

part of the negotiations of the Transatlantic Association of Trade and Investment (TTIP, in its English
acronym), which the United States and European Union will be negotiating, with the idea that there will be two blocks that make up the future pact. That is, alongside the EU block of 27 countries, Mexico is suggesting there should be a similar regional grouping in North America. Interestingly, the story says that the Mexican government will ask the US President for permission

to join, with no mention of asking the EU: "It is a sovereign decision of

Washington as to the approach and the negotiation strategy to be adopted", and although the U.S. government has already referred to the idea, it is something that is not yet included in a formal dialogue, and needs to be defined. That suggests that the US is actively involved in this latest move -- maybe even its instigator -- and would look favorably on Mexico joining TAFTA. There's also a hint in the article quoted above that Canada too
might join TAFTA. Having both Mexico and Canada on board would be consistent with the US's past approach, where it allowed them to join the TPP negotiations, but on fairly humiliating terms that limit their scope of action.

AT: Canada CP
Permute: do the plan and also invite Canada. US inviting both Canada and Mexico solves Moody 3/13/13 (Glyn, Mexico Will Ask To Join US-EU Transatlantic Trade Agreement, Tech Dirt,
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/10181122311/mexico-will-ask-to-join-us-eu-transatlantictrade-agreement.shtml)//javi That suggests that the US is actively involved in this latest move -- maybe even its instigator - and would look favorably on Mexico joining TAFTA. There's also a hint in the article quoted above that Canada too might join TAFTA. Having both Mexico and Canada on board would

be consistent with the US's past approach, where it allowed them to join the TPP negotiations, but on fairly humiliating terms that limit their scope of action. Mexico only wants to join as a response to the Canada EU deal Trew 3/18/13 trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians (Stuart, With French PM in town,
Canada commits to EU trade deal 'this year', Rabble, http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/councilcanadians/2013/03/french-pm-town-canada-commits-eu-trade-deal-year)//javi So when should we expect a Canada-EU trade deal to be ready? At some point this year

seems to be the closest guess, though one frequent CETA commentator wonders if even that is possible. Meanwhile the Mexican government appears to have requested participation in the fledgling U.S.-EU negotiations toward a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), with hints that Canada could also be welcomed aboard by the Obama administration.

AT: U.S.-Mexico Trade Bad DA

US-Mexico trade key to US jobs ASCOA 8/1/13 Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate, and
dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere (Reasons why the USMexico border Is critical to the economy, voxxi, http://www.voxxi.com/us-mexico-border-critical-toeconomy/)//javi 2. Millions of U.S. jobs depend on US trade with Mexicoand on efficient cross-border commerce facilitation. Six million US jobs are supported by bilateral trade with Mexico , which means that one in 24 workers depend on US-Mexico trade. More than 20

percent of US jobs are linked to trade along the border. NAFTA-related trade between the United States and Mexico has added 1.7 million US jobs. Trade with Mexico has created 692,000 jobs in California alone. US-Mexico trade generated over 200,000 jobs in New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and more than 100,000 jobs in 22 other states.

AT: BRIC DA
EU instability makes BRIC collapse inevitable Ogier 11- staff writer at Emerging Markets, (Thierry, Brics fail to agree on rescue plan, 09/22/2011, Emerging Markets,
http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/2905738/Brics-fail-to-agree-on-rescue-plan.html, //CJD)

Finance ministers from the Brics nations warned of mounting contagion risks at a meeting in Washington yesterday, but failed to advance any concrete measures that could help to resolve the crisis. The crisis is worsening. We have to prevent it from getting to another dimension, Guido Mantega, Brazils finance minister, said Until now the crisis was only in the advanced countries, [...] but there is now a risk that the sovereign debt crisis of various countries may develop into a new financial crisis. There is a risk of a crisis of large proportions. But although the Brics grouping Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which joined the group last year indicated a willingness to assist in measures aimed at restoring confidence to battered markets and preventing a renewed global downturn, yesterdays meeting of finance ministers from the five nations failed to arrive at specific recommendations. Earlier, South African finance minister Pravin Gordhan described proposals to buy European bonds to limit the scope of a crisis as an idea that my Brazilian colleagues have raised. Those of us that have the ability to contribute to that should perhaps consider that, he told Emerging Markets. Buying European bonds is just one idea. The most important thing is to re-establish the level of co-operation and give and take that emerged after 2008. Gordhan also came out strongly in favour of the financial transaction tax proposed by France at the G20. In principle we have to start looking at alternate sources of financing. There are still some debates about where the tax is generated, whom does the tax go to, does it operate on a country basis, does it operate on a global basis? he said. But India has expressed reservations. Duvvuri Subbarao, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, said that the country is able to absorb the [capital] flows that are coming in and was taking no measures to control them. We are quite unlike other economies which have a problem of excess of capital flows. Subbarao added that Brics policymakers had to balance the merits of assisting in the recovery of Europe and advanced nations with domestic development needs. There is (an) enormous amount of demand for resources at home for poverty reduction, so there is going to be a big, big tension between giving money to a multilateral institution for the purpose of restoring global stability and meeting our own aspirations at home, he said. Gordhan said a new cohesiveness was needed to meet international challenges. We look forward to

returning to the good old days of the G20 in 2008 when there was urgency, there was passion, there was coherence and a lot of cohesion which enabled us to avert the great depression. Now we require the great recovery. How we get there is part of the challenge, he said. BRICS fails at reform- no unity Beri 12- Research Officer at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, specialises on political and
security issues ofspecialises on political and security issues of Sub-Saharan Africa. She has an M.Phil from the Centre for West Asian and African Studies, School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi and a Diploma on Conflict Studies from the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden. She is currently the Vice President of the African Studies Association of India and an alumna of the Women in International Security (WIIS), (Ruchita, BRICS: In Search of Unity?, Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, April 3, 2012, http://idsa.in/idsacomments/BRICSInSearchofUnity_rberi_030412, //CJD) The fourth BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit held in New Delhi saw

steps towards greater financial integration and the establishment of a development bank. On the political front, the five leaders unanimously agreed, amongst other things, that dialogue is the way out for solving the Syrian crisis and the Iranian nuclear issue. While the summit ended with consensus about future plans of cooperation and on crucial issues of global concern, doubts still remain about the cohesiveness of the grouping. The idea of BRIC was first articulated in 2001 to represent the shift of economic power from the developed countries to the developing world . Today, BRIC is more than an acronym. It emerged as a formal grouping in 2006, at the first meeting of the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India and China on the sidelines of United Nations General assembly in New York. At the Sanya summit in 2011, South Africa joined the grouping as a fifth member, thus bringing representation from the African continent. There is no doubt that the BRICS grouping has evolved over the years as an important platform of consultation on various issues of economic and political importance . In the wake of the recent economic crisis, the emerging economic importance of BRICS is undeniable. Latest estimates suggest that BRICS countries excluding South Africa collectively account for around 25 per cent of world GDP; their share is expected to increase to 40 per cent by 2030. According to Goldman Sachs, the combined economies of the BRICS are expected to surpass those of the G 7 by 2035. Moreover, the five BRICS countries together account for a quarter of the worlds land mass and a little less than half of the worlds population. Intra-BRICS trade today stands at $230 billion. Thus, it appears that BRICS is emerging as a new growth pole in the multi polar world order. In

its first two summits at Yekaterinburg and Brasilia, the BRICS concentrated upon the

economic agenda, with the leaders using the platform to articulate the viewpoint of the emerging economies and developing countries. In the wake of the economic crisis in the US and Europe the group insisted on reshaping the rules governing the existing international economic order and reforming the Bretton Woods institutions. However, at the Sanya summit last year, the crisis in the Arab world forced the leaders to consider political issues and strive towards building common positions. The theme for the New Delhi summit was BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity. The leaders deliberated on a wide ranging agenda that included issues such as sustainable development, food and energy security, health, poverty eradication and global governance. They have decided to set up a joint working group to examine the feasibility of a BRICS investment bank to mobilise resources for infrastructure development projects in BRICS and other developing countries. At the same time, two agreements were concluded to enhance intra-BRIC trade and economic ties: the agreement on extending facilities in local currencies under BRICS inter-bank cooperation mechanism, and the multilateral letter of credit confirmation between the intra-BRICS EXIM banks. While the BRICS grouping does provide an opportunity for each member to play an important role on the global stage, one of the challenges that it faces is cohesiveness. Take the issue of the BRICS development bank. While it is indeed a laudable initiative, the challenge lies in aligning the differing interests of the member countries. Moreover, other members of the grouping are wary of Chinas domination over the bank given that China holds very large foreign exchange reserves ($ 3 trillion). While the Delhi Declaration calls for candidatures from the developing world for the position of the President of the World Bank, the BRICS have not been able to agree upon a common candidate. This appears to be a case of history repeating itself. Last year, the BRICS countries failed to unite behind a common candidate for the top job at the International Monetary Fund, thus leaving the path open for French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn. On the political front, in 2011, the presence of all BRICS members together at the United Nations Security Council presented them an opportunity to coordinate their positions on issues of global concern. But they failed to do so on issues like Libya and Syria. In the case of Libya, while South Africa voted in favour of Resolution 1973 approving the No fly zone and NATO air strikes, the other BRICS countries abstained. In the case of Syria and the latest resolution backing the Arab League plan for Presidents Assads removal, India, Brazil and South Africa voted in favour while China and Russia vetoed it. While possibilities of synchronising positions do

exist, the fact remains that BRICS is a heterogeneous group composed of democracies and autocracies, energy importers and energy producers. Further, national interests and geopolitical factors limit the possibility of BRICS members reaching a unified and collective viewpoint. Thus, while their growing economic clout has brought Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa together, translating the hand holding gestures at the end of each summit into real unity is likely to remain a daunting task. BRICS is forever dead- internal disputes within the country makes economic reform impossible Yardley 12- staff writer at New York Times, (Jim, BRICS Leaders Fail to Create Rival to World Bank, March 29th, 2012,
New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/world/asia/brics-leaders-fail-to-create-rival-to-world-bank.html?_r=0, //CJD)

NEW DELHI Leaders of five emerging world economic powers convened on Thursday for

a one-day diplomatic meeting, pledging to expand mutual trade while urging faster reforms of the Western-dominated global financial system. They also called for dialogue, not military intervention, in addressing the violence in Syria and Irans disputed nuclear ambitions. The leaders of the five countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa the so-called BRICS nations emphasized their mutual good will and their growing economic power, but fell short of achieving the tangible goal most discussed before the gathering: the establishment of a new development agency to rival the World Bank. Instead, the leaders created a high-level working group to examine the issue and report back when they meet next year. As expected, they signed agreements to enable the greater use of local currencies, rather than the dollar, in trade among their countries. Such arrangements are partly intended to reduce transaction costs. We are united in our desire to promote sustained and balanced global economic growth, Indias prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said during the meetings plenary session. Thousands of police and paramilitary officers were sent to New Delhi for the meeting, not only to safeguard the visiting leaders, but to prevent Tibetans from demonstrating against the presence of the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, and against Beijings rule in Tibet. At least 316 people were being held under preventative arrest at the citys Tihar Jail, according to an administrator, who added that they did not face any charges. On Wednesday, a Tibetan monk from the Kirti Monastery in western China died after setting himself on fire, as did a Tibetan man in New Delhi who was protesting Mr. Hus visit. Tibetan activists and human rights advocates criticized New Delhis crackdown as a violation of free speech. On Thursday, the police tried to thwart demonstrations near the summit meeting by

blocking surrounding roads. But around noon, two Tibetans managed to run onto a footbridge several hundred yards from the Taj Palace Hotel, the setting of the meeting. They shouted slogans and unfurled a banner reading, Hu Jintao Failed Leader Free Tibet Now. The police quickly intervened. Other minor Tibetan protests were held elsewhere in New Delhi during the afternoon. In statements during the session, the five leaders expressed concern about the global economic situation and called on advanced economies to adopt responsible macroeconomic and financial policies, according to their joint statement. Brazils president, Dilma Rousseff, cautioned against low interest rates and easy lending by central banks that she said had made commodity markets volatile. The BRICS nations held their first summit meeting in 2009 with the aspiration of reforming the global financial system and becoming a diplomatic counterweight to the West. B ut their internal divisions have stalled the groups evolution into a potent diplomatic alliance. On Thursday, the leaders reiterated their calls to speed up reforms to the International Monetary Fund and create a more inclusive process for selecting the World Banks president. They also endorsed the Group of 20 major economies as being the premier forum for addressing financial issues. But as for reforming the United Nations Security Council, their agendas remained divided. India, Brazil and South Africa each aspire to permanent seats on the Council. In the past, Russia has endorsed their bids, a position repeated on Thursday by President Dmitri A. Medvedev. China has remained noncommittal on the issue, especially regarding India, and Mr. Hu was noticeably silent on that point during his remarks. In the joint statement, the five leaders also expressed deep concern about the situation in Syria, endorsing the joint mediation efforts of the United Nations and the Arab League and calling for a dialogue that respects Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. They also expressed concern about Irans nuclear program, which much of the West believes is a weapons program, but they supported Irans right to civilian nuclear energy. And they warned of disastrous consequences if the situation escalated into conflict. BRICS fails- GDP increases are tied to individual economies, not the whole organization Nye 13- former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US
National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. He is the author of The Future of Power and the forthcoming Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era, (Joseph S., BRICS Without Mortar, April 3rd, 2013, Project Syndicate, http://www.trilateral.org/download/file/Nye_BRICS_without_Mortar_April_2013.pdf, //CJD)

Indeed, while the BRICS may be helpful in coordinating certain diplomatic tactics, the

term lumps together highly disparate countries. Not only is South Africa miniscule

compared to the others, but Chinas economy is larger than those of all of the other members combined. Likewise, India, Brazil, and South Africa are democracies, and occasionally meet in an alternative forum that they call IBSA. And, while the large autocracies, Russia and China, find it diplomatically advantageous to tweak the Americans, both have different but crucial relationships with the United States. And both have worked to thwart efforts by India, Brazil, and South Africa to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. As I wrote three years ago, in analytical terms, it makes little sense to include Russia, a former superpower, with the developing economies. Russia lacks diversified exports, faces severe demographic and health problems, and, in former President Dmitri Medvedevs words, greatly needs modernization. Little has changed since Putin returned to the presidency last year. While economic growth benefited from the dramatic growth in oil and gas prices during the last decade, other competitive industries have yet to emerge, and the country now faces the prospect of declining energy prices. While it aims to maintain 5% annual growth, its economy was relatively flat last year. If Russias power resources seem to be declining, Brazils appear to be more impressive, given it has a territory nearly three times the size of Indias, a 90% literacy rate, and triple the per capita income of India (and nearly twice that of China). But, in the three years since my earlier assessment, Brazils performance has slipped: annual economic growth has slowed from 7.5% in 2010 to 1% last year, with a 3.5% rate expected in 2013. Like Brazil, India experienced a spurt of output growth after liberalizing its economy in the 1990s; indeed, until a few years ago, GDP growth was approaching Chinese-style rates. This year, however, output is expected to rise by a relatively sluggish 5.9%. Unless it improves its infrastructure and literacy rate (particularly for women), India is unlikely to catch up with China. So, should we take todays BRICS more seriously than the BRICs of three years ago? Tellingly, the meeting in Durban failed to produce any details of the structure of the proposed new development bank, suggesting that little progress had been made in the year since the BRICS last meeting in New Delhi, where the plan was announced. In fact, despite a commitment to launch formal negotiations to establish the bank, disagreements about the size and shares of the banks capital have not been resolved. That lack of unity is symptomatic of the BRICS members underlying incompatibilities. In political terms, China, India, and Russia are vying with each other for power in Asia. And, in economic terms, Brazil, India, and South Africa are concerned about the effects of Chinas undervalued currency on their economies. Three years ago, I wrote that, BRIC is not

likely to become a serious political organization of like-minded states. The BRICS most recent meeting has given me no reason to revise that assessment. Laundry list of alt causes to EU withdrawal Ghosh et. Al. 09 Professor of Economics at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi, India.
-

Her specialities include globalization, international finance, employment patterns in developing countries, macroeconomic policy, and issues related to gender and development, (Jayati, Models of BRICs Economic Development and Challenges for EU Competitiveness, December 2009, The Vienna Institute for inter national economic studies, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CIYBEBYwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wiiw.ac.at%2FmodPubl%2Fdownload.php%3Fpubl%3DRR359&ei=fo H8UZfVLoXGqgGU-IHYCw&usg=AFQjCNGzX2zZsZxdsH-PCFED4HAI8cd_og&sig2=RdPPow5egNUGouELpnSkcg, //CJD)

Rising demand for consumer goods. The ongoing catching-up process in the BRICs and the rising population (the latter except in Russia) will lead to an overproportionate demand for more sophisticated and high-quality consumer goods, which will provide ample opportunities for EU exports and market-seeking FDI in these fields. Thus, the currently skewed export structure, focusing on investment goods and intermediates (again except in Russia) is expected to become more balanced. Technological upgrading. Competition from the BRICs in high value added and technology-driven manufacturing products will increase on the EU market and on third markets, in particular in other emerging economies. China has already entered this path. The new outward-looking policy in Brazil and the new industrial policy in India with ambitions to become part of the Asian supplier network will support this development. To stay ahead, EU companies will have to accelerate their technological development. Expanding R&D. Due to rising expenditures for R&D in the BRICs, competitive pressure on the EU may also increase in certain high-tech areas where the individual BRICs choose to specialize. But on the other hand, new opportunities for technical & scientific cooperation and for knowledge flows between the EU and the BRICs will emerge. Broadening of supply/demand. There are several signs that the BRICs will broaden the range of their supplies on their home markets as well as abroad. China will advance its relatively undersized services sector, also promoting outsourcing activities, and will spur the modernization of agriculture; Brazil, India and Russia intend to further diversify their industrial structure. This will widen the competition from the BRICs, but will also open up new opportunities for EU enterprises on the BRICs markets in these fields. Stronger demand for investment goods. The envisaged restructuring and technological upgrading of the BRICs will absorb a large amount of investment goods, where the EU has shown a comparative advantage with respect to the BRICs already and is expected to do so in the future as well. Focus on infrastructure. All BRICs have ambitious plans to increase infrastructure investment such as for transport infrastructure in Brazil, Russia and India; for increasing energy efficiency and protecting the environment in China; and for

power generation and telecommunications in India. This will open up many new opportunities for EU suppliers specialized in these fields. Large distances. For some business areas, a large distance between supplier and customer, as it is the case between the EU and the BRICs, is considered a serious obstacle. Furthermore, when economic relations become more complex, the local presence of EU enterprises is gaining importance. However, there are still various restrictions on FDI in the BRICs (in particular in China and Russia). Also, SMEs typically face more problems in investing in more distant places than larger companies. Regionalism. Regional economic cooperation agreements give the individual BRICs a relative advantage compared to the EU in the respective region. This is particularly relevant in Asia, where regionalism is on the rise. In 2010, a free trade agreement between China and ASEAN will become effective, and India is seeking closer links to the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) as well. Brazil holds a privileged position within Mercosur, but this will fade when the ongoing negotiations for an FTA between the EU and Mercosur are concluded successfully. A number of challenges with respect to Russia exist in shaping EU relations with its Eastern neighbours (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, etc.). Changing roles. China has propagated to follow a more domestically orientated development model in the future, which is expected to somewhat reduce its competitive pressure in international markets. Brazil, India and Russia, on the other hand, are striving for a more outward oriented policy in the years to come, which may increase competitive pressure from their side. Regional differences tank economic solvency Fleming 12- staff writer at the Australian business with wall street, (Sam,
Bric outlook dims as regional differences build, 1/02/12, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bricoutlook-dims-as-regional-differences-build/story-e6frg8zx-1226234614072, //CJD)

The brainchild of Goldman Sachs, the term Bric was coined in 2001 to describe a clutch

of emerging nations - Brazil, Russia, India and China - that were set to be catapulted into the global economic big league. Like many successful products, the Bric acronym ingeniously captured the zeitgeist: the effervescent enthusiasm that surrounded the economic blossoming of poorer nations. In many ways the past decade has borne out or even exceeded that heady optimism - above all, in China, which has expanded at close to 10 per cent a year. According to Goldman, the People's Republic will overtake the US in 2026 in terms of the overall size of its economy. But the near-term prospects for big emerging economies are looking less and less rosy. China is confronting industrial and civil unrest that shows no sign of subsiding, just as it prepares for a landmark leadership transition

in Beijing. Property prices in 49 of its 70 biggest cities declined in November. Europe, its top export market, is veering into a recession. HSBC points out that China saw net capital outflows in October and November - an unprecedented turn of events. India is facing an even rougher road as endemic infrastructure logjams, rural poverty, a sclerotic social system and corruption sap its prospects. The rupee is in freefall, inflation remains stubbornly elevated and the country is suffering from worrying twin fiscal and current account deficits. Last month, India shelved plans to open up its retail sector to foreign investors amid an ebbing appetite for economic reform. Although Brazil looks more resilient, it still failed to grow in the third quarter because of the knock-on impact of slowing growth elsewhere and slacker demand for commodities. Russia, the ugly stepsister of the Bric quartet, should never have been included in the first place, given its dismal demographics, horrendous public health problems and stubborn reliance on oil and natural gas. Going into 2012, events in the West will be critical and the notion that the four economies will simply "decouple" themselves from a deep recession in Europe or the US is highly dubious. If China, in particular, sees a serious slowdown, the consequences will reverberate across the world: a global downturn rivalling the one in 2008-09 could be on the cards. There are signs that investors are already taking fright. Bric funds recorded $US15 billion ($14.7bn) of outflows this year, according to Bloomberg. Big FTSE mining stocks took a bath in the second half of 2011 on Asian growth worries. Of course, a cyclical downturn is in itself not a reason to dump the Bric concept: it is, after all, meant to describe a much longer-term growth phenomenon. The acronym has become an embedded feature of the investment landscape, defining equity products and indices as well as peppering innumerable pieces of economic research. The countries' own governments, with the recent addition of South Africa, have endorsed it by holding Brics summits since 2009, with another due to be held in March. But these are nations that in reality have little in common and their economic and political fortunes increasingly will diverge. Beyond the realm of diplomatic symbolism, the Brics grouping has failed to demonstrate any political coherence and it is unlikely to do so. A measure of this came last year with the early departure of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as chief of the International Monetary Fund. Emerging powers rightly said they should have a bigger say at the table and that it was time to break Europe's monopoly on the fund's top job. The Brics forum might have provided an excellent vehicle to deliver their demands to the Western powers, but the Brics flunked that test for the simple reason that their points of rivalry far outweigh matters of mutual interest. It is by no means undesirable for China and India to hold talks at a summit, but that hardly means these

perpetually nervous neighbours are turning into allies. Goldman's Brics update, issued in early
December, acknowledged that the biggest leap forward in the countries' contribution to global growth may already be past us. Big setbacks lie ahead. In particular, mounting signs of civil

disobedience in China and Russia will test ossified power structures. Russia should surely be dumped from the grouping, based on its stunted economic potential, corrupt legal and political institutions and long-term population decline. Indonesia, some say, would be a logical candidate to replace it. But then again, what of Mexico or Turkey - both of which show real promise? It is by no means game-over for the long-term growth story in emerging markets. The Brics will populate the ranks of the world's six biggest economies in 2050, according to Goldman's latest predictions, which - who knows - may be borne out. In terms of income per head, however, Bric nations will remain laggards. And there was always more to divide the Brics - including their wildly different political systems, societies and demographics - than to unite them. With the common currency of ultrarapid growth running short, the Brics have hit a wall.