EU CP

The European Union should substantially increase its democracy assistance by funding debureaucratization efforts in Egypt. EU is comparatively the best actor to promote democracy in Egypt. ASHTON 11 (Catherine, is the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, February
4, The EU wants 'deep democracy' to take root in Egypt and Tunisia, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/egypttunisia-eu-deep-democracy)

The uprisings across north Africa and the Arab world pose great challenges to Europe and the rest
of the western world. Two principles underpin the European Union's actions. The first is that we in Europe know how long and painful the journey towards liberty can be. Our own path to 20th century liberal democracy was a slow one. The EU itself was born in the ashes of conflicts that reminded us how terrible life can be when democracy breaks down. Add in the mixed record of Europe's empires, and some humility is in order, even as we assert that democracy is the necessary foundation of human progress. Second, democracy is, of course, about votes and elections but it is also about far more than

Europe have learned the hard way is that we need "deep democracy": respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and impartial administration. It requires enforceable property rights and free trade unions. It is not just about changing government but about building the right institutions and attitudes. In the long run, "surface democracy" people casting their votes freely on election day and choosing their government will not survive if deep democracy fails to take
that. What we in

root. We have already started to apply these principles in our work with the new Tunisian government. This week Ahmed Ouneies, Tunisia's new
foreign minister, came to Brussels at my invitation on his first trip abroad. I promised that we shall give his country all the help we can so that it can follow the path its people have chosen: towards genuine democracy, reform and social justice. This includes not just help to run free and fair elections, but also support for a programme to fight corruption, make local administration transparent and the justice system fully independent. The EU has already increased the money available to support civil society. We are about to dispatch experts to Tunisia to assess the situation on the ground and we will further adjust our assistance to help the people more directly. I am sure it will be the first of many missions. In the short run, a key part of their task will be to provide advice to the transition authorities on their electoral legislation; but by helping to build up civil society, we are seeking to ensure that free,

The European Union will also offer its full support to an Egypt that moves without delay towards a genuine political transition.
competitive elections will continue to take place in years to come and not be a one-year wonder. They must respond to the wishes of their people. The time for a peaceful transformation is now. I

have called on the Egyptian authorities to embark on a transition towards genuine democratic reform, paving the way for free and fair elections. There, too, the challenge is to lay down the roots of deep democracy; there, too, the EU stands ready to help. We are witnessing major change in the Middle East. The contours are not clear yet they cannot be. We do know that in future the
role of Turkey will be even more important, as a valued partner of the European Union and a pole of democratic moderation. We also know that urgent progress on the Middle East peace process is vital, now more than ever.

The EU will not push simple templates or

precise prescriptions on how the new political systems should look. That is not for us but for the citizens of the region to decide. But we must engage seriously to help them, short and longer term. The EU is perhaps not always the fastest on the way in, but often the one that stays the longest. We don't do regime change, but system
change. In the end, deep democracy is the best, and arguably only, answer to those who fear that the overthrow of tyranny will lead to the populism of anti-western extremism. Europe's experience tells us that true democracy is the necessary foundation of tolerance, peace and prosperity. In north Africa and the Arab world that destination will not be reached quickly or without setbacks. But building deep democracy is the only way that destination will be reached at all.

Politics
PTC will pass now but Obama s capital is key Weisman, 1/18
(NYT Columnist, Parties Confident of Extending Payroll Tax Cut, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/congress-sees-few-barriers-to-extending-payroll-taxcut.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) With both parties largely in agreement on a yearlong extension of President Obama s payroll tax cut, the fight in Congress over the coming weeks will boil down to how to pay for it, and Democrats appeared to hold the advantage as members of the House returned to Washington on Tuesday. Senior Democratic aides say they are entering the tax negotiations in a strong position after House Republicans yielded to bipartisan political pressure and passed a two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax cut just before the winter break. Republicans, eager to avoid another bruising fight, have signaled that they will drop the most controversial provisions in the version of the yearlong extension passed by the House earlier in December. Those include efforts to
WASHINGTON block environmental regulations on boilers and carbon emissions and to allow states to impose drug tests on recipients of unemployment benefits. Democrats have retreated from their effort to raise taxes on incomes over $1 million to finance the extension of a tax cut for most working Americans, stave off a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors and extend expiring unemployment benefits. But they do not seem ready to give much more ground. We feel all the concessions going forward need to come from them, said one senior Senate Democratic official, who requested anonymity to discuss negotiating strategy. We won t shy from using the political high ground. A senior Obama administration official, who also would speak only if not identified, said White House aides would look at the overall composition of the final package to make sure that what they saw as subsidies to high-income individuals and corporations were mitigated. That could mean ending tax breaks for corporate jets or other revenue provisions that Republicans have weighed as possibilities but have so far balked at, aides say. Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and negotiator on the final bill, said Democrats would revive their push to raise taxes on oil and gas companies and propose a fee on banks to recoup still-unpaid costs of the Wall Street bailout. Republicans and Democrats say passage of a yearlong extension should go smoothly, and they vowed not to have another 11th-hour crisis before the temporary extension expires at the end of February. Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said on Tuesday that House and Senate negotiators should finish their work by the end of

this month, or by the Presidents Day break at the latest. It won t be easy, he cautioned, but waiting until Feb. 28 won t make it easier. Yet finding more than $160 billion in savings may prove more troublesome than the leaders are letting on. And that might be only a starting point. Some senior senators would like to add a raft of business tax credits that
expired on Dec. 31. Those credits have been routinely extended for years but now face the headwinds of a near-record budget deficit. That could mean finding as much as $35 billion more in cuts and possibly additional revenue. This is going to be

tougher than people think,

Mr. Van Hollen said.

No aid now because of opposition even reallocations cost capital L.A. Times 11
Paul Richter, April 12, 2011, U.S. aid Arabs: Debt worries stymie U.S. aid to Arab nations in transition, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/12/world/la-fg-mideast-aid-20110413 The Obama administration's efforts to use foreign aid to help Middle East and North African nations undergoing democratic transitions have been stopped short by a Congress focused on paring federal debt and other spending priorities. The administration is weighing a request from the new government in Egypt to forgive a debt of $3.3 billion, and another appeal from the fledgling administration in Tunisia to forgive a far smaller debt, about $7 million. But the budget battles raging in Washington have made debt relief unlikely, officials said. U.S. lawmakers not only have shut the door on new spending to stabilize countries rocked by the so-called Arab Spring. They have resisted proposals to shift money from other foreign aid programs. Administration officials say such aid offers a way to shape historic change sweeping the region. They fear steep economic declines could cripple nascent democracies in Cairo and Tunis, where popular uprisings toppled dictators this year, and could turn their populations
toward Islamist groups that threaten U.S. strategic interests. Opponents say they support democracy in the Arab world but won't necessarily pay for it. "There's just no appetite to spend more money," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who serves on the House Budget Committee. "When we can't pay our own bills, it's difficult to justify nation-building in foreign countries.

Lack of PTC causes economic collapse

Political Correction 12-12, factchecking branch of the Media Matters Action Network, Republicans:
Payroll Tax Holiday Isn't "Stimulating" Enough , http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201112120007
Zandi: "Without That

Payroll Tax Cut This Year, I Think We'd Be Skirting Recession Now." During a June 26, 2011,

appearance on CNN's State of the Union, Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandi stated: "On the other side of that, there are a few things I think that can be done that would make a difference in the very short term if we need it. So extending the payroll tax holiday for another year seems like a reasonable thing to do. I think that can get done politically. Without that

payroll tax cut this year, I think we'd be skirting recession now because of the higher energy prices." [CNN's
State of the Union, 6/26/11, emphasis added] Moody's: Every Dollar In Reduced Revenue From Payroll Tax Cut Expands Economy by $1.27. According to the Center on Budget and Policy priorities: The rationale for enacting the temporary

payroll tax cut last December - the economy was weak and a payroll tax cut would provide a more efficient bang-for-the-buck than many other tax-cut options - has become still more compelling today, given the renewed signs of economic weakness. At a time of soft economy-wide demand, the tax cut increases consumer purchasing power in a manner that is both substantial (boosting take-home pay by 2 percent for most workers) and modestly progressive, since the wage cap limits the benefit for higher-income families (who are more likely to save rather than spend the additional money) Largely for these reasons, Moody's Analytics estimates that every $1 reduction in federal tax revenue resulting from an employee-side payroll tax cut expands the economy by $1.27. [CBPP.org, 9/7/11, emphasis added, internal citation removed] CBO Director In 2010: A Payroll Tax Cut Would Add Jobs And Spur The Economy. From Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf's February 23, 2010, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee: A temporary reduction in employees' portion of the payroll tax would not
immediately affect employers' costs. Instead, it would have initial effects similar to those of reducing other taxes for people below the 2010 income cap. The increase in take-home pay would spur additional spending by the households receiving the higher income, and that higher spending would, in turn, increase production and

employment. Those effects

would be spread over time, however, and the majority of the increased take-home pay would be saved rather than spent. CBO

estimates that reducing employees' payroll taxes would raise output cumulatively between 2010 and 2015 by $0.30 to $0.90 per dollar of total budgetary cost. CBO also estimates that the policy would add 3 to 9 cumulative years of full-time-equivalent employment in 2010 and 2011 per million dollars of total budgetary cost.
[Elmendorf Testimony, 2/23/10, emphasis added, via CBO.gov] FACT: Economists Say Letting Payroll Tax Cut Expire Would Weaken Economy CBPP: Extending Payroll Tax Cut Will Reduce Risk That The Economy Will Continue To Grow Too Slowly. From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy. The measure, part of the tax cutunemployment insurance deal between President Obama and Republican leaders, reduces the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax, boosting workers' take-home pay by an estimated $120 billion in 2011. The tax cut is worth $934 to the average family. (The table below gives some examples of how the tax cut's expiration would affect workers in different occupations.) Many economists have warned that letting the tax cut expire at the end of December would slow economic growth next year. To

reduce the risk that the economy will continue to grow too slowly to lower unemployment or may even slide back into recession, policymakers should at a minimum extend the tax cut. [CBPP.org, 9/7/11, emphasis
added, citation removed for clarity] EPI/Century Foundation: Failure To Extend Payroll Tax Cut Could Decrease GDP By $128 Billion And Cost Almost 1 Million Jobs. According to an issue brief from the Economic Policy Institute and The Century

Foundation: "As part of December's deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, Congress enacted a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for all workers, and it is set to expire at the end of the year. The cost of failing to extend the payroll tax cut is estimated by adjusting the cost of the 2011 payroll tax cut (JCT 2010) by CBO's projection of wage and salary growth (CBO 2011b), resulting in a cost of $117.8 billion. Applying a fiscal multiplier of 1.09 (Zandi 2010), we estimate that the failure to extend the payroll tax cut would decrease GDP by $128 billion (0.8%) and lower nonfarm employment by 972,000 jobs. [Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation, 8/4/11,
emphasis added] Zandi: "Critical" To Extend Payroll Tax Holiday; Failure To Do So Will Increase Drag On Economy. According to Moody's Analytics Economist Mark Zandi: "To avoid recession, Congress and the administration must also find common ground on economic policy. If they do nothing, federal fiscal policy will shave 1.7 percentage points from real GDP

growth next year. The triggers for this include the expiration of both this year's reduced payroll tax rate and emergency unemployment insurance benefits. Even a strong economy would have trouble digesting this, never mind one that is struggling to post any growth at all. [...] It is critical (and assumed in our baseline outlook) that lawmakers agree at least to extend and increase the payroll tax holiday for workers through 2012 as proposed by President Obama. This would reduce next year's fiscal drag to less than 1 percentage point-still a heavy lift for the economy, but doable. [Economy.com, 10/10/11] Zandi: Extending Payroll Tax Cut Would Create 750,000 Jobs. From McClatchy: "The biggest

contributor to job growth next year under the Obama plan would be extending the payroll tax holiday for workers, which Zandi estimates would add

750,000 jobs. The portion that is waved for employers would add another 300,000 jobs, he said. Infrastructure spending could add 400,000 jobs." [McClatchy, 9/8/11]

That results in extinction Kemp 10

Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oilproducing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet s population.

Audacity of Nope 1NC

The good traveler has no fixed plans. The joy of life comes spontaneously in accepting things as they are the 1AC s social engineering destroys us spiritually.
Slabbert 1, (Jos, Taoist teacher, Tao Te Ching: How to Deal With Suffering, http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm //shree,
ev under erasure)

If you open yourself to loss, you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely. This openness, a willingness and courage to face reality, is the only way to deal with suffering, particularly inescapable
suffering. But the openness the poet is describing is more than just facing reality. It is facing reality in total harmony with the Tao: If you open yourself to the Tao, you are at one with the Tao and you can embody it completely. It is only when you "embody" the Tao that you can face suffering with true equanimity. You will then have the openness that insight into your own nature and the natural way of Tao brings you. The right approach to suffering is only possible when you have reduced your ego to a minimum. The less ego you have, the less you suffer. Facing death with unresolved agendas is a terrible form of suffering. You will have to let go of selfish interests and futile aims to concentrate on dealing with the moment. It is the acceptance of the inevitable that makes suffering bearable. On his death bed, his family mourning, he is serene, for he knows Death, like Life, is an illusion: there is no beginning and no end. There is only the endless flow of Tao. The man of Tao has no fear, for he walks with Tao. (The Tao is Tao, 154) Agendas. A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. (Chapter 27) Plans, aims, objectives and agendas have become the routes of suffering for so many people, and not only the ambitious. Agendas often take spontaneity and joy out of life. In the process, many people have become bad travelers, concentrating only on their objectives, and arriving at their destinations only to find that even their destinations are not really worth the trouble. Having no fixed plans? This does not sound like survival in a modern technological environment, does it? I mean, who but the extremely fortunate have the luxury of not having agendas running their lives? In most cases, one could justifiably point out, agendas are forced on you by your professional and familial obligations. You do not really have a choice, do you? How could one then become a good traveler through life in this modern world? I think the key lies in the second line of the quotation. One should not be "intent upon arriving". You should adopt an attitude of detachment. The moment your aims become egocentric, your suffering increases. The less your own ego is involved, the less seriously you will take life, and the more you will enjoy the journey. It is easier said than done, though, particularly when the job you are doing seems to be devoid of meaning, and the activities on your agenda tedious. They might even go against what you truly believe. It is clear. To become a good traveler in the modern world often entails more than just a change of attitude. It could also mean changing your life style, even your profession. It could mean taking risks in the process. But liberation has always been a risky undertaking, hasnt it? People are willing to take risks for the most mundane things like profit and possession. Why not take a few risks when your spiritual progress is at stake? Truly good travelers often leave the beaten track and become masters of their own far more adventurous journeys. Tampering with the world. Do you want to improve the world? I don't think it can be done. The world is sacred. It can't be improved. If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it. (Chapter 29) If anything, the Twentieth Century will be called the century of social engineering. Simplistic ideologies, like fascism, were used to try to change the world, with terrible consequences inducing suffering on a scale never seen before in the history of the human being. A savage economic system based on greed - capitalism - has ravaged the world. Yet, the human being has not learnt from this. Still, politicians show their ignorance by tampering with the sacred. It is the age of management, that euphemistic word for manipulating society. It is still happening. What else are many political programs but tampering with the sacred and ruining it in the process? It is the source of endless suffering. Forcing issues. Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men doesn't try to force issues or defeat enemies by force of arms. For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself. The Master does his job and then stops. He understands that the universe is forever out of control, and that trying to dominate events goes against the current of the Tao. (Chapter 30) Understanding that the universe is out of control is the key to wisdom and patience. No amount of tampering with the universe will change this. In fact, the more we tamper with it, the more damage we will do.

Vote negative to forgo the 1AC s intent to effect desired ends.

Kirkland 96 (Russel, prof of Asian religions at UGA, The Book of the Way, Great Literature of the Eastern World,
http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/DAODE.pdf //shree) Specifically, the Tao is humble, yielding, and non-assertive. Like a mother, it benefits others selflessly: it gives us all life and guides us safely through it, asking nothing in return. This altruistic emphasis of the Daode jing has seldom been noticed, but it is one of the most important lessons that it draws from the observation of the natural world. Water, for instance, is the gentlest and most yielding of all things, yet it can overcome the strongest substances, and cannot itself be destroyed. More importantly, however, water lives for others: it provides the basis of life for all things, and asks nothing in return. If we learn to live like water does, we will be living in accord with the Tao, and its Power (De) will carry us safely through life. Such a way of life is called wuwei, usually translated as "non-action." Wuwei means foregoing all activity intended to effect desired ends. Instead, one should follow one's natural course and allow all other things to do likewise, lest our willful interference disrupt things' proper flow. Few modern readers have ever grasped the full radicality of the ideal of wuwei. Many of us today (like the ancient Chinese Confucians and Mohists) look at the world and see things that we think need correcting. The Daode jing would actually have us do nothing whatsoever about them. The repeated phrase "do nothing, and nothing will be undone" admonishes us to trust the Tao -- the natural working of things -- and never to do anything about anything. Actually, such is the most that anyone can do, because the Tao -- as imperceptible as it is -- is the most powerful force in existence, and nothing can thwart its unceasing operation.

Islamic Feminism
The Rush to support Islamic Feminism prevents libratory strategies and advances an orientalist, essentialist view of Women in the Middle East.
Haideh Moghissi, 2011, Haideh Moghissi is professor of sociology and women's studies and former associate dean, international relations, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, at York University, Toronto. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East Volume 31, Number 1, 2011 E-ISSN: 1548-226X Print ISSN: 1089-201X What was and still is disturbing, however, is the lack of balance in most of the affirmative accounts of Muslim women's activism. Many proponents of Muslim women's agency and Islamic feminist projects avoid any discussion of oppressive gender practices and seem to disapprove of a critical analysis of the Sharia-based reforms that are central to the Islamic feminist agenda. My concern has been and continues to be that the uncritical acceptance of Islamic feminism as a new libratory project in Islamic societies is not in the service of women's cause.2 The push for promoting Islamic feminism, I fear, is not really opening new possibilities for feminists to hear different voices and to encourage, welcome, and learn about new ideas and divergent strategies in specific cultural and political contexts. It is not by engaging in a mutually respectful and constructive dialogue, promoting a climate of critical thinking within feminism, finding common ground, or strategizing to achieve specific goals that women are empowered and the struggle for gender justice is elevated. The euphoric emphasis on Islamic feminism reflects, rather, a romanticized notion of Islam and an Islamic frame as an alternative way of being and acting for change, to the detriment of all secular projects. It has an intimidating and silencing effect and discourages serious dialogue about the possibilities and limitations of feminist projects of different sorts for Muslim societies. To many secular feminists in and from Islamic cultures, including myself, this tendency reflects an essentialized notion of women in Islamic cultures as an undifferentiated crowd, united by their faith, regardless of whether they are practicing Muslims. They are all "Muslim" because they live in Muslim societies and that explains it all. Obviously, if we consider women in Muslim societies as different and take that difference to be absolute and final, and see Islam as the only defining factor in their identity and their lives, we will not listen to or even hear the many voices that are raised against the authority of Islamic Sharia and its legal practices in defining people's social and moral actions. Such a frame of mind obscures the diversity of women's class status, ethnic origin, rural or urban location, and social and moral standards and the different aspirations and life choices that are granted to women everywhere else. This is the result of pure imagination. Indeed, "imaginative geography and history help the mind to intensify its own sense of itself by dramatizing the distance and difference between what

is close to it and what is far away," as Edward Said noted.3 Overlooking the many different factors that divide rather than unite women in Islamic cultures, the tendency sometimes appears as a push to force Islam on women and to treat the skeptics as outsiders to their own culture. One wonders whether the term Christian women, or for that matter Christian feminism, as a frame of reference for identifying all women and all feminists in Western Christian societies would be as acceptable and justified as the identifier Muslim women is in reference to women in the Middle East.

Security
Future-oriented politics are key to prevent extinction from technology. Even if technological power is the cause we should explicitly plan and expose possibilities for human extinction. Jonas 96 (Hans, Former Alvin Johnson Prof. Phil. New School for Social Research and Former Eric Voegelin Visiting Prof.
U. Munich, Morality and Mortality: A Search for the Good After Auschwitz, p. 108-110) But to return to our subject: Modern megatechnology contains both of the threats we have namedthat of physical annihilation and that of existential impoverishment: the former by means of its unquestionably negative potential for catastrophe (such as atomic war), the latter by means of its positive potential for manipulation. Examples of this manipulation, which can lead to our ethical powerlessness, are the automation of all work, psychological and biological behavior control, various forms of totalitarianism, andprobably most dangerous of allthe genetic reshaping of our nature. Finally, as far as environmental destruction is concernedi.e., not a sudden nuclear apocalypse but a gradual one by means of a completely peaceful technology in the service of humanity the physical threat itself becomes an existential one if the end result is global misery that allows only for an imperative of naked survival devoid of all feeling of ethical responsibility. With this, we return to the other desideratum for the grounding of an ethics for the future in a technological age: the factual knowledge afforded by "futurology." We said earlier that this knowledge must awaken the right feelings in us in order to motivate us to act with responsibility. A few words are appropriate here about this emotional side of a vision of the future called for by ethics. If we first think, as we cannot help but do, of the fate man has imposed on the planet, a fate staring at us out of the future, then we are right to feel a mixture of fear and guilt: fear because what we see ahead is something terrible; guilt because we are conscious of our own causal role in bringing it about. But can something frightful, which will not affect us but those who come much later, frighten us? Even watching a tragedy on the stage can do this, as we know. This analogy adds to our "fear" and anticipatory "pity" for later generations damned in advance, yet we do not have the consolation afforded by a stage drama that this is mere fiction; the reality of futurology's warning denies us that. Above all, however, its accusation that future generations are our victims makes the selfish distancing of our feelings, which something remote otherwise permits, morally impossible for us. Our horror at what the future holds cries out to us: "That must not be! We must not permit that! We must not bring that about!" An unselfish fear of what will eventuate long after us, anticipatory remorse on its account, and shame on our own account overcome us as sheer reflexes triggered by decency and by solidarity with our species. Here no metaphysical sanction is even necessary, yet it is anticipated in these reflexes and finds in those spontaneous feelings a natural ally for its demands. For this very reason the dismal conclusions of scientific futurology ought to be widely disseminated. In the end, then, it is the "ontological imperative," discussed earlier, of man's "ought-to-be," whether clearly recognized or dimly perceived, which absolutely forbids us to have the contemptible attitude of "after us the deluge." Given the validity of this imperative (which many surely can agree upon without any philosophical substantiation), the responsibility we bear because of our power becomes a compelling law. The role of power in this entire context is complicated and in part paradoxical. On the one

hand, it is the cause of the catastrophe we fear; on the other, the sole means of its possible prevention. This prophylaxis demands massive application of the same knowledge which is the source of our fateful power. By struggling against the effects of this power, we are strengthening its roots. Fear of our
power has taken the place of the natural euphoria that once accompanied its possession, its enjoyment, and above all its selfengendered growth. It is no longer nature, as formerly, but our power over it which now fills us with fear for the sake of nature and for our own sakes. Our power has become our master instead of our servant. We mustnow gain control over it. We have not yet done so, even though our power is entirely the result of our knowledge and our will. Knowledge, will, and power are collective, and therefore control of them must also be collective: it can come only from forces within the public sector. In other words, it must be political, and that requires in the long run a broad, grass-roots consensus.''

( ) Collapse of U.S. leadership leads to an apolar world of plagues and nuclear wars
Niall Ferguson, Herzog professor of history at New York University's Stern School of Business and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, July-August 2004, Foreign Policy, Issue 143, p. 32. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting

oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

Realist conceptions of human nature allow for people to create concrete change that benefits society as a result of the possibility of conflict. Murray, 97. Alastair J. H. (Professor of Politics at the University of Wales Swansea), Reconstructing Realism: Between
Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics p 74-75. This raises the issue of the extent to which realism permits human freedom. We can explain the minor role that human choice appears to play in the theory presented in Politics among Nations on the grounds that such a theory must, by definition, address the necessary, for only the necessary is perennial and, therefore, easily generalisable, while the manifestations of choice are contingent and unique. Aside from being an unreliable indicator of results, 'motives are the most illusive of psychological data', such that

'a theory of foreign policy which aims at rationality must for the time being, as it were, abstract from these irrational elements'. Whilst it must acknowledge contingent factors, 'it shares with all social theory the need, for the
sake of theoretical understanding, to stress the rational elements of political reality; for it is these rational elements that make reality intelligible for theory.' 16 Consequently, even if Morgenthau did emphasise the necessary in Politics among Nations, there is no evidence of any deterministic exclusion of human choice in it.17 He candidly acknowledged that the study of international events reveals, above all, 'the ambiguity of the facts of international politics'.18 Nevertheless, the articulation of constraint was undeniably central to realism as a whole. Man is, to paraphrase Niebuhr, a creature of necessity subject to 'limits of creatureliness which he cannot transcend and ... inexorable forces of nature which he cannot defy'.19 Whatever the apparent scope of human power,

the realists were unanimous that all choices are constrained within the bounds of natural possibility, are directed by the flow of historical trends, and are conditioned by the historical context in which they exist. It is ultimately of the essence of realism that man is incapable of directing history according to some rational plan.20
Consequently, realism remains vulnerable to the criticism that it removes the possibility of anything more than token freedom, and thus eliminates anything more than a token moral perspective, making it necessary to consider more broadly the basis on which all realists relate human freedom and the constraints of necessity upon it, in order to determine the extent to which realist thought permits human freedom, and, in particular, the extent to which this level of freedom is sufficient to allow the attribution of moral responsibility and the possibility of moral action. The central problem in this respect is that the conception of 'necessity' which realism emphasises has a material basis such that the potential for conflictual relations is exogenously given to actors, independent of their specific practices. As Morgenthau famously asserted in Politics among Nations: 'politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature'.21 However, whilst human nature is not malleable in the realist conception, this applies only to its core components, a fundamental regard for self, juxtaposed to an awareness of duties beyond self.22 Whilst such a theory imposes constraints upon the scope of what is possible, it does not do so to any great extent. It indicates the prevalence of conflict, but does not say when it will arise, what form it will take, or what possibility there exists of a satisfactory resolution. Whilst realism is able, on the basis of extrapolation from this conception, to point to the importance of power in all political relations, to the likelihood of such features as a security dilemma and to the validity of mitigating strategies such as the balance of power, such components represent a constant background chorus, not immediate necessities. Furthermore, the presence in the realist conception of what amounts to a spiritual element

implies that it does not cut itself off from the possibility of advance in the human condition. If the possibility of conflict remains a continual threat, this does not rule out the possibility of ideational developments which layer the benefits of civilisation upon the underlying realities of power.23

The security dilemma doesn t apply to situations where states pose genuine threats Schweller, 96(Randall, professor of political science at Ohio State, Security Studies, Spring, p. 117-118)
The crucial point is that the security dilemma is always apparent, not real. If states are arming for something other than security; that is, if aggressors do in fact exist, then it is no longer a security dilemma but rather an

example of a state or a coalition mobilizing for the purpose of expansion and the targets of that aggression responding and forming alliances to defend themselves. Indeed, Glenn Snyder makes this very
important point (disclaimer?) in his discussion of the security dilemma and alliance politics: Uncertainty about the aims of others is inherent in structural anarchy. If a state clearly reveals itself as an expansionist, however, the alliance that forms against it is not self defeating as in the prisoners dilemma (security dilemma) model 89 That is, if an expansionist state exists, there is no security dilemma/spiral model effect. Moreover, if all states are relatively sure that none seeks expansion, then the security dilemma similarly fades away. It is only the misplaced fear that others harbor aggressive designs that drive the security dilemma.

US needs to maintain leadership. Global tensions high now and leadership key to stability. Kagan 1/24 [Robert, The Price of Power, January 24, 2011, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/pricepower_533696.html] Today the international situation is also one of high risk. The terrorists who would like to kill Americans on U.S. soil constantly search for safe havens from which to plan and carry out their attacks. American military actions

in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere make it harder for them to strike and are a large part of the reason why for almost a decade there has been no repetition of September 11. To the degree that we limit our ability to deny them safe haven, we increase the chances they will succeed. American forces deployed in East Asia and the Western Pacific have for decades prevented the outbreak of major war, provided stability, and kept open international trading routes, making possible an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity for Asians and Americans alike. Now the United
States faces a new challenge and potential threat from a rising China which seeks eventually to push the U.S. militarys area of operations back to Hawaii and exercise hegemony over the worlds most rapidly growing economies. Meanwhile, a nuclear-

armed North Korea threatens war with South Korea and fires ballistic missiles over Japan that will someday be capable of reaching the west coast of the United States. Democratic nations in the region, worried that the United States may be losing influence, turn to Washington for reassurance that the U.S. security guarantee remains firm. If the United States cannot provide that assurance because it is cutting back its military capabilities, they will have to choose between accepting Chinese dominance and striking out on their own, possibly by building nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, Iran seeks to build its own nuclear arsenal, supports armed
radical Islamic groups in Lebanon and Palestine, and has linked up with anti-American dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere. The prospects of new instability in the region grow every day as a decrepit regime in Egypt clings to power, crushes all moderate opposition, and drives the Muslim Brotherhood into the streets. A nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be ever on the

brink of collapse into anarchy and radicalism. Turkey, once an ally, now seems bent on an increasingly anti-American Islamist course. The prospect of war between Hezbollah and Israel grows, and with it the possibility of war between Israel and Syria and possibly Iran. There, too, nations in the region increasingly look to Washington for reassurance, and if they decide the United States cannot be relied upon they will have to decide whether to succumb to Iranian influence or build their own nuclear weapons to resist it.

Empirically, responses to threats don t create self-fulfilling prophesies conveying weakness is more likely to spur aggression Jervis, 76(Robert, professor of political science at Columbia University, Perception and Misperception in International Politics,
p. 84)

Spiral and deterrence theories thus contradict each other at every point. They seem to be totally different If this were true, it would be important to gather evidence that would disconfirm at least one of them.53 A look at the basic question of the effects of the application of negative sanctions makes it clear that neither theory is confirmed all the time. There are lots of cases in which arms have been increased, aggressors deterred, significant gains made, without setting off
conceptions of international relations claiming to be unconditionally applicable.

spirals.

And there are also many instances in which the use of power and force has not only failed or even left the state worse off than it was originally (both of these outcomes can be explained by deterrence theory), but has led to mutual insecurity and misunderstanding that harmed both sides. Evidence Against the Spiral Model The most obvious embarrassment to the spiral model is posed when an aggressive power will not respond in kind to conciliation. Minor concessions,the willingness to treat individual issues as separate from the basic conflict, and even an offer to negotiate

can convince an aggressor that the status quo power is weak. Thus in 1903 Russia responded to British ex-pressions of interest in negotiating the range of issues that divided them by stiffening her position in the Far East, thus increasing the friction that soon led to the Russo-Japanese War. 54 Whatever the underlying
causes of Anglo-German differences before World War I, once the naval race was under way the kaiser interpreted any hesitancy in the British build-ing as indicating that, as he had predicted, the British economy could not stand the strain. As he read a dispatch describing a debate on naval esti- mates in Parliament in which more attention was paid to the costs of the program than to the twopower standard, the kaiser scribbled in the mar-gin: They respect our firm will, and must bow before the accomplished fact [of the Gennan naval program]! Now further quiet building. 55 And, as events of the 1930s show, once an aggressor thinks the

defenders are weak, it may be impossible to change this image short of war. Unambig-uous indicators of resolve are infrequent, and the aggressor is apt to think that the defender will back down at the last minute. Concessions, made in the incorrect belief that the other is a status quo power are especially apt to be misinterpreted if
the other does not under- stand that the state's policy is based on a false image. The spiral theorists have made an important contribution by stressing the serious conse-quences that flow from the common situation when a status quo power does not realize that others see it as aggressive, but they have ignored the other side of this coin. Aggressors often think that their intentions

are obvious to others and therefore conclude that any concessions made to them must be the result of fear and weakness. Thus, by the time of Mu-nich, Hitler seems to have believed that the British realized his ambitions were not limited to areas inhabited by Germans and concluded that Chamberlain was conciliatory not because he felt Germany would be sated but because he lacked the resolve to wage a war to oppose Ger-man domination of the Continent. Since Hitler did not see that British policy rested on analysis of German intentions that was altered
by the seizure of the non-German parts of Czechoslovakia he could not under-stand why British policy would be different in September 1939 than it had been a year earlier. 56 Even when the adversary aims for less than domination, concessions granted in the context of high conflict will lead to new demands if the adversary concludes that the state's desire for better relations can be exploited. Thus Germany increased her pressure on France in the first Moroccan crisis after the latter assumed a more conciliatory posture and fired the strongly anti-German foreign minister. Similar dynamics pre-ceded the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. More recently. the United States responded to Japanese concessions in the fall of 1941 not by making counter-concessions, but by issuing more extreme demands. Less frequently, even a status quo power may interpret conciliation as indicating that the other side is so weak that expansion is possible at little risk. As Herman Kahn notes, prophecies can be self-denying. To trust a person and place him in a position where he can make gains at your expense can awaken his acquisitiveness and lead him to behave in an untrustworthy manner.57 Similarly, a states lowered level of arms can tempt the other to raise, rather than lower, its forces. For example, the United States probably would not have tried to increase NATO's canven-tional forces in the 1960s were it not for the discovery that the Soviet Union had fewer troops than had been previously believed, thereby bringing within grasp the possibility of defending West Europe without a resort to nuclear weapons. It is also possible that the Soviets drastically increased their misslle forces in the late 1960s and early 1970s not only because of the costs of remaining in an inferior position but also because they thought the United States would allow them to attain parity.

Changing discourse doesn t eliminate security dilemmas Copeland, 00 (Dale, professor of government at University of Virginia, International Security 25:2, Fall 2000, ingenta)
Although the road ahead for Wendts neoconstructivism is still long, Social Theory of International Politics provides a solid constructivist vehicle for travel-ing it. The book allows scholars to differentiate clearly between truly material and ideational explanations, and between accounts that emphasize the role of states as actors and those that incorporate transnational forces and divisions within polities. It has reinforced the importance of diplomacy as a tool for re-ducing high levels of misunderstanding that can impede cooperation. Yet by bracketing off domestic processes, Wendt has overlooked the irony of

constructivism: that the mutability of human ideational structures at the do-mestic level reinforces leaders great uncertainty about future intentions at the interstate level. The security dilemma, with all its implications, is real and per-vasive. It cannot be talked away through better discursive practices. It must be faced.