bsw lab supplement #1

8/14/2019 BSW Lab Supplement #1

1/25

Spartan Debate Institute Burk/Stone/Walters labSupplement V.1 (Number) 2008-2009

BSW Lab Supplement #1

*No Syrian Biowar (AT: Iran Elections Scenario)*

BSW Lab Supplement #1 ...............................................................................................................................................1

AT Syria Bio War-(for Iran elections scenario)...............................................................................................................2AT Bio War-(for Iran elections scenario)........................................................................................................................3AT Bio War......................................................................................................................................................................4........................................................................................................................................................................................5AT: Democracy = Peace..................................................................................................................................................5AT: Democracy solves terrorism.....................................................................................................................................6Turn / Democracy = War.................................................................................................................................................7Alt Causes to democracy collapse................................................................................................................................10AT: Trade Wars Advantage impacts..............................................................................................................................12Alt causes to trade war..................................................................................................................................................13Trade wars dont escalate..............................................................................................................................................15US-EU relations are resilient........................................................................................................................................18 No US Europe War........................................................................................................................................................20

India Deal Good US/India Relations........................................................................................................................21India Deal Good / AT: China ........................................................................................................................................22India Deal Bad Proliferation......................................................................................................................................23India Deal DA / India wont agree to deal....................................................................................................................24California Economy Low..............................................................................................................................................25

1


2/25


AT Syria Bio War-(for Iran elections scenario)

Syria has not integrated biological weapons into its military doctrine and is unlikely to

use them on the battlefield.

ZuhairDiab (Syrian Born International Security Analyst Living in Londn. From 1981 to 1985, he was a diplomat

with the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.) "Syria's Chemical and biological weapons: assessing capabilities andmotivations. The Non-Proliferation Review. Fall. 1997. Pdf.

While the U.S. government may possess secret infor-mation to back up its claim of an offensive SyrianBWcapability, there is no hint of its existence from opensources. Syrian armed forces are equipped with defen-siveequipment but there are no reported exercises in-volving the offensive use of biological weapons, makingitunlikely that they have been integrated into Syrian mili-tary doctrine. If security concerns have encouraged Syriato acquireand retain a CW capability, these motivationsmay not necessarily apply BW. Both Israel and Syria presumably recognize thenegative military utility of BWbecause of the geographical proximity of the two states. Moreover, there is nomodern precedent of employingBW on the battlefield, and the moral revulsion surround-ing biological warfare isalso far stronger than for nuclearor chemical weapons. Since the military utility of BW is uncertain, the functionsof denial and punishment in Syrias deterrent posture could be met more efficiently with CW.Indeed, whatadvantage could be gained from threaten-ing the use of a completely untested method of warfare?At the same time, itwould arguably be foolish for theleadership of a country involved in a serious military con-flict not to research the effects of BW, if only tohedgeagainst possible enemy use. Furthermore, the BWC cur-rently lacks verification provisions, and until this defi-ciency is remedied, states

engaged in military conflictsmay wish to maintain at least a basic defensive researchprogram.

2


3/25


AT Bio War-(for Iran elections scenario)

International checks solve CBW use.

Pugwash International. "Pugwash High Level chemicla and Biological Weapons Workshop Present Trends

and Future Policy Change." Pugwash Online. 17 Apr. 2005.

http://www.pugwash.org/reports/cbw/reportApril2005.htmThe existing measures constitute an array of national, bilateral, cooperative, regional, multilateral and globalmeasures that includes: preparedness; technological protection and other means of national defence; intelligencecapable of providing early warning of any need for active countermeasures; penal legislation and administrativeregulation; export controls; and the international anti-CBW treaty regime. There is mutual reinforcement amongdifferent parts of this array. The treaty regime does thisby reaffirming the ancient taboo against CBW use, by assertinga norm of abstention from CBW armament, by making it difficult for the international community to disregardtransgression,by providing a nucleus for international action in support of regime goals, and, in consequence, bydeterring/dissuading potential violators.

Delivery problems and lack of utility make it unlikely that bio weapons will be used on the

battlefield.

The Washington Note. "Wolfowitz's Xmas Present to Troops: Anthrax vaccine?" 19 Dec. 2004

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000241.phpEnvironmental conditions (such as rain and wind) make it an imprecise weapon to deploy on a large scale. A shellcan be filled and fired, but because of the incubation period (48-72 hours, as stated above) it has limited tactical battlefield value. Iassume that the military has monitoring tools in place to identify whether or not a biological weapons attack is takingplace. If one were to happen, area troops could be evacuated for evaluation and treatment before symptoms manifestedthemselves. I have difficulty thinking of a scenario where anthrax could be effectively deployed on such a scalewhere a sizeable portion of target troops would require medical aid. With the resources of the US military I cannotthink of a likely opponent who would have adequate control of a portion of the battlespace to be able to deliver achemical or biological weapon. Anthrax's use as a weapon is best illustrated with the attack on the Senate. Concentrated exposure (viaa powder-filled envelope) will result in death within days, as the above poster pointed out. It seems to me that it is an effective weapon forindividual attacks where the target is unprepared and unprotected (essentially terrorist attacks). I don't see why we must inoculate the entiremilitary for such a limited threat. A more cost-effective approach to mitigating the risk would be in agent detection and accelerated treatment

for affected troops. Other chemical weapons such as mustard gas do have an immediate tactical impact. However, their utility is limitedbecause if they were to be deployed on a vast scale they are just as likely to affect the attacker as well as the

attacked.

Biological weapons cannot cause mass destruction and will not be used in war.

The Washington Note. "Wolfowitz's Xmas Present to Troops: Anthrax vaccine?" 19 Dec. 2004http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000241.php

Depending on the biological weapon used, delivery can become even more difficult. An infectious agent needs to beintroduced into the target population. This may be possible in a terrorist scenario, but it is highly unlikely that troops wouldallow an enemy to walk up and sneeze on them, for example.A less facetious example would be a shell filled with an ebola-like virus. But just because the shell is delivered does not necessitate infection amongst the target. This is not to minimize therisk, but as with anthrax it is more effective to monitor for signs of infection and have treatment (including quarantine) ready. The threatfrom chemical and biological weapons is at its most acute in the sphere ofterrorism, not conventional warfare.Biological and chemical weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction of the same caliber as nuclear weapons. Whileone vial of some horrible substance may be enough to wipe out thousands, there still remains the problem of areliable delivery system. The best way to mitigate that threat is to have freely available medical care. One warhead really can wipe outmillions and the delivery systems are well-tested. That is a weapon of mass destruction. I can only guess as to why the administration has spentso much time and effort on the danger of anthrax. I suppose it has something to do with maintaining the fiction that Iraq really was a "gatheringthreat".

3


4/25


AT Bio War

Biological Weapons are unlikely to be used in War.

Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky.(Director emeritus of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, is a member of the ArmsControl Association Board of Directors). "Dismantling the Concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction." Arms Control

Today. April 1998 http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_04/wkhp98.aspBiological weapons have not been used in warfare in modern times, but they have been and are still being stockpiled. The former Soviet Union had an extensiveprogram, the status of which remains under some cloud. The United States had an offensive BW program until the early 1970s. The future threat of biological weapons is real. Modern technology has produced and will continue toproduce a long list of potentially powerful agents and toxins, and several means of dispersal have been tested. Much has been written recently about the lethality of biological weapons. If virulent BW materials were to be widely

distributed over an exposed population, then the ratio of potential lethality to the total weight of the material could be comparable to that of nuclear weapons. However, for thishorrifying scenario tooccur, the materials cannot be dispersed by a single-point explosion, but instead must be spread by an appropriate mechanism such as spray tanks or by"fractionating" a missile's payload and dispersing separate mini-munitions over a wide area. Moreover, survival of BW material depends critically on localmeteorological and other conditions which define the delivery environment. The survival of agents is generally ofshort duration and effects are delayed for days. Fortunately, there is no operational experience and test data are limited.Chemical weapons were used extensively by the Central and Allied Powers during World War I, and to a very limited extent in World War II when Japan used them in its invasion of Manchuria. Iraq has used chemical weaponsagainst both its own Kurdish population and Iran, and Egypt reportedly used CW against Yemen in the mid-1960s. The United States and Russia still possess their Cold War inventories of 30,000 and 40,000 tons of agents,respectively, which they are committed t o destroy over the next decade at a cost of as much as $15 billion to $20 billion. There is little question that t he lethality of chemical weapons-as measured by per unit weight of deliveredmunitions-is lower by many orders of magnitude than it is for nuclear weapons or the undemonstrated and inherently uncertain potential of biological weapons. Thus, it is misleading to include chemical weapons in the category ofWMD; "weapons of indiscriminate destruction" or "weapons of terror" might be a more appropriate designation. Feasibility of Defenses Meaningful defense against nuclear weapons, either by passive or active means, isextremely difficult if not impossible. This conclusion stems both from the extreme destructiveness of a single nuclear explosion and the multitude of delivery options available to an attacker. Each attempted intercept would have tobe extremely effective and the defense must be all-inclusive against feasible means of nuclear attack. Delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons in the form of land- or sea-based ballistic and cruise missiles of various ranges, artilleryshells and aircraft have been developed and deployed. Nuclear explosives have been "weaponized" into atomic demolition munitions, anti-submarine weapons, earth penetrators, and air and missile defense warheads. Nuclearweapons can also be delivered on short-range missiles fired from nearby ships, detonated on board ships in a harbor, or simply smuggled across national borders. During World War II, Br itish air defenses succeeded in shootingdown approximately one in 10 attacking aircraft carrying conventional bombs. As a result, German air force units were reduced by a factor of three after flying 10 attacking sorties. London stood, although it was badly battered. Yeta single, successfully delivered large thermonuclear warhead would have wiped out most of the population and structures of that great city. Thus, the standard which a defense against nuclear weapons has to meet is vastly higherthan that required for conventional military exchanges. Such a standard simply cannot be met, particularly given the action-reaction dynamics between defense and offense. In response to deployed defenses, the offense can deploycountermeasures (such as decoys) and multiple or maneuvering vehicles, or can even change its means of delivery and bypass the defense altogether. Undoubtedly, such offensive stratagems would, in almost all cases, be muchcheaper than the cost of the defense and still leave the threatened country just as vulnerable. Passive defenses are of limited value because a nuclear explosion results both in intense prompt effects (such as blast, radiation and heat)and delayed effects (such as firestorms and radioactive fallout). Consequently, independent of the outcome of the highly politicized debate whether to develop and eventually deploy an expensive national missile defense (NMD)system, protection against nuclear weapons by technical means will remain elusive. Protection, therefore, must be sought through dissuading potential opponents from acquiring or delivering nuclear weapons, or through their

global prohibition. Technical defenses have a much more significant role against BW and CW. Passive defenses (such as gas masks andprotective clothing) can be quite effective against both BW and CW, and such protection can be made generally available to troops and, to a more limited extent, to civilianpopulations (as Israel did, for example, during the Gulf War). While masks and protective clothing are available to the military, they are only reluctantly used because they interfere with the performance of troops in combat.Preventive vaccinations against biological agents can be effective, but only if the t ype and strain of enemy biological weapons are known. Unfortunately, due toadvances in biotechnology, the list of potentially lethal agents has lengthened and strains of agents resistant to particular vaccines continue to evolve. Thus, mass vaccinations against a single agent, such as those recently orderedagainst anthrax for U.S. troops deployed in the Persian Gulf, can be negated if an attacker has an alternate agent available. In general, it is difficult for either side to estimate in advance the effectiveness of passive countermeasuresagainst BW and CW. Active defenses against BW and CW are equally difficult to evaluate due to the large number of delivery options available. It is interesting to note that the currently proposed U.S. NMD system, as designed,would be ineffective against delivery of BW by ballistic missiles if their payloads were fractionated to assure dispersal of the agents, which is necessary to achieve a major impact. Potential Missions In view of their inherentdifferences, the potential military roles of the three types of weapons are entirely different. Nuclear weapons remain in the inventories of the five declared nuclear-weapon states, and India, Israel and Pakistan either possess usablenuclear weapons or can rapidly assemble them. Because there are currently no deployed NMD systems besides Russia's old and very limited deployment around Moscow, and because such systems are expected to be ineffective atany rate, hostile nuclear explosions can only be prevented by successfully maintaining the t radition of non-use of such weapons, converting this tradition to policy and eventually removing such weapons from national inventories.The tradition of non-use has been enforced in the past by treaty, by political d issuasion and through deterrence of nuclear weapons use by the existence of nuclear retaliatory forces. One can only hope that such measures willcontinue to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in the future. Much has been written-without general consensus-on whether nuclear deterrence should be credited for the absence of nuclear weapons use during the Cold War, aswell as for the absence of direct armed conflict between the superpowers. However, it will always remain difficult to explain confidently why something did not happen. The nuclear weapons policies of the United States andRussia continue to evolve, but at this t ime in opposite directions. Russia, confronted with the deterioration of its conventional forces, has withdrawn the former Soviet no-first-use declarations and adopted a policy akin to theformer NATO doctrine of compensating for its perceived conventional inferiority through reliance on nuclear weapons. For its part, the United States has made limited moves in the direction of constraining nuclear weapons to apurely deterrent role. The latest step in t his direction is the November 1997 presidential decision directive (PDD) on nuclear policy that reportedly eliminated the requirement that the United States be prepared to fight and win aprotracted nuclear war. Yet, U.S. policy st ill remains ambiguous given the "reduce and hedge" policy outlined in the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review. Reductions of strategic nuclear weapons are being pursued via the START

process, while the United States is still planning for an "enduring stockpile" of about 10,000 nuclear weapons in order to "hedge" against the emergence of a more hostile Russia. The "weapons of last resort" doctrine of NATO-permitting first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear attacks-has not been revoked. Notwithstanding this complex situation, there is a growing recognition in the U.S. military that, in the words of a 1991 National Academyof Sciences study, "the principal objective of U.S. nuclear policy should be to strengthen the emerging political consensus that nuclear weapons should serve no purpose beyond the deterrence of, and possible response to, nuclearattack by others." As long as nuclear weapons remain in the legal inventories of the nuclear-weapon states and the de facto possession of India, Israel and Pakistan, that mission of nuclear weapons will continue. Today, that missionshould be the only valid use of nuclear weapons. This view, however, is not the avowed policy of any of the nuclear-weapon states except China. Terrorist use of nuclear weapons remains unlikely. Barring the c landestineacquisition of an intact nuclear weapon, the successful construction and use of nuclear weapons requires access to substantial technical infrastructure as well as technical knowledge and skill. Such an operation would be extremelydifficult to carry out clandestinely without a state sponsor. One cannot, however, exclude nuclear terrorism sponsored by a state which has a nuclear weapons program. The only technical means to forestall nuclear terrorism oraccidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon is by stringent safeguards and controls over nuclear weapons and the weapons-usable fissile materials essential to their construction. The military situation with r espect to BWand CW is generally the inverse of that pertaining t o nuclear weapons. As a terrorist tool against civilians, chemical weapons, and particularly biological weapons, are a clear danger. The science and technology underlying theseweapons is widely known, and terrorist use of nerve gas was demonstrated in 1995 by the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult in Japan. While the technology to detect small quantities of re leased agents is improving rapidly, technicaltools to forestall terrorist use are limited and most ingredients have legitimate civilian as well as offensive military uses. Therefore, prevention must largely rest on intelligence gathering and sharing, infiltration, law enforcementactivities and other measures. Even inspections as intrusive as those conducted in Iraq by the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) cannot definitively prevent clandestine efforts to maintain residual inventories. Moreover, such an

intrusive inspection regime cannot be practically extended to other states suspected of possessing biological and chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are demonstrably arelatively ineffective tool in warfare. The effectiveness of biological weapons during military conflict is uncertain.In either case, a military commander would not have confidence in their use against a designated target because hecould not judge the effectiveness of defenses. The effect of a broad-scale BW attack against opposing troops isimpossible to predict and would be delayed by days under any circumstance. But even more than in the case ofchemical weapons, biological weapons remain a formidable tool of terror as an adjunct to war.

4


5/25


AT: Democracy = Peace

Democracy Will Not Solve Peace Cant Come To Terms With The Causes Of Conflict

Schweller 2000 (Randall- Department of Political Science at Ohio State University, American DemocracyPromotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, p.43)

The bad news is that extending the democratic zone will not lead to perpetual peace among nations. This isbecause the fundamental causes of international conflict will remain, for they cannot be transcended. The spread ofdemocracy promises to dampen potential conflicts but it will not effect a major qualitative change in internationalpolitics, which will remain much as it has always been: a struggle for power and influence in a world of, at aminimum, moderate scarcity. Though I am willing to concede the point though other realists have challenged itthat democracies have not fought each other in the past, I, like Kydd, find it perfectly possible that democraciescould fightindeed could fight long and bloody wars against each otherso long as the aims of the populationsare in fundamental conflict.

There Is No Historical Proof Of The Democratic Peace Theory

Schwartz & Skinner 2002 (Thomas- Professor of Political Science at UCLA, Kiron K- Fellow at the Councilon Foreign Relations and the Hoover Institution, Orbis, Winter)

Here we show that neither the historical record nor the theoretical arguments advanced for the purpose provide anysupport for democratic pacifism. It does not matter how high or low one sets the bar of democracy. Set it highenough to avoid major exceptions and you find few, if any, democracies until the Cold War era. Then there wereno wars between them, of course. But that fact is better explained by NATO and bipolarity than by any sharedform of government. Worse, the peace among the high-bar democracies of that era was part of a larger pacifism:peace among all nations of the First and Second Worlds. As for theoretical arguments, those we have seen rest onimplausible premises.

Democracies Are Not Peaceful Last Twelve Years Prove

Schwartz & Skinner 2002 (Thomas- Professor of Political Science at UCLA, Kiron K- Fellow at the Councilon Foreign Relations and the Hoover Institution, Orbis, Winter)During the past twelve years, states with elected governments have fought each other in the Balkans and Caucaseswhile democratic pacifists have barricaded themselves behind adjectives: it is not democracies that avoid war witheach other but "well-established" democracies (Weart), "nontransitional" democracies (Mansfield and Synder), or"liberal" democracies (Zakaria). Outside of academia, plain "democracy" is still favored and, therefore, withheldfrom elected but "bad" governments. Thus, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic was called a "dictator" by U.S., British,and NATO officials and journalists with far greater frequency than any nonelected national leader had ever beencalled "dictator" before. It was continually pointed out that Milosevic had been (often "is") a communist and thathis government had radio and television stations that slanted the news in his favor. Fair enough, but anyone whotried to explain that Milosevic faced an active parliamentary opposition, thereby intimating a degree of democracy,would risk being branded an apologist or worse. Over and over the unconscious convention is to count only thoseof whom we approve as democratic, or adjectivally democratic, and to tar enemies who run for office and compete

for votes with the brush of autocracy. The convention extends from foes to friends. Those friends who leadpatently authoritarian regimes might be called "king" or "president," sometimes "leader," but never "dictator" or itsilk; though we cannot use the word "democrat," we studiously avoid its antonyms.

5


6/25


AT: Democracy solves terrorism

Democracy cant solve terrorism

F. GregoryGauseIII 2005 Gause is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Director of its Middle EastStudies Program. [Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?F. Gregory Gause IIIFrom Foreign Affairs,September/October 2005

http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html ]

But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce

terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound

premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no.Although what is known about terrorism is admittedly incomplete, the dataavailable do not show a strong relationship between democracy and an absence of or a reduction in terrorism. Terrorism appears to stem

from factors much more specific than regime type. Nor is it likely that democratization would end the current

campaign against the United States. Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are not fighting for democracy in the Muslim

world; they are fighting to impose their vision of an Islamic state. Nor is there any evidence that democracy in the

Arab world would "drain the swamp," eliminating soft support for terrorist organizations among the Arab public andreducing the number of potential recruits for them.

6
http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/author/f-gregory-gause-iii/index.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/author/f-gregory-gause-iii/index.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/author/f-gregory-gause-iii/index.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/2005/5.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/2005/5.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/2005/5.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.htmlhttp://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/author/f-gregory-gause-iii/index.html


7/25


Turn / Democracy = War

Democracies are more warlike and engage in more intense conflicts than other states

Zakaria 1997 (Fareed- Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs and a Contributing Editor for Newsweek, The Riseof Illiberal Democracy, Foreign Affairs, lexis)

Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the"democratic peace" -- the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debateraises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even thestatistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies andwars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has everwon the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, theoriginal proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars -- that is, the public -- make the decisions,

so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actuallythey are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with otherdemocracies that the peace holds.

Democratic Transitions Increase The Risk Of Civil War

Hegre et al. 2001 (Havard. International Peace Research Institute and University of Oslo, American PoliticalScience Review, March, p.34)

The road to democracy is complicated and can be marked by internal violence and even collapse of the state.Autocratic countries do not become mature consolidated democracies overnight. They usually go through a rockytransition, in which mass politics mixes with authoritarian elite politics in a volatile way. Political change deconsolidatespolitical institutions and heightens the risk of civil war, as discussed by a number of scholars. In a classic argument, deTocqueville points out that revolutions do not always come when things are going from bad to worse.Usually the most dangeroustime for a bad government is when it attempts to reform itself. Huntington finds that political violence isfrequently coupled with democratization. Such changes are unlikely to occur without serious conflict, especially incountries with different ethnic minorities. Communal groups in liberalizing autocracies have substantial opportunities for mobilization, but

such states usually lack the institutional resources to reach the kinds of accommodation typical of established democracy. Whenauthoritarianism collapses and is followed by ineffectual efforts to establish democracy, the interim period ofrelative anarchy is ripe for ethnonational or ideological leaders who want to organize rebellion.

Democracies Are More Prone To Go To War Democratic Regime Change Will Spur

Worldwide ConflictHenderson 2002 (Errol A- Associate Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University, Democracy andWar: The End of an Illusion?, p. 68-70)

My findings refute the monadic level DPP, which suggests that democracies are more peaceful than nondemocracies, andthey reveal that democracies are more likely than nondemocracies to be involved inand to initiateinterstate warsand MIDs. Wedding these findings to those in Chapter 2, it appears that the spread of democracy may precipitate an increase inthe likelihood of wars as individual states become democratic and, subsequently, more war-prone. Further, castingthese findings in the light of recent studies of the DPP highlights some daunting prospects for global peace. For example, recent empiricalfindings indicate that regime changes are much more likely to occur during or following wars and that losing states are much more likely toexperience regime change. Since democracies are more likely to win wars as compared to nondemocracies, it follows that nondemocracies are

more likely to experience regime change, which in some cases may result in their full democratization . The result is that warinvolvement may actually increase the proportion of democratic states in the system and, subsequently, increasethe likelihood of warfare for those newly democratic states. From this perspective, the spread of democracy will create

more of the most war-prone states, thereby increasing the likelihood of war involvement and initiation for thosestates. These relationships hardly encourage a sanguine view of the prospects for peace with a democraticenlargement strategy.

7


8/25


Democracy Doesnt Cause Peace Attempts To Spread Democracy Increase The

Likelihood Of War

Henderson 2002 (Errol A- Associate Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University, Democracy andWar: The End of an Illusion?, p. 18-19)

The findings suggest the need to clearly delineate the separate impact of joint democracy and regime dissimilarity when analyzing the DPP.

They call into question the utilization of weak-link specifications in analyses of the DPP while challenging researchers to be very careful indrawing inferences from relationships at one level of aggregation to those at another. The clearest policy implication of thesefindings is that democratic enlargement, as a strategy, is not likely to be effective in reducing the likelihood ofwars between or within states, and it is apt to increase the probability of war involvement for individual states.Although Western democracies, following the enlargement strategy, may rationalize their involvement in international wars by suggesting the

need to democratize states in order to make them more peaceful, such a rationale is gainsaid by the findings from this study. On the whole , thefindings indicate that democracy is hardly a guarantor of peace and in many cases increases the probability of war.To be sure, the findings do not suggest the undesirability of democracy, as a form of government, as much as they remind us that foreign policyis much too complex to simply rely on a single factor to guide it. Instead, we need to devise multifaceted and multidimensional foreign policystrategies to reduce the likelihood of war.

Democracies Are Not Inherently Peaceful They Are More Likely To Fight Prefer Our

Studies

Henderson 2002 (Errol A- Associate Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University, Democracy andWar: The End of an Illusion?, p. 146)

The results indicate that democracies are more war-prone than non-democracies (whether democracy is codeddichotomously or continuously) and that democracies are more likely to initiate interstate wars. The findings are obtainedfrom analyses that control for a host of political, economic, and cultural factors that have been implicated in theonset of interstate war, and focus explicitly on state level factors instead of simply inferring state level processes from dyadic levelobservations as was done in earlier studies. The results imply that democratic enlargement is more likely to increase theprobability of war for states since democracies are more likely to become involved inand to initiateinterstatewars.

Democracy Spurs Imperialist Wars

Henderson 2002 (Errol A- Associate Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University, Democracy andWar: The End of an Illusion?, p.78)

The result of this process often takes the form of aggressive imperialism on the part of a strong democracy thatattempts to enforce its hegemony over other peoples. Weart suggests that such aggressive imperialism has been facilitated bythe fact that in the colonies the distinction between the domestic citizen and the foreign potential enemy was already blurred. He avers thatrepublics in general, with their ideals of equality and tolerance, tend to define their in-group of citizens as those who follow republican

practices; however, approximately republican regimes may turn to violence exactly at the point where the principles ofequality and toleration are not fully established domestically. That is, in the cases of democratic imperialism, thereadiness of leaders to use force abroad was almost predictable in view of how they coerced people, if not exactly at home, thencertainly under their domination. Nevertheless, Weart insists, No matter how severe the differences between rival republics, their style ofdiplomacy contributes to a mutual trust which moves them toward alliance rather than war.

8


9/25


Countries transitioning to democracy are increasingly war-prone

Mansfield and Snyder 2005Mansfield is Associate Professor of Political. Science at Columbia University and author of Power.Trade: and War. Jack Snyder: Professor of Political Science and Direct or of the institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University: i3 theauthor of Myths of Empire. A longer version of this article will appear in the Summer 1995 issue of International Security. why emergingdemocracies go to war

War has never happened between mature democracies, yet democratizing states are disproportionately war-pronetoward regimes of all types, when they lack the coherent political institutions that could manage the intensifieddomestic political competition that characterizes the transition to democracy.When political institutions are weak, the rising demand for mass participation in polities forces elites to recruitpopu/ar allies, yet elites are insufficiently accountable to the average voter.' Some groups that are threatened bydemocratization exploit this chance to evade accountability. They invoke the populist creed of rule for the peoplewhile simultaneously resisting rule the people. Even those groups that might preferstable democracy find that nascent democratic institutions are too ineffec-tual to defend their interests. I71 thissetting, both rising new elites and falling old elites have the motive and the opportunity to resort to the rhetoric ofnationalism, which mobilizes mass support through the language of popular sovereignty while evading theaccountability that would be provided by free and fair elections and the rule of The nationalist politics that thisunleashes. often embroils the country in military conflicts with other states, for reasons we explain in this chapter.

Democratizing states go to warMansfield and Snyder 2005Mansfield is Associate Professor of Political. Science at Columbia University and author of Power.Trade: and War. Jack Snyder: Professor of Political Science and Direct or of the institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University: i3 theauthor of Myths of Empire. A longer version of this article will appear in the Summer 1995 issue of International Security. why emergingdemocracies go to war

The politics of democratizing states that initiate war are likely to exhibit at least some of the

following causal mechanisms; exclusionary nationalism that generates enemy images or perceptions of

conflicts of interest with other slates; pressure-group politics by military rethnic, or economic groups

that seeka parochial benefit from policies that raise international tensions: logrolling among elite

factions that include such groups; persuasion and outreach by such groups to gamer mass a[lies; in-

effectual brokerage ofpolitical bargains by the ruling elite; contradictory and unconvincing signaling

in foreign affairs; the use of aggressive foreign policies by groups gambling for domestic politicalresurrection; the use of partial or complete media domination to promote nationalist ideology; and

nationalist bidding wars between old elites and rising mass groups. We do not expect that all of

these mechanisms will be present in every democratizing state that fights a war, but we do expect at

Least a few or them. Which mechan isms are expected to be present in a part icular ca se depends on

two factors: the adaptability of elite interests and the strength of the coun try's poli tica l insti tuti ons

during early democratization. ' Together, these two factors determine the intensity cat the

democratizing country's nationalism and the form that nationalist exclusions are likely to take-

Representing the resulting possibilities ass .a schematic simplification, this yields four types of

nationalism, which ar e portrayed in Table 7.1; counterrevolutionary, revolutionary, ethnic, and

civic nationalism- Each type of nationalism is to reflect a somewhat different mix of causal

mechanisms that affect the chance of war

9


10/25


Alt Causes to democracy collapse

Terrorism kills democracy, terrorism is deeply rooted in the government with policies and

ignorance

[Newsletter, 27 June 2008,Terrorism doesn't fit with democracy, Accessed: Thursday, 17th July 2008,

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Terrorism-doesn39t-fit-with-democracy.4229916.jp]

The International Victims of Terrorism Conference was held in Belfast, and a very clear message was sent out by thedelegates and by the international speakers.That message was the total inappropriateness and wrongness of having terrorists in the government of anydemocracy. We learned how democracy is undermined and eventually destroyed by terrorism, instead of democracydestroying terrorism a message that is as urgent as it is necessary.The futility and offensiveness of having terrorists defining what terrorism is, and indeed, defining what a victim is,this is what is happening at Stormont.One of the lies that terrorists have succeeded in getting people to believe, is that they had a very good reason whythey resorted to terrorist violence to get where they are today, a lie that was refuted powerfully. The issuesurrounding "one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter" was also aired and demolished with greatprecision, and those who hold to such a viewpoint were shown to be very foolish. The conference heard that theparticular circumstances of Northern Ireland can be encapsulated in one word: terrorism. It is this (terrorism) thatmust be destroyed rather than accommodated by our institutions. If democracy does not destroy terrorism, terrorismwill destroy democracy. Rather than human rights being there to protect democracy, it is being used to undermine it,and to protect terrorists and their activities. The use of politically correct language is an attempt to sanitise thelanguage we use to describe what has been visited upon us during the past four decades. Practically everyone speaksabout the conflict and the Troubles. A few describe it as it really was an evil terrorist campaign of genocide andethnic cleansing against the decent people in Northern Ireland. Unless and until there is accuracy in language anddefinition, there will be no possibility to deal with the continuing terrorist threat and activity. If you do not knowprecisely what you are talking about, you cannot deal with it. The message is very clear: democracy and terrorismare incompatible and mutually exclusive. This message was reinforced by the acceptance of the Belfast Declarationat the end of the conference, and the setting up of a European-wide network of victims of terrorism groups.Victims are not stupid, they can discern who the genuine people are, and those who are playing games with them.Indeed, victims are very deeply hurt and feel insulted when such politicians pretend that they are committed toaddressing victims' issues, when in fact they have betrayed them. We have not been fooled by their honeyed words

and their fine talk. Nor are we impressed by their secret deals done in the name of helping victims.Victims will not be used as political pawns, or as instruments to give legitimacy to institutions at Stormont whereterrorists are accepted as bona fide democrats, the very thing they are not! We have said consistently that if victims'issues are not dealt with in a way which gives victims proper recognition and which supports them in opposition tothose who made them victims, Northern Ireland's future will be bleak. The fact is, that this is still not being done,despite fine-sounding words.

The proliferation of small arms undermines democracy.

Colombo Press Release. 2001. Civil Society Regional Strategy Meeting on Small Arms and Light Weaponshttp://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.

pdf

The spread and use of small arms and light weapons in South Asia has increased violence, resulted in the loss of

precious human life, impacted negatively upon sustainable development, human rights and human security, andfractured peace in the societies and amongst nations of the region. Small arms undermine democracy, electionprocess, threaten democratically elected regimes and impede peaceful resolution of conflicts. More than 500,000people are killed annually due to small arms, more than the conventional wars. Many more wounded or injured.Millions of people made homeless refugees. Humanitarian relief work inhibited and economic developmentdeferred. In Nepal two generations of the Royal family were wiped out by small arms. These were the concernsexpressed by South Asian civil society representatives present at the two-day regional strategy meeting on smallarms and light weapons held in Sri Lanka. They felt that the elimination of these weapons of civilian destructionshould be a priority of the civil society and governments of South Asia.

10
http://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.pdfhttp://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.pdfhttp://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.pdfhttp://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.pdfhttp://hei.unige.ch/sas/files/portal/issueareas/measures/Measur_pdf/r_%20measur_pdf/Asia%20Pacific/20010700_south%20asia%20partnership.pdf


11/25


Culture differences prevent the democratization of areas like the Middle East.

Inglehart and Norris 2003 (Ronald, Research Professor for U of M, Center for Political Studies Ph.D., andPippa, Paul F. McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics at John F. Kennedy school of government Harvard. TheTrue Clash of CivilizationsForeign Policy,No. 135 (Mar. - Apr., 2003), pp. 62-70)

Huntington's response would be that the Muslim world lacks thecore political values that gave birth representativedemocracy in Westerncivilization: separation of religious and secular authority, rule of law and

social pluralism, parliamentary institutions of representative government, andprotection of individual rights and civil liberties as the buffer between

citizens and the power of the state. Thisclaim seems all too plausible given the failure of electoral democracy to take root throughoutthe Middle East and North Africa. According to the latest Freedom House rankings, almost two thirds of the 192 countries around the world

are now electoral democracies. But among the 47 countries with a Muslim majority, only one fourth areelectoraldemocracies--and none of the core Arabic-speaking societies falls into this category. Yet this circumstantial evidence does little to prove Huntington correct, since it reveals nothing about the underlying beliefs of Muslimpublics. Indeed, there has been scant empirical evidence whether Western and Muslim societies exhibit deeply divergent values--that is,untilnow. The cumulative results of the two most recent waves of the World Values Survey (wvs), conducted in 1995--96 and 2000--2002,

provide an extensive body of relevant evidence. Based on questionnairesthat explore values and beliefs in more than 70 countries, thewvs is an investigation of sociocultural and political change that encompasses over 80 percent of the world's population.

A comparison of the data yielded by these surveys in Muslim and non-Muslim societies around the globe confirmsthe first claim in Huntington's thesis: Culture does matter--indeed, it matters a lot. Historical religious traditions

have left an enduring imprint on contemporary values. However, Huntington is mistaken in assuming that the core clash between the West andIslam is over political values. At this point in history, societies throughout the world (Muslim and JudeoChristian alike) see democracy as the

best form of government. Instead, the real fault line between the West and Islam, which Huntington's theory completely overlooks, concernsgender equality and sexual liberalization. In other words, the values separating the two cultures have much more to do witheros than demos. As younger generations in the West have gradually become more liberal on these issues, Muslim nationshave remained themost traditional societies in the world. This gap in values mirrors the widening economic divide between the West and the Muslim world. Commenting on the disenfranchisementof women throughout the Middle East, the United Nations Development Programme observed last summerthat "no society can achieve the desired state of well-being and human development, or compete in a globalizingworld, if half its peopleremain marginalized and disempowered." Butthis "sexual clash civilizations" taps into far deeper issues than how Muslim countries treatwomen. A society's commitment to gender equality and sexual liberalization proves time and again to be the most reliable indicator of howstrongly that society supports principles of tolerance and egalitarianism. Thus, the people of the Muslim world overwhelmingly wantdemocracy, but democracy may not be sustainable in their societies.

11


12/25


AT: Trade Wars Advantage impacts

Interdependence does not deter war states dont calculate economic losses

ChristopherLayne 2005 chinas role in american grand strategy: Partner, regional power, or great powerRival? http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/RegionalFinal%20chapters/Chapter5Layne.pdf

The interdependence leads to peace argument, however, is inherently suspect. After all, Europe never was moreinterdependent(economically, and intellectually and culturally, as well) than it was on the eve of the First WorldWar.Obviously, the prospect of forgoing the economic gains of trade did not stop Europes great powers fromfighting a prolonged and devastating war. Implicit in the interdependence leads to peace argument is the notion thatstatesmen think like accountants; but they do not. Calculations of possible economic gain or loss are seldom thedetermining factor when policymakers decide on war or peace.And even if they were, there is little reason to believe thateconomic interdependence would be a deterrent to war. This is because even for the losers, the negative economic consequences of moderngreatpower wars have been of short duration.

Economic interdependence does not foster peace just creates strategic entanglements

Layne 1996 less is more the national interest

Political order is not sufficient to explain economic prosperity, but it is necessary. Analysts who ignore the importance of this political order are

like people who forget the importance of the oxygen they breathe. Security is like oxygen -- you tend not to notice it until you

begin to lose it, but once that occurs there is nothing else that you will think about.(12) Either way, the idea that

economic links forged by interdependence foster peace is a myth. Far more often, interdependence of the sort that

requires military forces to preserve it generates costly and dangerous strategic commitments. Such commitments do

not shrink but expand the frontiers of American insecurity.

12


13/25


Alt causes to trade war

Plan doesnt solve for other US-EU trade warsbeef, poulty, gmos, airlines, etc.

The Guardian 8Trade War Brewing Over US Biofuel Subsidies. The Guardian. April 28 Posted by Truth About Trade andTechnology.http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11584/54/.

The EU and US are embroiled in several high-profile and long-standing trade wars, including over beefand poultry imports from the US, genetically modified seeds and foods and, above all, subsidies for therival plane-makers Airbus and Boeing.

EU airline pollution plan could spark trade wars

Agence-France Press Jul 4, 2008 EU airline pollution plan could spark trade wars: industry officials GENEVA (AFP)http://www.google.com/search?q=AFP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

EU airline pollution plan could spark trade wars: industry officials Jul 4, 2008 GENEVA (AFP) A plan by the European Union toimpose a carbon dioxide emissions quota for all airlines flying into and out of the bloc could spark trade wars,aviation industry officials warned. The so-called emissions trading scheme, which is to be voted on by the EU lawmakers next week, aims atcutting aviation pollution by forcing airlines to lower emissions by 3.0 percent in the first year and by 5.0 percent from 2013. Airlines can exceed

these caps, but they would have to pay for permits to do so. All airlines -- European and non-European -- flying in and out of

the EU would be brought into the scheme from 2012. In addition, between 2013-2020, airlines also would have to pay for 15 percentof their emissions. Officials from the International Air Transport Association, which represents the interests of the airline industry, told AFP thatwhile the industry supported the principle of an emissions trading scheme, it wanted a global standard to be set by the International Civil Aviation

Organisation (ICAO). They said IATA was opposed to EU's "unilateral" plan, which it they said violated an internationalaviation convention. IATA Director for Government and Industry Affairs Carlos Grau Tanner said the EU's move could push non-Europeanstates to seek redress through global governing bodies such as UN-agency ICAO or even the International Court of Justice. But beyond legal

tussles, there could also be diplomatic flare-ups. "What could happen is a typical trade war where they retaliate throughcompletely different channels. You impose this on me, I'll find something else to hurt you.That's exactly the position thatairlines don't want to be in," said Grau. He noted that such a scheme would require an airline flying from outside Europe -- but making a stop atan EU airport -- to pay a fee to pollute, even though the flight was headed for a non-European destination. Indications are already pointingtowards fierce opposition led by the United States. When the idea for the emissions trading scheme emerged last year, the ambassadors ofAustralia, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and the United States raised their concerns in a letter to the German ambassador to the EuropeanUnion. Germany at the time held the rotating EU presidency. "Inclusion of our airlines in the EU scheme without the consent of our governmentswould potentially violate EU Member State international obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, as well as bilateralagreements," said the letter, which was also circulated to other EU representatives. At an ICAO General Assembly meeting last September,

countries lined up behind the US to oppose the EU initiative.However, the EU pushed ahead as it felt that ICAO was dragging its

feet on a global standard. IATA spokesman Anthony Concil said he was confident that ICAO could deliver on a global solution. He also said

the current case was reminiscent of a long-drawn US-EU trade war on aircraft noise rules almost a decade ago. In1999, the EU banned so-called hush kits, or mufflers fitted on older US-made planes. The US ended up taking the case to ICAO, before the EUfinally dropped the legislation in 2001. "At a time when airlines are already feeling the heat from higher fuel prices, getting dragged into a tradewar is the last thing that airlines need," said Concil.

13
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11584/54/http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11584/54/http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11584/54/http://www.google.com/search?q=AFP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-ahttp://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11584/54/http://www.google.com/search?q=AFP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


14/25


New EU Pollution legislation will lead to trade wars

EU Buisness.com 08 July 2008ATA criticises EU move on aviation emissions, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93

18:23 CET (GENEVA) - Aviation industry association IATA on Tuesday slammed the European Parliament's move toforce airlines to cap their greenhouse gas emisisons from 2012 and to pay for some of their pollution. In a vote earlierTuesday, 640 lawmakers at the European Parliament voted in favour of the plan to require all airlines operating in the 27-nation European Union-- including foreign carriers -- to join the emissions trading scheme. Only 30 parliamentarians voted against and 20 abstained. GiovanniBisignani, IATA's Director General and CEO said: "It's absolutely the wrong answer to the very serious issue of environment. We supportemissions trading but not this decision." Europe has "taken the wrong approach, with the wrong conditions at the wrong time," he said. At a timewhen the industry was weighed down by soaring fuel costs, the scheme could add 3.5 billion euros (5.46 billion dollars) to industry costs in thefirst year of operations, IATA said. But there was "no guarantee" that the money would go toward environmental purposes, it added. It's time forEurope's politicians to be honest. This is a punitive tax put in place by politicians who want to paint themselves 'green.' Worse, it's not even part

of a coordinated European policy," said Bisignani. He reiterated that the move could even spark trade wars, as IATA officialshave earlier warned. IATA officials previously described the EU's plan as "unilateral" and said it violated aninternational aviation convention. "Fuelling legal battles and trade wars is no way to help the environment. Alreadyover 130 states have vowed to oppose it," said Bisignani. IATA instead said that only a global scheme brokered through the United Nationsagency, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, could work. In addition, IATA said if Europe was serious about cutting emissions, it shouldhasten the conclusion of a Single European Sky proposal that aimed at reducing traffic jams in the skies and preventing planes from having to flyfurther to get to their destinations.

US cap and trade causes US/EU trade war.

Lloyds List, (British Monetary Newspaper). Emissions plan could trigger trade war with US; EC president Jose Manuel Barroso above

wants US companies to participate in EU carbon trading scheme. January 24, 2008

THE European Union could be heading for a trade war with the US over its carbon-trading scheme .European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso wants to bring non-European manufacturers into the systembut the signs are that a furious Washington would retaliate.The situation will worry those who view the EU's moveas protectionism sneaked in through the back door. On a purely practical level, it could also damage shipping interests by acting as arestraint on world trade.Commentators believe that Mr Barroso might have been influenced by France, which has long sought what have beendubbed "climate change sanctions", particularly against the US.Yet Mr Barroso has been keen to stress the free market logic of the policy. Hesaid: "The reality, of course, is not so much that we are bringing climate change to the marketplace, but that climate change is happening to themarket place."He said that it is necessary to "incentivise the saving of the planet". The cap and trade system has shown companies that if they

invest in emissions reduction, they can profit from the opportunity of selling their carbon allowances.While not mentioning shipping directly, hemade clear that the existing scheme will be extended to "all major industrial emitters", a category that clearly includes the shipping industry.All of

this is not likely to go down well on the other side of the Atlantic. A precursor to the US's likely reaction, can be found in a quotefrom the notes to a speech recently delivered by US Trade Representative Susan Schwab: "The unilateral impositionof restrictions can lead to retaliation, and dramatically impact economic growth and markets worldwide; whileaccomplishing nothing or worse when it comes to advancing environmental objectives."British Energy MinisterMalcolm Wicks has also reacted unfavourably to Mr Barroso's speech. He told the BBC: "We believe in globaltrade, we want more of it in the future, not less, and that is good for the European economy. So we are against anymeasures which might look like trade barriers.

14
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215530315.93


15/25


Trade wars dont escalate

No impact to EU-US trade conflicts

Raymond J. Ahearn April 11,2007 CRS Report for Congress Trade Conflict and the U.S.-European Union Economic RelationshipUpdated Raymond J. Ahearn Specialist in International Trade and Finance Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL30732.pdf

In other disputes, technological progress can be a force for change. The audiovisual dispute is a case in point where EU efforts to increaseprotection of this sector have faced growing technological obstacles, as well as consumer resistance. Rapid technological innovation in the formof cable and satellite television, innovations strongly supported by consumers, offer new products that are difficult to block or regulate.Regulations in this environment often are too complex to enforce or, if enforced, prove adverse to the interests of European producers.45 Trade

Conflict in Perspective MarkTwain reportedly once said of Wagners music that it is not as bad as it sounds. Similarly,U.S.-EU trade conflicts may not be as ominous and threatening as they appear. Despite the rise in trade tensions andepisodes of tit-for-tat retaliation over the past few years, the notion that the relationship between the worlds twomost powerful economic powers is constantly teetering on the brink of a transatlantic trade war seems a stretch. Nordoes it appear that the trade conflicts represent or symbolize any kind of fundamental rift that is possibly developingbetween the United States and Europe. At the same time, the disputes do not appear to be ephemeral distractions or mere consequencesof a mass media that tends to sensationalize and define the relationship unfairly. Nor are they products of trade negotiators, who like generals, areoften accused of fighting the last war. Nor are they trivial or silly squabbles because they represent a mere 1-2% of transatlantic trade. Tradeconflicts rather appear to have real, albeit limited, economic and political consequences for the bilateral relationship. Perhaps more significantly,trade disputes may also pose very real obstacles for the two partners in their efforts to play a leadership role in promoting a more open and

prosperous world economy. This is particularly evident in the way bilateral trade disputes may be testing the functioning of the World TradeOrganization.

No Transatlantic Trade Wars

Linn 2004.Linn, Johannes F, Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center for Development. The Brookings Institute. Trends andProspects of Transatlantic Economic Relations: The Glue That Cements a Fraying Partnership? 28 April 2004.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040428linn.pdf.

In contrast, I do not see trade wars or serious commercial conflicts dominatingthe transatlantic dialogue and driving apart the partnership. There are too many

common interests among the business communities on both sides of the Atlantic to letthis happen. Moreover many of the current trade issues and conflicts are not principallyamong the industrial countries, but are more pressing and conflictual between the industrial and the developing countries as the DohaRound, and especially the failure to reach agreement in Cancun have shown. And while conflicts may well arise in otherareas of commercial transatlantic relations, there are no reasons to expect that they willbe more disruptive than similar disputes have been in the past. Of course, there isalways the risk that careless leadership could lead to unexpectedly serious and intractable conflicts. More importantly, there is the risk that aserious recession on either side of the Atlantic, most likely brought about by poor macroeconomic management,would lead to political backlash and protectionism. Particularly in the U.S., where welfare system reforms in recent years have significantlyreduced the social safety net and increased Americans dependence on holding jobs, any serious and protracted spike in the unemployment ratemight well cause the kind of political firestorm that would make it attractive for political leaders to seek redress in protectionist responses.39

15
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040428linn.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040428linn.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040428linn.pdf


16/25


EU/US trade wars are occurring now, with no impact.

McCarthy, Shawn and Reguly, Eric, (Staff Business Writers), The Globe and Mail. Canadian Hopes, GlobalRisks, Jul 14 ,2008

Bombardier has set its sights on selling the new jets in Europe and the Middle East, as troubled North American airlines are not ina position to add to their fleets. Much of the work is to be done in plants around Montreal, where the project will create as many as 3,500 high-

paying jobs. Governments of Northern Ireland and Britain are contributing about $311-million (U.S.) in loans to support the fabrication of C-Series wings in Northern Ireland. Ottawa will provide $350-million, and the government of Quebec will contribute $118-million.

Bombardier is flying into some turbulent airspace as it seeks to take on Boeing and Airbus, the battling powerhouses of the aerospacemarket.The U.S. government and European Union have been engaged in a nasty trade war involving accusationsand counteraccusations over subsidies for years. The World Trade Organization is expected to rule on both trade actions later thisyear. Even Foreign Minister David Emerson acknowledged in 2005 - when he was a Liberal industry minister - that the subsidy program would"no doubt" entail "trade risks."

EU and US already fought over GMOs and their was no impact. Empirically denied

Schifferes 2003 US launches GM trade war By Steve Schifferes Tuesday, 13 May 2003http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3025217.stmBBC News Online,

Washington Washington has brought a complaint against the European Union for refusing to allow the saleof genetically modified (GM) food or crops, escalating trade tensions between the world's two biggest economicblocs. The United States - and twelve other agricultural exporting nations - want the EU to repeal its five-year moratorium on GM foods, orface trade sanctions under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the US had run out of

patience after years of EU procrastination on the issue. "The EU's persistent resistance to abiding by its WTO obligations hasperpetuated a trade barrier unwarranted by the EC's own scientific analysis, which impedes the global use of atechnology that could be of great benefit to farmers and consumers around the world," he said. The EU is unlikely tolift the block on GM food imports, which is widely supported by European consumers, and is also developing tough new labellingregulations which worry US farmers. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy questioned the motives behind the US case, and denied there was a"moratorium" on GM foods. "The EU regulatory system for GM authorisation is in line with WTO rules: it is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. There is therefore no issue that the WTO needs to examine," he said. And EU consumer and green lobby groups vowed to opposethe US decision. "If this attempt succeeds, the US will force GM foods onto European markets regardless of the wishes of consumers," saidFriends of the Earth Policy Director Liana Stupples.

16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3025217.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3025217.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3025217.stm


17/25


Trade disputes between Europe and the U.S. are insignificant and wont escalate.

Kull 01 [Steven, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org and the Program on International Policy Attitudes, Culture Wars? HowAmericans and Europeans View Globalization, The Brookings Institute, Fall 2001, Accessed July 17, 2008,

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/fall_globaleconomics_kull.aspx]

Given the consistent message of the polls to the contrary, what is the source of the view that Americans arepromoting and Europeans are resisting globalization? In the first place, several high-profile U.S.-European disputeson agricultural subsidies, bananas, American films, steel, pasta, hormone beef, and more have received substantialattention in the press. Some of these disputes lend themselves to the impression that the United States is trying toforce something on the Europeansto make small family farms unviable, to stop favoring former colonies, to watchAmerican films, to eat beef grown with hormones. But this exaggerated image does not resonate deeply with thepublic. The media hype has made the disagreements seem fundamental and enduring when in fact they are littlemore than intrafamily conflicts over which side is going to make more adjustments within a fairly consensual broadframework and set of values. Attempts to understand the attitudes of the publics on both sides of the Atlantic are complicated by thestrident voices of vocal groups who are suffering the negative consequences of globalization or who are sympathetic to those who are. Sometimesthese groups are taken as representative of the general public.

But in fact the American and European publics seem to agree that globalization is more positive than negative. Atthe same time, both are uneasy about the impact of globalization, especially on workers. Both desire to keep sometrade barriers for now, at least long enough to help workers adapt to the changes that globalization entails. Toreassure both publics, it will probably also be necessary to address globalization's effect on workers in developingcountries and on the environment as well. The United States and Europe will probably continue to engage inperiodic disputes over exactly how to address these concerns, but the disputes should not obscure the sharedunderlying support on both sides of the Atlantic for the broader process of globalization.

17


18/25


US-EU relations are resilient

The transatlantic partnership is resilient

Roland Dannreuther. European Union Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a neighbourhood Strategy. New

York, Routledge. 2004 p. 195-6

The global setting is thus primed for a continuance of the transatlantic partnership, but with ongoing and sometimesfractious policy bargaining that is frequently stoked by status dissonance. What are the implications for policy cooperation inthe EU's neighbourhood? It is important to stress that the unipolar structure paradoxically increases the salience of regionalinternational politics across the globe for two reasons. First is the declining pole-to-state ratio. The nineteenth-centuryinternational system was composed of six or eight polar states out of a total of roughly 30 significant powers. In the early Cold War there were

two poles, but the number of states had doubled to just over 70 . Today there is one pole in a system whose population hastrebled to nearly 200 states. As a simple matter of numbers, there is bound to be more going on in regional inter-national relations in today's system. Not only are the numbers of lesser powers growing, so are their aggregate capabilities. By onemeasure, the conventionally defined Great Powers comprised over 80 per cent of global capabilities in the mid-nineteenth century, 65 per cent

in the early Cold War, but only around 55 per cent today.15 Second, many regional dynamics are measurably less constrained byGreat Power politics than they were in the Cold War for purely structural reasons. The current internationalstructure is looser than Cold War bipolarity, even though it is more unequal. The gap between the most powerfulstate and the rest is much larger now than under bipolarity, but the system is less constraining on many importantregions. This comparative looseness does not mean that the system is not unipolar. On the contrary, it is a result of the

fact that unipolarity limits the very intense Great Power contradictions that tend to force lesser powers to choosesides. The contemporary international system, in short, is characterized by unprecedented US hegemony within theGreat Power club, and a novel proliferation of lesser states outside that club. The likelihood that regional dynamicswill fall outside the limits of a polar state's national interest or capability is thus greater than in preceding systems.Because there are now far more, and more capable, states relative to poles than in prior eras, and because theabeyance of intense security rivalries among Great Powers increases the latitude for regional interstate dynamics,there is a heightened demand for inter-state cooperation at the regional level. Notwithstanding US primacy, today'sinternational system puts a premium on the ability of the United States and the EU to coordinate policy in the regions.

Relations Resiliant - Economic and political culture.

Danie Dombey. "US-EU Relations: Transatlantic Climate Shift." 4 Jun. 2007. FT.COm.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3d74c1b6-1060-11dc-96d3-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=1612d234-0ad4-11dc-8412-000b5df10621.html

US and European officials insist that whatever differences exist should not make the US and Europe forget thatthey are more united by economics and political culture than any other two regions in the world. Indeed, theeconomic partnership between the US and Europe is still the most important bilateral trade and investment relationshipthere is, accounting for about 40 per cent of world trade and more than 60 per cent of world gross domestic product . Our task is not toput our relationship on the Freudian couch and anxiously take its temperature every few weeks, but to put it towork in the world to resolve the problems only we can resolve together, said Dan Fried, the US StateDepartments top official on Europe, last month.

Relations are resilient.

US-EU Relations.com. "2004 Apolitical Overview of US-EU Relations." 2004.http://www.useurelations.com/index2.html

Despite centuries of transatlantic disputes, Americans and Europeans have not been torn apart by any subject,including Iraq in 2002 and 2003. US-European relations were not at risk of being severed even at the worst momentsof animosity between Americans and Europeans during the US Old Europe War-of-Words over Iraq. Both theUS and the EU are children of the same 18th Century Enlightenment and, like siblings, define themselves in partby the values and actions of the other. But unlike siblings that may walk away from each other producing descendants that nevermeet, each successive generation of Americans and Europeans rediscovers the other side of the Atlantic and itsinhabitants with a youthful excitement and interest.

18


19/25


US-EU partnership is extremely resilient.

European Commission PresidentBarroso, Brussels. 2/9/2005[http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=7&id=29&Itemid=59/--European Union: Delegation ofthe European Union Commission to the USA]

The relationship between the United States and Europe constitutes the worlds strongest, most comprehensive and

strategically most important partnership. European Commission PresidentBarroso(pictured, extreme right), Brussels, 9 February2005. Today, security andjustice and prosperity for our world depend on America and Europe working in commonpurpose. That makes our transatlantic ties as vital as they have ever been.US PresidentBush, 19 February 2005.As thetwo greatest powers on the world scene, the relationship between the EU and the US is central and irreplaceable. Ithas a long, mutually beneficial history based on shared and strong fundamental beliefs in democratic government,human rights and market economies. Since its very inception, the process of European Integration has been stronglysupported by the US. Without US vision and assistance, the European founding fathers would have had enormousdifficulties. That support still exists.During his visit to Europe in February 2005, President Bush stated:My government and the UnitedStates want the European project to succeed. It's in our interests that Europe be strong (). It's in our interests because the values that caused theEuropean Union to exist in the first place -- the values of human rights and human dignity and freedom -- are the same values we share. And wehave an opportunity to work together to spread those values.Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic believe that the relationship is valuable at all levels -- for European and American business, civil societiesand citizens -- and that it is the task of governments to promote the building of bridges across the Atlantic. Its importance is reflected in traderelations, the fight against terrorism and the handling of crisis and conflicts. This joint commitment of the EU and the US has found clearexpression in the New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995 and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership of 1998. This partnership was further reinforced

at the EU-US Summit of 2002 through the launching of a Positive Economic Agenda.Bilateral trade between the EU and US amounts to over $1 billion a day; investment links are even more substantial,

totaling over $1.8 trillion a year. Each partner creates jobs for about 6 million workers on each side of the Atlantic, and EU-US tradeaccounts for almost 40% of world trade. But the EU-US economic partnership goes way beyond pure trade matters: it issupported by a number of institutionalized dialogues and regulatory cooperation between the partners.Throughcontinued dialogue and cooperation the EU and US also work together to promote global peace, stability anddemocracy. On a global level, theEU and US are major powers and as such have a global responsibility. Exercising that power andresponsibility effectively inevitably means working together. In that respect the EU and US are jointly promoting democracy, freedom, stabilityand prosperity throughout the world. Whether it is in the Middle East, Afghanistan or the Balkans, Europe and the US can only succeed inadvancing these values if they act together. Together the EU and US are committed to the challenge of alleviating poverty and disease and

provide almost 80% of global development assistance.To respond to global threats and protect their citizens, intensive EU-US discussions have taken place since 9/11 which have yielded strengthenedcooperation and coordination in the fields of counter-terrorism and domestic security. As a result, an Enhanced Security Dialogue on transportand border security was established in 1994, yet another example of the willingness to tackle challenges together.

For myself, I am totally committed to working closely with the new US Administration to achieve our commonobjectives, an indeed firmly believe that the realization of these objectives will only be possible through such a close

cooperation. Commissioner forExternal RelationsandEuropean Neighborhood Policy,Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Brussels, 3 December 2004.

19
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htmhttp://www.eurunion.org/news/press/2005/2005factsheets.htmhttp://www.eurunion.org/news/press/2005/2005factsheets.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/index.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/index.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/index.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ferrero-waldner/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ferrero-waldner/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ferrero-waldner/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htmhttp://www.eurunion.org/news/press/2005/2005factsheets.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/index.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ferrero-waldner/index_en.htm


20/25


No US Europe War

No risk.

Charles A. Kupchan Fall 1999 World Policy Journal "Life after pax Americana"It is fortunate that the near-term challenge to U.S. primacy will come from Europe. After decades of closecooperation, Europe and North America enjoy unprecedented levels of trust and reciprocity. European states havegone along with U.S. leadership not just because they have not had the power and influence to do otherwise;despite cavils,they also welcome the particular brand of international order sustained by the United States. A moreequal distribution of power across the Atlantic will no doubt engender increased competition between a collectiveEurope and the United States. But such conflict is likely to be restricted to economic matters and muted by themutual benefits reaped from high levels of trade and investment. Furthermore, the underlying coincidence ofvalues between North America and Europe means that even when interests diverge, geopolitical rivalry is notlikely to follow. Efforts to preserve an Atlantic consensus may well lead to a lowest common denominator andproduce inaction (as has occurred repeatedly in the Balkans). But it is hard to imagine the United States andEurope engaging in militarized conflict.

20


21/25


India Deal Good US/India Relations

US-India deal builds US-India relations

Khaleej Times 9 July 2008 Bush pushes US-India nuclear deal

TOYAKO, Japan - President Bush defended a languishing deal his administration negotiated to sell India nuclear fuel and technology, saying hereassured India's prime minister that the pact was important for both countries despite heavy opposition on both sides. Bush's meeting onWednesday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was one of a series of one-and-one sessions the president scheduled on the final day ofthe three-day G-8 summit of economic powers. I respect the prime minister a lot, Bush said, speaking with reporters after their meeting. I also

respect India a lot. And I thinkit's very important that the United States continues to work with our friend todevelop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world'sproblems. We talked about the India-US nuclear deal - how important that is for our respective countries. Singh said, In thisincreasingly interdependent world that we live in, whether it the question of climate change or whether it isa question of managing the global economy, India and the United States must stand tall, must standshoulder to shoulder. If ratified by Washington and New Delhi, the pact would reverse three decades of US policyby allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, which has not signed international nonproliferationaccords but has tested nuclear weapons. In return, India, would open its civilian reactors to international inspections.US critics worry the agreement could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia and weaken international efforts to prevent

states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.In India, critics say it would undermine India's weaponsprogram and give Washington too much influence over Indian foreign policy. Singh's communist allies withdrew their support for his four-year-old coalition government on Tuesday to protest the government's plan to push forward with the nuclear deal. Bush is trying to prod Congress toapprove the pact before time runs out on his administration in January. Before returning home late in the day, Bush was also meeting separatelywith Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chinese President Hu Jintao and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Many SouthKoreans have protested the recent resumption of US beef imports. Both China and South Korea are important players in the international effort toget North Korea to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

India deal will increase relations between the US and India

The Independent 07 (The Independent: Nuclear deal with US 'good for India', by Y.P Rajesh in Delhi (a sta

bsw lab supplement #1

Documents