Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.docx

8/14/2019 Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.docx

1/68

NDI 2013 Sophs

Advantage Frontline Toolbox COPT Lab

***Mexico Economy


2/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Mexico Economy Advantage Frontline

First, Mexico economy growing now - auto industryKlier, 6-13(Thomas, senior economist in economic research department at Federal Reserve Bank ofChicago, published scholarly journals including Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, MBA from

Frierich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Germany, PhD in economics from Michigan StateUniversity, Mexicos Growing Role in the North American Auto Industry, June 13, 2013,http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2013/06/klier_blog.html)Harbeck

Mexicos auto industry has experienced tremendous growth since the mid-1980s. Last year, 19% of all

light vehicles produced in North America originated in Mexico(see table 1). That is up sharply from 20

years ago and puts Mexico ahead of Canada in terms of the number of vehicles produced Table 1:Distribution of light vehicle production in North AmericaOn May 30, a panel of distinguished experts gathered at an event hosted by the Detroit branchof the Chicago Fed to discuss factors behind Mexicos growth as a vehicle producer.Most of the presentations are available here.Also, see a recentChicago Fed Letteron the same topic.Mexico has a long history of vehicle production; by the late-1930s Ford, GM, and Chrysler were

producing vehicles in the country. Over the years, the Mexican auto industry was shaped by economic development

policies put in place by the Mexican government. Starting in the mid-1960s, a policy of import

substitution favored production of vehicles and parts within Mexico. A number of years later, the

policy focus changed to export promotion, which encouraged Mexican producers to seek international

markets for their products. In 1995, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). It establisheda framework and set out a timetable for boosting trade among the three countries . In the process, Mexico has become a very

attractive export platform for North, Central, and South America(see table 2). In fact, the country has

negotiated more than 40 free trade agreements, more than any other North American country. Inaddition, Mexico has benefited from a general improvement in its manufacturing competitiveness during the past few years. Its productivity-adjustedwages are the lowest among major manufacturing co untries, it is an energy rich country, and it has a history of manufacturing (35% of the countrysGDP is represented by manufacturing).

And, Mexico's economy is resilient - ability to withstand growing drug violence provesThomas White International 12(January 27, 2012,Mexico: The glow of economicresilience lightens the shadows of violence,http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/ )Wave3seo

But, surprisingly, the Mexican economy has so far remained somewhat imperviousto all that violence. GDP growth last year was relatively healthy and the expectedslowdown during the current year is likely to be a minor dip rather than a steepfall. Domestic consumer demand has held up, supported by nearly $23 billion inremittances during 2011 from Mexicans working abroad. Industrial investmentsare flowing in from abroad, and last year were estimated by the UN at close to $18

billion. Despite higher consumer prices in recent months, inflation remains undercontrol and has allowed the central bank to maintain interest rates relatively low. It is interesting that much of the economys resilience is rooted in the sustained

buoyancy in export shipments, especially of manufactured goods, when consumerdemand in the U.S., the destination for most of Mexicos exports, has not beenparticularly robust. This suggests Mexicos improved export competitiveness and,

in fact, Mexico has been steadily increasing its share in the total import basket ofits northern neighbor. The most significant driver of this trend are rising laborand other costs in China and in neighboring Asian countries that are the principalsuppliers into the U.S. market. Even though the average wages in Mexico are stillhigher than most developing countries in Asia, the competitive edge in that FarEast region has gradually declined when aggregate costs are considered. The closeproximity to the U.S., which allows greater logistical flexibility in response toshort-term demand fluctuations, adds to Mexicos luster in the eyes of largemanufacturers.
http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2013/06/klier_blog.htmlhttp://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/events/2013/automotive_outlook_symposium.cfmhttp://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/events/2013/automotive_outlook_symposium.cfmhttp://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/events/2013/automotive_outlook_symposium.cfmhttp://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cflmay2013_310.pdfhttp://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cflmay2013_310.pdfhttp://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cflmay2013_310.pdfhttp://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cflmay2013_310.pdfhttp://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/events/2013/automotive_outlook_symposium.cfmhttp://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2013/06/klier_blog.html


3/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Mexico Econ Adv - Exts #1 - High now

Mexico's economy will continue to grow - Pena Nieto reforms and tradeThe Economist, 2012 (Cheaper than China and with credit and oil about to start flowing, Mexico is

becoming a Brazil-beater, November 24, 2012,http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-

becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engines)Harbeck

Once shuttered off by tariffs and trade controls, Mexico has opened up to become a place where the world does business.The North

American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which in 1994 eliminated most tariffs between Mexico, the United States and Canada,

was only the beginning:Mexico now boasts free-trade deals with 44 countries, more than any other nation.

In northern and central Mexico German companies turn out electrical components for Europe, Canadian firms assemble aircraft parts and factory after factory makes televisions, f ridge-freezers and much else.

Each year Mexico exports manufactured goods to about the same value as the rest of Latin America

put together. Trade makes up a bigger chunk of its GDP than of any other large countrys. Normally that

would be a good thing, but after the 2007-08 financial crisis it meant that Mexico got a terrible walloping. Thanks to its wide-open

economy and high exposure to the United States it suffered the steepest recession on the American mainland: in 2009 its economy

shrank by 6%. The country had already had a rocky decade. When China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, it started

undercutting Mexicos export industry. In the ten years to 2010 Mexicos economy grew by an average of just 1.6% a year, less than

half the rate of Brazil, which flourished in part by exporting commodities to China. But now changes are under way, in

Mexicos factories, its financial sector and even its oil and gas fields, that augur well for a very

different decade. Latin Americas perennial underachiever grew faster than Brazil last year and will repeat the trick this year, with a rate of about 4% against less than 2% in Brazil. MrPea

is aiming to get annual growth up to 6% before his six-year presidency is over. By the end of this

decade Mexico will probably be among the worlds ten biggest economies; a few bullish forecasters

think it might even become the largest in Latin America. How did Mexico achieve such a turnround ?

Chinas cut-price export machine sucked billions of dollars of business out of Mexico. But now Asian wages and transport costs are rising and

companies are going west. The China factor is changing big-time, says Jim ONeill, the Goldman Sachs economist who in 2001 coined th e

BRICs acronymBrazil, Russia, India and Chinamuch to Mexicos irritation. China is no longer as cheap as it used to be. According to HSBC,

a bank, in 2000 it cost just $0.32 an hour to employ a Chinese manufacturing worker, against $1.51 for a Mexican one. By last year Chinese

wages had quintupled to $1.63, whereas Mexican ones had risen only to $2.10 (see chart 1). The minimum wage in Shanghai and Qingdao is

now higher than in Mexico City and Monterrey, not least because of the rocketing renminbi. Right next doorHauling goods from

Asia to America is costlier too. The price of oil has trebled since the start of the century, making it

more attractive to manufacture close to markets. A container can take three months to travel from

China to the United States, whereas products trucked in from Mexico can take just a couple of days.

AlixPartners, a consultancy, said last year that the joint effect of pay, logistics and currency fluctuations had madeMexico the worlds cheapest place tomanufacture goods destined for the United States, undercutting China as well as countries such as

India and Vietnam. Companies have noticed. When you wipe away the PR and look at the real numbers, Mexico is startlingly

good, says Louise Goeser, the regional head of Siemens, a German multinational. Siemens employs 6,000 people at 13 factories and three

research centres around Mexico. From its recently enlarged facility in Quertaro, in central Mexico, surge-arrestors and

transformers trundle up to warehouses in the central United States in two days. Ms Goeser says that Mexican workers are well qualified

as wellas cheap: more engineers graduate in Mexico each year than in Germany, she points out. In Aguascalientes, not far away,
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engineshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engines


4/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Nissan is building a $2 billion factory. Together with an existing facility it will turn out a car nearly every 30 seconds. About 80% of

the parts in each car are made in Mexico. By using local suppliers, the company is armoured against currency fluctuations, says

Jos Luis Valls, head of Nissan Mexico. If you are localised, you can navigate through floods and storms. If you depend on imports

of components, you are very fragile. In nearby Guanajuato Mazda and Honda are building factories; Audi is constructing a $1.3

billion plant in Puebla. Thisyear Mexico will turn out roughly 3m vehicles, making it the worlds fourth-biggest auto exporter. When

the new factories are up and running, capacity will be 4m.According to projections by HSBC, in six years time the United States

will be more dependent on imports from Mexico than from any other country (see chart 2). Soon Hecho en Mxico will become

more familiar to Americans than Made in China. On the opposite side of Cuernavaca from Nissans gigantic factory, Antonio

Snchez plays a smaller role in Mexicos motor business. At his carwash customers queue to pay 46 pesos ($3.60) for their cars to

gleam in the ever-present sun. Mr Snchez seems to have enough business to open another branch, but credit is scarce and

expensive. He explains that banks tend to charge interest rates of 25% or more and demand collateral worth three times the value of

the loan. Its complicated, expensive and the risk is too much, he says. Mexican businesses have been fighting with one hand tied

behind their backs, thanks to a chronic credit drought. Lending is equivalent to 26% of GDP, compared with 61% in Brazil and 71%

in Chile. The drought started with the tequila crisis of 1994, when a currency devaluation triggered the collapse of the countrys

loosely regulated banking system. Banks spent the best part of a decade dealing with their dodgy legacy assets and were nervous

about making new loans. But things are looking up. Inflation, now running at 4.6%, has been well under control for ten years. The

conservatively run Mexican subsidiaries of foreign banks such as BBVA, Citigroup and Santander are all rated higher than their

American or European parent companies. Now they are starting to turn on the credit tap. Loans to companies are growing at 12% a

year and to individuals at 23%. Given that many enterprises are informal, many of these personal loans probably go to businesses,

according to David Olivares of Moodys, a ratings agency. There are many financing opportunities in Mexico that are not tapped, says

Agustn Carstens, the governor of the central bank. This gives Mexico an advantage over other Latin American countries that are d eep in debt.

Five to six consecutive years of loan growth, coupled with macroeconomic stability, would increase Mexicos annual gro wth rate by half a

percentage point, the central bank estimates. As credit starts flowing, so could oil. Since striking black gold in the 1970s, Mexico

has been one of the worlds ten biggest oil producers. The revenues of Pemex, the state-run oil and

gas monopoly, provide about a third of the governments income.

Mexico's economy will continue to be competitive - energy, trade, industrial sector

Connelle, 2013(Claudia, executive director of Mexican Association of Industrial Parks, 23years of experience in international business with private and public sector, Why Made inMexico Means Quality and Competitiveness, January, 2013,http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2013/jan/mexico.cfm)HarbeckSuddenly, the eyes of investors turned toward Mexico, and not because of the violence unleashed by the drug war. It seems that theland of the tequila is becoming one of the favorite sites for global companies looking to expand their business operations worldwide.

We have found in Mexico an attractive industrial environment and a ready supply of skilled labor,

saidSerge Durand, CEO of Eurocopter de Mexico, in October 2011, during the construction launch of a newmanufacturing plant in the city of Quertaro, with an investment value of a US$550 million.Although Mexico still faces

important challenges, the country is turning into the new little darling of emerging markets, as

mentioned by KennethRapoza in Forbesmagazine,on July 2012.There are several reasons and facts that explain why thisnation reflects an important economic evolution, achieved in only 25 years.Reason number oneis the opening of the market,

started in 1986, when the country joined the GATT, later the World Trade Organization. NowMexico has 12 free tradeagreements with 44 countries, including NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States andCanada, in effect since 1994. Since then, the average trade tariff fell from 27 percent to 6.9 percent. The opening policy also included
http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2013/jan/mexico.cfmhttp://www.siteselection.com/issues/2013/jan/mexico.cfm


5/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


the financial and foreign direct investment liberalization of sectors not considered as strategic for the nation.Mexico was also

able to make a strategic change in its exports structure. In the 1980s, 61 percent of Mexicos export

products were crude oil. At present, 81 percent of its exports are manufactured goods, of which 24

percent are high-tech products, including aerospace, computers, non-electronic machinery, electronic-

telecommunications, weapons, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and scientific instruments,according to INEGI(Mexicos National Statistics Institute). Mexico is now inserted vertically into the most important segments of global production

chains, as 60 percent of FDI inflows received by the country go to manufacturing.Thanks to all these changes, thecountry is now one of the worlds most important export platforms and an ideal base from which to

supply international markets, Rupert Stadler, chairman of the Board of Management of Audi AG, told the Financial Timesin September 2012.Today, this nation of 114 million people is the leading world exporter of flat screen TVs and the second leadingexporter of refrigerators. It is also the major supplier of medical devices to the U.S. market, the eighth producer and the fourthexporter of new vehicles, as well as the main supplier of auto parts to the U.S. market, where 11 percent of all cars and light trucksare produced in Mexico. Moreover, of total U.S. imports, 24 percent of automotive products, 23 percent of chemicals and 21 percent

of electronics are coming from the other side of the countrys southern border.Global automakers have announced new

direct investments in Mexico of about $15 billion, making Mexico the worlds fourth biggest exporter

of automobiles,behind Germany, Japan and South Korea, with exports expected to be around 2.14 million vehicles by the endof 2012.

Mexico growing most recent evidence proves

Rico, 6-14(Gabriela, writes for Arizona Daily Star, Mexico growing on manufacturers,June 14, 2013, http://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.html)Harbeck

"Made in China" is giving way to "Hecho en Mexico," attendees at the Arizona-Mexico Commission's plenary session heard Thursday. Rising fuel

costs, coupled with higher labor costs in China, make North America more appealing to

manufacturing companies,said Christopher Wilson, associate of the Mexico Institute for the Woodrow Wilson Center.That is a financial

boon for the United States - and especially for states along the Mexican border - because the shorter supply chain means bigger

profits,hetold the crowd of Arizona and Sonora business leaders and politicians meeting in Scottsdale.For every dollar spent on manufacturing in

China, the U.S. earns 4 cents, Wilson said. If that company manufactures in Mexico, the earnings are 40 cents. Mexico's economy is

growing faster than the U.S. economy, and although ours is much larger, "we have

a chance to tap into that growing economy," Wilson said.He said monopoly breakups, education reforms and a

pact among the three main political parties could have a positive effect on Mexico's credit rating, making it more attractive to foreign investors."The

hypothesis of saying 'We have to go to China' is fading," said Juan Carlo Briseo, who is with the Mexican Ministry of Economy's Pro Mexico

program. Mexico has emerged as a leader in the manufacturing of automobiles,

medical devices, electronics and aerospace components. Now China is casting a curious eye on the

country to see what it's doing right, Briseo said.In Sonora, where the average age is 25, aerospace manufacturing has taken off in

the past couple of years with big companies readying to announce further expansion of existing

operations.Sonora has five international airports, two with cargo capacity, Briseo noted, making it

a natural attraction.Its proximity to Arizona as an export entryway is a selling point, he said.The overview was presented in anticipation of

today's sessions, when committees will meet to map out or approve joint plans and ventures in the areas of economic development, energy, real estate

and infrastructure.Just a little over a decade ago, the focus on these commission meetings was to school Mexico on how to do business with the United

States, said Bruce Wright, associate vice president for university research at the University of Arizona."How refreshing for you in the Sonora business

world to hear us talking about how to do business with Mexico," he said.The Arizona-Mexico Commission meeting is being hosted by Arizona Gov. Jan

Brewer and Sonora Gov. Guillermo Padres.The two governors are expected to address the crowd today and will host a joint news conference.
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.htmlhttp://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.htmlhttp://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.htmlhttp://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.html


6/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Mexicos economy is growing and strongSpencer, 2013 (Linda, writes for SEMA, worldwide automotive company, Considering MexicoStrong Growth and Fatter Pocketbooks Warrant a Closer Look at the Potential in Latin

Americas Second-Largest Economy, March, 2013,http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economy)Harbeck

i ts economy grew 4% last yearquicker than even Brazils . Credit is increasingly

available, inflation is under control and more of the population is joining the middle class, according

to a new study put out by the Wilson Centerbased in Washington, D.C.Sizable Passenger Vehicle Market and

Healthy Annual Sales: Mexico has 20 million motor vehicles in circulation, with strong annual sales of

about 1 million.Mexicans Love Trucks: Mexican motorists enjoy and use light trucks. Between 20052011, 40% of all

vehicles sold in Mexico were pickups and SUVs.Similar Vehicle Demographics: Many of the vehicles sold in Mexico are the

same models that sell well in the United States. Between 20052011, the best-selling pickups in Mexico were Fords F-150 and F-

250, with 232,810 units sold. The Chevrolet Silverado was also a top model, with 164,928 sold during that period. Jeep sales were

also strong, with 145,397 sold between 20052011, and Ford also sold 13,511 Mustangs between those same years. The

country is an increasingly important gateway to the rest of Latin America. Mexicohas free-trade agreements with 44 countriesmore than any other country in the

worldincluding the 2004 North American Free Trade Agreement, which

eliminated most tariffs between Mexico, Canada and the United States. No

Argentinian or Brazilian Tariffs: Among the many trade deals negotiated by Mexico is its most recently modified pact with

Argentina, which allows Mexico to export up to $600 million in Mexican vehicles to that country without tariffs. Mexico also has a

free-trade deal with Brazil. Both Brazil and Argentina are notorious for their high tariffs, but their agreements with Mexico allow

vehicles and partsup to a certain limitto be shipped to those countries tariff free.OEM Production: There are nine

manufacturers producing vehicles in Mexico, including Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volkswagen,

Toyota, Nissan and others. These days, Marcos Alvarez, business director of Big Country America, is quite optimistic about

sales opportunities in Mexico and indirectly to the rest of Latin America. Alvarez notes, Internationaleyes are on

Mexico now under what has been called MEMO [Mexican Moment], as quality,

lead times, trust and currency and political stability are bringing back

manufacturing from Asia to Mexico . By selling to the vehicle manufacturers Mexican operations, SEMA

members can find an additional route to reach South and Central American markets.There are two excellent upcoming

opportunities to explore the Mexican market.For the first, you dont even need to leave the United States.The

annual SEMA Show, held each year in early November, draws more than 130,000 visitors, and 25% of all buyers attending the trade-

only event come from outside the United States, including large numbers from Mexico and other Latin American countries.Another

first-rate automotive event where companies should consider exhibiting is the annual PAACE Automechanika show, which will be

held July 1012, 2013, at Centro Banamex in Mexico City. The 2012 event boasted 14% growth, with 541 exhibiting companies from20 countries and 19,763 visits by specialized buyers from more than 33 countries.This year, PAACE Automechanika will feature a

specialized vehicle area where the cars will be categorized as Import, Euro, Racing and Classic.
http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economyhttp://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economyhttp://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economyhttp://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economyhttp://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economy


7/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Mexico Econ Adv - Exts #2 - Resilient

Mexico's economy resilient - easily able to bounce back from global financial crisisColumbia Journal of national Affairs 13 (04/04/2013, The Great Debate: Will Mexico

Assume Clear Leadership in Latin America?,http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-america )Wave3seo

Mexicos recent economic performance and its swift recovery from the financialcrisis are seen by many analysts as near-miraculous. While the Brazilian economicgrowth has slowed, Mexico has begun to catch up to Latin Americas most-toutedstate. After experiencing average growth of barely 2% per year from 2000-2010,Mexicos GDP has increased by 4 percent in the last year. Mexico boasts a skilled

workforce, low costs and proximity to the United States. Investment has boomeddespite the ongoing drug wars, corruption and a weak rule of law.

More evidence - continued foreign direct investment in the status quo makes Mexico

resilient to economic instabilityBanderasNews 13 (January 10, 2013, Mexico Catching Up While 'Booming Brazil' Falters,http://www.banderasnews.com/1301/nb-mexeconomysurges-brazilfalters.htm)Wave3seo Brazil, which overtook Britain last yearto become the worlds sixth largest economy,has been hit by weakening Chinese demand forcommodities, while rival Mexico, the new darling of foreign investors, is postingincreasingly strong growth.The figures speak for themselves.Brazil, for the last decadeLatin Americas unchallenged behemoth,is expected to show growth of only one percent for 2012, downfrom 2.7 percent in 2011 and a sizzling 7.5 percent in 2010, according to official estimates.Bycontrast, Mexico, the perennial underachiever in Latin America, is suddenly eyinga position among the worlds 10 largest economies with projected growth of

between 3.5 and four percent.Mexico took a massive hit from the 2007-2008financial crisis, thanks in large part to its proximity to the United States, but its

economy contracted a whopping six percent in 2009But a huge reduction inMexicos "country cost" the cost of doing business there sparked animpressive turnaround that attracted investment in its industrial sector, created jobs, and added value toexports.SebastianBriozzo, head of sovereign ratings at Standard & Poors for Latin America (the stock market index tracking Latin Americanstocks,) said the two countries have very different growth patterns.
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-americahttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-americahttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-americahttp://www.banderasnews.com/1301/nb-mexeconomysurges-brazilfalters.htmhttp://www.banderasnews.com/1301/nb-mexeconomysurges-brazilfalters.htmhttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-americahttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/great-debate-will-mexico-assume-clear-leadership-latin-america


8/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


***US/Sino War


9/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


US-Sino War Frontline

1 - No US-China war; both dont want conflict and negotiation deters

Zhu Feng 12is a professor in the School of International Studies and the deputy director of the Center for International and Strategic

Studies at Beijing University. No one wants a Clash; The New York Times. 5-3-12. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-china ReyesA series of events in recent months seem quite ominous for China-U.S. relations. Last November, President Obama vowed that the U.S. would

remain a power in the Asia-Pacific region for the rest of this century, while the secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declared that America

was pivoting to Asia. The current standoff in the South China Sea adds to the foreboding. The U.S.-China relationship iscomplex, but

lucrative for both sides. Neither nation wants confrontation. This rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific region is notnecessarily the new U.S. strategy after the military pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does unequivocally signal the shift of Americas

attention from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. What follows is Americas new and firm m ilitary restructuring in the region: setting Darwin

Port in Australia as the new submarine corps base, rotating military presence to the Philippines, ushering in the Pentagons global security

programs that very specifically target China. Now the Asian version of missile defense is under intense discussion, reminiscent of the American

plan to create a missile interception network all over Europe a plan that unnerved the worlds other great power, Russia. Against this tense

backdrop, human rights issues are now creating rifts between Washington and Beijing. After a local police official, Wang Lijun, reportedly

sneaked into the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu in early February, the blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng sought shelter this week at the

U.S. Embassy in Beijing. Despite quiet diplomacy so far, there is little sign that the two nations could realistically reach an agreement about

human rights questions, as there is s light room to maneuver. Beijing believes that the U.S. criticisms over human rights

are deliberate and well plotted, aimed at abolishing the Communist Partys ruling legitimacy and detracting from

Chinas re-emergence. Therefore Chinas rulers might find it much harder to back down over human rights clashes. However there is

little worry that the two powers will collide into a new cold war . First of all, Chinas authoritarian

system has been tremendously mobilized for international integration. Beijing has been pretty

conservativeand doesnt welcome democratization. But it does not strictly adhere to traditional communism

either. Any new confrontation like the cold war would risk a huge backlash in China by greatly damaging the better-off Chinese people. Such

a conflict could ultimately undermine the Communist Partys ruling legitimacy. Second, the power disparity between

Washington and China hasnt significantly narrowed, regardless of Chinese achievements in the past

decades. My view is that Beijing remains an adolescent power, and should learn how to be a great power

rather than unwisely rushing to any confrontation.Though some Chinese want the nation to assert itself more forcefully,

the huge disparity in power should keep China in place. China is in no position to challenge the U.S. But

China will be more enthusiastic and straightfoward about addressing and safeguarding its legal interests. Competition betweenWashington and Beijing will intensify, but that does not automatically mean that the relationship will

be unmanageable. Lastly, the cycle of action and reaction has mostly turned out to be fruitful for the U.S. and China. Further

competition is promising. The U.S. doesnt want to put China in a corner, or force Beijing to stand up desperately. The dealings over

many thorny issues have proved that each side wants to handle the conflict, not escalate it . ChenGuangchengs departure from the U.S. Embassy is telling evidence. Neither side wants diplomatic confrontation. Rather, it see ms that both

sides are struggling to react constructively. In the years to come, China-U.S. relations will continue to be very

complicated, but also very important. The glue to keep these two nations together is not pragmatism

only, but mutual interest especially in trade.

2 - No US-China war in SCS, any tensions from miscalc are mended through

negotiations, if miscalc nuke war threat was real, their impacts from miscalc shouldve

happened already

Carlyle A.Thayer 13. Carlyle A. Thayer is Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales,Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra. The ideas in this paper were first presented at the Annual

Conference of the Association for Asian Studies held at San Diego, 22 March 2013. Why China and the

US wont go to war over the South China Sea; East Asia Forum. May 13 2013.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-

china-sea/ Reyes
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-chinahttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-chinahttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-chinahttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-china


10/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Chinas increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea is challenging US primacy in the Asia Pacific.Chinese sailors stand on a fishing vessel

setting sail for the Spratly Islands, an archipelago disputed between China and other countries including Vietnam and the Philippines (Photo:

AAP)Even before Washington announced its official policy of rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the United States had

undertaken steps to strengthen its military posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the regionandnegotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin.Since then, the United States has deployed Combat Littoral Ships to

Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines.But these developments do not

presage armed conflict between China and the United States. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy has been circumspectin its involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and the United States has been careful to avoid being

entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and

the United Statesin the South China Sea appears unlikely.Another, more probable, scenario is that both countries will

find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate to maintain security in the South China Sea . The

Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to Asia is not directed at

containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, recently stated, there has also

been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case it is a strategy of collaboration and

cooperation.However, a review of past USChina military-to-military interaction indicates that an agreement to jointly manage securityin the South China Sea is unlikely because of continuing strategic mistrust between the two countries. This is also because the currents of

regionalism are growing stronger.As such, a third scenario is more likely than the previous two: that China and the United States

will maintain a relationship of cooperation and friction. In this scenario, both countries work separately to

secure their intereststhrough multilateral institutions such as the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus andthe Enlarged ASEAN Maritime Forum. But they also continue to engage each other on points of mutual interest.The Pentagon has consistently sought to keep channels of communication open with China through three established bilateral mechanisms:

Defense Consultative Talks, the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the Defense Policy Coordination Talks.On the one

hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about USChina military relations. Military-to-military contacts between the two

countries have gone through repeated cycles of cooperation and suspension, meaning that it has not been possible to isolate purely military-to-

military contacts from their political and strategic settings.On the other hand, the channels have accomplished the following: continuing

exchange visits by high-level defence officials; regular Defense Consultation Talks; continuing working-level discussions under the MMCA;

agreement on the 7-point consensus; and no serious naval incidents since the 2009 USNS Impeccable affair. They have also helped to ensure

continuing exchange visits by senior military officers; the initiation of a Strategic Security Dialogue as part of the ministerial-level Strategic &

Economic Dialogue process; agreement to hold meetings between coast guards; and agreement on a new working group to draft principles to

establish a framework for military-to-military cooperation.So the bottom line is that, despite ongoing frictions in their

relationship, the United States and China will continue engaging with each other . Both sides

understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical component of bilateral engagement. Without such

interaction there is a risk that mistrust between the two militaries could spill over and have a major negative impact on bilateral relations in

general. But strategic mistrust will probably persist in the absence of greater transparency in military-to-military relations. In sum, Sino-

American relationsin the South China Sea are more likely to be characterised by cooperation and friction

thana modus vivendi of collaboration or, a worst-case scenario, armed conflict.

3 - No risk of Sino backlash - Multilateral power balances in Asia prove coexistence of

China and US influence possible

John T.Bennett 12. Senior Congressional Reporter at Defense News Past DEFENSE & NATIONALSECURITY CORRESPONDENT at U.S. News & World Report Senior Defense Reporter at The Hill Senior

Reporter - Pentagon & National Security Beat at Defense News Education The Johns Hopkins University

Appalachian State University. Top Australian Diplomat: U.S.-China War Would Be 'Disastrous' RSS FeedPrint, US News. April 25, 2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-

diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastrous Reyes

War between China and the United States would be "disastrous" for the entire world, says Australia's top diplomat, who also

suggests thata conflict between the global giants is unlikely.As Chinese economic and military power--and its globalinfluence--grows, U.S. analysts, lawmakers, and some Asian leaders worry Beijing could clash with the world's sitting lone superpower: the

United States.A war between the eagle and the dragon would be "disastrous" for both nations, the Asia-Pacific region, and the entire globe,

Bob Carr, Australian minister for foreign affairs, told a forum Wednesday in Washington.Expert forecasts that China could challenge America's

perch atop the global totem pole are based on even more economic growth in China and across the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama

administration's ongoing shift of U.S. foreign and national security policies from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific is based on a belief that
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastroushttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastroushttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastroushttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastrous


11/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


much of the history of this century will be written there.But such predictionsmight be off the mark, says Carr, who spends ample

time jetting around the vast region.The United States dominated much of the 20th century and the early years

of the 21st.But the next 88 years, "might not belong to anyone," Carr said at the Center for Strategic and InternationalStudies.The levers of global and economic power are trending toward being more widely dispersed than some experts predict, Carr says.He

also noted Chinese officials collective response to the administration shift toward their backyard has

been "muted," suggesting the U.S. and China will be able to coexist.Carr showed few signs of worry about what

likely would be a bloody and costly U.S.-China war, sounding a much different tone than did Singapore defense chief Ng Eng Hen during an Aprilvisit to Washington.Ng urged increased American engagement in Asia, warning that anything else could spawn deadly U.S.-China tensions.

During an April 4 speech in Washington, Ng called the United States a "resident power" in Asia. But he also made clear Singaporean and other

regional leaders feel the U.S. and China must enhance military-to-military contacts, which they believe will

help prevent a war.It was clear from several of Ng's comments in April that Singaporean and other regional leaders are increasinglyconcerned about a U.S.-China war.But Carr, who spent the opening part of his prepared remarks underscoring the U.S.-Australian partnership,

calls a rising China a good thing forhis nation, the Asia-Pacific realm, and the world. Just how China's continued risegoes, he says, will depend largely on Beijing's own actions.

4 - US-China Relations increasing.

Greitens, 6/11 [Sheena Chestnut, Academy Scholar, Harvard Academy for International and Area

Studies, Harvard University, Brookings.edu, 6/11/13,http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relations-asia-alliances-greitens]HeIn discussing this relationship, American public intellectuals have become fond of referencing Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian War

between Athens and Sparta to issue warnings about the risk of conflict, and to offer advice on how one can best manage the geopolitical

tensions that have historically attended the rise of a new great power.[1] Leaders on both sides, the argument goes, must

be acutely aware of the dilemma they face if they are to avoid it. Reflecting this discourse, as well as

their own research into the rise of previous great powers, Chinese scholars and officials have

consistently called for a New Type of Great Power Relationship ( , xinxing daguoguanxi) between Washington and Beijing that avoids the tensions that surrounded past rising

powers.[2]

Many of the prescriptions for avoiding conflict call for the two leaders to spend time, energy, and

discussion focused on creating strategic trust ( , zhanlue xinren) in the bilateralrelationship.[3]In his February 2012 address in Washington, President Xi Jinping called for the enhancement of mutual trust as the f irstof four major principles upon which American and Chinese leaders should base their relationship.[4] In a 2012 Brookings Institution report,

Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi argue that strategic distrust is rooted in the narrowing gap in power between the U.S. and China;

differences in political traditions and values; and insufficient understanding of each others policymaking structures and pr ocesses.[5] In an

effort to build strategic trust, forums for discussion and the enhancement of mutual understanding

have multiplied; over sixty formal dialogues between the United States and the Peoples Republic of

China now occur each year.

And, it won't go nuclear - China's No-First-Use policy

Zhenqiang 05(Pan, Professor of International Relations at the Institute for Strategic Studies, NationalDefence University of the Peoples Liberation Army of China , retired Major General of the Peoples

Liberation Army, China Insistence on No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons, China Security (World Security

Institute China Program, http://www.irchina.org/en/news/view.asp?id=403]

In my view, No-First Use(NFU) has been a theoretical pillar of Chinas nuclear policy. This rationale of NFU

of nuclear weapons serves Beijings foremost security interests. It also contributes to the maintenance

of world strategic stability. There are at least five reasons to explain why China has consistently stuck

to that principle, and will continue to do so in the future.Underlying Principles
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relations-asia-alliances-greitenshttp://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relations-asia-alliances-greitens


12/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


First, NFU highlights Chinas philosophical belief that nuclear weapons can only be used to serve one

purpose, that of retaliation against a nuclear attack, pending complete nuclear disarmament. Indeed, their extremely largedestructive capabilities render nuclear weapons the only truly inhumane weapon of mass destruction and are of little other use to China. Faced

with U.S. nuclear blackmail in the 1950s, China had no alternative to developing its own nuclear capability so as to address the real danger of

being a target of a nuclear strike. But even so, Beijing vowed that having a nuclear capability would only serve this single purpose.

From the very beginning of acquiring a nuclear capability, Beijing announced that it would never be

the first to use nuclear weapons under any conditions; it also pledged unconditionally not to use nuclear weapons againstany non-nuclear weapon states. This claim is not merely rhetoric that cannot be verified, as some Western

pundits accused. On the contrary, Chinas nuclear rationale has determined the defensive nature of its

nuclear force, its posture, size and operational doctrine, which have been highly visible and have stood the test of time. It

is in this sense that China is NOT a nuclear weapon state in the Western sense. Unlike all the other nuclear weapon states, for example, China

has never intended to use its nuclear capability to make up for the in efficiency of conventional

capabilities vis--vis other world powers nor has China an interest in joining a nuclear arms race with

other nuclear states. And thanks to the insistence of this policy based on NFU, China succeeds in reducing the nuclear

element to the minimum in its relations with other nuclear nations, avoiding a possible nuclear arms

race, and contributing to the global strategic stability at large. If this policy serves well its core security interests, whyshould Beijing change it?


13/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


***US/Russian Relations


14/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


US-Russian Relations Frontline

First, US-Russian Relations are stable now - relations are resilient

CIC 7-30-13("US-Russia Relations: It Could Be Worse, Canadian International Council, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/)

The relationship today isnt good, but its nowhere near as bad as it could be. As difficult as things can

sometimes be with Moscowand they have been very difficult latelyand as diametrically opposed President

Putin and President Obama and their teams seem to be, fundamentally, Russia and America are not out

to get one another. You could imagine a world in which they were, and it would be a very different and far, far worse world.

Its important to remember that Russia is not our enemy. Only a few years ago, at the time of the 2009

re-set there were opportunities for cooperation on everything from securitysomething which we

actually started to see with Russian logistical support for NATO forces in Afghanistan,and which was critical

at a time when relations with Pakistan were not goodto Iran to counter-terrorism, anti-narcotics, anti-trafficking, and anti-piracy. And of

course, there was the new nuclear treaty. Thats a huge amount of progress on the security side. On the economic side, we brought Russia into theWTO, another huge step forward. The strength of the relationship today is still nowhere near where it could or should be. U.S. trade with

Russia is about forty billion dollars a year,which, for perspective, is less than half of one percent of total U.S. trade. Its less than

two percent of Russias total trade. So the trade relationship is not a major factor in either countrys economic success. But at t he same time,

theres a lot of potential these are two very big economies. Russia, depending on how you measure, is

around the tenth largest economy in the world. It has an increasingly wealthy middle class thats

interested in consuming more American goods.Ford automobiles, American heavy equipment, American consumer products

generally they certainly like American intellectual property, from television shows to computer software.

And, no risk of bad relations escalating to conflict

CIC 7-30-13("US-Russia Relations: It Could Be Worse, Canadian International Council, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-

tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/)

Right now, the U.S.-Russia relationship is caught in a trap of mutual distrust. Both sides are relatively

convinced that theyre talking to the wrong person.The United States thinks that if they just wait out Putin,

or fund some people that might be able to replace him, then maybe in a couple of years there will be a much

better Russian government with which they can negotiate. On the other side, you have Putin thinking, Im

tougher than these guys, Ive been around longer than these guys, Im just going to embarrass them on one

issue after another and then soon enough I wont have to deal with them.

But even during the Cold War, when we had two political systems that unequivocally defined the other

as a failure, we still managed to work together in several areas, and we have many more bilateral ties

now.

And, alternate causality to US-Russian Relations - missile defense

Business Recorder 2012 [Pakistani business agency - cites a US-Russia working

group that studied how missile defense relates to US-Russia cooperation, "Missile

defence poisoned US-Russia relations: report", February 04, http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/1-front-top-news/44716-missile-defence-poisoned-us-russia-relations-report.html]
http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/


15/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


WASHINGTON: Missile defence, an issue that has poisoned US-Russia relations, could be a "game-changer"

that transforms ties if the two sides cooperate on a shared system , says a report by former top officials from both

sides of the Atlantic. Recent headlines in both countries have been reminiscent of the Cold War, with the

Russians threatening to deploy missiles aimed at countering a proposed US missile shield, and the

Americans responding that they will build the system, come what may. The planned US shield, endorsed by NATO,would deploy US interceptor missiles in and around Europe in what Washington says is a layered protection against missiles that could be fired

by countries like Iran. Moscow says this could undermine its securityif it becomes capable of neutralizing Russia's nucleardeterrent. Now an international commission has been working on the matter for two years that has designed a basic concept for cooperation

with the help of military professionals from both sides.


16/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


***Democracy


17/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Democracy Advantage Frontline

First, Democracy is unsustainable---inescapable debt leads to economic collapseAdams, 11 *Mike, editor for Natural News, Why democracy is failing America, 5/10/11,

http://www.naturalnews.com/032346_democracy_America.html] STRYKERWhy democracy isn't working for America At its core, the democratic process of electing representatives is a

popularity contest. The voters inevitably end up supporting whichever lawmakers offer the best

handouts right now, regardless of the long-term consequences to the nation. Voting, in other words, is a

contest based on short-term rewards rather than long-term vision . Not surprisingly, when the voters go to the polls,

they tend to elect the person who promises them the most right now. Now, it's crucial to recognize this simple economic fact: No

government can offer something to one person without first taking it from another. So the more

handouts, entitlements and benefits any government offers, the more it must confiscate from others

in order to meet its "obligations" to the voters. This creates a downward spiral of entitlements leading

to inescapable debt. Because sooner or later, governments always run out of other people's money. But that doesn't stop the

voting action which still boils down to a popularity contest to decide the leader who tells the best lies.When given a choice between a realistic candidate who says America is deep in debt (Ron Paul) and a fantasy-land candidate who says there's

nothing to worry about (almost everybody else), most voters will choose the fantasy candidate... especially if it

means more money in their pockets.

And, Democracies are unstable---free expression leads to collapseMundt, 97 *Robert, author on history studies, Is Democray Stable? Compared to What? 1997,http://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htm] STRYKERContemporary doubts about democracy follow the long tradition of pre-modern political thought, a

tradition that pointed both to the disadvantages of democratic regimes and the advantages of non-democratic regimes. Democratic

regimes allow for the expression of the range of views held by the members of a political community.

And it has often been held that, in a number of ways, this makes government difficult. For one thing,

the people are likely to be resistant to the demands of government, and especially, to taxes andmilitary service. But effective government requires that governments pay their bills and mobilize

armies. Critics of democracy suppose that monarchs and aristocrats , who have greater experience with and training

for political matters will, be better able to grasp and deal with these necessities of politics. For another thing, the

people are likely to be divided about the proper direction of government. This leads to two possible

problems. If political circumstances allow one group and then another to triumph over another, a

government might adopt a series of radical changes in direction. If, on the other hand, political circumstances make itdifficult for one group to gain power, the result is likely to be stalemate. Either way, it will be difficult for democratic regimes to adopt

consistent and effective public policies. Under favorable conditions, conflict in or paralysis of democratic regimes may not be too serious. But,

under unfavorable conditions, these regimes will, it is held, be unable either to protect themselves or

serve the common good. The result, then, is likely to be dissatisfaction, dissent and, eventually

instability. Once opposition to the regime arises, a democracy is, again, likely to find it difficult to respond in ways that preserves itself.

Democratic regimes are often reluctant to use force against their own population. And, even when they do so, they are not as likely to be asbrutally decisive and potent as a dictator who is not constrained by the rule of law or popular opinion. That, we all think, is to the good. But in

our preference for benign government, we should not assume that a good government is always the most stable

government.

Promoting democracy fails and backfires---resistance leads to conflictsHobsbawm, 05
http://www.naturalnews.com/032346_democracy_America.htmlhttp://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htmhttp://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htmhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032346_democracy_America.html


18/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


[Eric is professor emeritus of economic and social history of the University of London

at Birkbeck, The dangers of exporting democracy, 1/22/05,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/22/usa.comment] STRYKERAlthough President Bush's uncompromising second inaugural address does not so much as mention the words Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on

terror, he and his supporters continue to engage in a planned reordering of the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are but one part of a

supposedly universal effort to create world order by "spreading democracy".This idea is not merely quixotic - it is

dangerous.The rhetoric implies that democracy is applicable in a standardised(western) form, that it can

succeed everywhere, that it can remedy today's transnational dilemmas, and that it can bring peace,

rather than sow disorder. It cannot. Democracy is rightly popular. In 1647, the English Levellers broadcast the powerful idea that

"all government is in the free consent of the people". They meant votes for all. Of course, universal suffrage does not guarantee

any particular political result, and elections cannot even ensure their own perpetuation- witness theWeimar Republic. Electoral democracy is also unlikely to produce outcomes convenient to hegemonic or imperial powers. (If the Iraq war had

depended on the freely expressed consent of "the world community", it would not have happened). But these uncertainties do not diminish its

justified appeal. Other factors besides democracy's popularity explain the dangerous belief that its propagation by armies might actually be

feasible. Globalisationsuggests that human affairs are evolving toward a universal pattern. If gas stations, iPods, and computer geeks are

the same worldwide, why not political institutions? This view underrates the world's complexity. The relapse into bloodshed andanarchy that has occurred so visibly in much of the world has also made the idea of spreading a new order more attractive. The Balkans seemed

to show that areas of turmoil required the intervention, military if need be, of strong and stable states. In the absence of effective international

governance, some humanitarians are still ready to support a world order imposed by US power. But one should always besuspicious when military powers claim to be doing weaker states favours by occupying them. Anotherfactor may be the most important: the US has been ready with the necessary combination of megalomania and messianism, derived from its

revolutionary origins. Today's US is unchallengeable in its techno-military supremacy, convinced of the superiority of its social system, and,

since 1989, no longer reminded - as even the greatest conquering empires always had been - that its material power has limits. Like President

Wilson, today's ideologues see a model society already at work in the US: a combination of law, liberal freedoms, competitive private enterprise

and regular, contested elections with universal suffrage. All that remains is to remake the world in the image of this "free

society".This idea is dangerous whistling in the dark.Although great power action may have morally or politically desirable

consequences, identifying with it is perilous because the logic and methods of state action are not those of

universal rights.All established states put their own interests first. If they have the power, and the end is considered sufficiently vital,

states justify the means of achieving it - particularly when they think God is on their side. Both good and evil empires have

produced the barbarisation of our era, to which the "war against terror" has now contributed. While

threatening the integrity of universal values, the campaign to spread democracy will not succeed . The20th century demonstrated that states could not simply remake the world or abbreviate historical transformations. Nor can they easily effectsocial change by transferring institutions across borders. The conditions for effective democratic government are rare: an existing state

enjoying legitimacy, consent and the ability to mediate conflicts between domestic groups. Without such consensus, there is no single

sovereign people and therefore no legitimacy for arithmetical majorities. When this consensus is absent, democracy has been suspended (as is

the case in Northern Ireland), the state has split (as in Czechoslovakia), or society has descended into permanent civil war (as in Sri Lanka).

"Spreading democracy" aggravated ethnic conflict and produced the disintegration of states in

multinational and multicommunal regions after both 1918 and 1989. The effort to spread

standardised western democracy also suffers a fundamental paradox. A growing part of human life

now occurs beyond the influence of voters - in transnational public and private entities that have no

electorates. And electoral democracy cannot function effectively outside political units such as nation-

states. The powerful states are therefore trying to spread a system that even they find inadequate to meet today's challenges. Europe provesthe point. A body such as the European Union could develop into a powerful and effective structure precisely because it has no electorate other

than a small number of member governments. The EU would be nowhere without its "democratic deficit", and there can be no legitimacy for its

parliament, for there is no "European people". Unsurprisingly, problems arose as soon as the EU moved beyond negotiations betweengovernments and became the subject of democratic campaigning in the member states. The effort to spread democracy is also

dangerous in a more indirect way: it conveys to those who do not enjoy this form of government the

illusion that it actually governs those who do . But does it? We now know something about how the actual decisions

to go to war in Iraq were taken in at least two states of unquestionable democratic bona fides: the USand the UK. Other than creating complex problems of deceit and concealment, electoral democracy and representative assemblies had little to

do with that process. Decisions were taken among small groups of people in private, not very different from the way they would have been

taken in non-democratic countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/22/usa.commenthttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/22/usa.comment


19/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


And, No democratic backslide---democracies grow more resilient in economic crises

Pei and Adesnik 2000(Minxin and Ariel, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment forInternational Peace, and Mr. Adesnik is a junior fellow there, "Democracies Grow More Resilient to

Economic Crisis, New York Times, 3/4/2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-

edpei.2.t.html)Han

Recent trends suggesting the erosion of democracy in Latin America have led some observers to warnof a possible authoritarian resurgence in the region. They fear that the economic crisis in some

countries is undermining democratic regimes.Based on our study of 93 episodes of economic crisis in

22 countries in Latin America and Asia after World War II, such fears are unnecessary. Democracies

are far more resilient than authoritarian regimes in the face of economic adversity.It is not the democrats butthe dictators who should fear for their survival when an economic crisis hits. A case in point is the Asian financial crash of 1997, which brought

down the Suharto regime that had ruled Indonesia for more than 30 years. In South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines,

however, democracies survived the crisis intact.Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic

crises may be wrong. In 46, or half, of the caseswe studied, the crisis produced neither a change of government

nor a change of a regime (system of government). In 17 cases, it led to a change of government but not of regime. With one

exception, all of these changes took place in democratic states as a result of elections, no-confidence votes or resignations. Such changes

do not destabilize the political system and seldom lead to an outbreak of violence.Economic crisis

caused regime collapses in 30, or about one-third, of the cases, mostly through a gradual process.Immediate collapse is rareonly six regime collapses (three of which took place in Ecuador) were observed within nine months ofthe outbreak of the crisis. Among the fallen were 15 dictatorships, 10 democracies and five semidemocracies regimes that rely on coercion

to maintain power despite having formal democratic institutions.The 10 cases of collapsed democracies suggest that political factors, rather

than purely economic ones, contributed to the breakdown. In fact, the severity of economic crisis (measured in terms of

inflation and negative growth) bore no relationship to the collapse. Political variables, however, such

as ideological polarization, labor radicalism, guerrilla insurgencies and an anti-Communist military,

played a more direct role in the demise of democracy in developing countries.The most striking and

heartening finding is that democracies may have grown more resilient over time. Since 1980, only one democracy Peru has fallen in the midst of crises. Of the 23 economic crises that struck democracies in Latin America and Asia after 1980, 10 had no

serious political effects while only 12 led to constitutional changes of government. In economic terms, many of these crises were more severe

than those that claimed democratic regimes in the same countries in the 1960s and 1970s.Argentina is a case in point. Since its transition in

1983, the Argentine democracy has weathered hyperinflation and deep recession in sharp contrast to the repeated collapse of democracy

when Argentina experienced less devastating crises during the Cold War.The source of democracies' resilience is their institutional capacity to

enforce political accountability, via elections or confidence votes. Governments fall, but democracy survives as a system

of government.

And, Democracy collapse doesnt lead to extinction---authoritarian regimes cooperate

to solve the same problemsErdmann et al, 13 *Dr. Gero Erdmann is head of Research Program 1 Legitimacy and Efficiency ofPolitical Systems and lead research fellow at the GIGA Institute of African Studies, Andr Bank is a

research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies, Dr. Bert Hoffmann is acting director of the

GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, Dr. Thomas Richter is a senior research fellow at the GIGA

Institute of Middle East Studies, International Cooperation of Authoritarian Regimes: Toward a

Conceptual Framework, 7/2013,http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-

richter.pdf]STRYKERIn politics and political science alike, awareness is growing about the increasing international influence of

authoritarian regimes. The primary focus of attention has been the neighbor hood policies of Russias post Soviet regime as well as Chinas

international political and economic activities. The controversy about a reverse wave of democratization, the expan sion of

nondemocratic rule(Merkel 2010; Puddington 2008, 2009) and the earlier backlash against democracy promotion

(Carothers 2006, 2009) reflects these trends. More recently, scholarly attention has turned away from the international dimension of democratizationto address the international dimension of authoritarian regimes. This new interest drew authors from two strands. First, scholars formerly interested in processes of
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-edpei.2.t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-edpei.2.t.htmlhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-edpei.2.t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-edpei.2.t.html


20/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


democratization took notice of the authoritarian rollback that reversed many efforts of de mocracy promotion

(Burnell and Schlumberger 2010; Burnell 2011). Second, scholars previ ously interested in the stability and durability of

authoritarian regimes became increasingly aware of the importance of international factors(Art 2012: 201).

Some of the literature main tains a democratizing perspective insofar as it asks how and why some nondemocratic re gimes were able to

fend off international diffusion of or even pressure for democracy(Levitsky and Way 2010; Weyland 2010). However, thestrand of research that does not approach the issue from the angle of democratization still needs to develop a comprehensive conceptual approach. The issue goes

well beyond the particular antidemocratic leverage of authoritarian powers, such as Russias counterinfluence on the color revolutions in its neighborhood. Authoritarian regimes collaborate in various ways: They provideeach other with ideational and material

support; They protect each other on the international levelfor example, through vetoes in the UN Security Council; They help

each other in militaryand security related issues; They learn from each other in how to deal with opposition and how to build a solid polit ical party; They exchange ideas on the design of development strategies; And they provide each other with direct personal advice on how to cope with insurgent forces and

how to control Internet usage. While it is obvious that authoritarian regimes use multiple forms of international coopera

tion to reinforce their rule, the existing literature pays scant attention to these phenomena.

And, Authoritarianism isnt bad---limitations are goodRahib Raza 12, columnist at The Express Tribunehttp://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.html, 10-29,12 Shah

Since the earliest times, the control of leaders which led to the oppression of the people has beendemonstrated. The concept of authoritarianism developed throughout history wherein people in various societies lived under

the authority of scrupulous people. Even English monarchs in the 15th and 16th century, when the printing press was realized,

compelled restrictive censorship on publishers through a series of limitations such as licensing, taxation, and seditious libel.

Actually, these forms of limitations are not bad at all because these serve as gatekeepers for some

irresponsible printed materials.

Conspicuously, even up to now, lots of people are still living under the authoritative form of government

system wherein the government has the absolute control over the media and that they use media for

propaganda purposes.Sometimes its a funny thing to know that in this type of political system there are no marketing

strategies being used, only but just threat morose threat.
http://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.htmlhttp://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.htmlhttp://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.htmlhttp://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.html


21/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Democracy Adv - Exts #1 - Unsustainable

Democracy will inevitably collapse---it is inherently unstableMundt, 97 *Robert, author on history studies, Is Democray Stable? Compared to What? 1997,

http://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htm] STRYKERThe empirical study of democratic regimes in the last fifty years has focused on the question of what

makes for stable democracies.[1] Various hypotheses have been put forward and tested about the social and political conditions

under which democratic regimes come to be or to endure. A presupposition of most of this research is that democratic regimes are

particularly fragile . The supposition that democracies are fragile probably has a number of sources.

The frightening experience of the descent of European democracies into fascism and communism is

perhaps the most important. But we can also find support for this presupposition in the evident fragility

of democratic regimes in the less developed world. And, standing behind these events, is the long

standing tradition in political philosophyand especially, in pre-modern political thoughtof

disparaging democracy and warning that it is likely to lead to tyranny.

Democracy is fundamentally flawed---the average voter doesnt know whats bestTucker, 10*Reed, contributor to NYPost, When Democracy fails, 2/14/10,http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpU

LEZ7L]STRYKER

You dont have to be a C-SPAN junkie to see that our government is just plain broken. You get the feeling that more substantial

work gets accomplished at a high schools model UN. But what if its not just government thats broken? What if democracy itself

doesntwork ? After watching Jaywalking, or, God help us all, an episode of Jersey Shore, its hard to argue that We the

People are best equipped to make the important decisions of state. As Winston Churchill once said,

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.Maybe

the problem with government these days is simply that we Americans(and that includes many of those in power)

dont know enough to make the best choice. To see just how sensible we as a people are, lets look at some times weve b een

given a chance to be heard:
http://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htmhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpULEZ7Lhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpULEZ7Lhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpULEZ7Lhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpULEZ7Lhttp://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htm


22/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Democracy Adv - Exts #2 - Unstable

Democracies are unstable---several reasonsKapstein, 12 [Ethan, visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development with expertise in airer

trade; inequality and growth; political economy, Why Democracies Fail: Lessons from Mali? 3/29/12,http://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-democracies-fail-lessons-mali] STRYKERThe recent coups in the Maldives and Mali against democratically elected leaders, and the continuing

political struggles in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya following the Arab Spring, are potent reminders that

democracy is a fragile institution. In fact, of the 120 attempts at democratization that have occurred

around the world since 1960, nearly half have been reversed at some point. The reasons for democratic failure,however, are surprising. In our book, The Fate of Young Democracies, Nathan Converse and I found that democracies do not fail for the reasons

commonly supposed. They do not generally fail, for example, because of poor economic performance. In fact, the democracies that are

overthrown have, on average, higher growth rates than those that are sustained over long periods of time. Some recent examples of fast

growing democracies that have reversed include Russia, Venezuela, and Thailand. Nor do democracies reverse while undergoing the process of

economic reform. To the contrary, reforms like trade liberalization and privatization tend to support the democratic process, as they bring forth

entrepreneurs who provide a bulwark against an authoritarian backlash. Finally, democracies are no more likely to be sustained by adopting

parliamentary instead of presidential institutions. Though parliamentary forms of government are often said to help prevent power grabs by

the executive branch, prime ministers have proved to be very adept at commanding powerthink of Vladimir Putinand parliaments are often

weak and sharply divided, thus incapable of exercising authority. Why, then, do democracies fail? Our study identified several common factors.

First, young democracies are often weakened by extreme levels of income inequality. Rising income

inequality indicates a dysfunctional democratic state in which economic power is concentrated in the

hands of the few, rather than one in which economic opportunities are widely shared and diffused.

Second, young democracies that are unable to constrain the executive branch of powerwhetherpresidential or parliamentarywill find it difficult to sustain participatory forms of government. The usual red flags here are changesor

attempts to changethe constitution, particularly with respect to term limits and electoral cycles. Among the leaders who have

threatened their democracies in this way are Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Eduardo Correa in

Ecuador. Third, democratic states that are ethnically fragmented face severe challenges of institution

building they may be unable to overcome. Such societies are often characterized by insider-

outsider tensionsthat are not easily resolved. As the insidersthe ethnically dominant groupcentralize political power, the

outsiders may find they have no alternative but to try and overthrow the regime. Fourth, newly democratic states that do

not provide adequate supplies of public goods like health care and education are unlikely to

succeed.In crucial respects, democracy as a regime type is justified by its ability to deliver public goods to a broad spectrum of citizens, andnot just to an elite. If democracies are unable or unwilling to meet these demands, their very raison detre may be called in to question.
http://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-democracies-fail-lessons-malihttp://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-democracies-fail-lessons-mali


23/68

NDI 2013 Sophs


Democracy Adv - Exts #3 - Promoting Democracy Fails

Promoting democracy fails---strong resistance and carried out poorlyWMD, 08

[World Movement for Democracy, Confronting the Challenges to Democracy in the21

stCentury, Current Challenges to Democracy, 1/2008,http://www.wmd.org/about/current-

challenges/current-challenges-democracy]STRYKER

The process of learning to practice democracy meets challenges of various kinds . The first challenge

lies in the fact that democratization takes place in often still authoritarian environments that resist

change, in countries with weak states that provide insufficient security to their citizens, in countries with incomplete processes of nation-building, and in countries with poorly developed or skewed economies. Furthermore, while there has been progress in the participation of

women in the political arena, they are still a minority in the power positions of even most democratic states. Transitions to

democracy do not move forward across straight lines and are bound to encounter backlashes . Democracyactivists, therefore, and the international organizations that support them, must prepare for the long haul and adopt comprehensive

approaches. The second challenge lies in the inadequate and inappropriate international approaches in

supporting democratic development. The delivery of international support is not always compatiblewith the intrinsic values of democracy itself. Does the process through which international support is delivered have as itsultimate goal a democratic outcome? Are the instruments used and procedures followed democratic? When they are not, democracy support is

likely to become problematic. The premise of economic development first, democracy laterstill holds for much of

international assistance. It results, for example, in the promotion of liberal market reforms while reinforcing

systems of autocracy in the process. That countries become economically as well as politically fit through democracyas argued

by the Nobel laureate Armatya Sen - requires a comprehensive rethinking of how international assistance is delivered. Confusing

democracy promotion with regime change, and even with the use of military force to remove a

regime, is counter-productive and often inconsistent with the values of democracy. Such an approach

has played into the hands of autocratswho are resisting necessary democratic reforms by playing up sentiments againstperceived foreign intrusion in violation of the sovereignty of their countries. It also is often accompanied by double standards since only

unfriendly regimes are targeted while friendly tyrants are treated much more leniently. Such practicesreal or perceivedin

the conduct of international cooperation by established democracies are giving democracy anddemocracy support, unfortunately, a bad name. Furthermore, in countries moving out of violent conflict, often the

emphasis lies on stability and reconstruction first, democracy later. This approach frequently entrenches

the very political-economic interests which are the causes of confli

Documents

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.docx