China Bashing Disadvantage 08

8/14/2019 China Bashing Disadvantage 08

1/27

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGESAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE 08 OPENING PACKET

CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEXThesis: The thesis of this disadvantage is that a substantial increase in theuse of alternative energy in the United States will disadvantage the UnitedStates economic competitiveness compared to nations like China, resulting

in protectionism and a trade war. Currently, the United States leads the worldin economic competitiveness, in large measure due to cheap, sustainableenergy. However, forcing the United States to move toward renewableenergy while developed nations like China can rely on cheaper fossil fuelenergy will adversely affect US economic competitiveness. This would causeCongress to enact trade penalties against such nations, risking a trade war. Aspecific risk is that Congress will pass legislation punishing China to properlyvalue its currency, which risks a trade war with China.

CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEX .............................................................................................1CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2) ......................................................................................................2CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2) ......................................................................................................3Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now ....................................................................................4Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten US competitiveness ........................................................5Links: Alternative Energy ...............................................................................................................................6LINKS: Environmental Regulations ............................................................................................. ...... ...... ......7LINKS: Environmental Regulations ............................................................................................. ...... ...... ......8Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness ................................................................................ ....9Links: CAF Standards .................................................................................................................................10Links: Kyoto Ratification ...............................................................................................................................11Links: Carbon Tax .................................................................................................................................... .....12Links: Gas Tax ...............................................................................................................................................13LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM ....................................................................................14Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard ............................................................................................................16Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness Spur Protectionism ...................................................................17Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs .......................................................................................................18

Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs .......................................................................................................19Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks China Bashing ................................................................20Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a Trade War ..........................................................................21Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars .................................................................................... ........................22Impacts: Protectionism Causes War ............................................................................................. ...... ...... .....24Impacts: Leadership .......................................................................................................................................25*****Affirmative Answers***** ...................................................................................................................26Affirmative Answers .......................................................................................................................................27

1


2/27


CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2)

A) UNIQUENESS:

THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE WORLD IN ECONOMICCOMPETITIVENESS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM.Education Week, 2008 (staff writer, April 23, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10,

2008).America's economy has enjoyed a quarter-century of mostly steady economicgrowth, and the country continues to rank No. 1 among 131 nations on theeconomic-competitiveness index set by the World Economic Forum.

B) LINK: Unilateral actions to decrease greenhouse gasemissions will undermine US economic competitiveness vis--vis China.

Joseph Nye, 2008 (dean of the Kennedy School of government at Harvard,Federal News Service, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).Eighth on our list, the next administration and Congress must make addressing climate change and energy insecurity more

than just a political catchphrase. There we feel that we're going to need to develop a set ofrules and costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions which could havedisruptive implications for trade, energy security and competitiveness andeconomic growth unless they are carefully worked out. This is going to take work withCongress to place an economic value of greenhouse gas emissions via a mechanism that sends out clear, long-term price

signals for industry. International collaboration is going to be crucial here. One areawhere China has passed the United States as a superpower is in the production of

greenhouse gases. This year, they produced more, not per capita but totally, thanwe do. You cannot think of how to solve this by traditional means. Obviously,we're not going to bomb Chinese coal-burning plants, and if we put sanctions onwe're going to destroy the trade system.

C) IMPACTS:

1) Weakening US economic competitiveness risks traderetaliation in Congress.

Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)The US should focus on enhancing its overall economic competitiveness insteadof seeking protectionism to combat its economic slowdown. That's according tothe latest 2008 White Paper released by the American Chamber of Commerce inChina, or AmCham China.

2
http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtmlhttp://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml


3/27


CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2)

2) Strong US competiveness is critical to stave off the move inCongress to pressure China over its currency.

Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)AmCham released the White Paper in Beijing, saying the US should focus onenhancing its overall economic competitiveness. It said the US should not pressfor the yuan's appreciation to reduce its trade deficit with China, since the value of theyuan is not the fundamental cause of the deficit. Harley Seyedin, Chairman of AmCham China said "RMB's going up

certainly reduce the exports, but that not really impact so much." Many American companies arelooking to expand in China, thanks to its lucrative and opening markets. TheWhite Paper also said the two countries should work to have more instances ofdefending and preserving the openness of the trade relationship than instances ofdispute. The paper said an open US and an open China will lead to sustained benefits for the companies and citizens of

both countries.

3) Putting pressure on China to revalue its currency triggers atrade war.

HeatherStewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online.Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).China's extraordinary transformation into a major world trading power has so far been achieved with remarkably little

political friction; but Beijing has already come under severe pressure to revalue itscurrency, both from the US and Europe. As a slowdown looms, blaming China islikely to become increasingly attractive and some analysts fear discomfort at itssuccess could even explode into a full-blown trade war.

4) A trade war risks a worldwide depression and global conflict.Jason Goldberg, 2007 (staff writer, University Wire, March 8, 2007. Online.Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).Yet Smith's ideas on international trade were not fully embraced until after WorldWar II. Many countries, in a panic response to the Great Depression, slapped traderestrictions in place hoping to sustain their domestic industries. Instead of fixingthings, this prescription sent the world into an economic nose dive and helpedcreate another world war. If only we had listened to the 19th century Frenchscholar Frederic Bastiat, who said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armieswill."

3


4/27


Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now

America is economically competitive now, but risks from othernations loom on the horizon.

JackGage, 2008 (staff writer, Forbes, May 8, 2008. Online. Internet. AccessedMay 10, 2008 at http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.html)America is No. 1. Don't take our word for it--the Global Competitiveness Report,published every year by the World Economic Forum (WEF), has ranked the U.S.first for the last five years. But Americans shouldn't get too cocky. HealthyEuropean economies have been climbing the ranks, with Switzerland moving tosecond place in 2008 from fourth in 2007, and Sweden climbing to fourth placefrom ninth.

The Bush administration is successfully bolstering USeconomic competitiveness in the present system.

Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis.Accessed, May 10, 2008).Beth McCormick, director of the Pentagon's Defense Technology Security Administration, said that Bush'sinitiatives, which were announced in January, "ensure proper levels of control forcontinued U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation while protectingnational security."

Surveys illustrate the United States leads the world in globalcompetitiveness.

Brian Milner, 2008 (staff writer, The Globe and Mail, April 22, 2008. Online.Lexis. Accessed, May 10, 2008)."None of those leap to mind when I think of weaknesses in Canada, Mr. Porter said. In a survey of globalcompetitiveness by the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked only 13th in2006, while the United States stood first and Denmark third.

4
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.html


5/27


Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten UScompetitiveness

Technology gaps between the United States and other countriesmeans the US must always be vigilant in ensuring its globalcompetitiveness.

Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis.Accessed, May 10, 2008).Voinovich added, "Technology gaps with foreign nations are rapidly shrinking,and the U.S. must adjust to this to not only better understand the capabilities ofother nations but to avoid denying private companies the ability to compete on theopen market with their goods, which may be readily available from othernations."

5


6/27


Links: Alternative Energy

Efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions will underminecompetitiveness and cause China-bashing.

Jonathan B. Wiener, 2007 (professor of environmental policy at Duke, June 2007.University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10,2008).Second, even if leakage is actually unlikely, the mere fear of leakage and its adverse effects on competitiveness may be a

political obstacle to subglobal action. Of special concern to national and state legislators isthe fear that regulating GHG emissions may cause the loss of local jobs and therelocation of employment away from the regulated voting districts - a form of outsourcingdriven by GHG limitations. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed by a vote of ninety-five tozero in July 1997, announced the U.S. Senate's insistence on participation bydeveloping countries in any future climate treaty, on the ground that Americanaction to restrict GHG emissions could impair the U.S. economy while driving

GHG-intensive activities and jobs abroad. 29 [*1972] The day after the Kyoto Protocol wassigned, the Clinton administration announced that it would not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification untildeveloping countries had agreed to accept emissions limitation responsibilities as well. 30 Fear of competitionwith China and India and of outsourcing of American jobs has only grown overthe past decade, even as concern about climate change has also grown.

The high price of alternative energy sources will decrease USeconomic competitiveness.Jonathan M. Harris, 2006 (Prof., Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts U.),ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH,06, 293-294.

Some alternative power sources, such as wind and biomass energy, have reached the margin of

competitiveness in the mass market, but in only a few instances have they crossed that margin intolarge-scale commercial feasibility. Solar power is competitive for hot water heating, but not yet for

power supply.

Efforts to encourage alternative energy will undermine USeconomic competitiveness.

Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.Accessed May 10, 2008 athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm )These policies have been tried before, with dismal results. The 30-plus-yearhistory of federal attempts to encourage alternative energy sources contains

numerous failures and few, if any, successes. Indeed, many of the recipients of taxbreaks and incentives in the Senate bill have been subsidized for decades (forexample, ethanol has enjoyed preferential treatment since 1978), with the goalthat they would become viable within a few years and then go off the dole andcompete in the marketplace. But this has never happened.

6
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm


7/27


LINKS: Environmental Regulations

Cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions lead to globalprotectionism:MOORE, 98 (Thomas Gale, Climate of fear : Why we shouldn't worry about globalwarming; pg. 145)If they ever agree to cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, which they would be unlikelyto meet, many poor countries would require large handouts. Environmentalists wouldurge governments to punish countries that failed to cut back on energy use by imposingtrade restrictions. Labor and industry would argue that it was unfair for firms facingmuch higher energy costs to compete with companies in areas not subject to restrictions;these firms in exempt states would be benefiting from reductions in fossil fuel prices. Asmentioned above, the United States, Japan, and the European Union, to protect theirenergy-using industries, will likely impose import controls. Restrictions on foreigntrade would precipitate a downward spiral in global income that could easily producea worldwide depression. The consumers of the country imposing the restrictions wouldsuffer from higher prices and inferior products. Under this dreary scenario, the resultwould be greater world poverty. Everyone would be a loser.

Environmental laws damage competitiveness of domesticproducers:Phillips, University of Michigan Law School, 96 (17 Mich. J. Int'l L. 827,Michigan Journal of International Law, Lexis)Because nearly every environmental law imposes costs on domestic producers, itconsequently damages their competitiveness in comparison to foreign producers that do

not face similar requirements. In large part because of the harm incurred by domesticproducers, many nations are reluctant to approve environmental laws. The CAFE law is a primeexample. It is a law that on balance probably damages the competitiveness of domestic producers. 162 The fleet accounting provisionwas added to help limit the damage. A major irony of the conclusion that the CAFE law is incompatible with the GATT is thatdomestic interests, which are putatively the beneficiaries of the protection, believe that the law harms them. 163 This proposal, bycalling on panels to examine the law as a whole under Article XX(g), seeks to have panels better appreciate those provisions which doin fact promote the conservation of exhaustible resources. As Part III of this Note argued, the provisions softening the blow ondomestic companies are integral in the effort to conserve exhaustible resources.

7


8/27


LINKS: Environmental Regulations

A) Environmental regulations lead to trade imbalances againstthe US:Garriga, staff, New Haven June 24, 2004, LexisU.S. businesses price their goods higher than businesses in other countries because theypay an added cost for health benefits, labor rights and environmental protection. Higherprices have led to a trade imbalance in favor of countries with fewer regulations,where companies benefit from low labor costs.

B) Rising trade deficits fuel domestic protectionism:Dobbs, staff, U.S. News & World Report January 26, 2004; LexisAmazingly, last week Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan referred to ourrecord-high trade deficits as "seemingly uneventful." I assume Greenspan has heard of theboiling frog analogy, in which as the temperature rises to near boiling, all is seeminglyuneventful for the ill-fated frog. But the Fed chairman evidently has no problemproclaiming the dangers of what he calls "clouds of emerging protectionism,"apparently referring to a number of calls by members of Congress for this country toconduct fair trade and balanced trade. Those calls so concerned Greenspan that he said,"The costs ofany new protectionist initiatives . . . could significantly erode theflexibility of the global economy."

8


9/27


Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness

Cap and trade systems undermine US competitiveness.Reuters, Sun Jan 27, 2008,http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 (online, internet, accessed Jan 27, 2008)Romney panned McCain's ability to handle the U.S. economy, zeroing in on a proposal by McCain and Sen. JosephLieberman, a Connecticut independent, that would set limits on the emission of greenhouse gasses. The McCain-Lieberman bill would allow those who exceed limits of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trade with those

under the limit, a plan known as cap-and-trade. Romney, a multimillionaire former venture capitalist, saidthe plan equates a tax of roughly 50 cents a gallon on gasoline and would drive uputility costs by 20 percent. "He wants to talk about anything but that, and I won't let him," Romney said. "Itwould depress the economy just at a time when we are trying to stimulate theeconomy."

9
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0


10/27


Links: CAF Standards

CAF standards would undermine overall US competitiveness.

Benjamin Sovacool, 2007 (Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute), ENERGY POLICY, Nov. 07,5506. 5508. Consumer preferences for larger and more powerful automobiles, a perceiveduncertainty over the cost of future fuel saving technologies, concerns about vehicle safety and

performance, and fear that standards would hurt overall economic competitiveness have created ageneral reluctance toward CAFE standards among automobile manufacturers.

10


11/27


Links: Kyoto Ratification

Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would undermine US economiccompetitiveness.

Pamela Chase, 2006 (Prof., Political Science, Manhattan College), GLOBALENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 4th Ed., 06, 89.

In regard to the climate change regime, industry lobbying in the United States succeeded in reducing theflexibility of the executive branch in the negotiations. Some of the most powerful trade associationslaunched the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) in 1997. Through a multimillion-dollar printand television advertising campaign, the GCIP cast doubt upon the desirability of emissions controls inthe Kyoto Protocol, which was entering the final stages of negotiation, by arguing that emissions controlswould raise taxes on gasoline, heating oil, and consumer goods and reduce the competitiveness ofAmerican businesses. An alliance of business and labor succeeded in persuading theU.S. Senate to vote 95-0 for a resolution stating that the president should not sign a

protocol that requires greenhouse gas reductions without commitments fromdeveloping countries, or that would result in serious harm to the economy of the

United States.

The Kyoto Protocol would harm US competitiveness:

Thomas Derr, 2006 (Prof., Ethics, Smith College), CONSERVING THEENVIRONMENT, 06, 90.

Most of the European countries that have ratified Kyoto are falling behind already on targets, despitehaving stagnant economies and falling populations. It is highly unlikely they will meet the goals theyhave signed on for, and they know it. Neither will Japan, for that matter. The European Union hascommitted itself to an eight percent reduction in energy use (from 1990 levels) by 2012, but the EuropeanEnvironment Agency admits that current trends project only a 4.7 percent reduction. When Kyotosigners lecture non-signers for not doing enough for the environment, they invite thecharge of hypocrisy. There is also the obvious fact that adherence to the treaty will

hurt the U.S. economy much more than the European, which suggests that old-fashioned economic competitiveness is in the mix of motives at play here. Theabsurdity of the treaty becomes obvious when we recognize that it does not imposeemissions requirements on developing countries, including economic giants such asChina, India, and Brazil. (China will become the world's biggest source of carbon dioxideemissions in just a few years.

11


12/27


Links: Carbon Tax

Carbon taxes would undermine US energy competitiveness.Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.Accessed May 10, 2008 athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm )Taxing successful energy sources and subsidizing unsuccessful onesthat is theessence of Washingtons energy policy during the 1970s and early 1980s, and itwould be repeated by the Senates version of the Houses energy bill (H.R. 6).The bill would raise taxes by an estimated $28 billion over 10 years, mostly fromthe oil and natural gas sector, and spend much of this money on tax breaks foralternative energy sources like ethanol and wind power. If history is any guide,this approach is likely to backfire, raising prices and reducing energy security.

Carbon taxes would undermine the US economy:Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.Accessed May 10, 2008 athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm )The Senate's proposed tax increases would likely reduce supplies and increaseprices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic drilling for oiland natural gas. America's demand for energy is growing along with its economy,and so it will need more domestic oil and natural gas supplies in the years ahead.However, raising taxes on energy would move America in the opposite direction,because it would raise the cost of capital for exploration and production, making

some domestic energy projects less viable.

Tax increases will undermine US competitiveness.Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 2006 (Analyst, Hudson Institute), KEEPING AMERICACOMPETITIVE, Nov. 10, 06. Retrieved Mar. 15, 08 fromwww.hudson.org.Raising income taxes might be populist, especially among the 50% of earners who pay almostnone, but would be detrimental to competitiveness and economic growth. With nations all over theworld competing to lower taxes, America must stay at the cutting edge in order for entrepreneursand foreign investors to flourish. As New York knows only too well, labor and capital are mobileand need little excuse to go elsewhere.

12
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfmhttp://www.hudson.org/http://www.hudson.org/http://www.hudson.org/http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfmhttp://www.hudson.org/


13/27


Links: Gas Tax

Gasoline taxes would undermine US economic competitivenesscompared to other oil producing nations.

Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online.Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008.http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm )Unfortunately, the House tax measures would likely reduce supplies and increaseprices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic production of oiland natural gas. This was clearly the lesson of the disastrous windfall profits taxof 1980, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, "reduceddomestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil importsfrom between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent uponimported oil."[2] The latest tax increases will also have a negative impact onbadly needed domestic production. Tax hikes on domestic energy also undercut

the energy security rationale for the bill. The tax title would improve thecomparative advantage of OPEC and other non-U.S. suppliers, whose imports arenot subject to most of these provisions.

13


14/27


LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM

Job losses risk protectionism culminating in world war:Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis

None of that money is going to pad the payroll. The past three years have seen thegreatest sustained job loss in the United States since the Great Depression. Or so many say.Those numbers are being hotly debated in the U.S. presidential campaign. Democrats point to the government payroll survey, whichtracks big companies and shows startlingly anemic job creation in the Bush years, including a meager 32,000 jobs created in July.Republicans prefer the household survey, which includes the self-employed, and shows relatively strong gains under Bush. Takentogether, however, both surveys support the picture of a Darwinian job market in which a comfy corporate post is increasingly hard tofind. The United States is likely a harbinger of what's to come in Europe, as it widens its own continental market. Already, tens ofthousands of big-company manufacturing jobs have migrated to the 10 new member states since they joined the European Union inMay. Now, small- and medium-size businesses are also expected to take advantage of cheaper labor in countries like Estonia. "Even ifthe actual number of job losses aren't high, just the idea that management could move jobs anywhere, at any time, will have an effecton the Western European work force," says Citigroup European equity economist Richard Reid. The same basic concerns hauntemployers on both sides of the Atlantic. Faced with relentless price pressure from all sides, chief executives can't look at labor coststhe same way, says A. D. (Pete) Correll, the CEO of the timber and paper products manufacturer Georgia Pacific. His main customer isWal-Mart, and he counts Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as a friend, but says, "If I call Lee and say, 'Lee, I've got to raise prices,' he says,'You raise prices, and I'm taking my business elsewhere'." In that environment, says Correll, the " implicit social contract" betweenworkers and bosses is changing irrevocably. Experts say the global labor market has not changed this dramatically since the height of

the Industrial Revolution. During the 19th century many of the same factors, includingtechnological change, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threwmillions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the loss of"quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British author E. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre,"Made in Germany," which began with a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions onimmigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took two worldwars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, some economistsfear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionist backlash.

Unemployment risks protectionism:

Zinsmeister, staff, The American Enterprise, 6/1/2004; LexisThey wailed loudly about employment losses, a "jobless recovery," "outsourcing"ordeals, and "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover"--all of this obligingly echoed bythe media. Hearings are being held, TV specials aired, protectionist measures proposedin Congress.

Job losses feed fears of outsourcing:Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; LexisWhat's crucially new this time around is what's being globalized--that is, the servicesector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the developed world. The fact thatseemingly any job can be exported abroad is creating an unprecedented level of anxiety

across all social classes. Though the number of Western jobs "outsourced" to India is fartoo small to explain the jobless recovery, the trend is only in its infancy . The number of Indianprofessionals in the IT sector is expected to triple to more than 2 million over the next five years, and Morgan Stanley's Mumbairesearch center predicts that multinationals will match new jobs in Indian subsidiaries with head-count reductions elsewhere. GeneralElectric's "70-70-70" plan signals the possible extent of these shifts: It plans to outsource 70 percent of its head count, push 70 percentof that outsourcing offshore and locate 70 percent of its workers in India.

14


15/27


15


16/27


Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard

A renewable portfolio standard would undermine US

competitiveness.Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online.Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008.http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm )The House seeks a requirement that 20 percent of electricity be generated from so-called renewable sources--chiefly wind

but also solar and others. In effect, the requirement forces utilities that produce America's electricity from natural gas, coal,

and nuclear power to diversify into these alternatives. Of course, the only reason why a federallymandated Renewable Portfolio Standard is needed in the first place is that thatthese alternatives are far too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect,Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. This is particularly true ofcertain states, especially those in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest, where the conditions are not conducive to wind

power. And since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national

mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.

16


17/27


Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness SpurProtectionism

Threats to competition inspire protectionism:Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis

During the 19th century many of the same factors, including technologicalchange, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threwmillions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the lossof "quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British authorE. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre, "Made in Germany," which beganwith a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions onimmigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took twoworld wars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, someeconomists fear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionistbacklash.

Big industry can tempt politicians into going protectionist:American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; LexisProtectionism is always tempting to political leaders left and right , especially whenthe special-interest lobby in question comprises both large corporations and laborunions. Little is more frightening to a politician than to be accused of "doing nothing"while cheap foreign imports undermine America's industry, bankrupting great companiesand throwing hard-working Americans out of jobs. Nothing gets the juices flowing faster-especially with a war on-than to have Big Steel wrap itself in the flag and appeal for help.

17


18/27


Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs

US protectionism threatens the entire world trading system:Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008

http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlThe review of US trade policy has been held annually for the last nine years. SunZhenyu, China's permanent representative to the WTO, addressed the meetingsaying that rising domestic trade protectionism could threaten world trade andthe global multilateral trade system.

Doha Round at a critical juncture now:Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008

http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlThe critical Doha Round of global trade talks are at a critical juncture, andthe protectionist measures of the US Congress sent a very negative signal.These measures, he added, also make WTO members doubt the leadership andpolitical will of the United States to promote success in the Doha Roundnegotiations.

Any weakening of support for free trade risks retaliation byother nations:Cassidy, staff, New Yorker, 8/2/2004; LexisSome economists privately acknowledge that the arguments about outsourcing arenuanced, but they fear that any weakening of support for free trade could do untolddamage to the economy. During the Great Depression, Congress introduced the

infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised duties on a range of foreign goods.Other countries retaliated, and the subsequent downturn in international tradeintensified the slump. The economists are right when they say protectionism isn't theanswer to outsourcing.

Protectionism spirals into trade wars:American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; LexisNeither does "strategic protectionism" make sense as a negotiation strategy, because it ismuch more likely to set off trade war with our key economic partners . Mexico,ironically, which was excluded from the tariff increases, is considering taking advantageof them by raising its own tariffs on steel. Russia has stopped issuing import licenses for

chicken imports from the U.S. and may impose an outright ban. EuropeanParlimentarians say they will use "all means at their disposal" to respond, and Japan saysit is considering every option available to counter the U.S. tariff hike on steel.

18
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html


19/27


Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs

Staying the course on free trade essential to open markets for1.3 billion people:News & Observer, 7/28/2004; LexisIt adds up to a tremendous temptation to back away from free trade. Certainly tradeagreements entered into by this country in good faith need to be honored by all parties.But to retreat from the spirit of free trade now would be to undermine policies that allowdeveloping nations to stimulate growth of a stable middle class, as India is doing. Stayingthe course is bound to pay dividends in terms of global stability and security. Anotherconsideration: The trade agreements open a market of 1.3 billion people to Americancompanies.

Need to continue to support free trade so US can preserve itspro-free trade image:EIRAS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS,Heritage Foundation Reports, July 23, 2004; lEXISTo its credit, the Bush Administration has engaged in an aggressive expansion of freetrade with more than 10 nations, and President Bush lifted the steel tariffs in late 2003.These are steps in the right direction, but the Administration needs to express its supportfor freer markets more forcefully and credibly by pushing for elimination of subsidiesand tariff barriers at once so that America can increase its economic freedom andpreserve the image of a pro-freedom government.

19


20/27


Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks ChinaBashing

Congress is willing to enact protectionist legislation againstChinas currency.

Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)The White Paper noted that China has in effect acquired part of the trade deficitformerly held by other Asian countries. As a result, imports from China are notreally displacing US goods. The White Paper also said the US Congress shouldrefrain from enacting legislation that attempts to change the terms of trade withChina through currency appreciation.

A weakening US economy risks undermining efforts to liberalizetrade.

HeatherStewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online.Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).As the turmoil in the giant American economy spreads from the housing market to jobs andconsumer spending, and politicians cast around for someone to blame, there is agrowing risk that 2008 could become the year when half a century of tradeliberalisation grinds to a halt. Last year was supposed to be crunch-time for the Doha round of internationaltrade talks, launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York, with the aim of making the world's markets fairer for

developing countries. Instead, 2007 was another 12 months of mutual finger-pointing

between the world's great trading powers,and a deal looks as distant as ever.

Industries will push for China-bashing.FrankChing, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).No sooner had the United States and China announced the successful conclusionof their strategic economic dialogue, last week, than the China Currency Coalitionpronounced the talks a failure and called on the US Congress to "take much-needed action". The coalition is an alliance of American industry, agriculture and labour groups whosemission, it says, is "seeking an end to Chinese currency manipulation".

China will be blamed for lost American jobs.FrankChing, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).American society is clearly divided on China. There are differences between theBush administration and Congress. And between those who benefit from China -such as US firms that do business with, and consumers who enjoy low-cost imports from, that nation - and thosewho blame it for their lost jobs.

20


21/27


Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a TradeWar

Congressional protectionism against China triggers a trade war.FrankChing, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).But trade issues remain intractable. American attention is focused on the value of the yuan, and Washington is pressuring

Beijing for a rapid appreciation to make exports more costly. China has allowed its currency to rise byover 12 per cent since July 2005, but Washington wants a much more dramaticincrease. More than 50 China-related bills have been proposed by US legislatorsin recent years. The best-known was put forward by Senators Charles Schumerand Lindsey Graham, to impose a 27.5 per cent surcharge on all imports fromChina to compensate for what they call the deliberate undervaluation of the yuan. If any of these billsbecome law, they will trigger a trade war.

Trade is the most likely area of friction between the US andChina.

FrankChing, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).How American society views US relations with China was highlighted by a recent Zogby Internationalpoll commissioned by the Committee of 100, a non-profit, non-partisan group of Chinese-Americanleaders and professionals. The survey showed that trade is regarded as the most likely area ofshared interests - but also as the most likely source of conflict between the two countries.That view was held by virtually all segments of American society - the general

public, opinion leaders, business leaders and congressional staffers. Thisunderlines the need for Washington and Beijing to handle trade issues with specialcare.

21


22/27


Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars

Free trade critical to stop a nuclear war:Copley News Service, December 1, 1999

For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bedfearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winterfreezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting theWorld Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth isthat nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to furthertheir own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. Ina way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear warfor the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearlyfancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decadespast. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor orparanoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlikeyesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the

nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather thanstrive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nationssitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and

bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies arebuilt on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentiveto wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. Asexports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperityincreases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protestersin Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everydaywage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complexbenefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growingnumber of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines andother companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people whowork at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30

percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global

prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations ofthe world are learning to live and work together, like the singers ofanti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peaceshouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Trade wars risk shooting wars.States News Service, 2008 (staff writer, April 14, 2008. Online. Lexis.Accessed May 10, 2008).The prosperity in one country, of course, need not take away from the prosperityof another. Indeed, economic prosperity spills across borders if governments areopen to it. Frederic Bastiat, a famous 19th Century French economist, said that ifgoods do not cross borders, armies will. The more international ties betweeneconomies there are, the more likely it is that the prosperity of one country willbenefit other countries.

Free trade prevents warfare.TylerCowen, 2008 (professor of economics at George Mason University,Washington Post, January 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).

22


23/27


24/27


Impacts: Protectionism Causes War

Free trade ends the nationalism that drives conflicts a globalbody politic ensures peaceJason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, 1999 ed. IndependentInstitute Make Trade, Not Warhttp://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay99Brooks.htmlDifferent people have different solutions to war; none are as logical as free trade. The warhawks have

pursued a policy of mutual assured destruction, arguing that bigger weapons make better deterrents. Others

have argued for disarmament. While the causes of war are undoubtedly varied, protectionismclearly invites conflict. To this, free trade is a remedy. While diplomacy is important,there can be no better diplomacy than that which exists between common citizens of theworld every day in a thousand spheres of life. The more free trade we have, the more theinvisible hand of the market helps us to, while working for our own advancement, create

a world of peace.The wellbeing of others becomes our own. There is no reason why, in a world of perfect free trade, people worldwide shouldn't get along as

well as the citizens of the happiest, most prosperous democracies. Forin a world of free trade it matters little where bordersare drawn. "Make love, not war," was a slogan once bandied about as an answer to war. It was a catchy phrase -- and anappealing message given the two options. But it wasn't too practical. The real solution to war, if condensed tothe size of a placard, would instead read, "Make trade, not war."

All empirical examples demonstrate that protectionism causesmassive warsVincent Miller, founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty,and James Elwood, Vice-President of the International Society for Individual Liberty,Free Trade of Protectionism? 1988, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-

protectionism.html, accessed 1/3/03History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars:Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, whenrestrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each otherto expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists torevolution, and later the Northern-dominated U.S. government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports a major factor

leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade(which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europeagain began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded intoWorld War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, U.S. President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028

prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similarlaws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plungedinto the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to WorldWar II. The # 1 Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945- 1970, a period that also saw nomajor wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these

economically deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "Whatgenerates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreignexchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is aphilosophy of war."

24


25/27


Impacts: Leadership

A) Trade war risk undermining global trading system:Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis)

U.S. policymakers must decisively overcome the domestic backlash against globalizationto create a firm political foundation for a sustainable and constructive foreign economicpolicy. But the outlook is worrisome, despite the current economic recovery. Overvalued exchange rates and the massive tradedeficits they create -- characteristics of the current U.S. economy -- have historically caused a retreat from openness. The admirableefforts of the Bush administration to revive liberalization have mostly run aground: the Doha Round of World Trade Organization(WTO) negotiations stalled at Cancun in September 2003; the Free Trade Area of the Americas fared similarly poorly at Miami in

November 2003; and bilateral free trade agreements are facing stiff congressional resistance and may have to be shelved. Moreover,

disputes between Europe and the United States could spark a transatlantic trade war, anda vicious round of China-bashing has erupted over the past year. These developmentshave put U.S. trade policy, and hence the global trading system, in deep jeopardy andcould start to reverse the profound benefits of globalization.

B) Rollback of globalization undermines US leadership:Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis)Stopping the advance of globalization would be very dangerous to U.S. foreign policybecause globalization -- more than terrorism or the end of the Cold War -- has been thedominant force for change in international affairs in the past 50 years. And rightly orwrongly, it is equated with Americanization in much of the world. Debates overglobalization are often debates over the role of the United States itself. A significantrollback of globalization, or a halt in its continued advance, would therefore represent amajor defeat for the United States on the world stage. The next administration mustrecognize the urgency of the situation and make foreign economic policy a top priority.

C) US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclearexchange.Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or areturn to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such avision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadershipwould have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive toAmerican values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chanceof dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regionalhegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help precludethe rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid anotherglobal cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

25


26/27


*****Affirmative Answers*****

No impact: China wont allow protectionism to spiral into atrade war:Scott Tong, 6/24/2008(http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/24/china_fingerwagging)

Tong: Well, there's talk of protectionism in Congress, that China isn't proceedingquickly enough. From China's perspective, the technicians who are trying totweak the economy, most people tell me that this push back rhetoric right now atleast is not going to lead into protectionism from the Chinese side, that whatmotivates them principally is political stability and if they can go in the rightdirection in a way that's politically stable, they're going to keep going in thatdirection and for all the rhetoric and finger wagging globally, it's going to bemotivated by domestic concerns first.

No impact: Any US protectionism will be rolled backsteeltariffs prove:Seattle Times, 1/5/2004; LexisNext, freeing international trade from heavy regulation. Dean says he will not sign tradeagreements unless they include labor and environmental standards. Whose standards?Ours? Poor countries cannot afford them. There is room for compromise, but recentdebates on trade suggest industries or unions often push for protectionism under the cloakof fairness. A protectionist trade policy, no matter how it is camouflaged, can't exist forlong in today's global economy. Look at President Bush's failed steel tariff as an example.

Non-unique: Protectionist sentiment is rising in the US now:

Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlGENEVA, Switzerland 06/17/08 Rising levels of protectionism in the US is cause forserious concern, according to a recent two-day review of US trade policy conducted last week by theWorld Trade Organization (WTO). The global trade body submitting more than 90 detailed technicalquestions to the US about its trade policy during the two-day meeting, expressing its dismay at worryingsigns of a re-emergence of protectionist sentiment in the US. The increasinglyrestrictive import requirements imposed by the United States for security purposesnew legislation requiring the 100% scanning of containers destined for the US isan exampleas is the lack of reform in the 2008 US Farm Bill raised doubts about thecompliance and professed intent of some aspects of US trade policy with the WTO, the group said in a statement to the

press.

26
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html


27/27


Affirmative Answers

US protectionist sentiment on the rise now:Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008

http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlThe rise of US domestic trade protectionist sentiment, he said, has causedwidespread concern. Such trade protectionism, Sun added,is demonstrated inevents such as the US Congress failing to extend the president's trade promotionauthority, and the Congress recently passing a new farm bill which provides hugeagricultural subsidies.

No impact: Neither Obama or McCain will China-bash:AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpg)WASHINGTON (AFP) Despite their rhetoric, White House aspirants Barack Obamaand John McCain are unlikely to adopt a confrontational approach towards China even asit flexes its military and economic muscles, experts say.

No impact: US politicians wont let China bashing get out ofcontrol:AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpg)China has also challenged longstanding US military dominance in Asia, and some expertssay that in five years, the Asian giant with an exploding manufacturing sector may be

able assemble the "building blocks" of a military superpower. President George W. Bushand his recent predecessors all determined that they had to make the relationship betweenthe world's most developed nation and biggest developing economy work, the expertssaid, and senators Obama and McCain would also very quickly come to that conclusion."When you are dealing with an economic superpower of that magnitude one does notgive the impression of a desire for a confrontation unless one is pushed to the wall," saidJohn Tkacik, a former China expert at the State Department. "And China is simply toobig an economic actor to confront head on if one doesn't have to," he said.

27
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.htmlhttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpg

Documents

China Bashing Disadvantage 08