China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17

China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Human Rights Affirmative

1 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17

The affirmative claims to solve for the protection of religious minorities in China. The Chinese government is communist, which means that the state is atheist, and it does not condone public displays of religious beliefs. This hardline policy is particularly prohibitive for religious groups such as the Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic group in the far Northwest of China, and the Tibetans, who are primarily Buddhist but also, Christian and Muslim. By increasing our engagement with China over labor issues, a pressing concern in the status quo, the evidence indicates that we gain credibility on other issues, particularly the protection of religious minorities. The protection of religious minorities is what debaters term a “d-rule” or “decision rule”, an a priori, that is, a claim that the judge should prioritize over other claims, consideration in the debate round. In order to make a “d rule” argument, the affirmative must win that a morals and principles should be prioritized over nuclear war claims, and the traditional cost-benefit analysis of policy debate. This framing would be deployed in the following way: “Even if the negative wins a nuclear war claim, the judge should consider morality and principles. It is immoral for a government to oppress a religious minority. If the affirmative can restore their dignity this principle matters more than whatever the consequences of the plan are”.

2 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Glossary

Human Rights- “Human rights” is a principle of international politics that sets out guidelines for how governments ought to treat their people. It is meant to protect and preserve human dignity.

Cost-benefit Analysis- Cost benefit analysis refers to a framework for evaluating the debate round. Under a cost-benefit analysis framework, the judge has to weight the outcome of one policy against the outcome of another policy.

Deontology- The understanding of a nature of duty and obligation

Utilitarianism- The belief that the most good should be done for the most people.

Dictatorship- A state ruled by a dictator

Moral imperative- A strongly felt principle that compels a person to act

Consequentialism- The belief that the morality of an action is to be judged by its consequences

Genocide- Deliberately killing a large group of people, especially of a particular ethnic group or nation

Authoritarianism- a form of government controlled by a central power with limited political freedoms

Subjugated groups- A group of people whom freedoms are taken away from by another group of people

Diplomacy- managing international relations

3 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (4 Min Vsn) (1/4)

Contention 1 —Human rights abuses abound in China. Workers are living in cramped quarters, working long hours, and they don’t have basic safety protocols in their work environments

China Labor Watch 2015- China Labor Watch, a labor rights watchdog and advocacy organization, October 22, 2015 “Something’s Not Right Here: Poor Working Conditions Persist at Apple Supplier Petragon” http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/upfile/2015_10_21/2015.10%20Apple%20Pegatron%20report %20FINAL--compress.pdf

In an interview with PBS journalist Charlie Rose in September 2014, Apple CEO Tim Cook was asked what values he considers most important beyond those of Apple.1 Mr. Cook responded: Treating people with dignity. Treating people the same. That everyone deserves a basic level of human rights, regardless of their color, regardless of their religion, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their gender. That everyone deserves respect. Right now, in Shanghai, China, a factory owned by the Taiwanese Pegatron Group is pushing out millions of units of the iPhone 6s for Apple. There, its young production workers toil six days a week in 12-hour shifts. Each day they are paid for 10 and half hours of work, not counting 15 minutes of unpaid meetings. The mandatory overtime shift runs from 5:30 pm until 8:00 pm. Most workers will not eat dinner before doing overtime because the 30-break given for a meal is not enough time. Before overtime pay, workers making the iPhone earn only the local minimum wage of $318 per month, or about $1.85 per hour. This is not a living wage. Even if the factory did not mandate overtime as it does, workers would still depend on their 60-hour workweeks to get by. After their long shifts, workers take a 30-minute shuttle bus back to their dorms where up to 14 people are crammed into a room. Mold grows pervasively along the walls. Bed bugs have spread throughout the dorm, and many workers are covered in red bug bites. In his interview, Mr. Cook went on: One of the best ways you can make sure that things are happening well is if people stand up and say, "Something's happening that's not right here." We've audited so deep in our supply chain. We do it constantly, looking for anything that's wrong, whether it's down to the -- there's a safety exit blocked. While working undercover at the Pegatron factory in Shanghai, CLW’s investigator was never told the locations of emergency exits and never participated in an emergency drill. In fact, at the massive production facility, which employs up to 100,000 people, the investigator never even located an emergency exit. Full transcript of the interview: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-full-interview-with charlie-rose-with-transcript-2014-9 SOMETHING’S NOT RIGHT HERE Despite providing only about eight hours of pre-job safety training—where Chinese law requires 24 hours—Pegatron forces each new worker to sign a form that “certifies” that she has undergone 20 hours of safety training. A worker also must sign a trainer’s name on the form. The factory has workers quickly copy answers to the safety information quiz. These falsified forms are the types of documentation that are provided to Apple in their audits.

4 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (4 Min Vsn) (2/4)

Contention Two – The United States government fails to challenge these abuses

Foreign Policy 7/7/15- “The U.S. Just Botched Yet Another Chance to Press for Human Rights in China” http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/07/the-u-s-just- botched-yet-another-chance-to-press-for-human-rights-in-china/

But even these relatively strong remarks betray a growing problem in U.S.-China high-level interactions: the unwillingness of American diplomats to raise publicly with their Chinese counterparts specific cases of human rights abuses. Neither Kerry nor Blinken raised Beijing’s concerted efforts to destroy Yirenping, an anti-discrimination group, or the New Citizens’ Movement, a civic rights forum. There was no public mention in this setting of well-known cases, such as imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, or even of Li Tingting, Wang Man, Wei Tingting, Wu Rongrong, and Zheng Churan, the five feminists detained (and later released) this spring, on whose behalf U.S. officials spoke up in April. As a result, there were few facts offered to challenge Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi’s insistence that, “In advancing human rights, China’s achievements are there for all to see.” And there was little evidence that courageous activists in China could see, of the United States taking seriously its purported “whole of government” approach. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden lowered the bar in his opening remarks. Biden didn’t remind his audience that China has freely undertaken a slew of legally binding human rights commitments or the extent to which it’s violating those. Instead, Biden gingerly introduced the topic by cautioning that he wasn’t “lecturing” and then rattled off a list of human rights abuses — without specifying that those abuses are taking place right now in China, enabled or tolerated by some of the very Chinese officials listening to the speech. Having sidestepped the opportunity to challenge those officials, or at least make a principled argument, Biden concluded that “responsible competitors” — by which he presumably meant governments that respect human rights — do so “not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s absolutely economically necessary.” He then mentioned his “friendships” with people in the leadership but named no human rights defenders from China. Even China’s plans to host a commemoration this September of the landmark 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women on women’s rights went unchallenged: U. S. officials did not in public sessions challenge China’s ongoing harassment of the five feminists, who are released but remain criminal suspects, but opted instead to call the September gathering a “critical opportunity.” Rather, they elected to broadly reference restrictions on civil society, the exclusion of women from opportunities for “economic success,” and domestic violence. But no specifics were given — only broad, vague principles, which posed no meaningful challenge to the Chinese officials present.

5 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (4 Min Vsn) (3/4)

Thus, we embrace the plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its economic engagement with China by promoting human rights issues through our economic institutions and requiring affiliate corporations in China to improve working and living conditions.

6 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (4 Min Vsn) (4/4)

Contention 3 – The U.S. can use its trade partnership to ensure that companies in China adhere to International Labor Organization standards- Historically, trading partnerships have showcased American credibility on human rights issues Burtless 2001- Gary, senior fellow, Economic Studies, Brooks Institution- “Workers' Rights: Labor standards and global trade” http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/09/fall-globaleconomics-burtless Proponents of workers' rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world's biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.¶ The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.¶ The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.¶ Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?¶

7 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (1/7)

Contention 1 — The Harms 1) Human rights abuses abound. Workers are living in cramped quarters, working long hours, and they don’t have basic safety protocols in their work environments

8 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (2/7)

2) Only when we protect the dignity of the individual over all else, does life have meaning. Prefer this evidence to their nuclear war claims. In order for life to be worth living, we must protect individual rights and freedoms

Shue 1989 – Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University (Henry, “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, pp. 141-2) Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can take in dealing with the issue of the morality of nuclear strategy. One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the established moral theories constructed by philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict of the theory, whatever it might be, on the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes that trade-offs in moral values and principles are inevitable in response to constantly changing threats, and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western societies to adjust the way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survives. Nuclear weapons are putting just such a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear- armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of Western civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable under any possible circumstances. Today, however, it may be that Western democracies, if they are to survive as guardians of individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection demanded by Just War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on the assumption that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory. Innocent human life is not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western political, economic, and social institutions. A free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter of innocent human beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt,” no better than soviet society, and not worth defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to accept destruction at the hands of tyranny, if need be. This objection is partly right in that a society based on individual rights that casually sacrifices innocent human lives for the sake of common social goods is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, even Just War doctrine allows for the unintentional sacrifice of some innocent human life under certain hard-pressing circumstances. It is essentially a consequentialist moral.

9 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (3/7)

Contention Two – Describes current policy conditions

1) The Chinese government is out to eliminate any citizen that represents a challenge to its dictatorial rule

Tethong 2015- Lhadon, Tibetan Independence Activist and Director of Tibet Action Institute, Sept. 13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/its-time- for-obama-to-con_b_8112536.html Since taking over as President in 2013, Xi Jinping has targeted everyone who is likely to have an alternative opinion to the Chinese Communist Party - this means lawyers and rights advocates, civil society leaders, journalists, academics, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Christians and anyone else who may be attempting to practice religion, protect culture, defend the environment, promote rights, or push for more political openness. This past summer alone, at least 323 Chinese lawyers and rights defenders working for human rights, religious freedom, environmental protection, labor rights, etc., were disappeared, detained, tortured or harassed. And as this crackdown was underway, one of the most high profile Tibetan political prisoners, 65-year old Buddhist monk and revered social activist, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, died in a Chinese prison after 13 years of torture. Protesters in his home region were shot at for demanding the return of his body and now thousands in the area are living under military lockdown. Xi Jinping’s hardline approach surprised many. When he first took power, observers speculated that this modern Chinese leader, who had even spent time in his youth studying agricultural technology in Iowa, might usher in a new era of openness and liberalization. In fact, the reality has turned out to be the opposite. Determined to crush even the slightest perceived opposition to his hold on power, Xi has escalated state repression of civil society on multiple fronts, overseeing the drafting and implementation of a spate of draconian laws on NGOs, cyberspace and ‘National Security,’ while aggressively targeting thousands of activists. In Tibet - where at least 143 Tibetans have now lit themselves on fire to protest the suffocating repression they face under Chinese rule - the situation is going from bad to worse, with the Communist Party recently announcing its intentions to tighten control and stamp out the influence of the Dalai Lama, including plans to choose his successor. For many Tibetans and rights advocates, witnessing this new low that Xi’s policies have brought makes it clear that something needs to give - that world governments need to change their approach to Beijing.

10 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (4/7)

2) The United States government fails to challenge these abuses

11 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (5/7)

12 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (6/7)

Contention 3 – Our policy reverses course and improves human rights in China

1) The U.S. can use its trade partnership to ensure that companies in China adhere to International Labor Organization standards- Historically, trading partnerships have showcased American credibility on human rights issues Burtless 2001- Gary, senior fellow, Economic Studies, Brooks Institution- “Workers' Rights: Labor standards and global trade” http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/09/fall-globaleconomics-burtless Proponents of workers' rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world's biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.¶ The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.¶ The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.¶ Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?¶

13 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Short Vsn) (7/7)

2) Empirically, approaches like the affirmative have been successful

Guangcheng & McMilan-Scott ’13 (Chen, civil rights activist, & Edward, Liberal Democrat MEP, “China: The West Needs to Promote Both Trade & Human Rights,” June 14, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chen-guangcheng/china-trade-human-rights_b_3443081.html) As economic growth begins to slow and China faces up to its momentous social, environmental and demographic problems, calls for political reform will become impossible to ignore. For the West, the question arises of how best to aid this process of reform. Some, both in Europe and the U.S., are demanding a much tougher approach towards China, including the imposition of punitive sanctions and high import tariffs. But this is undeniably motivated more by a desire to protect vested domestic economic interests, rather than as a way to put political pressure on the Chinese government. Crucially, such an approach risks fueling the perception that the voicing of human rights concerns is only used as a means of criticism in order to justify protectionist measures against China. This would play into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, which is keen to portray any Western interference as an attempt to contain China’s growing global economic power. Moreover, putting up greater trade barriers would punish ordinary Chinese citizens and threaten the process of economic engagement that is bringing them into closer contact with the outside world. Finally, indiscriminate China-bashing risks unwittingly bolstering support for the current regime - by stoking the flames of nationalism and provoking resentment towards the West. Instead, a targeted approach is needed which clearly distinguishes between the Chinese people and their government. Last month’s decision by the US government to impose sanctions on 18 individual Russians accused of human rights violations is a good example. Another case in point is Germany, which has seen an explosive growth in trade with China over the last decade but has also taken a robust approach to human rights. Angela Merkel has led the way in trying to defuse the recent trade row between the EU and China. But since coming to power she has also been vocal in criticizing China’s human rights record. This shows that the promotion of trade and human rights need not be mutually exclusive. Close engagement with China over economic issues should be combined with a strong and consistent line on human rights.

14 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (1/8) Contention 1 — The Link 1) Human rights abuses abound. Workers are living in cramped quarters, working long hours, and they don’t have basic safety protocols in their work environments

15 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (2/8)

2) The products we use on a daily basis are tainted with the poor working conditions of millions of Chinese workers. We are complicit in these atrocities.

AFLCIO 2015- 9/24, We are the umbrella federation for U.S. unions, with 56 unions representing 12.5 million working men and women, http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/A-Time-to-Reflect-on-U.S.-Role-in-Chinese-Workers-Exploitation

A Time to Reflect on U.S. Role in Chinese Workers’ Exploitation 0COMMENTS09/24/2015Lynne Dodson A Time to Reflect on U.S. Role in Chinese Workers’ Exploitation This post originally appeared at The Stand. The visit to Seattle by Chinese President Xi Jinping is a historic moment. Xi is known for his crackdown on corruption in the government and for opening up Chinese markets. Certainly, the discussions with business roundtable leaders here are geared toward creating more market opportunities in the country with the world’s largest population. But Xi's visit is not only for the multinational corporations; it’s also an opportunity to reflect on the status of workers in China, our complicity and the ways we can stand in solidarity with the working people of China. Labor laws in China require employers to follow minimum employment standards. While minimum wages are set by provinces, national law enforces work hours, overtime, holidays, safety and many other conditions of employment, including the requirement that all employers pay into the social insurance program for their employees, which includes pension, medical insurance, work-related injury insurance, unemployment compensation and maternity leave. Enforcement of labor laws is the key to how workers are treated. Independent unions are not legal in China, and it is also illegal to strike. Nonetheless, workers in China are demanding their rights—with thousands striking in the apparel industry, taxi driving, teaching and, most recently, e-commerce workers. There is plenty to criticize in the treatment of workers, the lack of independent trade unions and the oppression of workers in China. What we must consider though, in the quest for more global solidarity, is the complicity of the United States in this oppression. It is no secret that U.S. manufacturing— apparel, shoes, technology, toys, electronics, etc.—has moved to China in recent decades as U.S. companies seek lower wages. According to Li Qiang, executive director of China Labor Watch, the U.S. criticism of China generally stops short of a critique that threatens the economic interests of the United States. In a recent article, Li pointed out that: Tens of millions of Chinese workers, who make products for multinational corporations that will be consumed by Americans, are working more than 10 hours per day, six days per week, for less than U.S. $2 per hour. Tens of thousands of underage Chinese workers toil on production lines churning out orders for American companies. Factories regularly use toxic chemicals in their production processes and lack adequate safety protocols, leading to many workers suffering injuries or a serious occupational disease. Minority groups and women face widespread employment discrimination by factories across China.

16 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (3/8)

3) The United States government fails to challenge these abuses

17 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (4/8)

Contention Two – The impact

1) The Chinese government is out to eliminate any citizen that represents a challenge to its dictatorial rule

18 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (5/8) 2) Only when we protect the dignity of the individual over all else, does life have meaning. Prefer this evidence to their nuclear war claims. In order for life to be worth living, we must protect individual rights and freedoms

19 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (6/8)

Contention 3 – The Alternative – We reject the systemic abuses occurring in China. We also reject the policies of the United States government and its citizens which are complicit in the abuse of people in China.

1) Thus, we embrace the plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its economic engagement with China by promoting human rights issues through our economic institutions and requiring affiliate corporations in China to improve working and living conditions.

2) Economic diplomacy is one of the tools the U.S. has to protect those suffering in the status quo in China Tethong 2015- Lhadon, Tibetan Independence Activist and Director of Tibet Action Institute, Sept. 13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/its-time- for-obama-to-con_b_8112536.html For more than two decades, politicians and business leaders have maintained that the opening of China’s markets would open China’s political system and therefore bring greater rights and freedoms, including to Tibet. Eager to secure smooth access to Chinese markets, they argued that moving embarrassing discussions about Tibet and human rights out of the public spotlight and behind closed doors would allow Chinese leaders to save face and make them more open to substantive discussions and reforms. But this ‘ quiet diplomacy’ approach - embodied by bilateral dialogue processes that see human rights issues relegated to confidential meetings between Chinese officials and their counterparts - has utterly failed to improve the human rights situation in Tibet or China. Instead, it has let Chinese leaders off the hook entirely, ensuring there is no real price to pay for trampling on human rights in China or Tibet, not even the embarrassment that China used to suffer during public debates or discussions. In 2009, long before Xi Jinping even took office, the Obama administration took quiet diplomacy to a new level of quiet when then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brushed off the entire subject of human rights on the eve of her first trip to China. She said the issues were important, “but we pretty much know what they are going to say,” implying that discussing human rights issues was a waste of time. Later that year, President Obama broke from tradition and declined to meet the Dalai Lama until after the President had first made a trip to China and met then-Chinese President Hu Jintao. Since George H. W. Bush, every sitting U.S. President had received the Dalai Lama at the White House on the latter’s first visit to Washington after the presidential inauguration. Whatever the intentions of the White House, the message received in Beijing was that the United States under President Obama was not going to prioritize the issue of Tibet or human rights in China. It was clear that increased repression wouldn’t result in any substantive reaction from the international community if the so-called “leader of the free world” was taking such a weak approach on human rights. Now, the situation in Tibet and China is so bad that some China-watchers who previously championed the ‘trickle-down-democracy’ arguments cannot ignore the ugly reality: China under Xi Jinping has doubled down on the authoritarian approach, perhaps more so than at any other time since Mao. So how does the U.S., and any other democratic country for that matter, begin to address such a massive problem? The place to start seems clear: abandon ‘quiet diplomacy’ - it is not working. On the occasion of the Chinese President’s first state visit to the U.S., the time has come for President Obama to speak out - unequivocally and publicly - against Xi Jinping’s crackdown in China and Tibet. The President should call on Xi to immediately halt the ongoing assault and release all prisoners of conscience, including mentioning by name Tibetan Buddhist leader Khenpo Kartse, Uyghur intellectual Ilham Tohti, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, and human rights lawyer Wang Yu. Of course, a public statement alone is not enough to halt Xi’s crackdown. There are many tools in the diplomatic toolbox that can and should be used to support the people of China and Tibet who are struggling to achieve their basic rights and freedoms.

20 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (7/8)

3) The U.S. can use its trade partnership to ensure that companies in China adhere to International Labor Organization standards- Historically, trading partnerships have showcased American credibility on human rights issues Burtless 2001- Gary, senior fellow, Economic Studies, Brooks Institution- “Workers' Rights: Labor standards and global trade” http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/09/fall-globaleconomics-burtless Proponents of workers' rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world's biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.¶ The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.¶ The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.¶ Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?¶

21 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency Human Rts 1AC (Long Vsn) (8/8)

4) Empirically, approaches like the affirmative have been successful

WATANABE ’14 (Tsuneo Watanabe, Jan 31, 2014, “US Engagement Policy toward China,” The Tokyo Foundation, http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2014/us-engagement-policy-toward-china)

A new dimension to the US engagement paradigm was added after the end of the Cold War in the face of rising economic and commercial expectations regarding the burgeoning Chinese economy. Now positioned as the second largest in the world, China’s rapidly growing economy has become essential for US businesses. Deepening US-China economic interdependence is regarded as a factor in preventing an eventual US-China hegemonic rivalry, and liberal politicians have come to endorse an engagement policy, rather than the realism they espoused during the Cold War.

Answer to: Already engaging [___]

22 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Inherency [___] The U.S. has engaged China over human rights issues, but this engagement hasn’t been effective. Continued engagement is critical Hickey 4/7/2016, (Jennifer Hickey, Strategic Communications Specialist and Writer, “Joe Biden to Chinese: US Emphasis on Human Rights Just Politics,” http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Joe-Biden-China-human- rights-Xi-Jinping/2015/04/07/id/637000/, 04/07/15, //VZ) During conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2011 and 2012, Vice President Joe Biden said that American presidents speak about human rights because of "political imperative," according to an article in the latest New Yorker. "No president of the United States could represent the United States were he not committed to human rights," he told Xi when asked why the U.S. puts so much "emphasis" on human rights. "President Barack Obama would not be able to stay in power if he did not speak of it. So look at it as a political imperative. It doesn't make us better or worse. It's who we are. You make your decisions. We'll make ours." "It was not exactly a gaffe. It wasn't a misstatement of a phrase or two," says Wall Street Journal editorial page writer David Feith, who is stationed in Hong Kong. "The answer that Vice President Biden gave to the Chinese leader was quite unusual. This is simply for consumption back home in the U.S. It is not a matter of strategic importance or of America's moral values," but one of political posturing. As noted in the latest report issued by the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on human rights practices, after completing the leadership transition to Xi, Chinese government officials often engaged in human rights abuses. "Repression and coercion, particularly against organizations and individuals involved in civil and political rights advocacy and public interest issues, ethnic minorities, and law firms that took on sensitive cases, were routine. Increasingly, officials employed harassment, intimidation, and prosecution of family members and associates to retaliate against rights advocates and defenders," the report said, adding that "security forces reportedly committed arbitrary or unlawful killings." Biden's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to South Korea in 2009. "Successive administrations and Chinese governments have been poised back and forth on these issues, and we have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis," she told reporters when describing the administration's priorities, according to CNN.

23 China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Cost-benefit Analysis Inevitable [___] As a decision maker, the judge should not evaluate lives in terms of costs and benefits. Instead, the judge should adhere to principles that guarantee human dignity, such as protecting minorities and other subjugated groups Schroeder 1986 – Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, “Rights Against Risks,”, April, Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636) From the individual's point of view, the balancing of costs and benefits that utilitarianism endorses renders the status of any individual risk bearer profoundly insecure. A risk bearer cannot determine from the kind of risk being imposed on him whether it is impermissible or not. The identical risk may be justified if necessary to avoid a calamity and unjustified if the product of an act of profitless carelessness, but the nature and extent of the underlying benefits of the risky action are fre quently unknown to the risk bearer so that he cannot know whether or not he is being wronged. Furthermore, even when the gain that lies behind the risk is well-known, the status of a risk bearer is insecure because individuals can justifiably be inflicted with ever greater levels of risk in conjunction with increasing gains. Certainly, individual risk bearers may be entitled to more protection if the risky action exposes many others to the same risk, since the likelihood that technological risks will cause greater harm increases as more and more people experience that risk. This makes the risky action less likely to be justifiable. Once again, however, that insight seems scant comfort to an individual, for it reinforces the realization that, standing alone, he does not count for much. A strategy of weighing gains against risks thus renders the status of any specific risk victim substantially contingent upon the claims of others, both those who may share his victim status and those who stand to gain from the risky activity. The anxiety to preserve some fundamental place for the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social considerations underlies what H.L.A. Hart has aptly termed the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism,"58 the criticism that, despite its famous slogan, "everyone [is] to count for one,"59 utilitarianism ultimately denies each individual a primary place in its system of values. Various versions of utilitarian ism evaluate actions by the consequences of those actions to maximize happiness, the net of pleasure over pain, or the satisfaction of desires.60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal of maximizing some mea sure of utility obscures and diminishes the status of each individual. It reduces the individual to a conduit, a reference point that registers the appropriate "utiles," but does not count for anything independent of his monitoring function.61 It also produces moral requirements that can trample an individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net effects of a proposal on the maximand have been taken into account, the individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain equally across individuals is a laudable proposal, but counting only plea sure and pain permits the grossest inequities among individuals and the trampling of the few in furtherance of the utility of the many. In sum, utilitarianism makes the status of any individual radically contingent. The individual's status will be preserved only so long as that status con tributes to increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be discarded. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Human survival is a moral imperative [___]

[___] Human survival is not a moral imperative, human dignity is. If we win that religious minorities are being tortured by the Chinese government this alone outweighs their nuclear war claims.

Shue 89 – Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University (Henry, “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, pp. 141-2) Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can take in dealing with the issue of the morality of nuclear strategy. One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the established moral theories constructed by philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict of the theory, whatever it might be, on the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes that trade-offs in moral values and principles are inevitable in response to constantly changing threats, and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western societies to adjust the way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survives. Nuclear weapons are putting just such a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of Western civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable under any possible circumstances. Today, however, it may be that Western democracies, if they are to survive as guardians of individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection demanded by Just War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on the assumption that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory. Innocent human life is not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western political, economic, and social institutions. A free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter of innocent human beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt,” no better than soviet society, and not worth defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to accept destruction at the hands of tyranny, if need be. This objection is partly right in that a society based on individual rights that casually sacrifices innocent human lives for the sake of common social goods is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, even Just War doctrine allows for the unintentional sacrifice of some innocent human life under certain hard-pressing circumstances. It is essentially a consequentialist moral doctrine that ascribes extremely high – but not absolute – value to innocent human life. The problem for any nonabsolute moral theory, of course, is where to draw the line. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: The greatest good protects ethnic minorities [___]

[___] Utilitarianism does not solve ethnic minorities. A utilitarian framework justifies subjugating certain groups if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. This was the logic of slavery

Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103) A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity, and is related to the kind of objection raised by Rawls, which I will consider shortly. Suppose we have two fathers-Andy and Bob. Suppose further that they are alike in all relevant respects, both have three children, make the same salary, have the same living expenses, put aside the same amount in savings, and have left over each week fifteen dollars. Suppose that every week Andy and Bob ask themselves what they are going to do with this extra money, and Andy decides anew each week (AU) to divide it equally among his three children, or he makes a decision to always follow the rule (RU) that each child should receive an equal percentage of the total allowance money. Suppose further that each of his children receive five degrees of pleasure from this and no pain. Suppose on the other hand, that Bob, who strongly favors his oldest son, Bobby, decides anew each week (AU) to give all of the allowance money to Bobby, and nothing to the other two, and that he instructs Bobby not to tell the others, or he makes a decision to follow the rule (RU) to always give the total sum to Bobby. Suppose also that Bobby gets IS units of pleasure from his allowance and that his unsuspecting siblings feel no pain. The end result of the actions of both fathers is the same-IS units of pleasure. Most, if not all, of us would agree that although Andy's conduct is exemplary, Bob's is culpable. Nevertheless, according to both AU and RU the fathers in question are morally equal. Neither father is more or less exemplary or culpable than the other. I will refer to the objection implicit in this kind of example as (H) and state it as: ' (H) Both act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice ." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Only Intl Labor Orgs Fix the Problem [___]

[___] While International Labor Organizations can theoretically do the plan, we still need U.S. leadership to compel the Chinese government to change their policies

Jendrzejczyk 2002- MIKE JENDRZEJCZYK, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/ASIA Gpo.gov 2002https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg78790/html/CHRG- 107hhrg78790.htm Mr. Xiao. I think, first off, these issues are well-known ¶ issues among the Chinese leadership. It is not that they do not ¶ know about them. It is their perception or perspective, looking ¶ at these issues, that are different. Basically, from their ¶ position, they see the necessity that they maintain the ¶ political status quo. It is a necessity for stability. They ¶ know this issue, but too bad. That is how China runs.¶ There are reform- minded, thinking people in the leadership, ¶ and I think more and more people see it is inevitable . In the ¶ long-term, China has no other alternative, that being a modern ¶ a country, they have to follow the democratic government rule ¶ of law and protect human rights. I do not think, in the long ¶ term, people can really argue about that, even if they do not ¶ publicly say it.¶ What they do not know is, from today's China, the current ¶ status, how to get there, who wants to take the lead. This ¶ current leadership, President Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and Li ¶ Peng, decided on not taking political reform, period.¶ But Chinese leadership transition is coming up in the next ¶ 2 to 3 years for a new generation of leadership. I think ¶ political reform, including rule of law not just rule by law, ¶ is a fundamental issue and that leadership will look into it.¶ I think this actually is a way in for the Commission, for ¶ the powerful American Congress and administrative and Executive ¶ Branch to engage in those political visions and values with the ¶ Chinese leadership. I believe what they need is more on how to ¶ get it there. They are already aware of those issues. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: U.S. can’t change laws in China [___]

[___] Human rights efforts with China are successful- the alternative to engagement is much worse. Without U.S. leadership domestic reform movements in China will not succeed

The Atlantic 2013- “Can the U.S. Help Advance Human Rights in China?” June 13, http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/06/can-the-us-help-advance-human-rights-in-china/276841/ But such progress comes at a high price, especially for activists, and the question that U.S. policy makers face is whether the U.S. should stand by Chinese people who are pushing their government to pay more respect to fundamental rights and freedoms, or whether it should ignore them. It seems to me, irrespective of the issue of moral imperatives, that it is clearly in the U.S. national interest that China inches towards a more open and less repressive system of government than it has at present. The other approach, a form of engagement that mutes human rights, clearly has failed to yield any results in the past two and a half decades. While this approach styled itself as being "realist" (as opposed to the supposed "idealism" of human rights proponents) it is fairly clear today that the actual realists were those who predicted that such a low level of human rights engagement would yield nothing and even encourage the Chinese government in its repressive ways. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Can’t compel China [___]

[___] Engagement over human rights issues with China will boost the U.S.’s reputation on human rights issues and it will compel China to change. A credible U.S. can shift China away from authoritarianism

Lum 2011- Thomas, Specialist in Asian Affairs, July 18 “Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy” https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34729.pdf The U.S.-China human rights dialogue was established in 1990. It is one of eight government-to- government dialogues between China and other countries on human rights. Beijing formally suspended the process in 2004 after the Bush Administration sponsored an unsuccessful U.N. resolution criticizing China’s human rights record. The talks were resumed in May 2008, the first round in six years. The Obama Administration has participated in two rounds, the fourteenth round held in May 2010 in Washington and the fifteenth round in May 2011 in Beijing. Both were co-chaired by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner and PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of International Organizations Director General Chen Xu. In the 2010 meetings, topics included Chinese political prisoners, freedom of religion and expression, labor rights, the rule of law, and conditions in Tibet and Xinjiang. The Chinese delegation also visited the U.S. Supreme Court and were briefed on ways in which human rights issues are handled in the United States. During the 2011 talks, Assistant Secretary Posner raised the Obama Administration’s deep concerns about the PRC crackdown on rights defenders and government critics. Discussions of China’s “backsliding” on human rights reportedly dominated the talks, which the U.S. side described as “tough” and Chinese officials portrayed as “frank and thorough.” Posner characterized the dialogue process,however, as a forum for candid discussion, not negotiation. Although no breakthroughs or concrete outcomes were reported during the latest rounds, Administration officials have continued to perceive the dialogue as an important means by which to emphasize and reiterate U.S. positions on human rights issues. They have suggested that, given the deep disagreements on human rights and other contentious issues, the holding of the dialogue and the agreement to continue them represent positive steps. Furthermore, some observers have contended, the absence of the dialogue would undermine other U.S. efforts to promote human rights in China. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Human rights is a flawed concept [___]

[___] The concept of “human rights” is good. It was created after World War II to ensure the protection of fundamental human dignity and to prevent genocide. It just has to be properly enforced

Rhonda Copelan, Professor of Law – NYU, New York City Law Review, 1999, p. 71-2 The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: U.S. not credible on human rights [___] [___] Despite their own labor rights issues, the U.S. will still retain credibility on these issues due to key democratic norms that China lacks NYU Law 2015- “the Chinese Labor Problem: Cynthia Estlund studies how the Communist government is responding to demands for reform from the world's largest workforce” http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/cynthia-estlund-china-labor-law Comparisons between US labor conditions in the first decades of the 20th century and the Chinese workforce’s current issues are interesting and useful in some ways but potentially misleading in other ways, Estlund asserts. American workers’ unrest disrupted the economy and posed a real challenge to social order, far beyond what Chinese workers’ protest have thus far done, but in the United States, employees had a voice that those in China do not: the vote . The commitment to one-party rule, along with the continuing denial of a political outlet for worker frustrations, means that the Chinese government finds protest much more threatening than in democratic societies. On the other hand, repression has its own risks; the government does not always crack down as hard as it could for fear of inflaming tensions. [___] U.S. domestic policy has no effect on the ability to project human rights norms. Moravcsik 2005-,Andrew , PhD and a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton, 2005, "The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy," American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/paradox.pdf It is natural to ask: What are the consequences of U.S. "exemptionalism” and noncompliance? International lawyers and human rights activists regularly issue dire warnings about the ways in which the apparent hypocrisy of the United States encourages foreign governments to violate human rights, ignore international pressure, and undermine international human rights institutions. In Patricia Derian's oft-cited statement before the Senate in I979: "Ratification by the United States significantly will enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of these standards. It will encourage other countries to join those which have already accepted the treaties. And, in countries where human rights generally are not respected, it will aid citizens in raising human rights issues.""' One constantly hears this refrain. Yet there is little empirical reason to accept it. Human rights norms have in fact spread widely without much attention to U.S. domestic policy. In the wake of the "third wave" democratization in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Latin America, government after government moved ahead toward more active domestic and international human rights policies without attending to U.S. domestic or international practice." The human rights movement has firmly embedded itself in public opinion and NGO networks, in the United States as well as elsewhere, despite the dubious legal status of international norms in the United States. One reads occasional quotations from recalcitrant governments citing American noncompliance in their own defense-most recently Israel and Australia-but there is little evidence that this was more than a redundant justification for policies made on other grounds. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Trade talks increase human rights abuse [___]

[___] Trade talks are the best venue for pressuring China to respect human rights and labor rights Levin 2002- CARL LEVIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN Gpo.gov 2002https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg78790/html/CHRG-107hhrg78790.htm It remains to be seen if these new labor rights will be meaningful. ¶ Much depends on the extent to which these new rights are real. The ¶ Commission should monitor whether the new law is implemented vigorously ¶ and if the new rights are protected by the central government.¶ In summary, the human rights situation in China is offensive, ¶ intolerable and in violation of internationally accepted norms. ¶ Improvements in China's human rights record is an essential requirement ¶ for improving the U.S.- China relationship. The American people will ¶ have little tolerance to trade with a Nation that has no respect for ¶ the rights of its own people. Trade and human rights are therefore ¶ inextricable linked. The hope is that through the establishment of the ¶ rule of law in China, respect for and protection of human rights will ¶ increase.¶ Now that China has been granted PNTR and joined 142 other nations ¶ in the World Trade Organization, we should use this membership as a way ¶ to open China's markets to our goods the way our market has been open ¶ to China's goods. We should also use it to exert meaningful pressure on ¶ China to join that community of nations that respects basic human ¶ rights so that 1 day the people of that country can enjoy their ¶ fundamental human rights. I hope the Commission can make an important ¶ contribution to achieving that goal.

[___] Trade is the best way to pressure China to reform their human rights policies Guangcheng 2013- Chen, human rights activist, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chen-guangcheng/china- trade-human-rights_b_3443081.html Ultimately, the Chinese government will not be able to resist the growing internal pressure for political reform. Throughout history, there has been no authoritarian regime which has not eventually crumbled before the inherent human desire for justice and freedom. But by showing solidarity with political dissidents while promoting China’s ongoing integration into the global economy, the U.S. and Europe can strengthen progressive social and political forces and encourage a stable, democratic transition. Combining economic engagement with consistent political pressure over human rights is the best way to promote China’s emergence as a peaceful global power, and ensure that the Chinese people are given the government they deserve. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answer to: Status quo solves [___]

[___] The status quo is not improving in China. The leadership of the CCP routinely violates basic rights Lum 2011- Thomas, specialist in Asian affairs, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34729.pdf Under the leadership of CCP General Secretary and President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, both in office since 2003, the PRC government has developed along the lines of what some scholars call “responsive authoritarianism.”4 It has striven to become more responsive, accountable, and law-based. Chinese leaders also have become more sensitive to popular views, particularly those expressed on the Internet. However, the government has rejected political reforms that might challenge its monopoly on power, and continued to respond forcefully to signs and instances of social instability, autonomous social organization, and independent political activity. Although the government has made some progress in enacting laws aimed at curbing some of the most egregious human rights abuses, it has not created or strengthened institutions that would help enforce these laws, such as checks and balances and genuine popular elections beyond the village level. Furthermore, many lawyers, activists, and journalists seeking to protect people’s rights or expose violations of them have been harassed or imprisoned by authorities. PRC leaders have tolerated some mass demonstrations against government officials and policies, particularly at the local level, but also have arrested protest leaders. Communist Party and state officials have retained a significant degree of arbitrary authority, and corruption has negated many efforts to improve governance. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answers to- Relations Disadvantage [___] The negative misunderstands the nature of our relations with China. Yes, human rights issues are contentious, but failure to acknowledge these differences will strain relations further Council on Foreign Relations 9/22- September 22, “How to Improve U.S.-China Relations” http://www.cfr.org/china/improve-us-china-relations/p37044 But if this is the model, then the United States and China are heading in divergent historical directions. A host of new friction points now center around the abridgement of individual rights in China: arrests of human rights lawyers, growing restrictions on civil society activities, new controls on academic freedom, a more heavily censored media, more limited public dialogue, visas denied to foreign press, and domestic journalists and foreign correspondents suffering more burdensome forms of harassment. These trends grow out of differences in our systems of governance and values.Whether we should confront these differences head on or seek some artful way to set them aside so the two countries can get on with other serious issues of common interest is a question we have hardly dared even think about. The elephant is still in the room, and the fact that no one knows quite how to address it lays at the root of our human rights disagreements. These differences often gain such an antagonistic dimension that they not only inhibit our ability to make progress on the rights front, but also undermine the rest of the U.S.-China relationship. [___] Engagement over human rights issues will not strain relations with Beijing Moon and Park 2014- Richard Park, research assistant, Brookings Institute, Katherine H.S., H.S. Moon senior fellow at the Brookings Center for East Asia Policy Studies, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up- front/posts/2014/11/14-human-rights-diplomacy-park-moon Bilateral relations were normalized in 1979, and in spite of documented human rights violations, Washington developed a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Beijing. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush boldly vetoed Congressional efforts to link the renewal of Most Favored Nation (MFN) status in trade with improvement in China’s human rights situation and nuclear cooperation with Iran. President Bill Clinton pushed to grant permanent MFN status to China, breaking from his campaign promise to link the privileged trade status to China’s human rights record. Finally, in December 2001, President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress ended the annual review of China’s MFN privilege by granting it permanent MFN status. This same China, which is expected to veto any resolution referring North Korea to the ICC, is now the number two trading partner of the United States (after Canada) and working to cooperate with the U.S. on multiple fronts such as climate change, anti-terror measures, containing Iran, tightening the belt on North Korea, and fighting disease in Africa. Like North Korea, China is openly criticized by the U.S. on its human rights record. Yet, these accusations do not seem to hinder both countries from working together on common goals and improving bilateral relations. The November 17 conference at Brookings will feature experts on China, Taiwan, and Japan (Richard C. Bush III, Alexis Dudden, Steven Goldstein, Jonathan Pollack) who study this complex dynamic between cooperation and tension between the U.S. and China. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answers to: Party Stability DA – Economic Strength

[___] Promoting labor rights in China is critical for their economy because it will grow the middle class Levin 2002- SANDER LEVIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN Gpo.gov 2002https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg78790/html/CHRG-107hhrg78790.htm Separately, respect for labor rights will help further develop a ¶ middle class in China. Although some claim that more trade in and of ¶ itself will automatically lead to a middle class, I do not believe that ¶ is the case. When workers have the right to organize and bargain ¶ collectively, they can enjoy a larger share of the profits that they ¶ help create.¶ The Commission will provide a key tool to Congress and the ¶ Administration to help improve labor rights in China. It will provide a ¶ source of information and monitoring that both the Administration and ¶ Congress can trust. I hope the Commission will also make useful ¶ recommendations on ways to work with China to improve the respect for ¶ worker rights.

[___] A strong Chinese economy is critical to ensure that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stay in power Shirk and Lam 2007- China: Fragile Superpower Susan Shirk (director of the University of California system-wide Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation) and Ho Miu Lam (professor of China and Pacific Relations at IR/PS and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs) 2007 As China's leaders well know, the greatest political risk lying ahead of them is the possibility of an economic crash that throws millions of workers out of their jobs or sends millions of depositors to withdraw their savings from the shaky banking system. A massive environmental or public health disaster also could trigger regime collapse, especially if people's lives are endangered by a media cover-up imposed by Party authorities. Nationwide rebellion become a real possibility when large numbers of people are up-set about the same issue at the same time. Another dangerous scenario is a domestic or international crisis in which the CCP leaders feel compelled to lash out against Japan, Taiwan, or the United States because from their point of view not lashing out might endanger Party rule. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Extension- Economic Strength [___]

[___] Promoting human rights in China will not hurt their economy. There is no tradeoff between human rights and economic growth The Huffington Post 2013- June 14, “China: The West Needs to Promote Both Trade and Human Rights” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chen-guangcheng/china-trade-human-rights_b_3443081.html The historic meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Obama last week, billed as a chance to improve relations between the two superpowers, revolved largely around sensitive economic issues such as industrial cyber-espionage. Meanwhile, the news that the European Union has just lodged a complaint at the World Trade Organization against China is just the latest development in a rapidly escalating trade dispute. This growing preoccupation with trade threatens to sideline the wider issue of how best to promote human rights and democratic reform in China, a country whose political future is set to determine the course of the 21st century. The Chinese leadership tends to stress its economic achievements in order to justify the continued oppression of its people, pointing to the millions who have been lifted out of poverty through three decades of rapid economic growth. But while it is important to recognize this progress, it in no way excuses the ongoing imprisonment and torture of political dissidents or the complete suppression of freedom of speech. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that China must choose between economic prosperity and political freedom. It can and must have both. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answers to: Someone else does it [____]

[___] The U.S. must be involved with human rights for it to be credible

The Atlantic 2013- June 13, “Can the U.S. Help Advance Human Rights in China?” http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/06/can-the-us-help-advance-human-rights-in-china/276841/ Second, the U.S. government needs to be consistent in the way it raises its concerns on human rights, and not be shy to use vocal diplomacy when private diplomacy yields no result. Too often, the U.S. is sending conflicting messages, one day stressing its attachment to universal human rights norms, and the next stating that the U.S. and China "agree to disagree" on a range of issues, including human rights. This undermines the universality of human rights . Third, the U.S. must mainstream human rights perspectives across the full spectrum of its engagement with China. The compartmentalization of human rights as a minor rubric of diplomacy is bound to fail, because the Chinese side knows human rights have no bearings on other aspects of the bilateral relationship. The business environment for U.S. companies operating in China is directly linked to issues intimately connected to human rights, such as the elastic character of China's state secrecy laws or the introduction of provisions in the criminal law that allows for secret detention by the police. Fourth, the U.S. must forge partnerships and coordinate more effectively with other rights-respecting countries in their effort to press China on specific issues and cases. There has been very little said by any head of state about the fact that China is the only country in the world that holds a Nobel Peace Laureate in prison (while his wife is imprisoned at her home outside of any legal procedure.) Finally, the U.S. must be ready to take steps when the situation demands it. For instance, given China's absolute refusal to engage on any issue related to the situation in Tibetan areas, the U.S. must be ready to upgrade its contacts with the Dalai Lama, and encourage other countries to do so. The Democracy ReportThe United States does more to raise human rights issues with China than any other country, but it often conveys the implicit message that it does so out of moral convictions, not out of well-understood national interest and concern for human rights globally, and that greatly diminishes the effectiveness of such statements. China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answers to: Someone else does it [___]

[___] Only the U.S. can provide adequate pressure for China to change its policies on religious minorities. Our trade partnership and influence over the CCP puts us in a unique position

Roth 2011- Kenneth, executive director, Human Rights Watch. "World Report 2011: A Facade of Action." Human Rights Watch. Accessed 6/27/15. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/world-report-2011-facade- action There is often a degree of rationality in a government's decision to violate human rights. The government might fear that permitting greater freedom would encourage people to join together in voicing discontent and thus jeopardize its grip on power. Or abusive leaders might worry that devoting resources to the impoverished would compromise their ability to enrich themselves and their cronies. International pressure can change that calculus. Whether exposing or condemning abuses, conditioning access to military aid or budgetary support on ending them, imposing targeted sanctions on individual abusers, or even calling for prosecution and punishment of those responsible, public pressure raises the cost of violating human rights. It discourages further oppression, signaling that violations cannot continue cost- free. All governments have a duty to exert such pressure. A commitment to human rights requires not only upholding them at home but also using available and appropriate tools to convince other governments to respect them as well. No repressive government likes facing such pressure. Today many are fighting back, hoping to dissuade others from adopting or continuing such measures. That reaction is hardly surprising. What is disappointing is the number of governments that, in the face of that reaction, are abandoning public pressure. With disturbing frequency, governments that might have been counted on to generate such pressure for human rights are accepting the rationalizations and subterfuges of repressive governments and giving up. In place of a commitment to exerting public pressure for human rights, they profess a preference for softer approaches such as private "dialogue" and "cooperation." There is nothing inherently wrong with dialogue and cooperation to promote human rights. Persuading a government through dialogue to genuinely cooperate with efforts to improve its human rights record is a key goal of human rights advocacy. A cooperative approach makes sense for a government that demonstrably wants to respect human rights but lacks the resources or technical know-how to implement its commitment. It can also be useful for face-saving China Human Rights Affirmative SLUDL/NAUDL CORE FILES 2016-17 Decision Framing Answers to: Someone else does it [___]

[___] Effective U.S. diplomacy is necessary to prevent the escalation of wars, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and a host of other impacts- the U.S.’s credibility on a global stage will determine the extent to which these problems can be resolved Keck, 2014 (Zachary, Deputy Editor of e-International Relations and has interned at the Center for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress, where he worked on defense issues, 1-24-14, “America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic?”, The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-we- panic/, amp) Regardless of your opinion on U.S. global leadership over the last two decades, however, there is good reason to fear its relative decline compared with China and other emerging nations. To begin with, hegemonic transition periods have historically been the most destabilizing eras in history. This is not only because of the malign intentions of the rising and established power(s). Even if all the parties have benign, peaceful intentions, the rise of new global powers necessitates revisions to the “rules of the road.” This is nearly impossible to do in any organized fashion given the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no central authority that can govern interactions between states. We are already starting to see the potential dangers of hegemonic transition periods in the Asia-Pacific (and arguably the Middle East). As China grows more economically and militarily powerful, it has unsurprisingly sought to expand its influence in East Asia. This necessarily has to come at the expense of other powers, which so far has primarily meant the U.S., Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Naturally, these powers have sought to resist Chinese encroachments on their territory and influence, and the situation grows more tense with each passing day. Should China eventually emerge as a global power, or should nations in other regions enjoy a similar rise as Kenny suggests, this situation will play itself out elsewhere in the years and decades ahead. All of this highlights some of the advantages of a unipolar system. Namely, although the U.S. has asserted military force quite frequently in the post-Cold War era, it has only fought weak powers and thus its wars have been fairly limited in terms of the number of casualties involved. At the same time, America’s preponderance of power has prevented a great power war, and even restrained major regional powers from coming to blows. For instance, the past 25 years haven’t seen any conflicts on par with the Israeli-Arab or Iran-Iraq wars of the Cold War. As the unipolar era comes to a close, the possibility of great power conflict and especially major regional wars rises dramatically. The world will also have to contend with conventionally inferior powers like Japan acquiring nuclear weapons to protect their interests against their newly empowered rivals.