Novice Packet Files 32

Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) – SCS Permutation Permutation: Non-bindingly consult with ASEAN then do the plan

Permutation Solves: Non-binding consultation can solve the net benefit and our turns Daily Oklahoman June 12, 2001, Field Trip Bush Should Stay the Course in Europe, The Oklahoman is a daily newspaper that covers issues related to Oklahoma, newsok.com/article/2744661

WITH his arrival in Spain this morning, President Bush begins a five-day trip to European countries, many of whose leaders are eager to lecture him on missile defense, global warming and - following the execution of Timothy McVeigh - the death penalty. We hope the president will listen politely but stay the course. The United States always should consult with its allies. But consultation doesn't mean conformity with a raft of liberal-to-socialist views now popular in a number of European capitals. "You can go through the motions of consulting as long as you don't ask and do tell," Kenneth Adelman, a veteran of the Reagan administration, told the New York Times. "You can ask opinions, but the fact is Europeans don't like change and Americans like change."

Novice Packet Files 33

Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCS Solvency answers Doesn’t solve: ASEAN will say no because they can’t agree on the SCS issue – China exploits the “fault line” in the alliance Sampa Kundu May 16th 2016, “China divides ASEAN in the South China Sea” East Asia Forum, Dr. Sampa Kundu is a researcher at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/05/21/china-divides-asean-in-the-south-china- sea/) FRF

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s whirlwind tour of Brunei, Cambodia and Laos during 22–24 April 2016 courted support for his country’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. But the issue of China’s policy in the South China Sea has created a fault line across ASEAN, complicating the unity and effectiveness of the regional grouping. The most pressing issue on Wang’s agenda during his visits to Brunei, Cambodia and Laos was dispute resolution in the South China Sea, though political and economic cooperation were also discussed. In Brunei, his first destination, Wang emphasised China’s ‘dual-track approach’ as a way to solve territorial disputes between China and Southeast Asian countries. This approach endorses the handling of disputes bilaterally by the directly affected countries, and the joint maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea by both China and ASEAN. An aerial photograph of Woody Island in the disputed Spratly Islands. (Photo: AAP) Following his visit to Brunei, Wang spent one day in Cambodia and met Foreign Minister Prak Sokhon. The following day in Laos, he met Lao Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith, General Secretary of the Party Central Committee and President Bounnhang Vorachith, and Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith. Wang’s visit to Laos received wide attention in the region since Laos, as the Chair of ASEAN in 2016, is expected to play a key role in mediating China’s disputes with its Southeast Asian neighbours. Wang emphasised during his visit that China’s One Belt One Road initiative, which proposes a China–Laos railway link, would boost Laos’ agenda of transforming itself from a land-locked to a land-linked nation. For Laos’ part, Saleumxay Kommasith conveyed that, as the current Chair of ASEAN, Laos will try to further mobilise discussion on the execution of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and negotiations on a formal Code of Conduct. Wang’s tour of the three countries underscores China’s eagerness to develop substantial backing within the region as The Hague prepares to give its verdict on the Philippines’ arbitration case against China’s ‘nine-dash line’ claims. Any public support from the region will add legitimacy to China’s position against allowing third parties to intervene in South China Sea disputes. Following the visits, the Chinese foreign ministry published a four-point consensus that Wang claimed was agreed upon with his counterparts in Brunei, Cambodia and Laos. The consensus stated that, first, disputes over the Spratly islands are not an ASEAN–China issue and should not have any implications on China–ASEAN relations. Second, every sovereign state is free to choose their own way to resolve rows and no unilateral decision can be imposed on them. Third, dialogues and consultations under Article 4 of the DOC are the best way to solve the South China Sea disputes. Fourth, China and ASEAN together can effectively maintain peace and security in the region. This four-point consensus, alongside Wang’s tour of Southeast Asia, reiterates that China has once again successfully capitalised on divisions prevalent among the ASEAN nations when it comes to South China Sea disputes. By supporting China’s four-point consensus, Brunei, Cambodia and Laos have expressed that they will neither join Vietnam and the Philippines (and increasingly Indonesia too) in their fights against China’s assertiveness in South China Sea nor seek multilateral dispute resolution. The last point in the ‘consensus’ stresses that China and these three ASEAN countries do not want the involvement of outside powers (like the United States) in South China Sea disputes, as they believe only regional powers should manage peace and stability in East Asia. But China’s assertive diplomacy in Southeast Asia has raised questions about Laos’ ability to promote unity and open dialogue across ASEAN in 2016. In light of the United States’ insistence that it will continue its freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, and US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s recent announcement of joint patrols with Manila, China is likely be more assertive in pushing its dispute resolution agenda onto its allies in the region. This was not the first time China has been successful in drawing dividing lines within ASEAN. During Myanmar’s tenure as Chair of ASEAN in 2014 the smaller economy had to face the challenge of considering the interests of Vietnam and Philippines on the one hand and China on the other. After Wang Yi’s three-nation tour, Lao President Bounnhang Vorachith attempted a conciliatory gesture towards the other members of ASEAN by immediately paying a friendly visit to Hanoi. But it remains to be seen whether this visit will be enough to assure Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian countries, of Laos’ ability to lead ASEAN with a pragmatic diplomatic attitude. Some argue that China is too big a power for ASEAN’s smaller economies to raise a tough voice against its territorial claims and its rejection of third-party dispute resolution. Yet Vietnam and the Philippines are passionate about maintaining their demands in the South China Sea. The involvement of extra-regional powers suits their interests. The confluence of these opposing interests is making Southeast Asia one of the most unsettled regions in the world. Managing this tension will be a considerable challenge for ASEAN into the future.

Novice Packet Files 34

Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCS Net Benefit Answers Solvency Turn: ASEAN is currently the driver of Asian stability WITHOUT the US, but fracture among states or perceived bias would undermine ASEAN credibility Pek Koon Heng, 2014, The “ASEAN Way” and Regional Security Cooperation in the South China Sea, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Eruopean University Institute, Pek Koon Heng is is Assistant Professor at School of International Service at American University in Washington DC, she got her PhD, London University's School of Oriental and African Studies; MA, BA, Auckland University,cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33878/RSCAS_2014_121.pdf?sequence=1

When examining ASEAN’s role in promoting regional cooperation and integration, scholars have utilized realist, neo-liberal or constructivist perspectives, or an eclectic combination of all three (see, e.g., Acharya 2009a, Ba 2009, Busse 1999, Emmers 2012, Goh 2008, Jones & Smith 2006, Nischalke 2000, Ravenhill 2013, Sheldon 2014). While some scholars remain highly skeptical that the ASEAN Way, as currently constituted, could ever underpin a robust regional security regime (Jones & Smith 2006, Nischalke 2000), others have evaluated the grouping’s contributions more positively (Acharya 2013, Ba 2012, Busse 1999, Goh, 2012, Capie 2012, Kraft 2012). In contrast to Jones and Smith’s critique of ASEAN as a “fading institution” with “a peripheral rather than core role in regional growth and stability” (2006: 159, 277), Evelyn Goh argues that ASEAN “is universally acceptable as the ‘driver’ of regionalism”, which has critically claimed a “voice” for smaller states in discussing and managing regional security affairs in a situation where great powers are suspicious of each other (Goh 2012: 105, 112). Other scholars such as David Capie, while recognizing the weaknesses underlying the process and institutionalization of the ASEAN Way of regional cooperation, nevertheless concludes that ASEAN “has proved far more resilient than many could have predicted just a few years ago” (Capie 2012: 179). Amitav Acharya, while agreeing that ASEAN has successfully functioned as the fulcrum of geopolitical stability in Asia, cautions that ASEAN leaders need to retain unity, strengthen mechanisms for cooperation, and maintain a “neutral broker image among great powers” in order to continue to play that role (2013: 21).

Novice Packet Files 35

Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCS Net Benefit Answers Link Turn: US consultation with ASEAN over SCS increases instability Xinhua News Service, February 17, 2016, China: US-ASEAN relationship should benefit regional peace, CCTV America, Xinhua is a leading news service in mainland china, www.cctv-america.com/2016/02/17/china-us-asean-relationship-should-benefit-regional-peace

China said on Wednesday that the development of relationship between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should be conducive to regional stability and development. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks when asked to comment on a gathering between U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of Southeast Asian countries on Monday and Tuesday. In a joint statement issued after the meeting, the two sides shared a commitment to “maintain peace, security and stability in the region, ensuring maritime security and safety, including the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight.” “We have taken note of the attempt by some country to use the summit to stir up the South China Sea issue, but most of ASEAN members did not agree, because such a move will not only damage trust among countries in the region, but will interfere with their efforts in safeguarding the peace and stability in the South China Sea,” said Hong at a routine press briefing. Obama told a news conference that the two sides “discussed the need for tangible steps in the South China Sea to lower tensions, including a halt to further reclamation, new construction and militarization of disputed areas.” When asked to comment on Obama’s remarks, Hong said the United States is not a party concerned with the South China Sea issue and should be cautious with its words and actions. He said the United States should help create a sound atmosphere for talks and the pursue of a peaceful solution to disputes, rather than playing up tensions and sowing discord in the region.

Novice Packet Files 36

Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCS Net Benefit Answers Link Turn: US-ASEAN cooperation only re-entrenches China, leads to more island building Sam LaGrone March 20, 2015, U.S. 7th Fleet Would Support ASEAN South China Sea Patrols, US Naval Institute, Sam LaGrone is the editor of USNI News. He was formerly the U.S. Maritime Correspondent for the Washington D.C. bureau of Jane’s Defence Weekly and Jane’s Navy International. In his role he covered legislation, acquisition and operations for the Sea Services and spent time underway with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Canadian Navy, https://news.usni.org/2015/03/20/u-s-7th-fleet-would-support-asean-south-china-sea-patrols

Pentagon officials gave the plan a tacit endorsement in a Friday statement to USNI News. “The Department welcomes collaborative efforts to bolster maritime security in the Asia-Pacific, including ASEAN-led efforts. We believe that close cooperation between and among ASEAN member-states is critical to sustaining peace and prosperity in the region,” Pentagon spokeswoman Henrietta Levin said in a statement. “However, at this time, we are not aware of any specific plans or proposals by ASEAN countries to develop a combined maritime force.” Any maritime patrol force with U.S. involvement or approval would certainly flare Chinese tempers. The South China Sea contested territorial claims have been a constant issue between ASEAN countries and China. A map of China’s shifting definition of the so-called Nine-Dash Line. Both the Philippines and Vietnam have clashed with China politically over claims to the Spratley and Paracel Island chains and has conducted extensive reclamation work for military facilities. A regional code of conduct between China and ASEAN countries has been in the works since 2013 but has largely been stalled. As to the patrols, there is some precedent for combined ASEAN operations. The scheme could be based on the existing model of combined ASEAN forces anti-piracy patrol in the Strait of Malacca near Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, according to press reports in the Philippines quoting Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command (FOIC) Vice Adm. Jesus Millan. “Vice Adm. Millan [said] that for this ‘resource intensive initiative’ to work, all countries concerned should agree in working together in protecting the ‘Freedom of Navigation’ or the safety and security of seaborne trade and international shipping,” read the online report from radio station DWDD. The plan follows comments from 7th Fleet’s Thomas in January that suggested Japan should consider surface and air patrols in the South China Sea, which quickly drew the ire of the Chinese. “Countries outside this region should respect efforts made by countries in the region to maintain peace and stability,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying in late January.

Novice Packet Files 37

Topicality Answers - SCS 1. We meet: FONOPS are a tool of US diplomacy Jonathan G. Odom, October 30, 2015, HOW THE U.S. FON PROGRAM IS LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Commander Jonathan G. Odom is a judge advocate in the U.S. Navy and Military Professor of Law in the College of Security Studies at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. He has previously served as Oceans Policy Advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Staff Judge Advocate to the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, amti.csis.org/how-the-u-s-fon-program-is-lawful-and- legitimate/

Some may wonder why the United States does not limit its challenges of excessive maritime claims to solely the diplomatic arena. The formation and development of international law, especially in the context of customary law, is about state practice. Such practice is demonstrated by both the official words and official actions of individual states, with each reinforcing the other. If a coastal state establishes an excessive claim and others protest it through diplomatic means only, what happens if the coastal state simply ignores those diplomatic protests or declines to reform its excessive claim? Acquiescence by others poses a risk of legitimizing the coastal state’s excessive claim – if not as a matter of law, then at least in effect. The net result could be that the coastal state has de facto changed international law to achieve its strategic ends. Thus the FON Program’s operational activities reinforce U.S. public statements and diplomatic communications, and are fully consistent with the official protest of an excessive claim. In that way, the United States is simply standing up for its freedom, and that of other states, as guaranteed in international law. 2. Counter interpretation: FONOPS are gunboat diplomacy Kun-Chin Lin and Andrés Villar Gertner, November 18, 2015, Gunboat Diplomacy in the South China Sea, The Diplomat, Kun-Chin Lin is an Associate Fellow of the Chatham House Asia Programme. Andrés Villar Gertner is with the Centre for Rising Powers, University of Cambridge, thediplomat.com/2015/11/gunboat-diplomacy-in-the-south-china-sea/

However, we believe the U.S. warship in disputed water makes a strong political statement on the future Sino- American relations and sends a clear operational signal to U.S. allies in the region. The gunboat diplomacy tests Beijing’s resolve in keeping its word following an affront to its national face. Would China adhere to its professed principle of peaceful resolution of conflicts? Would it revoke its reassurance at the last ASEAN Summit that land reclamation projects were completed and in any case do not affect freedom of navigation by air and sea? 3. Counter standards: a. Fairness: The affirmative is sufficiently topical to create a fair debate. The plan engages in a form of diplomacy that many experts suggest on a topic that is at the heart of US-China disagreement. If they weren’t ready to debate this that is their fault, not an unfair strategy. b. Education: Our plan engages in diplomacy but not in the way they expect – that’s good because it’s taught them more about how the world works and what practical solutions there are. Learning about the South China Sea is core to learning about US-China relations. Plan is necessary to the topic. 4. No voters: Their topicality is not sufficient to vote on. There is plenty of opportunity for equitable clash and strategy in this debate – we are reasonably topical and they have many specific arguments against our case. Don’t punish us because they didn’t do their work.

Novice Packet Files 95

Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - Space Permutation: Do plan and allocate an equal amount for infrastructure funding

Permutation solves, if both space exploration and infrastructure investment are a good idea then they should both be done. There is no inherent tradeoff between space and infrastructure

Novice Packet Files 96

Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - Space Counterplan Solvency Answers No solvency: Infrastructure spending is untargeted, and even when it is targeted it doesn’t stimulate the economy – it moves workers, it doesn’t create jobs Veronique de Rugy, 2011. (Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University. November 16th 2011. “Federal Infrastructure Spending: Neither a Good Stimulus Nor A Good Investment,” Mercatus Center: Testimony, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Federal%20Infrastructure%20Spending%20- %20Neither%20a%20Good%20Stimulus%20Nor%20a%20Good%20Investment.pdf. Page 2-3) ESG

Infrastructure spending is not targeted Second, the only thing harder than getting the money out the door promptly is properly targeting spending for stimulative effect. Data from Recovery.gov shows that stimulus money in general—and infrastructure funds in particular—were not targeted to those areas with the highest rate in unemployment, something correct application of the Keynesian theory demands as the idea is that stimulus spending gives the economy a jolt by employing idle people, firms, and equipment. 12 However, even properly aimed infrastructure spending might have failed to stimulate the economy. Many of the areas hardest hit by the recession are in decline because they have been producing goods and services that are not, and may never be, in great demand. Therefore, the overall value added by improving the roads and other infrastructure in these areas is likely to be lower than if the new infrastructure were located in growing areas that might have relatively low unemployment but greater demand for more roads, schools, and other types of long-term infrastructure. 13 Perhaps more importantly, unemployment rates among specialists, such as those with the skills to build roads or schools, are often relatively low. And it is unlikely that an employee specialized in residential-area construction can easily update his or her skills to include building highways. As a result, we can expect that firms receiving stimulus funds will hire their workers away from other construction sites where they were employed, rather than plucking the jobless from the unemployment rolls. This is what economists call “crowding out.” Except that in this case, labor, not capital, is being crowded out. New data from Mercatus Center professor Garret Jones and AEI staffer Dan Rothschild confirm that companies and governments used stimulus money to poach a plurality of workers from other organizations rather than hiring them from the unemployment lines. 14 Based on extensive field research—over 1,300 anonymous, voluntary responses from managers and employees—Jones and Rothschild bring to light the fact that less than half of the workers hired with stimulus funds were unemployed at the time they were hired. A majority were hired directly from other organizations, with just a handful coming from school or outside the labor force. In email correspondence, Garrett Jones further explains that during recessions most employers who lose workers to poaching decline to fill the vacant positions— leaving unemployment essentially unchanged.

Novice Packet Files 97

Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - Space Counterplan Solvency Answers No Solvency: Counterplan costs too much - Would need nearly 500 billion per year to solve basic infrastructure Sanjeev Sanyal, 15 October 2014, The Wide Angle: The Age of Chinese Capital, Deutsche Bank, Sanjeev Sanyal is an Indian economist, bestselling writer, environmentalist, and urban theorist. He is widely regarded as one of Asia's leading economists and was Deutsche Bank's Global Strategist and a Managing Director till 2015. A Rhodes Scholar and Eisenhower Fellow, he was named "Young Global Leader 2010" by the World Economic Forum at Davos, https://etf.deutscheam.com/AUT/DEU/Download/Research-Global/c6762d18-6b36-4911-9a0a- c2f08a899705/The-Wide-Angle.pdf

The above table is an assessment by the ASCE of how US infrastructure has deteriorated between 1988 and 2013. As someone who lives in Singapore but travels frequently by the US, I am not at all surprised by the assessment. So how much would it cost to fix all this? The ASCE estimates that at 2010 prices, it would need USD3.64 trillion (USD3.95 in today’s prices). Notice that this is just backbone infrastructure spending and ignores other forms of investment such as industrial capacity, housing and so on. Assuming that the infrastructure spend is spread till 2020, ASCE estimates a spending of USD 454bn per year in 2010 prices (USD494bn in today’s prices) and a funding gap of USD 201bn (i.e. USD219 in today’s prices).

Novice Packet Files 98

Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - Space Counterplan Net Benefit Answers Counterplan links to the Disadvantage: Republicans dislike infrastructure spending and use it to hold other issues hostage Daily Kos Editorial, May 15, 2015, Why do Republicans really oppose infrastructure spending?, Daily Kos Classics, Daily Kos, www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/15/1383149/-Why-do-Republicans-really-oppose-infrastructure-spending

So, why are modern Republicans ideologically opposed to infrastructure spending today? For example: In 2012, House Republicans introduced a transportation bill (including cuts in Amtrak subsidies and increases in truck-weight limits) that Ray LaHood, secretary of transportation during Obama’s first term, called “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.” LaHood himself had been a seven-term Republican congressman from Illinois before he agreed to serve in Obama’s cabinet. The most accepted (or easily reported) explanation is that today's Republican party is dominated by Southern states, the center of heavy infrastructure (and costs) is located in the Northeast, and Republicans refuse to spend on states that don't vote Republican. There is truth to this explanation and, frankly, it is not properly reported as part of the wider partisan scandal that it is. For example, although federal disaster relief is uniformly passed in the wake of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc., the Hurricane Sandy relief bill was passed only when (as one of a few instances) the "Boehner Rule" was lifted to allow a bill to pass with largely Democratic votes. Why? Because only 70 House Republicans could be found who were willing to vote for federal emergency hurricane relief if the affected area was the the East Coast. Nice. While as egregious as that geographic partisanship is, there are also at least four other fundamental reasons that explain the new Republican refusal to invest in infrastructure - all of which are largely undiscussed in general reporting. 1. Starve the Beast: While Republicans continue to refuse to raise revenue necessary to fund infrastructure spending (traditional Starve the Beast), the latest application -Starve the Beast 2.0 - looks to hold hostage any and all necessary spending for cuts to other, unfavored, government spending. In that sense, you have to understand the crucial (even threatening) need for infrastructure spending as identical to the "debt ceiling." For Republicans, the hundreds of billions to trillions of unmet infrastructure spending represents a massive, annual golden opportunity to extort draconian cuts to social, regulatory, non-defense spending. That is why Republicans also reject deficit-financing for infrastructure spending (at historically low interest rates) or alternative proposals like a private-public infrastructure bank. The goal here is not to invest in the country, but to seize upon any vulnerability to "drown the government in a bathtub." This is plainly evident, btw. When President Obama proposed increased infrastructure spending in 2011 Republicans opposed it with a plan that would have "paid for the spending with a $40 billion cut in unspent funding for other domestic programs . . . and would block recent clean air rules and make it harder for the administration to issue new rules." In 2014, Eric Cantor explained that "Congress should not be adding new money, but instead streamlining the process for getting current resources to state and local governments." In 2015, Republicans opposed Democrats' proposed additional infrastructure spending by proposing instead to create a "deficit neutral reserve fund," that didn't identify the amount of such fund, or how - or whether - it would be funded. Just yesterday I saw Paul Ryan flatly reject any increased spending for infrastructure, regardless of the fatal Amtrack crash.

Novice Packet Files 99

Topicality Answers - Space 1. (Counter interpretation) Space cooperation is science diplomacy – a subset of diplomacy Rush Holt, June 29, 2015, Scientific Drivers for Diplomacy, Science & Diplomacy Magazine, Rush Holt is the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Science & Diplomacy) and executive publisher of the Science family of journals, www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2015/scientific-drivers-for-diplomacy

The early emphasis of science diplomacy as a concept, at least here in the United States, was on the role that science and international cooperation could play in support of diplomacy. Given the American tradition of diplomats being scientists and vice versa since its founding by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, there has been science diplomacy throughout U.S. history. More recently, the Cold War provided examples to remind policy makers of the important contributions of scientists and scientific cooperation to U.S. foreign policy priorities. The scientific community supported détente with the Soviet Union through space cooperation (such as the Apollo-Soyuz handshake), kept the Cold War from turning into a hot one with nuclear disarmament agreements, and even helped end the Cold War by way of American and Soviet physicists (the role of Evgeny Velikhov and other physicists as Mikhail Gorbachev’s advisors is described in an article by U.S. physicist and arms-control expert Frank von Hippel in Physics Today2). 2. Standards: a. Fairness: There are plenty of arguments available to them which link to science diplomacy, specifically space cooperation. There’s no abuse here because plan does work with the PRC – if they can’t make it work that’s their fault not ours. Space cooperation is core to current and future US- China relations and they should be prepared to argue about it. b. Education: The framers intended for students to learn about US-China relations, space cooperation and competition is core to that goal. The main law regarding space cooperation is the Wolf Amendment. That means our case is the most educational plan on the topic. Learning about and advocating for or against specific policies is the point of policy debate and is the best training for becoming a lawyer, politician, or advocate. c. Effects topicality: Contextually, repeals like the plan are engagement and necessary to overall engagement Brian Weeden, September 2013, Technical Advisor, Secure World Foundation and Vice-Chair, Global Agenda Council on Space Security, World Economic Forum, “U.S.-China Cooperation in Space: Constraints, Possibilities, and Options,” ANTI-SATELLITE WEAPONS, DETERRENCE AND SINO-AMERICAN SPACE RELATIONS, Stimson Center, ed. M.Krepon & J.Thompson, , p. 114.

The direction and mix of future US-China space competition and cooperation is far from settled. This essay outlines different types of bilateral space cooperation, if congressional restrictions against doing so were lifted, and if Washington and Beijing were willing to press forward with a space cooperation agenda. I discuss a bottom-up and a top- down approach for space cooperation. I advocate a comprehensive strategy for engagement in space with clearly defined goals and steps that mix in both bottom up and top-down approaches, rather than the pursuit of a single cooperative space activity.

Novice Packet Files 100

d. Also effects topicality is infinitely regressive. There is no briteline to what constitutes effectually topical plans. Do we need to specify exactly how we engage with china? What politicians sign the bill? What diplomat flies to China to announce it? There are hundreds of steps between changing the status quo and engaging China – we shouldn’t have to explain them all. Our plan is sufficiently topical to have a meaningful debate – don’t vote on effects topicality. 3. Voters: Topicality is not a voting issue in this debate. We clearly increase the amount of fairness and education by engaging a specific, important law about the topic. We area also on face topical as we improve the relations between the US and China. Even if you don’t think that’s 100% true we’re still reasonably topical and this is a fair and educational debate – which means you should not vote here and should evaluate other positions.

Novice Packet Files 119

Plan Text - Cyber The United States Congress should implement the medium-term recommendations of the 2013 Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property against the People’s Republic of China

[Don’t read in a debate] These are the recommendations of the US International Trade Commission The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf Recommendation: Amend the Economic Espionage Act to provide a private right of action for those who hold trade secrets and further to make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the appellate court for all actions under this statute. The EEA was passed in 1996 to criminalize trade-secret theft at the federal level in order to provide a mechanism to stem losses to U.S. entities as a result of such theft. Two amendments recently signed into law by President Obama serve to broaden the scope of protection (Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012) and to increase monetary penalties for criminal activities under the EEA (Foreign Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012). As discussed in depth in chapter 5, while the EEA has been somewhat helpful in protecting IP internationally, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed. Missing from the EEA is a private civil cause of action that would enable companies to individually pursue the perpetrators of economic espionage in federal court, though the statute does create a limited civil cause of action allowing the U.S. attorney general to seek injunctive relief against offenders. Under current law, companies and individuals are left to pursue their cases for trade-secret misappropriation in state courts, which gives rise to many of its own complications, including limited access to evidence and difficulty in enforcing judgments.1 An amendment allowing a private civil cause of action under the EEA would allow the rights holders themselves, rather than just government prosecutors, to file lawsuits in order to protect their proprietary methods and information. This could also help alleviate the burden on federal prosecutors, who are already suffering from severe resource constraints when it comes to pursuing EEA actions. The second proposed change to the Economic Espionage Act mandates that the appellate court for all actions under the EEA would be the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CAFC serves as the appellate court for nearly all IP-related cases, and thus has a high degree of competency on IP issues. Making the CAFC the appellate court for all EEA issues ensures a degree of continuity in judicial opinion. Moreover, it helps support the federal circuit in expanding extraterritorial enforcement. Recommendation: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate instances of foreign companies stealing IP and use its broad enforcement powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act to obtain meaningful sanctions against any foreign companies that use stolen IP. The Commission also recommends that attorneys general of other states follow the example of the recent aggressive enforcement actions against IP theft taken by the California and Massachusetts attorneys general. Most businesses today rely on software and other information technologies to improve their efficiency and productivity. In a 2008 study, the U.S. Department of Commerce found a significant correlation between IT investment and productivity growth.2 In 2010, U.S. manufacturers spent nearly $30 billion on software in order to run their businesses more efficiently and to gain a competitive edge.3 Many of these companies operate on tight margins where small differences in costs can significantly affect their profits and market success. When a foreign company uses stolen software to run its business and then competes in a U.S. market against companies that use legal software, this distorts competition in the United States by providing the foreign company with an unfair and artificial cost advantage. If left unaddressed, this creates perverse incentives by providing a competitive advantage to companies that engage in illegal conduct and placing at a competitive disadvantage those law-abiding companies that may be more innovative or efficient but that pay for their software. These market distortions may reduce lawful competition and lead to suboptimal investments in innovation, since enterprises that pay for their software and lose sales to firms that engage in software theft will have fewer resources to invest in R&D. Over time, software theft by foreign companies whose products or services are offered in U.S. markets will distort competition in these markets and will leave U.S. consumers worse off. Reiterating the earlier notions of chapter 1, these losses are becoming more and more potent due to shorter product life cycles. In industries that gain the vast majority of their revenues during the first few months of a product release, the enforcement mechanisms need to be equally responsive. Legislatures in Washington State and Louisiana have passed laws specifically targeting this form of unfair competition,4 while state attorneys general in California and Massachusetts recently announced actions against foreign manufacturers’ use of stolen software under these states’ respective existing unfair-competition laws.5 Also, 39 state and territorial attorneys general recently sent a letter to the FTC highlighting the problem, pledging to seek ways to use the powers of their respective offices to address the issue, and urging the FTC to consider how Section 5 of the FTC Act could be brought to bear on the problem at the federal level.6 This recommendation is a complement to enacting a federal private right of action under a revised EEA. At the state level, the accumulation of case law will serve as a longer-term deterrent to illegal gain as a result of the misappropriation of intellectual property. State case law also extends to the unlawful use of pirated

Novice Packet Files 120

software in the production of a good. The Massachusetts attorney general recently brought a successful case against a Thai company, which settled out of court after paying a fine.7 Recommendation: Expand and strengthen diplomatic priorities in the protection of American intellectual property by increasing the diplomatic rank of IP attachés assigned to priority embassies and by making the protection of intellectual property one of the criteria on which ambassadors are graded. In countries with which the United States has a particularly challenging relationship in the field of IP protection, one way the United States can demonstrate the priority with which it holds the protection of intellectual property is by giving appropriately senior rank to its IP attaché. By doing so, the United States also facilitates more effective interactions with host countries and will contribute to more mature rule of law perspectives in many developing nations, as discussed in chapter 1. Similarly, if the criteria on which U.S. ambassadors are evaluated on an annual basis include their efforts to protect American intellectual property, as they now include efforts to promote American exports, they would likely find new and innovative ways to protect IP. Moreover, adopting this recommendation will send a strong message to the host country.

Novice Packet Files 121

Inherency - Cyber None of the recommendations have been done Michele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, www.industryweek.com/intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft- intellectual-property

What is outrageous to me is that it is obvious that none of the short-term, medium-term or long-term recommendations have been implemented or we would not still have the serious problem of cyber espionage and intellectual property theft three years later. Supporters of developments in China "essentially argue that when China begins producing its own intellectual property in significant quantities, the country’s own entrepreneurs and inventors will put pressure on political and Communist Party leaders to change the laws and improve IP protections." Since China has the stated goal of becoming the superpower of the 21st Century and intellectual property theft is one of their tools to achieve this goal, I do not feel that this will ever happen. To me, the most important conclusion of the report is: "If the United States continues on its current path, with the incentives eroding, innovation will decline and our economy will stagnate. In this fundamental sense, IP theft is now a national security issue." It will be interesting to see if the next president and the next Congress we elect will have the courage to play hardball with China by implementing some of the recommendations of the commission.

Novice Packet Files 122

Inherency - Cyber Current agreements between the US and China won’t stop hacks Darren Pauli, October 14, 2015, US-China cyber espionage treaty 'will do nothing': FireEye boss, The Register, Darren Pauli is journalist at The Register focusing on security, www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/uschina_treaty_will_do_nothing_fireeye_boss/

The China-US treaty will do next to nothing to slow or stymie espionage attacks, says FireEye boss Kevin Mandia. Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping recently pledged to stop economic espionage efforts, in a bid to repair the bilateral relationship between the countries. The agreement, positioned as a means to curb wholesale pillaging of US corporate assets and the activities of the NSA, has attracted wide criticism from the information security community since so much network-centric espionage is confirmed to originate from China. Beijing's backing of well-resourced Chinese hacking groups has not been confirmed but is the subject of much speculation. Some groups employ dozens of hackers working regular nine to five shifts and are using expensive zero day exploits to compromise high-value corporate and defence targets. Mandia, a former Pentagon man and founder of forensics giant Mandiant, says the treaty will do little to curb the hacking. "This agreement with China … healthcare is fair game, universities are fair game, and you keep going down the list, and bottom line is it doesn't end," Mandia told the Cyber Defence Summit (formerly Mircon) in Washington DC today. "Nothing really changes. The intrusions will still stay the same.

Novice Packet Files 123

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Uniqueness Hacks increasing and caused by China Chet Nagle, September 24, 2015, China Is Stealing American Property, The Daily Caller, Chet Nagel is a Former CIA Agent Chet Nagle successfully competed for one of fifty Presidential appointments to the U.S. Naval Academy. He also graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center with the degree of Juris Doctor, dailycaller.com/2015/09/24/china-is-stealing-american-property/

The 2013 report of the prestigious bipartisan Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property certainly indicates that Chinese cyber-theft should top the list. It states, “The scale of international theft of American intellectual property (IP) is unprecedented — hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia,” and concludes, “China is the world’s largest source of IP theft.” The FBI agrees. At FBI headquarters in July, the head of FBI counterintelligence, Randall Coleman, said there has been a 53 percent increase in the theft of American trade secrets, thefts that have cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the past year. In an FBI survey of 165 private companies, half of them said they were victims of economic espionage or theft of trade secrets — 95 percent of those cases involved individuals associated with the Chinese government.

Novice Packet Files 124

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Uniqueness Current IP protection methods failing Christian Science Monitor, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, Christian Science Monitor, Passcode Influencers are more than 140 experts from across government, the private sector, research, and the privacy advocacy community who are interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode- Influencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage

“Thus far, our diplomatic and other efforts have not made a dent in stemming the flow of intellectual property from US businesses,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder and chief technology officer of security company CrowdStrike. “We need to start considering new approaches to put pressure on Chinese companies to stop stealing and begin competing fairly in the global marketplace.” Passcode’s Influencers Poll is a regular survey of more than 120 experts in digital security and privacy. They have the option to comment on the record or anonymously to preserve the candor of their responses. The US says it does not participate of corporate espionage — using its intelligence and national security apparatus to spy for the benefit of American businesses — for moral reasons. And yet, Representative Jim Langevin (D) of Rhode Island said the costs of corporate espionage to the US is “real and massive, and present a serious threat to our long-term economic and national security.” There has been “no sign the hacks targeting the American economy are abating,” Rep. Langevin continued, despite the Obama administration’s diplomatic outreach and a federal indictment last year of Chinese military hackers targeting US companies in the nuclear power, metals, and solar products industries.

Novice Packet Files 125

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Internal Link Chinese hacks gut our economy Michele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, www.industryweek.com/intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft- intellectual-property

The article did provide the link to the 100-page report, which I have since read. In view of the continuing problem, it is time to reconsider the key findings of the report, titled, "The Impact of International IP Theft on the American Economy": ”Hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion...” Millions of jobs. If IP were to receive the same protection overseas that it does here, the American economy would add millions of jobs. A drag on U.S. GDP growth. Better protection of IP would encourage significantly more R&D investment and economic growth. Innovation. The incentive to innovate drives productivity growth and the advancements that improve the quality of life. The threat of IP theft diminishes that incentive.

Novice Packet Files 126

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Internal Link Hacking kills the US economy and it is China’s fault The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf

The scale of international theft of American intellectual property (IP) is unprecedented—hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia. The effects of this theft are twofold. The first is the tremendous loss of revenue and reward for those who made the inventions or who have purchased licenses to provide goods and services based on them, as well as of the jobs associated with those losses. American companies of all sizes are victimized. The second and even more pernicious effect is that illegal theft of intellectual property is undermining both the means and the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, which will slow the development of new inventions and industries that can further expand the world economy and continue to raise the prosperity and quality of life for everyone. Unless current trends are reversed, there is a risk of stifling innovation, with adverse consequences for both developed and still developing countries. The American response to date of hectoring governments and prosecuting individuals has been utterly inadequate to deal with the problem. China has been the principal focus of U.S. intellectual property rights (IPR) policy for many years. As its economy developed, China built a sophisticated body of law that includes IPR protection. It has a vibrant, although flawed, patent system. For a variety of historical reasons, however, as well as because of economic and commercial practices and official policies aimed to favor Chinese and spur economic growth and technological advancement, China is the world’s largest source of IP theft. The evidence presented here is a compilation of the best governmental and private studies undertaken to date, interviews, individual cases, assessments of the impact of IP theft on the American economy, and examinations of PRC policies. There is now enough information, in our view, to warrant urgent consideration of the findings and recommendations that follow.

Novice Packet Files 127

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Impact Growth is great & compounds over time - solves all major problems Peter Ferrara, JAN 14, 2014, Why Economic Growth Is Exponentially More Important Than Income Inequality, Forbes, Peter Ferrara covers public policy, particularly concerning economics & is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. He am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/01/14/why-economic-growth-is-exponentially-more-important-than-income- inequality/#227bb2b94f1b

Not any of these truly dramatic advances for the poor, working people and the middle class could have been achieved by redistribution from “the rich.” Only economic growth could achieve these results. Nor would it have been worth sacrificing any of these world shattering gains for greater economic “equality.” And Barack Obama’s leftist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, economists have long recognized the conflict between economic equality and maximizing economic growth. Put most simply, penalizing investors, successful entrepreneurs, and job creators with higher taxes, to reward the less productive with government handouts, to make everyone more equal, is a sure fire way to get less productivity, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic growth. The above history, and the future prospects below, are why to most benefit the poor, working people, and the middle class, our nation’s overriding goal must be to maximize economic growth. Consider, if total real compensation, wages and benefits, grow at just 1% a year, after 20 years the real incomes of working people would be only 22% greater. After 40 years, a generation, real incomes would be 50% more. But with sustained real compensation growth of 2%, after just 20 years the real incomes and living standards of working people would be nearly 50% greater, and after 40 years they would be 120% greater, more than doubled. At sustained 3% growth in wages and benefits, after 20 years the living standards of working people will have almost doubled, and after 40 years they will have more than tripled. The U.S. economy sustained a real rate of economic growth of 3.3% from 1945 to 1973, and achieved the same 3.3% sustained real growth from 1982 to 2007. (Note that this 3.3% growth rate for the entire economy includes population growth. Real wages and benefits discussed above is a per worker concept). It was only during the stagflation decade of 1973 to 1982, reflecting the same Keynesian economics that President Obama is pursuing today, that real growth fell to only half long term trends. If we could revive and sustain that same 3.3% real growth for 20 years, our total economic production (GDP) would double in that time. After 30 years, our economic output would grow by 2 and two-thirds. After 40 years, our prosperity bounty would grow by 3 and two-thirds. If we are truly following growth maximizing policies, we could conceivably do even better than we have in the past. At sustained real growth of 4% per year, our economic production would more than double after 20 years. After 30 years, GDP would more than triple. After 40 years, a generation, total U.S. economic output would nearly quadruple. America would by then have leapfrogged another generation ahead of the rest of the world. Achieving and sustaining such economic growth should be the central focus of national economic policy, for it would solve every problem that plagues and threatens us today. Such booming economic growth would produce surging revenues that would make balancing the budget so much more feasible. Surging GDP would reduce the national debt as a percent of GDP relatively quickly, particularly with balanced budgets not adding any further to the debt. Sustained, rapid economic growth is also the ultimate solution to poverty, as after a couple of decades or so of such growth, the poor would climb to the same living standards as the middle class of today. With sustained, robust, economic growth, maintaining the most powerful military in the world, and thereby ensuring our nation’s security and national defense, will require a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP over time. That security itself will promote capital investment and economic growth in America. The booming economy will produce new technological marvels that will make our defenses all the more

Novice Packet Files 128 advanced. With the economy rapidly advancing, there will be more than enough funds for education. There will also be more than enough to clean up and maintain a healthy environment.

Novice Packet Files 129

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Impact Growth is good – 6 reasons Tejvan Pettinger, 2016, Benefits of economic growth, Economics Help, Tejvan Pettinger is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford. He studied PPE at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, gaining a 2:1. He contributes articles to the Economic Review and writes regularly on economics. Between 2001 and 2006 he worked as examiner and Team Leader for Edexcel examinations, www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/benefits-growth/

Economic growth means an increase in real GDP. This increase in real GDP means there is an increase in the value of national output / national expenditure. The benefits of economic growth include: 1. Higher average incomes. This enables consumers to enjoy more goods and services and enjoy better standards of living. 2. Lower unemployment With higher output and positive economic growth firms tend to employ more workers creating more employment. 3. Lower government borrowing. Economic growth creates higher tax revenues and there is less need to spend money on benefits such as unemployment benefit. Therefore economic growth helps to reduce government borrowing. Economic growth also plays a role in reducing debt to GDP ratios. 4. Improved public services. With increased tax revenues the government can spend more on public services, such as the NHS and education e.t.c. 5. Money can be spent on protecting the environment. With higher real GDP a society can devote more resources to promoting recycling and the use of renewable resources 6. Investment. Economic growth encourages investment and therefore encourages a virtuous cycle of economic growth.

Novice Packet Files 130

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Impact Framing (Impact Framing) Economic growth creates a virtuous cycle between morality and wellbeing Benjamin M. Friedman, January/February 2006, THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, Society, 43 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006, Benjamin M. Friedman is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy, and formerly Chairman of the Department of Economics, at Harvard University. He has written extensively on economic policy, and in particular on the role of the financial markets in shaping how monetary and fiscal policies affect overall economic activity, scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_moral_consequences_of_economic_growth_0.pdf

It would be a mistake, however, to believe that only market incentives and government economic policies are important for achieving economic growth and with it the positive influence on social and political development that follows from rising living standards. While economic growth makes a society more open, tolerant, and democratic, such societies are, in turn, better able to encourage enterprise and creativity and hence to achieve ever greater economic prosperity. Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting the United States in the 1830s, remarked at length on how the openness of this new democratic society seemed to spur effort: economic advance was open to all (he was thinking only of white males), and in a classless society rising economically meant rising socially. The resulting opportunity to achieve and advance, Tocqueville observed, created, in turn, a sense of obligation to strive toward that end. As we look back nearly two centuries later, it is also self-evident that removing forms of discrimination that once blocked significant segments of the population from contributing their efforts has further enabled the American economy to harness its labor resources and its brain power. On both counts, the openness of our society has helped foster our economic advance. The United States is perhaps the preeminent historical example of such reciprocity between social and political openness and economic growth. Taken as a whole, our nation’s history has predominantly been a mutually reinforcing process of economic advance and expanding freedom. The less fortunate experience of some other countries, most notably those in Sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the colonial period, suggests the same reciprocity at work but in the opposite direction. Many governments of Sub-Saharan Africa were at least formally democracies when the colonial powers departed, but in time they became corrupt and oppressive dictatorships. In parallel, what had been reasonably functioning economies stagnated and then declined.

Novice Packet Files 131

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Solvency Report recommendations would solve really well The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf Recommendation: Amend the Economic Espionage Act to provide a private right of action for those who hold trade secrets and further to make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the appellate court for all actions under this statute. The EEA was passed in 1996 to criminalize trade-secret theft at the federal level in order to provide a mechanism to stem losses to U.S. entities as a result of such theft. Two amendments recently signed into law by President Obama serve to broaden the scope of protection (Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012) and to increase monetary penalties for criminal activities under the EEA (Foreign Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012). As discussed in depth in chapter 5, while the EEA has been somewhat helpful in protecting IP internationally, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed. Missing from the EEA is a private civil cause of action that would enable companies to individually pursue the perpetrators of economic espionage in federal court, though the statute does create a limited civil cause of action allowing the U.S. attorney general to seek injunctive relief against offenders. Under current law, companies and individuals are left to pursue their cases for trade-secret misappropriation in state courts, which gives rise to many of its own complications, including limited access to evidence and difficulty in enforcing judgments.1 An amendment allowing a private civil cause of action under the EEA would allow the rights holders themselves, rather than just government prosecutors, to file lawsuits in order to protect their proprietary methods and information. This could also help alleviate the burden on federal prosecutors, who are already suffering from severe resource constraints when it comes to pursuing EEA actions. The second proposed change to the Economic Espionage Act mandates that the appellate court for all actions under the EEA would be the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CAFC serves as the appellate court for nearly all IP-related cases, and thus has a high degree of competency on IP issues. Making the CAFC the appellate court for all EEA issues ensures a degree of continuity in judicial opinion. Moreover, it helps support the federal circuit in expanding extraterritorial enforcement. Recommendation: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate instances of foreign companies stealing IP and use its broad enforcement powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act to obtain meaningful sanctions against any foreign companies that use stolen IP. The Commission also recommends that attorneys general of other states follow the example of the recent aggressive enforcement actions against IP theft taken by the California and Massachusetts attorneys general. Most businesses today rely on software and other information technologies to improve their efficiency and productivity. In a 2008 study, the U.S. Department of Commerce found a significant correlation between IT investment and productivity growth.2 In 2010, U.S. manufacturers spent nearly $30 billion on software in order to run their businesses more efficiently and to gain a competitive edge.3 Many of these companies operate on tight margins where small differences in costs can significantly affect their profits and market success. When a foreign company uses stolen software to run its business and then competes in a U.S. market against companies that use legal software, this distorts competition in the United States by providing the foreign company with an unfair and artificial cost advantage. If left unaddressed, this creates perverse incentives by providing a competitive advantage to companies that engage in illegal conduct and placing at a competitive disadvantage those law-abiding companies that may be more innovative or efficient but that pay for their software. These market distortions may reduce lawful competition and lead to suboptimal investments in innovation, since enterprises that pay for their software and lose sales to firms that engage in software theft will have fewer resources to invest in R&D. Over time, software theft by foreign companies whose products or services are offered in U.S. markets will distort competition in these markets and will leave U.S. consumers worse off. Reiterating the earlier notions of chapter 1, these losses are becoming more and more potent due to shorter product life cycles. In industries that gain the vast majority of their revenues during the first few months of a product release, the enforcement mechanisms need to be equally responsive. Legislatures in Washington State and Louisiana have passed laws specifically targeting this form of unfair competition,4 while state attorneys general in California and Massachusetts recently announced actions against foreign manufacturers’ use of stolen software under these states’ respective existing unfair-competition laws.5 Also, 39 state and territorial attorneys general recently sent a letter to the FTC highlighting the problem, pledging to seek ways to use the powers of their respective offices to address the issue, and urging the FTC to consider how Section 5 of the FTC Act could be brought to bear on the problem at the federal level.6 This recommendation is a complement to enacting a federal private right of action under a revised EEA. At the state level, the accumulation of case law will serve as a longer-term deterrent to illegal gain as a result of the misappropriation of intellectual property. State case law also extends to the unlawful use of pirated software in the production

Novice Packet Files 132

of a good. The Massachusetts attorney general recently brought a successful case against a Thai company, which settled out of court after paying a fine.7 Recommendation: Expand and strengthen diplomatic priorities in the protection of American intellectual property by increasing the diplomatic rank of IP attachés assigned to priority embassies and by making the protection of intellectual property one of the criteria on which ambassadors are graded. In countries with which the United States has a particularly challenging relationship in the field of IP protection, one way the United States can demonstrate the priority with which it holds the protection of intellectual property is by giving appropriately senior rank to its IP attaché. By doing so, the United States also facilitates more effective interactions with host countries and will contribute to more mature rule of law perspectives in many developing nations, as discussed in chapter 1. Similarly, if the criteria on which U.S. ambassadors are evaluated on an annual basis include their efforts to protect American intellectual property, as they now include efforts to promote American exports, they would likely find new and innovative ways to protect IP. Moreover, adopting this recommendation will send a strong message to the host country.

Novice Packet Files 133

Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - Cyber Solvency Plan’s sanctions have international impact Kendall Burman, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015, WHY IT COULD BE CHALLENGING TO SANCTION CHINESE COMPANIES FOR CYBERCRIMES, Kendall Burman is a New America Cybersecurity Fellow who previously served as the Deputy General Counsel for Strategic Initiatives in the Department of Commerce. Before that she was a Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology where she examined issues at the intersection of civil liberties, national security, and technology, https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/why-it-could-be- challenging-to-sanction-chinese-companies-for-cybercrimes/

There are significant questions around this first set of cyber sanctions designations, including how broadly the U.S. government will go in designating entities under the Executive Order. The Executive Order not only freezes the U.S. assets of the designated entity, but also effectively prevents U.S. companies from engaging in any business relationship or transaction with that entity. Sanctions policy is most effective when used to target entities that have the most to lose from restrictions on their access to trading partners and major financial institutions. While U.S. individuals and companies are clearly forbidden from entering into a commercial transaction with sanctioned entities, U.S. sanctions policy also reverberates internationally, since non-U.S. multinational companies often feel pressure to comply with U.S. government policy.

Novice Packet Files 134

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Uniqueness Current protections are inadequate to stop hacks Michele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, www.industryweek.com/intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft- intellectual-property

The report stated that existing remedies are not keeping up with the problem because of: Short product life cycles – "the slow pace of legal remedies for IP infringement does not meet the needs of companies whose products have rapid product life and profit cycles." Inadequate institutional capacity − a shortage of trained judges in developing countries China’s approach to IPR is evolving too slowly – "improvements over the years have not produced meaningful protection for American IP." Limitations in trade agreements− there are also significant problems in the WTO process that have made it impossible to obtain effective resolutions. "Bilateral and regional free trade agreements are not a panacea either." Steps undertaken by Congress and the administration are inadequate.

Novice Packet Files 135

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Uniqueness Current cyber defense is inadequate U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, November 18, 2015, 2015 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission is a panel of highly qualified experts who develop a report to present to congress once a year, origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/annual_reports/2015%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Recommendations.pdf The United States is ill prepared to defend itself from cyber espionage when its adversary is determined, centrally coordinated, and technically sophisticated, as is the CCP and China’s government. The design of the Internet—developed in the United States to facilitate open communication between academia and government, and eventually expanded to include commercial opportunities—leaves it particularly vulnerable to spies and thieves. As the largest and most web-dependent economy in the world, the United States is also the largest target for cyber espionage of commercial IP. The Chinese government also imposes heavy-handed censorship on Internet content and social media. These restrictions on free expression and access to information and news have driven from the Chinese market those U.S. companies unwilling to follow the authoritarian dictates of Beijing. The Chinese government has also begun to censor material originating outside its borders by directly attacking U.S.-based information providers. The Chinese government has infiltrated a wide swath of U.S. government computer networks; the U.S. government response to the challenge has been inadequate. Federal agencies are not governed by a uniform system for defense against cyber intrusions. Other than to acknowledge an unrelenting series of assaults on its networks, the Federal Government has yet to devise adequate defenses, while top U.S. intelligence officials have grudgingly praised Chinese hackers for their bold ingenuity.

Novice Packet Files 136

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Impact Without retaliation norms there will be escalation to war Bing West, Tuesday, November 25, 2014, The Future Economic War, Hoover Institution, Bing West is a member at the Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group - he is the best-selling author of ten books on strategy and battle. He served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the Reagan administration. A graduate of Georgetown and Princeton Universities, he served in Vietnam with Marine Force Recon and Combined Action Platoons. His articles appear in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, www.hoover.org/research/future-economic-war

In the event of an actual shooting war, our military is prepared to conduct offensive and defensive cyber warfare. More problematic—and more probable—is a cyber economic conflict that spirals out of control. Suppose in 2017 an executive at an IT company like Google, fed up by China’s theft, launched retaliatory cyber strikes to teach the Chinese a lesson. The Chinese then respond by a broad, disruptive strike. The new American president, less passive than Mr. Obama, orders a calibrated response more severe than the Chinese attack. What follows? Does China shut down a portion of the U.S. power grid? Do American hackers and various companies launch their own spontaneous attacks? Do firewalls crumble, with unintended consequences? Who yields first, asking for a truce? We don’t know. In the late ‘50s, a phalanx of brilliant analysts—economists, physicists, engineers, etc.—at the Rand Corporation in California developed deterrent strategies pertaining to nuclear war. Rules of restraint and escalatory ladders affected the calculations of a generation of American and Soviet leaders. Mutual Assured Destruction was surely mad. It was insane for either side to launch nuclear-armed missiles without calculating the devastating consequences of the assured counter strike. No similar body of work exists about cyber warfare in the military, the civilian, or the corporate world. “We need to define what would be offensive, what would be an act of war,” Admiral Rogers said. “Being totally on the defensive is a very losing strategy to me.” We are in a period of experiment by trial and error. So far, China has succeeded in corporate theft. Russia has employed cyber blackmail by disrupting Internet services to small nations adjacent to its border. Unlike Freedom of the Seas that is codified in treaties and United Nations resolutions— and enforced by America’s naval might—freedom of cyber commerce is not codified, much less enforced. Given that neither China nor Russia has received any punishment or retaliation for their past cyber aggressions, the odds are high that Admiral Rogers will be proven right. There will be a cyber attack that begins to spiral out of the control of any government. This will be managed by an ExComm—an ad hoc Executive Committee—as President Kennedy convened in October of 1962. But a hasty confab of advisers is no substitute for systematic planning and war-gaming. Common sense demands that the U.S. national security community test, establish, and promulgate cyber rules of the road, backed by credible retaliatory measures.

Novice Packet Files 137

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Impact Chinese cyber hacking must be deterred – status quo could lead to nuclear war DANNY Vinik, December 9, 2015, America’s secret arsenal, Politico, Danny Vinik is the assistant editor of The Agenda at Politico. He previously was a staff writer at The New Republic and his work has appeared in the Washington Monthly and Business Insider. He graduated from Duke University in 2013 with majors in economics and public policy, www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/defense-department- cyber-offense-strategy-000331

This top-level guidance needs to come not from cyber experts but from elected leaders—and, observers say, so far that direction has not been forthcoming. “Part of the problem is that there are so many senior people in the government, especially coming out of the political world, that just don’t understand enough about the technology,” Borg said. “They really are remarkably uninformed.” You can see this in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s comments about cyber in the last Republican debate. “If the Chinese commit cyberwarfare against us, they are going to see cyberwarfare like they have never seen before,” he said. Saber-rattling against the Chinese is nothing new for a U.S. presidential election, but it’s hard to imagine Christie making a similar claim about conventional war. In one sense, that’s because it’s hard to imagine Christie ever being confronted with that scenario. No one is foreseeing an imminent kinetic attack from China. But that’s precisely what makes cyber so difficult: What exactly would qualify as cyberwarfare? And what type of Chinese cyber attack would result in “cyberwarfare like [China has] never seen before”? It seems superfluous to mention, perhaps, but cyberwar with China is war with China. And a war that starts out in the cyber realm can quickly migrate to other realms. “I consider the current state of affairs to be extremely volatile and unstable because one could escalate a cyberwar pretty quickly,” said Sami Saydjari, the founder of the Cyber Defense Agency consulting firm, who has been working on cyber issues for more than three decades. “You can imagine a scenario where a country instigates a cyberwarfare-like event but does it in such a way to blame another country, which causes an escalation between those countries, which accidentally causes a kinetic escalation, which accidentally reaches the nuclear level. This is not an implausible scenario.”

Novice Packet Files 138

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Impact Framing Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus – reducing nuclear risk is morally required Jonathan Schell, 2000, Fate of the Earth, pp. 93-96, Jonathan Schell was an American author and was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, and in 2005, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Yale's Center for the Study of Globalization, whose work primarily dealt with campaigning against nuclear weapons, https://books.google.com/books?id=tYKJsAEs1oQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jonathan+schell+fate+of+the+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEw j2p6fzmbXOAhXJCMAKHZsID_QQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=to%20say%20that%20human%20extinction&f=false

To say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons, the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished. We are left with uncertainty, and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. If we wish to act to save our species, we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. On the other hand, if we wish to ignore the peril, we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known, thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. The discovery of the energy in mass – of "the basic power of the universe" – and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life, the earth. In the shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the framework of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematician's analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves.

Novice Packet Files 139

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Solvency Cyber escalation is China’s fault – only punitive measures solve Michael Auslin, September 22, 2015, Time for realism in US-China relations, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Auslin is a resident scholar and the director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he specializes in Asian regional security and political issues., https://www.aei.org/publication/time-for-realism-in-us-china-relations/ As for cyber, it is Beijing that has caused this crisis, and no U.S. administration should be negotiating a pact with the wolf in the sheep pen. First, we should be thinking of financial sanctions and diplomatic freezes as punishment for aggression already committed and that to come. It also is past time to throw some cyber elbows to show we won’t simply sit and take whatever fouls China decides to commit. There is no question that the U.S. is probably more vulnerable than China on the cyber front, but we are steadily being led down the path towards a real cyber Pearl Harbor (such as the shutting down of our energy grid) by our unwillingness to show that we can play the same game. It’s a discomfiting thought, but that is the world we have let ourselves be trapped into.

Novice Packet Files 140

Hacking Advantage - Cyber Solvency A toolbox for cyber deterrence – like plan – solves P.W. Singer, DECEMBER 18, 2015, How the United States Can Win the Cyberwar of the Future, Foreign Policy, P.W. Singer is director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. Allan Friedman is a visiting scholar at the Cyber Security Policy Research Institute at George Washington University, foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/18/how-the-united-states-can-win-the-cyberwar-of-the-future- deterrence-theory-security/ That a cyberweapon is not like a WMD doesn’t mean the United States has no options for exacting costs on would-be attackers to change their calculations. Indeed, it may even have more. Just as the timeline is stretched out and the players are proliferated as compared to the Cold War, true deterrence-building responses can come after the fact and in other realms. For instance, responding to IP theft by stealing back is not the only option: The defender can also go after other assets valued by the attacker or even those valued by third party actors, such as by sanctioning companies benefiting from stolen fruit. This dynamism complicates things to a degree that even the most brilliant Cold War strategist would find frustrating. The United States will have to game out not merely the first two moves of the response — the simple “shoot and shoot back” dynamic that was the whole of a nuclear exchange — but also multiple stages after that by multiple actors. For instance, anyone advocating for trade sanctions should walk their argument through the process of not just how the sanctions for past attacks would stop future attacks, but also what the United States would do in response to a loss of overall market access were China, say, to respond in kind against some U.S. firms. Creativity and flexibility will beat simplicity in this dynamic. Indeed, the United States may even steal ideas from one attacker’s playbook as a useful tool against another. From Sony to Snowden, leaked emails and documents have been among the most vexing incidents for cybersecurity, but the irony is that the United States’ system of government and open society is least vulnerable to them. For all the Sturm and Drang over revelations of questionable metadata collection and Angelina Jolie gossip, U.S. political and social stability has never been at risk from these practices. But, as Catherine Lotrionte at Georgetown University has noted, threatening to reveal the private financial data of a regime’s leader, his family, or his allied oligarchs, may be far more potent. The goal of these measures is not to prevent all attacks, like MAD did with nuclear weapons, but to change the calculus on whether an individual cyberattack is useful.

Novice Packet Files 141

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: China is already on road to collapse – 5 reasons David Shambaugh, March 6, 2015, The Coming Chinese Crackup, The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Shambaugh is a professor of international affairs and the director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His books include “China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation” and, most recently, “China Goes Global: The Partial Power", www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-chinese-crack-up-1425659198

The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun, I believe, and it has progressed further than many think. We don’t know what the pathway from now until the end will look like, of course. It will probably be highly unstable and unsettled. But until the system begins to unravel in some obvious way, those inside of it will play along— thus contributing to the facade of stability. Communist rule in China is unlikely to end quietly. A single event is unlikely to trigger a peaceful implosion of the regime. Its demise is likely to be protracted, messy and violent. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Mr. Xi will be deposed in a power struggle or coup d’état. With his aggressive anticorruption campaign—a focus of this week’s National People’s Congress— he is overplaying a weak hand and deeply aggravating key party, state, military and commercial constituencies. The Chinese have a proverb, waiying, neiruan—hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Mr. Xi is a genuinely tough ruler. He exudes conviction and personal confidence. But this hard personality belies a party and political system that is extremely fragile on the inside. Consider five telling indications of the regime’s vulnerability and the party’s systemic weaknesses. First, China’s economic elites have one foot out the door, and they are ready to flee en masse if the system really begins to crumble. In 2014, Shanghai’s Hurun Research Institute, which studies China’s wealthy, found that 64% of the “high net worth individuals” whom it polled—393 millionaires and billionaires—were either emigrating or planning to do so. Rich Chinese are sending their children to study abroad in record numbers (in itself, an indictment of the quality of the Chinese higher-education system). Just this week, the Journal reported, federal agents searched several Southern California locations that U.S. authorities allege are linked to “multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses that enabled thousands of Chinese women to travel here and return home with infants born as U.S. citizens.” Wealthy Chinese are also buying property abroad at record levels and prices, and they are parking their financial assets overseas, often in well-shielded tax havens and shell companies. Meanwhile, Beijing is trying to extradite back to China a large number of alleged financial fugitives living abroad. When a country’s elites—many of them party members—flee in such large numbers, it is a telling sign of lack of confidence in the regime and the country’s future. Second, since taking office in 2012, Mr. Xi has greatly intensified the political repression that has blanketed China since 2009. The targets include the press, social media, film, arts and literature, religious groups, the Internet, intellectuals, Tibetans and Uighurs, dissidents, lawyers, NGOs, university students and textbooks. The Central Committee sent a draconian order known as Document No. 9 down through the party hierarchy in 2013, ordering all units to ferret out any seeming endorsement of the West’s “universal values”—including constitutional democracy, civil society, a free press and neoliberal economics. A more secure and confident government would not institute such a severe crackdown. It is a symptom of the party leadership’s deep anxiety and insecurity. Third, even many regime loyalists are just going through the motions. It is hard to miss the theater of false pretense that has permeated the Chinese body politic for the past few years. Last summer, I was one of a handful of foreigners (and the only American) who attended a conference about the “China Dream,” Mr. Xi’s signature concept, at a party-affiliated think tank in Beijing. We sat through two days of mind-numbing, nonstop presentations by two dozen party scholars—but their faces were frozen, their body language was wooden, and their boredom was palpable. They feigned compliance with the party and their leader’s latest mantra. But it was evident that the propaganda had lost its power, and the emperor had no clothes. In December, I was back in Beijing for a conference at the Central Party School, the party’s highest institution of doctrinal instruction, and once again, the country’s top officials and foreign policy experts recited their stock slogans verbatim. During lunch one day, I went to the campus bookstore—always an important stop so that I can update myself on what China’s leading cadres are being taught. Tomes on the store’s shelves ranged from Lenin’s “Selected Works” to Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs, and a table at the entrance was piled high with copies of a pamphlet by Mr. Xi on his campaign to promote the “mass line”—that is, the party’s connection to the masses. “How is this selling?” I asked the clerk. “Oh, it’s not,” she replied. “We give it away.” The size of the stack suggested it was hardly a hot item. Fourth, the corruption that riddles the party-state and the military also pervades Chinese society as a whole. Mr. Xi’s anticorruption campaign

Novice Packet Files 142 is more sustained and severe than any previous one, but no campaign can eliminate the problem. It is stubbornly rooted in the single-party system, patron-client networks, an economy utterly lacking in transparency, a state-controlled media and the absence of the rule of law. Moreover, Mr. Xi’s campaign is turning out to be at least as much a selective purge as an antigraft campaign. Many of its targets to date have been political clients and allies of former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin. Now 88, Mr. Jiang is still the godfather figure of Chinese politics. Going after Mr. Jiang’s patronage network while he is still alive is highly risky for Mr. Xi, particularly since Mr. Xi doesn’t seem to have brought along his own coterie of loyal clients to promote into positions of power. Another problem: Mr. Xi, a child of China’s first-generation revolutionary elites, is one of the party’s “princelings,” and his political ties largely extend to other princelings. This silver-spoon generation is widely reviled in Chinese society at large. Finally, China’s economy—for all the Western views of it as an unstoppable juggernaut—is stuck in a series of systemic traps from which there is no easy exit. In November 2013, Mr. Xi presided over the party’s Third Plenum, which unveiled a huge package of proposed economic reforms, but so far, they are sputtering on the launchpad. Yes, consumer spending has been rising, red tape has been reduced, and some fiscal reforms have been introduced, but overall, Mr. Xi’s ambitious goals have been stillborn. The reform package challenges powerful, deeply entrenched interest groups—such as state-owned enterprises and local party cadres—and they are plainly blocking its implementation.

Novice Packet Files 143

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: CCP legitimacy is on the brink and getting worse – economic slowdown & lack of reforms Melanie Hart, September 29, 2015, Assessing American Foreign Policy Toward China, Center for American Progress, Melanie Hart is a Senior Fellow and Director of China Policy at American Progress. She focuses on U.S. foreign policy toward China and works to identify new opportunities for bilateral cooperation, particularly on energy, climate change, and cross-border investment. Her research also covers China’s political system, market regulatory reforms, and how China’s domestic and foreign policy developments affect the United States., https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2015/09/29/122283/assessing-american-foreign-policy-toward-china/

The Chinese economy has reached an inflection point. It is not yet clear whether the Chinese Communist Party can successfully traverse these changing circumstances and maintain its hold on power. The growth model that pulled more than 400 million Chinese citizens out of poverty over the past three decades is running out of steam. Chinese wages are rising and eliminating China’s prior price advantages in global export markets. Fixed infrastructure investments are producing diminishing returns. Chinese citizens no longer accept the pollution costs associated with heavy industry, and even if they did, the global market cannot continue to absorb more Chinese steel and cement at double-digit annual growth rates. In order to keep the economy growing and maintain ruling legitimacy, Chinese leaders must downshift from the old growth model and foster new industries based on technological innovation, domestic consumption, and services.

Novice Packet Files 144

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Specific Link Answer Turn: Non-PRC affiliated Chinese hackers are a critical threat to CCP stability – deterring them improves stability Ryan Hang, OCTOBER 2014, Freedom for Authoritarianism: Patriotic Hackers and Chinese Nationalism, The Yale Review of International Studies, is a Web Developer & Software Engineer with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science (Specialization in Empirical Theory and Quantitative Methods) - his work on cyber studies and Chinese culture have been featured in several journals, yris.yira.org/essays/1447

The Chinese government’s current response to Patriotic Hackers is consistent with the CCP’s historical uses of nationalism to control political threats. The Chinese government is wary of political activity because it can expose Chinese netizens to government criticisms and serves as a venue to organize against the CCP. In response to this threat, the Chinese government deploys Internet censorship and restrictions, a major flashpoint between the Chinese government and its citizens. “It is clear that there are at least as many netizens concerned with breaching the Great Firewall as there are with attacking foreign networks.”[69] Although Patriotic Hackers are driven by nationalist sentiments and generally support the Chinese government, they have the capacity to destabilize the CCP. Because Patriotic Hackers are not formally integrated into the Chinese government, the CCP has no official control over these hackers. In some instances Patriotic Hackers, beyond circumventing Internet restrictions and breaking Chinese law, have even directly attacked the Chinese government by defacing government websites.[70]These hackers also have the capacity to undermine the Chinese government by working for Western computer security agencies.[71]

Novice Packet Files 145

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber General Link Answers Turn: Competition with external powers leads to more nationalism – nationalism key to CCP legitimacy Ryan Hang, OCTOBER 2014, Freedom for Authoritarianism: Patriotic Hackers and Chinese Nationalism, The Yale Review of International Studies, is a Web Developer & Software Engineer with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science (Specialization in Empirical Theory and Quantitative Methods) - his work on cyber studies and Chinese culture have been featured in several journals, yris.yira.org/essays/1447

As political circumstances in China have evolved, so has the role of nationalism in Chinese politics. The death of Mao Zedong and market oriented economic reforms championed by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s fundamentally altered Chinese politics and collapsed Chinese communist ideology. Economic hardship, corruption, and political instability following Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the 1980s “greatly weakened mass support for the CCP and eroded its basis of legitimacy.”[59] Chinese leaders turned to nationalism in response to the collapse of communist ideology to fill “an ideological vacuum left by the collapse of Marxist ideology and reinforce the stability of the CCP.”[60] These leaders “wrapped themselves in the mantle of pragmatic nationalism, which they found remained the most reliable claim to the Chinese people’s loyalty and the only important value shared by the regime and its critics.”[61] The CCP maintained its legitimacy by promising national strength and focusing on high rates of economic growth. Through deploying nationalism, the CCP was able to ideologically tie China with itself and introduce the view that “the Communist state is the embodiment of the nation’s will,” and portraying the CCP as defenders of China against outside threats.[62] The CCP’s success with deploying nationalism as a means to generate political stability has established nationalism as the basis for the support and legitimacy of the CCP.[63] Nationalism is a primary strategy utilized by the Chinese government to answer political threats; in the face of political crisis, the CCP has consistently “appealed to nationalism in the name of patriotism as a way to ensure the loyalty of a population stewing in domestic discontent.”[64] Nationalism operates through a couple of mechanisms to reinforce the stability of the Chinese government. Nationalism serves the Chinese government by bolstering “its legitimacy through invoking a deep sense of “Chineseness” among its citizens.[65] The government is able to resolve ideological fractures and consolidate the Chinese identity against external threats by fostering Nationalist sentiments. In the face of economic and political problems, nationalism “has become an effective instrument for enhancing the CCP’s legitimacy by allowing for it to be defined on the claim that the regime provides political stability and economic prosperity.”[66]

Novice Packet Files 146

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber General Link Answers No Link: CCP Collapse predictions empirically false and biased Hung et al, March 13, 2015, When Will China's Government Collapse?, Foreign Policy, Ho-Fung Hung is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Sociology. My scholarly interest includes global political economy, protest, nation-state formation, and social theory, with a focus on East Asia,, Arthur R. Kroeber is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings-Tsinghua Center where he focuses on China’s political economy and its engagement with global economic institutions, Howard Waring French is a journalist, author, and photographer, as well as an associate professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He was most recently a senior foreign correspondent with The New York Times, Suisheng Zhao is a professor of Chinese politics and foreign policy at the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies, foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/13/china_communist_party_collapse_downfall/

Predictions of Chinese political collapse have a long and futile history. Their persistent failure stems from a basic conceptual fault. Instead of facing the Chinese system on its own terms and understanding why it works — which could create insights into why it might stop working — critics judge the system against what they would like it to be, and find it wanting. This embeds an assumption of fragility that makes every societal problem look like an existential crisis. As a long-term resident of China, I would love the government to become more open, pluralistic and tolerant of creativity. That it refuses to do so is disappointing to me and many others, but offers no grounds for a judgment of its weakness.

Novice Packet Files 147

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Consequentialist Impact Scenario Answers Defense and Turn: Loose nukes aren’t a thing – there is no market and they are incredibly safe even when unattended. Additionally, nuclear alarmism is more likely to cause war John Mueller, September 2, 2015, The Dangers of Alarmism, John Mueller is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also a member of the political science department and senior research scientist with the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University. A leading expert on terrorism and particularly on the reactions (or over-reactions) it often inspires, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dangers-alarmism

An important part of the alarmism has been directed at, and impelled by the prospect of, nuclear terrorism, the most commonly embraced method by which it has been suggested that terrorists would be able to repeat, or even top, the destruction of 9/11. It was in 2004, in his influential book, Nuclear Terrorism — a work Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times found to be “terrifying” — that Harvard’s Graham Allison relayed his “considered judgment” that “on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than not.” Allison has had a great deal of company in his alarming pronouncements. For example, in 2007, the distinguished physicist Richard Garwin put the likelihood of a nuclear explosion on an American or European city by terrorist or other means at 20 percent per year, which would work out to 89 percent over a ten-year period. Allison’s time is up, and so, pretty much, is Garwin’s. And it is important to the point out that not only have terrorists failed to go nuclear, but in the words of William Langewiesche who has assessed the process in detail, “The best information is that no one has gotten anywhere near this. I mean, if you look carefully and practically at this process, you see that it is an enormous undertaking full of risks for the would-be terrorists.” In fact, terrorist groups seem thus far to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists on the issue, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. It is highly improbable that a would-be atomic terrorist would be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state because the donor could not control its use and because the ultimate source of the weapon might be discovered. Although there has been great worry about terrorists illicitly stealing or purchasing a nuclear weapon, it seems likely that neither “loose nukes” nor a market in illicit nuclear materials exists. Moreover, finished bombs have been outfitted with an array of locks and safety devices. There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were utterly to fail, collapsing in full disarray. However, even under those conditions, nuclear weapons would likely remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb would most likely end up going off in their own territory, would still have locks, and could probably be followed and hunted down by an alarmed international community. The most plausible route for terrorists would be to manufacture the device themselves from purloined materials. This task requires that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered in sequence. These include the effective recruitment of people who at once have great technical skills and will remain completely devoted to the cause. In addition, a host of corrupted co-conspirators, many of them foreign, must remain utterly reliable, international and local security services must be kept perpetually in the dark, and no curious outsider must get consequential wind of the project over the months or even years it takes to pull off. In addition, the financial costs of the operation could easily become monumental. Alarmism about the atomic terrorist has had its most damaging results when it has been linked with an alarmist perspective about nuclear proliferation. For decades during and after the Cold War, there has been almost wall-to-wall alarm about the dangers supposedly inherent in nuclear proliferation. This perspective has almost never undergone careful examination. In fact, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been far slower than has been commonly predicted over the decades primarily because the weapons do not generally convey much advantage to their possessor. And, more importantly, the effect of the proliferation that has taken place has been substantially benign: those who have acquired the weapons have “used” them simply to stoke their egos or to deter real or imagined threats. This holds even for the proliferation of the weapons to large, important countries run by unchallenged monsters who at the time they acquired the bombs were certifiably deranged: Josef Stalin who in 1949 was planning to change the climate of the Soviet Union by planting a lot of trees, and Mao Zedong who in 1964 had just carried out a bizarre social experiment that had resulted in artificial famine in which tens of millions of Chinese perished. Despite this experience, an aversion to nuclear proliferation continues to impel alarmed concern,

Novice Packet Files 148

and it was a chief motivator of the Iraq War which essentially was a militarized anti-proliferation effort in which fears that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, unlike all other nuclear states since 1945, might actually set off such weapons if he got them and/or that Saddam would give them to terrorists. The war that ensued proved to be a necessary cause of the deaths of more people than perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Novice Packet Files 149

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Consequentialist Impact Scenario Answers Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to

Novice Packet Files 150

feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.

Novice Packet Files 151

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Deontological Impact Scenario Answers Turn: CCP collapse would be good – it’s the only way to save the environment Richard Smith, December 31, 2015, Revolution or Collapse: China’s rise has come at horrific social and environmental cost, Infoshop News, excerpt from “China’s Communist-Capitalist Ecological Apocalypse” in Real World Economics Review, Dr. Richard Smith is an analyst at the Institute for Policy Research & Development - wrote his UCLA history Ph.D thesis on the contradictions of market reforms in China - At present he is completing a book on capitalist development and global ecological collapse, chapters of which have apeared as articles in the Journal of Ecological Economics, Capitalism Socialism Nature, and Real-World Economics Review, news.infoshop.org/asia/revolution-or-collapse

Revolution or collapse: One thing is certain: this locomotive is not going to be stopped so long as the Communist Party has its grip on the controls. The Chinese Communist Party is locked in a death spiral. It can’t rein in corruption because the party is built on corruption, thrives on corruption and can’t police itself. It can’t rein in ravenous resource consumption and suicidal pollution because, given its dependence on the market to generate new jobs, it has to prioritize growth over the environment like capitalist governments everywhere. It can’t even discipline its own subordinate officials to enforce and obey the government’s environmental, food and drug safety, building codes and similar laws because in this system subordinate officials aren’t necessarily subordinate and can often mobilize their family and guanxi-based backers to defend their interests and thwart Beijing. So long as this basic structural class/property arrangement remains in effect, no top-down “war on pollutions” or “war on corruption” is going to change this system or brake China’s trajectory to ecological collapse. Given the foregoing, I just don’t see how China’s spiral to collapse can be reversed short of social revolution.

Novice Packet Files 152

CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - Cyber Deontological Impact Scenario Answers – Impact Framing Environmental sustainability is a moral obligation Bill Klemm, 2003, Why Do We Have to Protect the Environment?, Environmental Protection, Dr. W. R. (Bill) Klemm is Senior Professor of Neuroscience & Professor of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences at Texas A&M university, peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/module_4/whyitmatters.htm The human species needs food and water. We need energy. But we also need to protect the ecosystem niches that make survival of our species possible. Beyond that, we need to protect the niches for other species too. Why do niches need protection? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Ecosystems are complicated. We have seen in these lessons that complexity grows as we move up the ladder from cells to organ systems to ecosystems. The history of our attempts to manipulate ecosystems shows that we often make mistakes and fail to see the unintended consequences of our actions. Rich ecosystems are those with many occupied niches. A change in any one niche is likely to affect other niches and their occupant species. Extinction is forever. We don't get a second chance. Environmental hazards are dangerous. Especially our lakes and oceans have become dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, oil and refinery products, industrial wastes, and heavy metals). Some of these toxins actually concentrate in food webs, such as mercury in fish. Moral obligation. Our species owes its existence to the living world that we share with other species. We owe the living world a chance to perpetuate the life-creating processes of natural selection, population dynamics, and exchange cycles. We can only pay this debt by protecting the environment.

Novice Packet Files 153

Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – Cyber Solvency Answers Turn: Sanctions solve – they’re our best tool Dmitri Alperovitch, September 25, 2015, U.S. – China Agreement on Cyber Intrusions: An Inflection Point, CrowdStrike Blog, Dmitri Alperovitch Co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovitch leads the Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. Alperovitch has invented 18 patented technologies and has conducted extensive research on reputation systems, spam detection, web security, public-key and identity-based cryptography, malware and intrusion detection/prevention. He is a renowned computer security researcher and thought leader on cybersecurity policies and state tradecraft. Alperovitch’s many honors include being selected as MIT Technology Review’s “Young Innovators under 35” (TR35) in 2013. He also was named Foreign Policy Magazine’s Leading Global Thinker for 2013 and received a Federal 100 Award for his information security contributions, www.crowdstrike.com/blog/cyber-agreement/

For years, I have argued for an aggressive trade sanctions approach to deter Chinese economic espionage against U.S. companies. Earlier this year, the Obama administration issued an unprecedented Executive Order 13694 which established a declaratory policy of the use of our global financial power to punish the perpetrators and beneficiaries of cyber intrusions of national consequence. When word leaked in recent weeks that the White House was seriously considering applying this new approach by instituting sanctions against some of the Chinese multinational companies which had benefited from these espionage operations, the Chinese responded instantly. Meng Jianzhu, a senior Politburo member and one of President Xi’s trusted lieutenants, was instantly dispatched with a large supporting delegation to Washington for urgent talks with very senior administration officials in an attempt to forestall the sanctions. This showed the vulnerability and deep concern of the Chinese leadership over such action and highlighted the opportunity for finally gaining leverage and upper hand in the negotiations to get them to dramatically scale back their state-sponsored intellectual property theft activities. And with today’s announcement, this real and very serious threat against Chinese economic concerns, when added to prior diplomatic, law enforcement, and private sector responses to China, appears to have altered President Xi’s calculus about the benefits of addressing the cybersecurity threat head-on, instead of with its head in the sand. Agreements are meaningless, however, without follow-through action and verification. Myself and the rest of the great team at CrowdStrike have been pioneers in highlighting and attributing the intrusions into Western companies from Chinese government-affiliated hackers, such as our report on the cyber activities of the 12th Bureau of the 3rd Department of General Staff (otherwise known as Putter Panda). My co- founder George Kurtz has written more on the issues of validating this agreement and how private sector can be of help. CrowdStrike will, of course, continue to monitor Chinese activities with our Falcon cloud-based endpoint technology that’s deployed globally across numerous companies in the financial, manufacturing, technology, defense, agriculture and other industries. This will provide us with unique visibility into whether China abides by the commitment they’ve expressed today, so we can let our clients know whether today truly can go down in history as the day cybersecurity turned the corner for the better. Only time will tell.

Novice Packet Files 154

Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – Cyber Net Benefit Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: We’re already in a trade war with china JON Connars, JUNE 7, 2016, The trade war with China is already here, Asia Times, Jon Connars is an investment risk analyst and researcher with an expertise in the ASEAN region who currently shuttles between Singapore and Bangkok, atimes.com/2016/06/the-trade- war-with-china-is-already-here/

Donald Trump’s threats to hit China with protectionist tariffs of up to 45% on the goods it ships to the US go down well with his supporters on the campaign trail, despite ruffling feathers among free marketeers within his own party. Experts and commentators are less impressed, suggesting The Donald’s proposed trade war could cost US jobs and potentially trigger a global downturn. What Trump and his opponents fail to acknowledge, however, is that the US is already engaged in a vicious trade battle with China centered on steel exports. China’s overproduction has decimated steel producers all over the world after the country upped its output from 128 million tons in 2000 to 822 million tons in 2014. American steel makers have already lost billions of dollars as a result of China dumping its steel exports on the US economy, while their counterparts in countries from Brazil to Britain have been left facing bankruptcy. Unsurprisingly, American and European steel mills are pushing their governments to take action. In the face of growing international pressure, Beijing has repeatedly promised to slow its steel output, but the numbers tell their own story. March saw the highest level of Chinese steel production in history. The China Iron & Steel Association revealed the country churned out 70.65 million tons in just that one month alone. Despite falling back in April overall, average daily production rose from 2.279 million tons to 2.314 million tons, another record high, according to Reuters.

Novice Packet Files 155

Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – Cyber Net Benefit Internal Link Answers No Internal Link: Sanctions won’t lead to a trade war

OREN Cass, June 23, 2014, Fight the Dragon, National Review, Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where he focuses on energy, the environment, and antipoverty policy. He was domestic policy director of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2011–12. In that role, Cass shaped campaign policy and communication on issues from health care to energy to trade, www.nationalreview.com/article/380960/fight-dragon-oren-cass

Fortunately, today’s challenge differs from a prisoner’s dilemma in one important respect: Rather than choosing a strategy once and living with the consequences, the players are in a “repeated game.” The United States need not allow itself to be taken advantage of forever, or assume that China and its followers are irrevocably committed to their course. To the contrary, America and her allies have the opportunity to make clear that they will no longer play on these terms, that they would rather take their ball and go home than continue to compete on a tilted playing field, and that it is the cheaters who must decide whether they will finally comply with the rules or be ejected from the game. Forcing such a decision is not “starting a trade war” any more than committing to the defense of one’s borders constitutes an invasion. Indeed, far from being protectionist, threatening nations like China with severe trade sanctions is critical to ensuring a prosperous future for the global economy.

Novice Packet Files 156

Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – Cyber Net Benefit Impact Answers Any trade war would be temporary – other tariffs prove Josh Tolley, March 7, 2016, ROMNEY'S WRONGHEADED 'TRADE WAR' SCARE Exclusive: Josh Tolley rebuts Mitt's claims about Trump's economic policies, WND, Josh Tolley is a nationally syndicated talk-show host, Top 100 business trainer and author of the book “Evangelpreneur: How Biblical Free Enterprise Empowers Faith Family and Freedom.”, www.wnd.com/2016/03/romneys-wrongheaded-trade- war-scare/, card edited for triggering language

Mitt believes that if America implements a tariff (which was used in America prior to 1913 and allowed all American’s to keep all of their income due to tariffs paying for the government’s operation), then our trading partners would stop trading with us or charge us tariffs in return. Mr. Romney hopes that by bringing up tariffs you, the American voter, will think that other countries will treat us poorly, because tariffs must be mean-spirited fines. What Mr. Romney fails to realize is that you, the American voter, are smart enough to know that over 70 countries we already trade with have tariffs themselves, yet we are not in a “trade war” with them, nor are they in a trade war with each other. Would it be possible that if we raised the tariff to 35 percent, as Mr. Trump proposed, it may anger a couple of our trading partners that currently take advantage of us? Possibly, but only temporarily. The reality is that the United States of America is still the largest economy in the world, and everyone wants access to this country’s customer base because of that. International- based companies know this fact and will charge a premium for their products to off-set the tariff. Any “trade war” would be more of a “trade tantrum” because they will have lost the ability to raid and pillage the largest economy in the world.

Novice Packet Files 157

Topicality Answers – Cyber 2AC shell 1. We meet: The PRC does the hacking on behalf of State Owned Enterprises – retaliation is against the PRC Richard Bejtlich, May 19, 2014, DOJ INDICTS CHINESE MILITARY HACKERS: FIRST IMPRESSIONS, Fire Eye, Richard Bejtlich is Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. Bejtlich’s research focuses on integrating strategic thought into private sector cyber defense, https://www.fireeye.com/blog/executive-perspective/2014/05/doj-indicts-chinese-military-hackers-first- impressions.html

Today, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) took actions previously unseen in the world of computer security. The press release announcing the activity noted the following: “A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania (WDPA) indicted five Chinese military hackers for computer hacking, economic espionage and other offenses directed at six American victims in the U.S. nuclear power, metals and solar products industries.” The accompanying indictment begins with the following excerpt: “From at least in or about 2006 up to and including at least in our about April 2014, members of the People’s Liberation Army (“PLA”), the military of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), conspired together and with each other to hack into the computers of commercial entities in the Western District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States.” These two sentences are packed with meaning for anyone who has been working to counter the Chinese digital threat, either within, or on behalf of, victim organizations. First, the indictment zeroes in on the military aspect of the threat. DoJ isn’t talking about nebulous “Chinese hackers,” perhaps working as contractors for hire. These are PLA troops, some of whom are pictured in the indictment wearing their uniforms. Second, these sentences confirm the temporal span of the activity, roughly an eight year period. This is a sustained, persistent, resourced campaign. Third, they emphasize economic espionage against commercial American targets, not targets in the US military or intelligence communities. The US government has always been clear that it will not tolerate Chinese hacking to financially and scientifically accelerate Chinese economic growth. For those of us who worked on exposing this threat over the years, the indictment contains many other relevant details. We read that the five defendants “worked together and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury for the PLA’s General Staff, Third Department (“3PLA”), a signals intelligence component of the PLA, in a Unit known by the Military Unit Code Designator 61398 (“Unit 61398”), and in the vicinity of 208 Datong Road, Pudong District, Shanghai, China.” This is exactly the same unit, designation, and location identified in the 2013 Mandiant report,APT1: Exposing One of China's Cyber Espionage Units. This statement is the first open, unclassified, official confirmation of the core attribution element in the Mandiant report. It shows that APT1 aka United 61398 aka the Second Bureau of the Third Department of the General Staff Directorate of the PLA is a threat to US economic and security interests. There are many other aspects of the indictment that I find fascinating, but in the interest of time I will mention one other. Paragraph four states the following: “During the period relevant to this Indictment, Chinese firms hired the same PLA Unit where the defendants worked to provide information technology services. For example, one SOE involved in trade litigation against some of the American victims mentioned herein hired the Unit, and one of the co- conspirators charged herein, to build a ‘secret’ database to hold corporate ‘intelligence.’” This is a remarkable statement, because it may answer one of the burning questions those of us analyzing the problem have often asked: how does stolen Western data pass from the Chinese military to the Chinese private sector? According to the indictment, a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) simply hires Unit 61398 to provide IT services, and the military hackers leave the “intelligence” behind in a “database” for the benefit of the SOE.

Novice Packet Files 158

2. Counter standards: a. Fairness: They still get their PRC links because we interact with the PRC and with the agents it uses to hack the US. That means we preserve the core ground they want and actually give them more ground for links and arguments. Make them specifically prove what they have lost in order to vote for them. b. Education: Our plan engages the core of the topic which is the economic and political disagreements with China. IP theft is core to both of those disputes and affects our everyday lives – that means we preserve key resolution education with our plan. Learning about different areas of problems as well as specific mechanisms to solve is key to being an informed and effective decision-maker. c. Extra Topicality: Plan does not do more than the resolution calls for – the plan engages individuals in the PRC, companies who are owned by the PRC, and the government of the PRC itself. That is how the government is structured in China, which means we’re not extra topical. 3. Voters: We meet their interpretation of topicality and preserve a meaningful, balanced debate. They still have plenty of arguments against us and there is symmetry in the debate – no abuse here.

Novice Packet Files 159

Topicality Answers – Cyber 1AR ‘We Meet’ Extension State Owned Enterprises are part of the PRC Daniel T. Murphy, 2012, Demystifying China: Understanding China’s State-Owned Enterprises, Republk blog, Dan Murphy is Business Development Director at ATI he was also previously Vice President on the Project Development Middle East and India at Alcoa & Senior Vice President of the Business Development Alcoa Defense at Alcoa,https://republkusa.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/demystifying-chinas-state- owned-enterprises/

In pillar industries, the state will seek to maintain a controlling stake. The PRC may take a minority share or no share at all, in individual companies in the pillar industries. The automotive industry is an example of a pillar industry. In addition, the government has also developed a “national champion” strategy for certain emerging industries that require large investments of capital, and will have longer-term returns-on-investment – For example, high speed rail and aviation industries. There are four ownership types of state-owned enterprises: (a) Some enterprises are fully owned by the state through the State-owned Assets and Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) of the State Council and by SASACs of provincial, municipal, and county governments. (b) Some enterprises are majority owners of enterprises not officially considered SOEs but effectively controlled by their SOE owners. (c) Some entities are owned and controlled indirectly through SOE subsidiaries based inside and outside of China (The actual size of this group is unknown). (d) And finally, there are urban collective enterprises and government-owned township and village enterprises (TVEs) that also belong to the state sector but are not considered SOEs.

Novice Packet Files 176

Convention on the Rights of the Child Affirmative

Novice Packet Files 177

Plan text - CRC As a reaction to diplomatic pressure from the Peoples Republic of China the USFG should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty

Novice Packet Files 178

Inherency - CRC US is the only country to not ratify the CRC– no legislation to start that process either Rebecca McCloskey, January 8, 2016, The U.S. Will Soon Stand Alone: U.S. Failure to Ratify the CRC Fails Our Children, Social Justice Solutions, Rebecca McCloskey is a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's in Social Work, www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2016/01/08/u- s-will-soon-stand-alone-u-s-failure-ratify-crc-fails-children/

To date, there are just two UN member nations who have not yet ratified the CRC – South Sudan and the United States of America. It should be noted, however, that South Sudan only became an independent country and joined the UN less than five years ago and it has since passed a bill to move toward ratification (http://www.unicef.org/southsudan/media_ratification-CRC.html). While the United States was one of the primary contributors toward drafting this document, it has never made efforts toward ratifying it. Soon, the United States will be the only UN member country who has not ratified this child and family focused human rights treaty. The only one! Years ago while campaigning, President Obama said this was embarrassing and that he would review this, but there’s been no momentum toward doing so.

Novice Packet Files 179

Inherency - CRC The US is the only nation to not ratify the CRC MARTHA Middleton, MAR 01, 2016, ABA adds its voice to calls for the US to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ABA Journal, MARTHA MIDDLETON is a reporter for the American Bar Association journal, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/aba_adds_its_voice_to_calls_for_the_us_to_ratify_the_convention_on_the_righ

The Convention on the Rights of the Child reached an important milestone in 2015, when Somalia and South Sudan completed the ratification process. Their actions leave only one of the 197 member states and parties of the United Nations as a holdout against ratifying the treaty: the United States. The CRC was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1989 and went into force in 1990 after being ratified initially by 20 countries. According to the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child based in New York City, the CRC has become the most widely ratified international treaty in history, and only the U.S. government’s inaction is keeping the convention from becoming the first-ever universally ratified human rights treaty.

Novice Packet Files 180

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Uniqueness CRC non-ratification kills US human rights promotion credibility Beatriz Pérez de las Heras, June 2015, EU and US External Policies on Human Rights and Democracy Promotion: Assessing Political Conditionality in Transatlantic Partnership, ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS Vol. 15, No. 2, Beatriz Pérez de las Heras is Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in European Integration at the University of Deusto (UD) (Bilbao, Spain). She is Main Researcher of the ‘European Integration’ research team and Academic Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence on European Union Law and International Relations at the UD, rjea.ier.ro/sites/rjea.ier.ro/files/articole/RJEA_2015_vol15_no2_art5.pdf

Promotion of democracy and human rights has traditionally been one of the core elements of US foreign policy, though human rights have usually occupied a more modest position than in EU policy. Indeed, the American approach to human rights promotion abroad has been controversial, given that the US has yet to ratify several of the most important international instruments. So, for example, since 1974 the US General System of Preferences has linked the granting of trade preferences to the development of internationally-recognized labour rights in developing countries, despite the fact that the US has not ratified all the fundamental International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. Its reluctance to sign up to these and other binding international treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture among others, has undermined US legitimacy in advancing human rights abroad (Bradley, 2010)

Novice Packet Files 181

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Uniqueness US ‘walking the walk’ is key to human rights promotion John Kerry as reported by CNN ireport, August 15, 2015, The US Will Investigate Its Own Human Rights Abuses After Admitting to Hypocrisy After Pressing Cuba on their Abuses, CNN, John Kerry is a decorated war hero, former presidential candidate, and former secretary of state, ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1264165

US Secretary of State John Kerry says, “Yes, the U.S. will press Cuba on human rights- but quickly added that he will be meeting with top level cabinet members in the Obama Administrators and with Human Rights Watch to discuss ways to address the United States’ own human rights abuses and hypocrisy. “Addressing our own hypocrisy is important. We call out China, North Korea, Iran, and many other countries for their human rights abuses. When the US points out other countries’ human rights abuses and then fails to address our own abuses, well, we lose credibility. When we bring those issues up during talks with other World leaders, their eyes glaze over and we can see they just aren’t buying it. We need to start ‘walking the walk’ rather than just ‘talking the talk’. Simply paying the whole idea of human rights abuses ‘lip service’ isn’t getting us anywhere.” Kerry said it was ‘high time’ that the US faced the World’s criticism over our own abuses of human rights, here, in the United States and in every country where the US has abused the rights of their citizens.

Novice Packet Files 182

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Impact Human rights promotion is key to economic and social prosperity Shruti Banerjee, June 10, 2015, Human rights and U.S. foreign policy: history, funding, data and action, Rights Wire (The Human RIghts Blog of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice), Shruti Banerjee is a Staff Writer for Rights Wire, https://rightswireblog.org/2015/06/10/human-rights-and-u-s-foreign-policy-history-funding-data-and-action/ In order to effectively promote human rights abroad, the U.S. needs to start by complying with human rights laws while actively promoting their implementation abroad. This requires making human rights a fundamental part of our foreign policy through rhetoric, political pressure and funding. More specifically, we must view human rights not solely as a moral or religious obligation, but as a fundamental tool to increase peace, security and economic prosperity around the world. In their book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson found that more equal societies with less violence have a greater overall quality of life, not just for poor people, but for all income classes. Wilkinson and Pickett’s analysis can be extended to the international community: We can achieve greater economic and social prosperity in our own country by abiding by human rights laws and promoting equality abroad.

Novice Packet Files 183

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Impact Human rights promotion is necessary for the good of all human beings Mohammed Yeasin Khan, October 2007, Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for Peace and Development, Calamus International University, Mohammed Yeasin Khan LLB Honours, LLM, PhD, PGDL, Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn, England) is a Journalist, Poet and Rhyme Writer, Founder Editor of Weekly Deshdarpan, an Appellate Division Lawyer of Bangladesh Supreme Court (Advocate-on-Record)/ Jurist, Educationist and an Adjunct Professor of Law of a London based University Faculty. He performs his continuous philosophical studies and research works being based in England and Bangladesh simultaneously. In his PhD thesis ‘Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for Peace and Development’ he recommended a new doctrine of world peace: ‘The Man for Man Theory of World Peace.’ He is Founder & President of Bangladesh Legal Rights Association and Man for Man International Foundation, humanrights.wikia.com/wiki/Protection_and_Promotion_of_Human_Rights_for_Peace_and_Development The very needs for protection and promotion of human rights are mirrored in the definition and concept of the same. Connoting the word ‘human’ as ‘things relating to man or mankind’ and the word ‘right’ as ‘legal claim’ the words ‘human rights’ universally stand as ‘legal claim of man or mankind’[1] irrespective of gender, colour, race and religion. These rights being fundamental requirements for existence of human beings are associated with the very birth of mankind[2] and according to the United Nations publication, could be generally defined as inherent rights in human nature without which none can live as a human being.[3] All human beings are entitled to the basic human rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression and thought, equal protection of law and so many others which entitles every individual or groups vis-à-vis the government and also requires responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities.[4] Irrespective of race, religion, colour or gender such rights being natural are neither earned nor could be denied and are protected by rules of law [5] and being treated as legal rights as distinct from and prior to law to be used as standards for formulation of both national and international law so that the conduct of government and military forces also strictly comply with such standards.[6] Generally, it is believed, “the concept of international protection of human rights is firmly established in international human rights law.”[7] Enjoying the status of International Law, human rights, as contained in the Charter of the United Nations and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the international and national standard of all aspects of the human behaviour as the Charter of Rights for mankind and any of their violation anywhere is the concern of everybody everywhere which view has also been confirmed by the world conference on Human Rights in the Vienna Declaration 1993 that the human rights are universal, invisible, interdependent and interrelated and when enacted into the national law of any country those become fundamental rights of the citizen of the country.[8]

Novice Packet Files 184

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Impact Framing (Impact framing) Human rights promotion is a moral obligation Ties Dams & Frans Paul van der Putten, December 2015, China and Liberal Values in International Relations, Clingendael Netherlands Institue of International Relations, Ties Dams has a Master’s degree in political theory from University College London, and contributed to this article during an internship at Clingendael Institute. Frans Paul van der Putten is a senior researcher at the Clingendael Institute, www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/China_and_Liberal_Values_in_International_Relations.pdf As a result of the US-led drive to promote democracy and human rights as global values, the concepts of ‘universal human rights’ and (more recently) the ‘responsibility to protect’ became prevalent in international political discourse. These norms have become institutionalized in bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and they give the international community in certain situations not only the formal right, but even the moral obligation, to interfere in the affairs of another sovereign nation-state.13 This seems to contradict with Westphalian norms of sovereignty.

Novice Packet Files 185

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Solvency China really wants the US to ratify the CRC – would boost credibility Xinhua News Service, April 14, 2016, Full text: Human Rights Record of the United States in 2015, Xinhua is the official media outlet of mainland China and the PRC, news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2016-04/14/c_135278868_7.htm Though the United States repeatedly vowed to defend "human rights," it still has not ratified core human rights conventions of the UN, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The United States is the only country that is yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States also takes an uncooperative attitude towards international human rights issues. It often kept stalling or turned a deaf ear to criticisms leveled by the UN Human Rights Council special sessions and High Commissioners for Human Rights. On September 28, 2015 when the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution related to development right, the United States, as always, voted against it (www.un.org).

Novice Packet Files 186

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Solvency Ratifying the CRC restores human rights credibility Rachel Roderick, September 2, 2015, The U.S.’ Puzzling Refusal to Ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Youth Today, Rachel Roderick, who has a master's degree in human resources and labor relations, is an education advocate and literacy coach for students of all ages. She is currently conducting research on how the Convention on the Rights of the Child has impacted international juvenile justice practices, https://youthtoday.org/2015/09/the-u-s-s-puzzling-refusal-to-ratify-the-u-n-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child/

It is not as if the U.S. maintains a general policy of opting out of international treaties. The U.S. has signed and ratified five of the U.N.’s 18 International Human Rights Treaties, though this is fewer than Iran, Iraq and China — and on par with North Korea. Meanwhile, the U.S. does not hesitate to point a judgmental finger at others for the treatment of their citizens. In March, for example, CIA Director John Brennan said, “Human rights abuses, whether they take place on the part of ISIL or of militias or individuals who are working as part of formal security services, need to be exposed, need to be stopped.” This, despite the fact that the CIA itself had recently been the subject of a lengthy human-rights investigation. "The U.S. government is not given to honest self-reflection about its own or its allies’ human rights abuses," responded Katherine Hawkins, one of the investigators. When we can stand up in the court of world opinion as a shining example of respect for and protection of human rights, particularly the rights of children, our national voice will hold greater weight when we decry the shortcomings of others. Please contact your congressional leaders to request their support in ratifying the Convention to protect the rights of children across the country and around the world.

Novice Packet Files 187

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Solvency US ratification of the CRC is key to human rights promotion Katie Hatziavramidis, 2005, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS FOR ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: CAN INTERNATIONAL LAW SECURE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR MINORS?, Texas Journal of Women and the Law volume 16, Katie Hatziavramidis is a lawyer in Illinois working for Chicago Volunteer Legal Services, she graduated from University of North Texas Law School in 2005 and was a former national debater, http://tjwgl.law.utexas.edu/archives/vol_16-2.html

Perhaps the most promising result of U.S, ratification of the CRC is the possibility for international modeling. If the United States were to support the treaty and interpret its language in a manner that protects adolescent autonomy in reproductive decisions, other States would be likely to follow,""' Although all the U.N. member States have signed the Convention and either ratified or promised to ratify it, the way they interpret its language is not uniform. As a world leader and the most influential member of the United Nations, the United States is in an excellent position to encourage other nations to follow its initiatives, particularly with respect to international law, A broad interpretation of the CRC by the United States, coupled with ratification, might encourage other nations to liberalize their anti-choice policies, affording minors increased protection on a global scale, '"^ In turn, this commitment to align our nation's policies with those of the other CRC signatories could forge ties that could spill over into other areas, thereby increasing U,S, credibility in the international arena. Many scholars have noted that cooperative multilateral participation often boosts a nation's influence and leadership and increases relations between States,'''^ Treaties have long been regarded as a critical component of multilateralism, and our acquiescence to the CRC would undoubtedly improve a multilateral agenda. '

Novice Packet Files 188

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Uniqueness There is a strong, prevalent bias of adultism in the US Adam Fletcher, January 7, 2016, Discrimination Against Youth Voice, The Freechild Project, Adam Fletcher is an advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as "perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy studies, https://freechild.org/discrimination-against-youth-voice/

Any honest conversation about Youth Voice must address the challenges that young people and adult allies face when they work to engage children and youth throughout our communities. By their very existence, Youth Voice programs are made to respond to these challenges; ignoring them is not being honest about the purpose of Youth Voice. Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia… the list of challenges facing young people is enormous. However, one of the core challenges is a common experience that all people face early in their lives. That challenge is discrimination against children and youth. Discrimination occurs anytime one thing is chosen before something else. That is often a good thing – otherwise, why wouldn’t we all steal our food instead of growing it or buying it? We all discriminate everyday. However, discrimination often excludes people because of false bias or prejudice. Discrimination against children and youth is caused by the bias adults have for other adults that causes them to discriminate against young people. Bias for adults is called adultism. When something is based on adultism, it is called adultcentrism. While adultism is sometimes appropriate, adultcentrism is often inappropriate. Compulsory education can force students to disengage from the love of learning. Youth development programs can force youth to disconnect from adults. Almost every activity that is for young people is decided upon, developed, assessed and redeveloped without young people. That is adultcentrism. Language, programs, teaching styles, and all relationships between young people and adults are adultcentric. The most “youth-friendly” adults are often adultist, assuming that youth need them – which, while it may be true, is still centered on adult perspectives. Adultism is not always harmful – but adultism is always real. Adultism leads to a phenomenon of “little adults” – young people who are “adults-in-the-making”, rather than children and youth today. Adultcentrism leads to manipulating and tokenizing young people through Youth Voice activities. Despite the intention, that process often further disengages young people! Adultism exists for a lot of reasons, including beliefs about the abilities of young people, roles of different people throughout society, and the nature of society. Those beliefs have sometimes lead to the fear of children, called pedophobia, and the fear of youth, called ephebiphobia. These fears drive much of society to segregate young people from adults, demonize youth in the media, and ostracize children from elders. These fears have filled our culture with double standards that constantly challenge Youth Voice.

Novice Packet Files 189

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Uniqueness Adultism is rampant in society – in both institutions and individuals Kel Kray, February 7, 2015, Adults Just Don’t Understand: Checking Out Our Everyday Adultism, Everyday Feminism Magazine, Kel Kray is a fiercely friendly social justice warrior who spends their days advocating with and on behalf of queer youth at an LGBTQIA+ youth center in Philly. A firm believer in the transformative power of dialogue, Kel coordinates a youth-driven education and training program that facilitates community workshops on gender and sexuality with an intersectional lens. A righteous product of the Midbest, Kel earned a Bachelor of Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Master of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/everyday-adultism/

Realizing Our Everyday Adultism: You’ve heard it before: “Youth are the future.” If that’s true, why don’t we stand in deference to their expertise? We’re socialized to understand adultism as natural because of the supports we need as youth. It’s undeniable that adult guidance is emotionally, socially, and physiologically necessary. But it’s when adult power and privilege over enters the game that we get into adultism territory. Still unsure what this means? Let’s check out some of the most common ways adultism rears its head. First, the Institutional: It’s in Our Walls. As with other systems of oppression, adultism relies on institutional support to pump it into and throughout our lives. You can find it embedded in schools, social service systems, government, and culture. Schools adopt zero tolerance policies that push youth out of the classroom through suspension for minor infractions. Child welfare organizations place youth in inappropriate foster homes without their consent. Stop and frisk policies encourage law enforcement to profile youth as criminals. Legislation bars youth from the right to learn empowering information. Youth are denied the right to make medical decisions for themselves. Burned out staff in youth nonprofits devalue youth participants. Media depicts youth as violent, hypersexed, disrespectful, and disengaged. The list goes on. No, the individuals working within these institutions aren’t all bad. Nor are the intentions of the institutions themselves. The trouble is that they are built on the adultist assumption that a 14-year-old can’t inherently know their own developmental needs. Because of this, the 14-year-old’s right to self- determine within these institutions is often limited, if not entirely wiped out. (Sidebar: At the same time as these institutions remove youth rights, many of them “adultify” youth (specifically youth of color) when it comes to youths’ responsibilities, like by trying youth as adults and sending youth to adult prisons. For more on this, check out this article by the Campaign for Youth Justice.) In Addition to the Institutional, It’s the Individual: It’s in Our Words. Weaving through our subconscious, adultism seeps into our everyday interactions with youth. Pay close attention for an hour – anywhere – and you’ll hear it. It pops up not just between parent and child, but teacher and student, youth worker and program participant, store clerk and patron, youth and youth, adult and adult. Adultism is often neatly packaged in a microaggression: a subtle, everyday exchange that communicates to members of a marginalized group that they are undervalued and undesirable. Adultist microaggressions are so broadly accepted as normal that I can easily recall 1) being enraged as a youth hearing them; but 2) repeating them as an adult without thinking twice. How many of the following have you heard…in the last week? Silencing “You’re not old enough.” “You can make decisions for yourself when you’re an adult.” “It’s good for you!” Diminishing Experiences “It’s just a stage – you’ll grow out of it.” “Oh, teenage love.” “It’s the hormones.” “It gets better.” Providing Empty Leadership Experiences “Come to this youth event – there will be pizza!” Holding to a Different Standard “You’re so smart for your age!” “But you’re so young!” Stereotyping “Stop being so childish.” “Ugh. I can’t stand kids.” Sounds familiar, right? Adultism Ends Up Hurting Us All The consequences of adultism parallel its use: They’re institutional and individual. When our institutions are designed under adultism, they’re designed to fail youth. We create rigid programming that doesn’t honor the lived realities of youth, we use didactic education styles that don’t engage youth participation, and we create punitive structures

Novice Packet Files 190 that limit the capacity of youth to take genuine leadership. Individually, adultism leads to many of the consequences we associate with “being a teenager”: anxiety and depression, a sense of worthlessness, feeling alone, acting in or acting out to be heard, and the displacement of powerlessness onto peers (also known as bullying). And it hurts adults, too because — well — we never really get to know youth.

Novice Packet Files 191

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Impact Internalizing the oppression of adultism makes other types of oppression more harmful and likely Heike Fahrun, Eliza Skowron, & Nils-Eyk Zimmermann, Apr 14, 2015, Diversity Dynamics: Activating the Potential of Diversity in Trainings, German Federal Foreign Office, Heike Fahrun is a freelance trainer in youth and adult education, working primarily in the international field. Her focus is on project management in the non profit-sector, train-the-trainer, and intercultural/diversity learning. Eliza Skowron is a co-founder of Working Between Cultures and a trainer. She works with diverse groups around the globe, primarily on the issues of Intercultural Competence with an Anti-Bias Approach and Constructive Communication. Nils-Eyk Zimmermann is a program manager at the MitOst Association. He coordinates programs in the field of active citizenship and is an expert in civil society and non-formal learning, www.theodor-heuss-kolleg.de/data/user/flipbooks/Diversity/dynamics_screen_2015/Diversity_dynamics_screen_2015.pdf Adultism and ageism are two forms of discrimination connected to how we think about age. It is important to mention that age is a social construction: what we define as ‘young’ and ‘old’ differ, for example, among different European societies (Eurobarometer 378 on “active aging” 1 ). The status that age has as well as the descriptors ‘old’ and ‘young’ reveal the power of definition – these societal categories determine whether a person is too old or too young. Adultism can be defined as the systematic mistreatment of young people on the basis of their youth, including negative attitudes or behaviors towards them, or denying them power, privilege, and participation on the basis of age. Adultistic behavior includes the assumption “that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without their agreement” (John Bell). Adultism is the first kind of discrimination, which almost everyone experiences from early childhood on. The internalized oppression we learn from adultistic attitudes makes us accept (in most cases unconsciously) various kinds of discrimination in later life, such as racism, ethnocentrism, or sexism.

Novice Packet Files 192

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Impact Adultism is dehumanizing James St. James, March 27, 2016, 7 Harmful Ways Parents Often Wield Adultism Against Their Kids, Everyday Feminism Magazine, James St James is a contributor at Everyday Feminism and has been published on several other social justice publications, everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/adultism-real-serious-problem/ Children have as many human rights as you do. Just because they’re miniature doesn’t somehow make them less than worthy. If this doesn’t make sense to you, I suggest you start back up at the top of the article. Most adultists distract from the issue of adultism by arguing about who has inherent ownership of a child: the (genetic) parent or the government. Governmental ownership, some adultists argue, is damaging to both children and families. Yup. It most certainly can be. But it’s not because public schools have a children’s book about two gay dads available in the library; it’s because children aren’t supposed to be owned at all. Children are supposed to be cared for. Children are not meant to be vehicles for one’s personal or political agenda, no matter how noble you feel your views are. Once you swap your argument of your child’s rights to your ownership of your child, we have a serious problem. Ownership of a fellow human creates dehumanization of that fellow human. By “owning” your child, your child does not somehow now have more rights. It just means you have more right to tell them what to do. The argument against adultism isn’t who has the right to own a child. The argument is children have the right to not be owned at all. The focus needs to be on care, not ownership. This is not parenting advice. This is how-to-not-destroy-another-living-creature advice. This is how-to-treat- humans-with-kindness-and-respect-by-starting-in-the-home advice. Understanding this difference is a massive first step in viewing your child as—well—human.

Novice Packet Files 193

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Impact Framing Dehumanization destroys the value to life and outweighs all calculable impacts David M. Berube 1997, “NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,” NanoTechnology Magazine, 3:5, June-July, 1997, 1-6, David Berube is Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina, http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.html

This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

Novice Packet Files 194

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Solvency CRC establishes moral standing and rights for children in themselves María del Carmen-Barranco Avilés, December 2015, HUMAN RIGHTS AND VULNERABILITY. EXAMPLES OF SEXISM AND AGEISM, The Age of Human Rights Journal number 5, she is Doctor of Law from the Carlos III University of Madrid since 1999. Since 2003, she currently is Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University, where she also holds the position of Associate Dean law and Political Science and Administration.In these two universities she has taught at undergraduate and graduate Theory of Law, Philosophy of Law, Fundamental Rights and Legal Reasoning, http://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/article/view/2717

For the liberal conception of law and rights, minors are incapable (Fanlo, 2004, p.8) and the consequences are, mainly of patrimonial type. The minor acts in the economic traffic by representation. In this approach, there is only one subject of law and the capacity, related with age, is acquired also in a specific moment. Children’s rights do not exist because rights are assigned to men and citizens. Children may have attributed formally the same rights as adults, however, from this liberal reflection, they are incomplete human beings, as women and persons with disabilities were, because they are not autonomous. Again there is a natural circumstance that affects the possibility of giving the children the same treatment as adults. In the relevant circumstance for the attribution of rights, the legal age, is not equal to adults, for this reason, it is not an exception to the equality principle that children cannot exercise many of their rights by themselves or in relation to others (as political rights) as they do not even have conferred ownership. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 29 November 1989, constituting the first legal-international instrument in this matter of binding nature and, also, adopting a starting point that is very different from that of other documents about children, because in this context we find an express reference to the child as a holder of rights. Effectively, within the Convention, a child’s rights are not rights of the adult he will become in the future, but rights that take into account, on the one hand, the specific circumstances affecting children and, on the other hand, that children are worthy as children (and not as potential adults), therefore, it is important to implement rights that take into account these differences to avoid children being treated as mere means11. It has been already pointed out that this is an important aspect from the point of view of the history of rights, because it implies the incorporation of a diversified image of the rights’ holder to positive law of human rights.

Novice Packet Files 195

Identity politics Advantage - CRC Solvency Ratifying the CRC would solve ANTHONY Lake, November 2014, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, EQUITY AND OUR COMMON FUTURE, 25 Years of the Convenction on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, Anthony Lake is the Executive Director of UNICEF, www.unicef.org/publications/files/CRC_at_25_Anniversary_Publication_compilation_5Nov2014.pdf Throughout history, the advance of civilization has been closely tied to the idea that all people have rights: universal, inalienable entitlements to freedom, dignity and security, to be treated fairly and to live free from oppression. The health and soul of all societies depend on how these human rights are recognized – and acted upon. But until the Convention on the Rights of the Child was conceived and adopted 25 years ago, the rights of the world’s youngest citizens were not explicitly recognized by any international treaty, nor was there acknowledgement of the fundamental connection between the well-being of children and the strength of their societies. This is why the Convention was such an important milestone – and why the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary challenges us all to find new ways of pursuing its universal mandate for every child, as the global community charts its course for the post-Millennium Development Goals period. The Convention articulated, for the first time, that children also possess innate rights, equal to those of adults: rights to health, to education, to protection and to equal opportunity – without regard to gender, economic status, ethnicity, religious belief, disability or geographical location. And, in conformance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention unequivocally recognizes that these rights are “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” But a recognized right is not necessarily an executed right. Children’s rights are brought to life not through pronouncements, but through sustained political commitment. A society’s strength is secured not through good intentions, but through strategic investments. And social change is achieved not only through powerful words, but also through the action such words can inspire. For without action – and the results only action can achieve – the best aspirations codified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child remain only words on paper.

Novice Packet Files 196

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique Trump will win – politicians and pollsters have a cognitive bias against counting Trump’s massive amount of supporters Leon Neyfakh, January 25 2016, How Nate Silver Missed Donald Trump, Slate Magazine, Leon Neyfakh is a reporter Slate, formerly at the Boston Globe and has written for the New York Observer, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html

Instead, the rise of Trump might have demonstrated the limits of Silver’s powers. As Dave Weigel wrote in the Washington Post recently, Trump’s enormous popularity—a tidal wave of support that Silver has said will soon abate—has been the story of the campaign. In his piece, Weigel argued that it wasn’t the first time a primary bid turned out to signal a major shift in the political winds, from the campaign of George Wallace in 1964, which Weigel said represented “a historic moment in the politics of backlash,” to that of Pat Robertson in 1988, which “cemented the influence of the religious right in Republican electoral politics.” While none of those candidates won their party’s nomination, it would have been irresponsible for the media to ignore the significance of their campaigns, as Silver has encouraged his audience, and the press, to do with Trump. While it’s true that “the rise of Trump” may not end with Trump becoming the nominee, it has revealed, or perhaps even caused, a profound shift in the nation’s political climate. As Kornacki put it to me, “It took Donald Trump saying all this stuff”—floating the idea of denying Muslims entry into the United States, for instance—“to reveal there was a massive constituency for it.” Missing the significance of Trumpism is a different kind of failure than, say, calling the 2012 election for Mitt Romney. It also might be a more damning one. Botching your general election forecast by a couple of percentage points suggests a flawed mathematical formula. Actively denying the reality of Trump’s success suggests Silver may never have been capable of explaining the world in a way so many believed he could in 2008 and 2012, when he was telling them how likely it was that Obama would become, and remain, the president. “This is an extraordinary, unusual, utterly bizarre election year, in which events that have never happened before are happening,” says Blake Zeff, the editor of the political news site Cafe and a former campaign aide to Obama and Hillary Clinton. “That’s a nightmare scenario for a projection model that is predicated on historical trends.” While Zeff cautioned it was premature to pillory Silver for missing out on Trumpism, the point stands: What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today, and that’s a problem for Silver and his team of prognosticators.

Novice Packet Files 197

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: Your pollster predictions are wrong – bias in their thinking leads to bias in the polls and models – Trump will stump them all James Taranto, June 29, 2016, Unthinkability Bias, The Wall Street Journal, James Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com and author of its popular Best of the Web Today column. In August 2007 he was named a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, www.wsj.com/articles/unthinkability-bias-1467221228

Donald Trump has only about a 20% chance of being elected president, according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics, andElectionBettingOdds.com, a site that tracks odds from the British bookmaker Betfair.com. What does that mean, a 20% chance? ABC News titles the Silver story “FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump,” but Trende tries to explain that’s an oversimplification: When I say Trump probably has a 20 percent chance of winning . . ., I really mean that if you ran this election 100 times, Trump would win 20 of them. That isn’t an “outside shot.” As my colleague David Byler noted over the weekend, if you toss a coin twice and get a head, then a tail, an outcome with just a 25 percent chance of happening just occurred. Or as Emory University political scientist Drew Linzer observed, the probability of Brexit occurring, according to betting markets, was as low as 10 percent, while the chances of the Cavs winning the NBA championship fell to five percent at one point. But the coin-flip analogy is deceptive: Assuming an unloaded coin, the probabilities for any series of flips are a matter of pure math. In a complex and unpredictable system like a political outcome or a sports championship, they’re mostly guesswork. And Trende defines an abstraction (a 20% probability) in terms of a scenario (running the election 100 times) that sounds more concrete but actually is less so. There is no such thing as rerunning an election. (Even if there were multiple votes, they’d be conducted under different circumstances.) The FiveThirtyEight and ElectionBettingOdds methods seem to generate probabilities without guesswork, but that’s deceptive too. FiveThirtyEight runs multiple election simulations according to a model that builds in certain constants, variables and allowances for randomness, so that the guesswork is at the front end. If those assumptions are biased, the results will be, too. ElectionBettingOdds simply looks at prices in the betting market, which means the gamblers are the ones doing the guesswork. The advantage here is that different gamblers may be biased in different directions, so that aggregating their bets will tend to produce a reliable sense of the probabilities. A corollary, however, is that the more prevalent the bias, the less the market corrects for it. That’s why financial markets sometimes give us bubbles and panics and why, as with Brexit, political markets don’t always reliably predict outcomes. Which is the main point of Trende’s essay (a follow-up to one published earlier this month). Although his reckoning of Trump’s chances is consistent with the conventional view, he also suspects there may be groupthink at work: Commentary on the 2016 election has broken down somewhat because both the online right and online left opposed the Trump candidacy. Because of this, we analysts find ourselves in something of an echo chamber, which makes us more susceptible to bad arguments, and more likely to overlook good ones that point in an intellectually uncomfortable direction. He cites the Brexit example—in which the betting markets consistently favored Remain, the losing side—as “a massive outbreak of ‘unthinkability bias’ ”—a useful term Trende appears to have coined: To the class of people who engage on Twitter, advise banks, or bet on outcomes, Brexit wasn’t just a bad idea. It was catastrophic. It operated as a rejection of an ideal that transnational elites hold dear, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left, one we might just call the idea of “Europe.” A rejection of this idea was not something upper-middle-class analysts could accept, absent absolutely compelling evidence that “Remain” was going to lose. The Trump analogy is clear enough: Consider the polling that came out over the past weekend. My timeline was filled with tweets from both conservative and liberal commentators about the ABC/Washington Post poll showing Clinton up 12 points on Trump. This was obviously an important poll, and it deserved some attention. But there was comparatively little attention paid—at least by the most well-known writers—to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing [Mrs.] Clinton up five, and up just a point in a four-way race.

Novice Packet Files 198

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Link Answers Turn: Focus on social issues galvanizes democrats – fractures Republicans Doug Mataconis, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2014, Social Issues Now Benefiting Democrats, Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis is a lawyer and founder of Outside the Beltway, www.outsidethebeltway.com/social-issues-now-benefiting-democrats/ For at least the last several decades Republicans have generally seemed to benefit from “social issues” such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the War On Drugs, and crime. While it was rarely the case that these issues were the primary issue motivating most voters in a given election, the GOP has often been able to use them as wedge issue that would break apart traditional Democratic coalitions and lead people to vote for Republican candidates even if they might be more sympathetic to Democrats on economic and other issues. Additionally, these issues have long been used by both sides, but against seemingly most effectively by Republicans, as a way to motivate strongly opinionated base voters to get out to the polls in what otherwise might be a low turnout election, thereby possibly providing enough support to, hopefully, put a particular candidate over the top. To a large degree, this was the methodology behind the “Southern Strategy” that Republicans began adopting in the Nixon era, and which bore fruit decades later in the form of the GOP’s dominance in states that used to be solidly Democratic. As recently as 2004, Republicans were able to use opposition to same-sex marriage as a wedge to help drive voter turnout in the Presidential election, most especially in Ohio, which just happened to be the state that decided the election that year. Now, however, it’s beginning to look as though social issues may be turning into a wedge issue that favors Democrats: WASHINGTON — Facing re-election, Gov. Scott Walker, Republican of Wisconsin, no longer talks about stopping same-sex marriage. “It’s those on the left that are pushing” the issue, he says. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Senate candidate in Virginia, argued that Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic incumbent, was “making up my views” when Mr. Warner accused him of seeking to overturn abortion rights and ban some forms of contraception. In fact, Mr. Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said in a recent debate, he wants contraceptives available (behind the counter) at pharmacies without a prescription. Representative Cory Gardner, a Republican in a tight Senate race in Colorado, proposed the same thing after the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case exempted some private businesses from covering certain contraceptives in health insurance plans. He was shielding himself from attacks by Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat, who has spent months slamming Mr. Gardner’s “radical agenda” on abortion and family planning. Udall is running his entire campaign on social issues,” said Brad Dayspring of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “All they talk about is birth control, ‘personhood,’ abortion.” So will many other Democrats this fall. They aim to match President Obama’s feat in 2012, when the incumbent used topics such as same-sex marriage and contraception as weapons to offset his vulnerability on the economy. That they would even try while facing the older, whiter, more conservative midterm electorate shows how thoroughly the politics of social issues have turned upside down. The tumultuous social changes that began in the 1960s supplied decades of political ammunition for Republicans. Beginning with Richard M. Nixon, they rallied Americans disturbed by noisy protests over civil rights, the sexual revolution and the Vietnam War. “Acid, amnesty and abortion” was the epithet hurled at the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern. Republicans seized on concerns about welfare, school busing and crime — memorably with a black convict named Willie Horton in 1988 — to cement their grip on white voters. As recently as 2004, Republicans used a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to rally tradition-minded “values voters” behind President George W. Bush’s re-election. Now the values wedge cuts for Democrats. Demographic change keeps shrinking Nixon’s “Silent Majority.” President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress overhauled welfare. Fear of crime has receded enough that members of both parties propose more lenient sentencing. American households have changed significantly. Nearly half of adults are unmarried. Fully 10 percent of opposite-sex married couples are interracial or interethnic. Acceptance of same-sex marriage has expanded with astonishing speed. Legalization of medical marijuana has moved, in two states, Colorado and Washington, to legalization of recreational marijuana. College students from the Summer of Love are pushing 70, the elders who disapproved of their behavior are largely gone and young adults are wondering what the turmoil was ever about. (…) A recent Pew Research Center study highlighted how the Republican base diverges from majority opinion and experience. Members of a category Pew calls “steadfast conservatives,” mirroring Tea Party Republicans, attend church more often than any other group. More than half of them have guns in their homes, compared with one-third of the population over all. Only 18 percent of staunch conservatives say society should accept homosexuality, compared with 62 percent overall; 16 percent believe society is “just as well off” if people have priorities other than marriage and children, compared with 50 percent over all; and 28 percent favor legalization of marijuana, compared with 54 percent over all. Six in 10 want their representatives to stick to their positions rather than compromise. Seven in 10 call immigrants “a burden” on society, and say America’s best years have passed. While 61 percent of the population says the globe is warming, three in four staunch conservatives see “no solid evidence.” Those attitudes complicate the party’s ability to forge a new majority coalition as education levels rise and attitudes change. None of this is surprising, of course. We’ve seen polling on same-sex marriage,

Novice Packet Files 199

contraception, marijuana legalization, and a host of other social issues shift decidedly against the traditional Republican positions for quite some time now. As younger voters becomes a larger part of the electorate, this is only likely to become more true as time goes on. For example, most recent polling has shown that younger voters are so completely turned off by the Republican Party’s stance on issues such as marriage equality, marijuana legalization, and immigration that they wouldn’t even consider voting for a Republican candidate. The problem that this poses for Republicans, of course, is that even if they do start changing the party’s position on these issues, it’s not at all clear that there would be any clear electoral benefit to them, while it’s likely that such a move would elicit scorn, to say the least, from the socially conservative base of the party. For proof of that, one need look no further than the exceedingly negative reaction that former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels received in 2011 when he called for a truce on social issues within the Republican Party so that candidates could concentrate on issues such as the economy and federal spending where, to some degree, the GOP has an advantage over Democrats in most polling. As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence that Daniels was right in calling on the GOP to stop emphasizing divisive social issues, but Republicans have generally not taken well to that advice even as it becomes more apparent that the party’s position on these issues is harmful. None of this is to say that Democrats can ride social issues to victory in every race, of course. Turnout in specific races, the quality of the candidates and their campaigns, and the state of the economy will always be more important issues than these wedge issues. However, just as the GOP was once able to use social issues such as these as wedge issues in close elections, we seem to be entering a time when it will be Democrats that are following this strategy. This is one reason why we’re seeing many Republicans in close elections — such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Cory Gardner in Colorado — do the best that they can to evade these issues even if it means seeming to contradict their previously stated positions. No doubt we’ll see more Republicans equivocate or change their position on issues like marriage equality as the polling becomes clearer. In any case, expect to see social issues like marriage and contraception to be a big part of the election narrative this year, and in 2016. The difference is that this time it will be the Democrats who are emphasizing the issues, and Republicans who are running from them.

Novice Packet Files 200

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Specific Link Answers Turn: Trump’s rhetoric triggers stronger backlash– energizes and solidifies minority groups into action for Hillary America Ferrera, July 2, 2015, Thank You, Donald Trump!, Huffington Post, Of Honduran descent, America was born and raised in Los Angeles and received a degree in International Relations from USC. An award winning actress, she is best known for her starring role in the ABC hit Ugly Betty. America is saluted by Congress for raising the profile of Latinos in popular culture, serving as a role model for young Latinas, and working to empower the Latino community, www.huffingtonpost.com/america-ferrera/thank-you-donald-trump_b_7709126.html

Dear Donald, You’ve said some pretty offensive things about Latino immigrants recently, and I think they’re worth addressing. Because, you know, this is the United States of America, where I have a right to speak up even if I’m not a billionaire. Isn’t that awesome? Anyway, I heard what you said about the kind of people you think Latino immigrants are — people with problems, who bring drugs, crime and rape to America. While your comments are incredibly ignorant and racist, I don’t want to spend my time chastising you. I’ll leave that to your business partners like Univision and NBC, who have the power to scold you where it hurts. Instead, I’m writing to say thank you! You see, what you just did with your straight talk was send more Latino voters to the polls than several registration rallies combined! Thank you for that. Here we are pounding the pavement to get American Latinos to the polls, while your tactic proves most effective. Remarks like yours will serve brilliantly to energize Latino voters and increase turnout on election day against you and any other candidate who runs on a platform of hateful rhetoric. Do you know why that’s such a big deal, Donald? Because Latinos are the largest, youngest and fastest-growing constituency in the United States of America. That’s right! You are running for President in a country where the Latino population grew by over 49 percent from 2000-2012, while the rest of the country grew by 5.8 percent. What’s more, we are the future. The median age of the average Latino is 27 years old, compared to 42 years old for white Americans. In case you need a translation, that means there are a whole lot of Americans who are Latino and have the right to vote. And, we’re not going anywhere. This is the America we are actually living in. I hope by now you understand that without the Latino vote, there is no chance of you ever winning this election. If you don’t believe me, you could ask President Bush or you could even ask President Obama. You, Mr. Trump, are living in an outdated fantasy of a bigoted America. Last week, America celebrated some amazing milestones — marriage equality, universal healthcare, removing of the confederate flag — making it clear in which direction the country is moving. That is why racist remarks that play to extremists won’t change the tide, no matter how hard you try. They will only serve to rally more Latino voters to the polls. Your negativity and your poorly thought out speech ignited a fire in our community. Thank you, Mr. Trump! Thank you for reminding us that there remains an antiquated and endangered species of bigots in this country that we must continue to combat. Thank you for reminding us to not sit complacently at home on election day, but to run to the polls and proclaim that there is no place for your brand of racial politicking in our government. Thank you for sending out the rallying cry. You have made your thoughts on the Latino community clear and you continue to stand by them. And in return, we will do more than tweet about our indignation and beat piñatas of your likeness. We will silence you at the polls. We will vote and use our growing position in U.S. politics. Our fellow Americans who understand and value our contributions will join us. We know there is nothing that scares you more.

Novice Packet Files 201

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC General Link Answers No Link: Foreign policy doesn’t get anyone to the ballot box Rosa Brooks, October 14, 2015, America’s Problem With World Leaderishness, Foreign Policy, Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/14/americas-problem-with-world-leaderishness-russia-china-syria-us-2016-election/

The election analysts and pollsters just snicker and roll their eyes. Foreign-policy issues don’t decide elections, they explain. In poll after poll, voters say they care most about classic domestic issues: jobs, economic growth, health care, and the like. They apparently worry a bit about terrorism, too, but they worry a lot more about the economy. During the 2014 midterm elections, for instance — in the midst of the crisis in Iraq and Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine — exit polls found that only 13 percent of voters considered foreign policy to have been a top issue in influencing their vote, compared to 45 percent who said the same about the economy, and 25 percent who considered health care a top issue. In other words, the experts tell us, people vote with their pocketbooks. It’s the economy, stupid.

Novice Packet Files 202

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Consequentialist Impact Scenario Internal Link Answers No Internal Link: Trump doesn’t want proliferation Ian Hanchett, 29 March, 2016, Trump: ‘I Hate Proliferation’ But It Would Be Better if Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea Had Nuclear Weapons, Breitbart, Ian Hanchett is a video and political reporter for Breitbart, www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/29/trump-i-hate- proliferation-but-it-would-be-better-if-japan-saudi-arabia-and-south-korea-had-nuclear-weapons/

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that “”I don’t want more nuclear weapons” but that the world would be better off if South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons on CNN’s Republican Town Hall on Tuesday. Trump was asked if there was a contradiction between his concerns over nuclear proliferation and his openness to supporting Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons. He responded, that there is no contradiction and the US doesn’t want to “pull the trigger” against a nuclear North Korea. He added, “We owe $19 trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. … We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia, which was making, during the good oil days, which was a year ago, now they’re making less, but still a lot. $1 billion a day. We are supporting them, military, and they pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us, and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. … Excuse me, we’re supporting Germany. We’re supporting South Korea.” He further stated that it might be time to change U.S. policy keeping Japan and South Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump was then asked, “So, some proliferation is okay?” He answered, “No, not some. I hate proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any.”

Novice Packet Files 203

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Consequentialist Impact Scenario Internal Link Answers No Internal Link: Trump doesn’t like proliferation – one of his main issues JP Carroll, July 6, 2016, Exclusive: This is Trump's Foreign Policy, A Conversation with Top Trump Adviser Dr. Walid Phares, The Daily Caller News Foundation, JP Carrol is National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter for The Daily Caller, dailycaller.com/2016/07/04/exclusive-this- is-trump-foreign-policy-a-conversation-with-top-trump-adviser-dr-walid-phares/

Phares: Look, this is an America First foreign policy as laid out in his speech in April. We live in an unpredictable world, so yes, priorities do change. The campaign has a well-organized foreign policy in that it adapts to a disorganized world. At the moment, the top two priorities are how to deal with issues of nuclear proliferation and how to completely destroy Islamic jihadist organizations, including and especially ISIS. On nuclear proliferation, Mr. Trump has made a clear statement about not having any further nuclear proliferation, especially in the hands of people who are problematic. He thinks about it as the greatest threat that we and the rest of the world will face. I would say that North Korea and Iran, and the nuclear threat would be number one.

Novice Packet Files 204

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Consequentialist Impact Scenario Impact Answers Turn: Proliferation decreases war in nearly all scenarios — raises the cost of aggression Akisato Suzuki, April-June 2015, “Is More Better or Worse? New Empirics on Nuclear Proliferation and Interstate Conflict by Random Forests,” RESEARCH AND POLITICS, , pp. 1-7, p. 2., School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, http://rap.sagepub.com/content/sprap/2/2/2053168015589625.full.pdf

Nuclear-proliferation optimists argue that nuclear weapons reduce conflict because of the intolerable cost of nuclear war (Mearsheimer, 1984/1985: 21; Waltz, 2003: 6–9). Therefore, “more may be better” (Waltz, 2003: 3). Nuclear symmetry (a dyad of nuclear states) should deter states from resorting to war, because war could result in the use of nuclear weapons (Powell, 1985). Rauchhaus (2009: 263) notes that the nuclear deterrence literature is “virtually silent” on the effect of nuclear asymmetry (a nuclear state versus a non-nuclear state), but Waltz (2003: 17) argues, “Far from lowering the expected cost of aggression, a nuclear offense, even against a non-nuclear state, raises the possible costs of aggression to incalculable heights because the aggressor cannot be sure of the reaction of other states”. Non-nuclear states should also be deterred from engaging in war with nuclear states, because non-nuclear states fear nuclear retaliation. If nuclear weapons prevent war, they should also decrease conflict short of war, because states would hesitate to initiate conflict which could escalate to war. Optimists admit that nuclear weapons do not necessarily prevent all types of interstate conflict (see Hagerty, 2009: 109– 110; Waltz, 2003: 17), but they do not argue that nuclear weapons increase conflict either Waltz (2003: 9–26) also suggests that new nuclear states are not more prone to conflict than old nuclear states, because the logic and assumptions of nuclear deterrence can be applied not only to old nuclear major powers but to any kind of states (minor powers, domestically unstable states, autocratic states, or states engaged in rivalry). In short, optimist logic expects that nuclear proliferation reduces a systemic propensity for interstate conflict through deterrent effects.

Novice Packet Files 205

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Consequentialist Impact Scenario Impact Answers

Turn: Allied proliferation in Asia is good—protects them from China and is not destabilizing Harvey M. Sapolsky & Christine M. Leah, April 14, 2014, “Let Asia Go Nuclear,” NATIONAL INTEREST, Harvey M Sapolsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT; Christine M. Leah is a Stanton Fellow at the Security Studies Program of MIT, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/let-asia-go- nuclear-10259, accessed 4-21-16.

But there is a better, cheaper way to provide security in Asia. We should encourage our allies to acquire their own nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons Australia, Japan and the others would have the capability to protect themselves from bullying. Nearly all of the allies are rich enough and technologically advanced enough to acquire and maintain nuclear forces. And those who are not—the Philippines, for example—lose much of their vulnerability once the focus shifts away from conventional defenses of the island chains. Nuclear weapons helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot. In Asia they can stop a conventional arms race that is forcing the United States to invest in weapons that can block the Chinese military on its doorstep, thousands of miles from our own. Let our Asian allies defend themselves with the weapon that is the great equalizer. Tailored proliferation would not likely be destabilizing. Asia is not the Middle East. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even Taiwan are strong democracies. They have stable political regimes. Government leaders are accountable to democratic institutions. Civilian control of the military is strong. And they don’t have a history of lobbing missiles at each other—they are much more risk-averse than Egypt, Syria or Iran. America’s allies would be responsible nuclear weapon states. A number of Asian nations have at one time or another considered going nuclear, Australia for example, with tacit U.S. Defense Department encouragement in the 1960s. They chose what for them was the cheaper alternative of living under the US nuclear umbrella. Free nuclear guarantees provided by the United States, coupled with the US Navy patrolling offshore, have allowed our allies to grow prosperous without having to invest much in their own defense. Confident that the United States protects them, our allies have even begun to squabble with China over strings of uninhabited islands in the hope that there is oil out there. It is time to give them a dose of fiscal and military reality. And the way to do that is to stop standing between them and their nuclear-armed neighbors. It will not be long before they realize the value of having their own nuclear weapons. The waters of the Pacific under those arrangements will stay calm, and we will save a fortune.

Novice Packet Files 206

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Consequentialist Impact Scenario Impact Framing Answers Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to

Novice Packet Files 207

feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.

Novice Packet Files 208

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Deontological Impact Scenario Impact Answers Turn: Trump’s economic policies will materially benefit minorities – that’s key Jose A. DelReal, April 18, 2016, Trump meets with ‘diversity coalition’ in New York, Washtington Post, Jose A. DelReal is a national political reporter covering the 2016 presidential election. He graduated from Harvard College, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- politics/wp/2016/04/18/trump-meets-with-diversity-coalition-in-new-york/

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a move Monday to discredit critics who accuse him of stoking racial tensions by meeting with a "diversity coalition" here in Manhattan. The real estate mogul sat with members of the nascent National Diversity Coalition for Trump on Monday afternoon, a group founded to push back against critics who say his anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric is discriminatory. The group says it believes Trump “will address economic disparities” for minorities and “strengthen communities with conservative action,” according to a news release sent out by the group ahead of the event. “I swear, I don’t know where that’s coming from. This man is no more racist than Mickey Mouse is on the moon!” Georgia businessman Bruce LeVell, who co-founded the group, previously told the Post when asked about his decision to create the organization. Trump posed with the group for pictures in Trump Tower before the meeting. Omarosa Manigault, a television personality and prominent Trump supporter, was also in attendance. Though the campaign did not directly coordinate the event, Manigault collected Trump “pledges” on which supporters wrote their personal information. The GOP front-runner has faced harsh scrutiny for what critics say is discriminatory rhetoric against women and minorities. He has been particularly blasted for calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country, which he says is the only way to protect the homeland against acts of terrorism. Demonstrators have flocked to his campaign rallies across the country in recent months to protest Trump’s candidacy. Men and women in attendance disagreed with that characterization and praised Trump for his economic message, which they said is crucial to elevating the economic and social status of minorities. “We already have civil rights. What we’re lacking is money. We need economic power and I feel as though wealth, which is financial freedom, is what the minority community needs,” said Steven Parson, a pastor from Richmond, Va. “That’s why I’m behind Mr. Trump, because that’s what he represents.”

Novice Packet Files 209

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Deontological Impact Scenario Impact Answers No Impact: Trump is all talk – he won’t actually be able to pass any policies Matthew Cooper, March 16, 2016, WHAT IF DONALD TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT?, Newsweek, Matthew Cooper is Political Editor at Newsweek - he has worked for some of America's most prestigious magazines including Time, The New Republic, National Journal, U.S. News & World Report. He wrote for Newsweek in the 1990s and rejoined the magazine in 2014. A veteran White House correspondent, he's known for his in-depth reporting and analysis from Washington, www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald-trump-437158.html

The unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember Schoolhouse Rock ? Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants. Could Trump blow up those legendary checks and balances and make America a fascist state? Oh, please. The fear of fascism in the U.S. goes back to the ’30s and echoes debates that have gone on since Thomas Jefferson charged Alexander Hamilton with being a monarchist. Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, was a heavy-handed warning about a folksy fascist seizing the presidency. In Philip Roth’s much better work from 2004, The Plot Against America, a Nazi- appeasing Charles Lindbergh wrestles the presidency from Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and keeps the U.S. from aiding Britain, which foments a Nazi victory in Europe and less-than-pleasant times for American Jewry. But that’s fiction. Trump’s more likely to end up like Jimmy Carter—a poor craftsman of legislation and a crushing disappointment to his supporters. Since World War II, only Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have left office with high approval numbers. Presidents generally end their tenure not with a bullet in a bunker but with a whimper.

Novice Packet Files 210

Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Deontological Impact Scenario Impact Framing Answers Rejecting actions on face is bad moral thinking – looking at the consequences is the only way to make policy James Wood Bailey, 1997, “Utilitarianism, institutions, and Justice”, Oxford University Press, pg 9, James Wood Bailey is an author and well known utilitarian thinker)

A consequentialist moral theory can take account of this variance and direct us in our decision about whether a plausible right to equality ought to outweigh a plausible right to freedom of expression. 16 In some circumstances the effects of pornography would surely be malign enough to justify our banning it, but in others they may be not malign enough to justify any interference in freedom. I? A deontological theory, in contrast, would be required either to rank the side constraints, which forbid agents from interfering in the free expression of others and from impairing the moral equality of others, or to admit defeat and claim that no adjudication between the two rights is possible. The latter admission is a grave failure since it would leave us no principled resolution of a serious policy question. But the former conclusion is hardly attractive either. Would we really wish to establish as true for all times and circumstances a lexical ordering between two side constraints on our actions without careful attention to consequences? Would we, for instance, really wish to establish that the slightest malign inegalitarian effect traceable to a form of expression is adequate grounds for an intrusive and costly censorship? Or would we, alternatively, really wish to establish that we should be prepared to tolerate a society horrible for women and children to live in, for the sake of not allowing any infringement on the sacred right of free expression?18 Consequentialist accounts can avoid such a deontological dilemma. In so doing, they show a certain healthy sense of realism about what life in society is like. In the world outside the theorist's study, we meet trade-offs at every tum. Every policy we make with some worthy end in Sight imposes costs in terms of diminished achievement of some other plausibly worthy end. Consequentialism demands that we grapple with these costs as directly as we can and justify their incurrence. It forbids us to dismiss them with moral sophistries or to ignore them as if we lived in an ideal world.

Novice Packet Files 211

States Counter Plan Answers – CRC Permutation Permutation: Do plan and devolve the implementation of the treaty to the states

Permutation solves: Can do both – delegating treaty implementation to the states is normal means Kendall Marlowe, October 29th, 2015, The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: After 25 Years, Should Americans Still Care?, Boston University School of Law International Law Journal, Kendall Marlowe is the Executive Director of the National Association of Counsel for Children, He holds a Master’s in Social Work from the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and a J.D. and Certificate in Child and Family Law from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, https://www.bu.edu/ilj/category/u-n-convention-on-the-rights-of-the- child/#_ftn1 The Convention also contains no explicit instruction on how it is to be implemented, leaving the U.S. free to pursue the treaty’s goals within the existing structure of federalism and individual U.S. states’ power over child and family law. Countries are also free – with many exercising this freedom – to ratify the Convention with substantial caveats, termed in this context as “reservations, understandings and declarations.”[42] If a provision in the Convention conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, for example, the U.S. can attach a reservation to the provision, effectively nullifying it. Understandings and declarations similarly assert the interpretation of a Convention provision by the U.S., shaping the effects of the Convention to comport with U.S. law.[43] In practice, the U.S. typically attaches a federalism clause as part of its “reservations, understandings and declarations” to human rights treaties, neutering the effect of the Missouri principle and leaving child and family law decision-making (including Convention implementation) to the states.[44]

Novice Packet Files 212

States Counter Plan Answers – CRC Solvency Answers No solvency: States are historically bad at protecting children’s’ rights Robert Fellmeth, January 30, 2015, Shame on US for failing to protect abused, neglected children, The Hill, Robert Fellmeth is the executive director of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil- rights/231175-shame-on-us-for-failing-to-protect-abused-neglected-children A newly released report – aptly entitled “Shame on U.S.” – uses the federal government’s own documents to detail the colossal failure of America’s child welfare system. The three-year study found that not one of America’s 50 states is in “substantial conformity” with minimum standards set in federal law and designed to protect and lift up abused and neglected children. The result is that abused and neglected children have been left vulnerable to further harm, and in many cases, death. In 2013, at least 679,000 children were the victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,500 died. Sadly, these numbers are probably low, due in part to unreported abuse. Despite their failure to protect our most vulnerable citizens, state governments continue to receive billions of dollars each year in federal child welfare funds. Congress, the executive branch and the federal judiciary have all been derelict in their responsibility to protect abused and neglected children in the United States. One of the most egregious debacles cited in the report – and one that demands immediate action – is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inadequate Child and Family Services Review process that is supposed to, in HHS’ own words, “ensure [state] conformity with federal child welfare requirements.” In the most recent review, not a single state was in substantial conformity with minimum standards on all seven measurable outcomes related to safety, permanency and family/child wellbeing. In fact, 40 states and the District of Columbia failed to achieve substantial conformity on all seven outcomes, and the other ten states were found to be in substantial conformity with just one outcome each. How is this a process that ensures conformity with child welfare requirements? HHS has the power to withhold federal funding to compel compliance, but instead often takes a passive approach, allowing states to self-certify compliance and actually set lower standards and performance expectations for themselves than are allowed by law — all of which allow glaring inadequacies to go unabated.

Novice Packet Files 213

States Counter Plan Answers – CRC Counter Plan links to the Politics Advantage Links to Politics: President gets blamed for states’ actions Eugene Kiely, February 17, 2012. EUGENE KIELY is a Washington assignment editor USA today. [“Did Obama ‘Approve’ Bridge Work for Chinese Firms?” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/did-obama-approve-bridge-work-for-chinese-firms/]

Who’s to blame, if that’s the right word, if the project ends up using manufactured steel from China? The National Steel Bridge Alliance blames the state railroad agency. The Alliance for American Manufacturing says the federal Buy American laws have been “weakened with loopholes and various exemptions that make it easier for bureaucrats to purchase foreign-made goods instead of those made in American factories with American workers.” So, how did Obama get blamed for the decisions by state agencies and for state projects that, in at least one case, didn’t even use federal funds? The answer is a textbook lesson in how information gets distorted when emails go viral. We looked at the nearly 100 emails we received on this subject and found that Obama wasn’t mentioned at all in the first few emails. Typical of the emails we received shortly after the ABC News report aired was this one from Oct. 11, 2011: “I just got an email regarding Diane Sawyer on ABC TV stating that U. S. Bridges and roads are being built by Chinese firms when the jobs should have gone to Americans. Could this possible be true?” The answer: Yes, it’s true. End of story, right? Wrong. Days later, emails started to appear in our inbox that claimed ABC News reported that Chinese firm were receiving stimulus funds to build U.S. bridges — even though the broadcast news story didn’t mention stimulus funds at all. (The report did include a clip of Obama delivering a speech on the need to rebuild America’s bridges and put Americans to work, but said nothing about the president’s $830 billion stimulus bill.) Still, we received emails such as this one on Nov. 4, 2011, that included this erroneous claim language: “Stimulus money meant to create U.S. jobs went to Chinese firms. Unbelievable….” It didn’t take long for Obama to be blamed. That same day — Nov. 4, 2011 — we received an email that made this leap to Obama: “SOME CHINESE COMPANIES WHO ARE BUILDING ‘OUR’ BRIDGES. (3000 JOBS LOST TO THE CHINESE FIRM)…..AND NOW OBAMA WANTS ‘MORE STIMULUS MONEY’…..THIS IS NUTS ! ! ! If this doesn’t make you furious nothing will….” This year, Obama’s name started to surface in the subject line of such critical emails — raising the attack on the president to yet another level and perhaps ensuring the email will be even more widely circulated. Since Jan. 17, we have gotten more than a dozen emails with the subject line, “ABC News on Obama/USA Infrastructure,” often preceded with the word “SHOCKING” in all caps. The emails increasingly contain harsh language about the president. Since Jan. 11, 23 emails carried this added bit of Obama-bashing: “I pray all the unemployed see this and cast their votes accordingly in 2012!” One of those emails — a more recent one from Feb. 8 — contained this additional line: “Tell me again how Obama’s looking out for blue collar guys. He cancels pipelines, and lets Chinese contractors build our bridges…” And so it goes, on and on. All from a news report that blamed state officials — not Obama — for spending taxpayer money on Chinese firms to build U.S. bridges.

Novice Packet Files 214

Topicality Answers - CRC 1. (We meet) Ratification requires ongoing engagement with the UN and other signees United Nations, September 2, 1990, Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Article 44 - 1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights (a) Within two years of the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned; (b) Thereafter every five years. 2. Reports made under the present article shall indicate factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the degree of fulfilment of the obligations under the present Convention. Reports shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention in the country concerned. 3. A State Party which has submitted a comprehensive initial report to the Committee need not, in its subsequent reports submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of the present article, repeat basic information previously provided. 4. The Committee may request from States Parties further information relevant to the implementation of the Convention. 5. The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, every two years, reports on its activities. 6. States Parties shall make their reports widely available to the public in their own countries. 2. (Counter interpretation) Ratifying treaties itself is diplomatic engagement United States Diplomacy Center, last updated 2016, WHAT ARE THE TOOLS OF DIPLOMACY?, Diplomacy 101, The US Diplomacy Center is the administration of federal government that coordinates US diplomatic efforts, diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/issues/170614.htm

To be successful, diplomats must listen carefully to what their counterparts say and find points of agreement which may overcome those of disagreement. And they need to enter discussions with a clear goal and strategy of what can be exchanged to reach agreement. In negotiating, diplomats often use rewards—such as the promise of new trade, an arms sale, or shipments of food—to encourage an agreement. When diplomatic interests collide and a deadlock ensues, negotiators might threaten sanctions—such as restricting trade or travel, halting financial assistance, or an embargo—to persuade the other parties to accept an agreement. The final result of negotiations is usually a formal written communique or agreement that spells out the actions and responsibilities of each side. The most well-known is, of course, the treaty, a formal, written agreement between sovereign states or between or among countries and international organizations. In the United States, treaties are negotiated through the executive branch, which includes the Department of State. Once the negotiators have accepted the terms of the treaty, the president sends the treaty to the U.S. Senate for its “advice and consent” on ratification, or endorsement. If the Senate approves, the treaty is returned to the White House for the president's signature. Many other countries have similar procedures for ratifying agreements and it may be many years before a treaty might be signed and implemented. While the United States signed a Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1951 after World War II, it has never settled terms of peace with Germany, partly because Germany was divided at the end of the war.

Novice Packet Files 215

3. Counter standards: a. Fairness: our interpretation is fairer – our author is clear that treaties are a diplomatic tool. We have the clearest interpretation from the most qualified source so you should default to our interpretation. Also whether engagement is ongoing or not is arbitrary, you should have a high threshold for voting on their interpretation. Our plan is absolutely fair because it diplomatically resolves one of the major criticisms China has against the United States – that’s the core of the topic. That also means we don’t explode the limits – we meet the word ‘substantial’ in the resolution because the treaty is core to the topic. b. Education: Our interpretation leads to more educational debates. Learning about the tools of diplomacy is key to learning what diplomacy actually is – learning about the treaties China wants us to sign is a major part of the US engaging China diplomatically in real life. Learning about how treaties affect peoples’ lives is a core value of debate that we will use for the rest of our lives. 4. Voters: You should not vote on this topicality argument. We are reasonably topical and allow for a meaningful, educational debate.

Novice Packet Files 284

Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN) Counterplan Text The United States Federal Government should engaging in binding consultation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations before substantially increasing its air and sea deployment and increasing its freedom of navigation operations in the East China Sea and South China Sea

Novice Packet Files 285

Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN) Solvency ASEAN says yes – scared of china DAN De Luce & KEITH Johnson, FEBRUARY 17, 2016, Crunch Time for Washington and Beijing in the South China Sea, Foreigh policy, Dan De Luce is Foreign Policy’s chief national security correspondent; Keith Johnson is a senior reporter covering energy for Foreign Policy, foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/17/crunch-time-for-washington-and-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea/

Tellingly, Beijing deployed the advanced weaponry to the South China Sea just as President Obama hosted the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, at a two-day summit in California — the first to be held in the United States. As in recent years, dueling claims and provocative actions in the South China Sea dominated the talks. ASEAN members danced around an explicit condemnation of China’s behavior, but in a joint statement at the end of the summit the Southeast Asian leaders specifically and unanimously agreed to uphold the international, rules-based order; eschew militarization of disputes; and respect freedom of navigation. China is not one of the 10 ASEAN member nations. To date, China’s claims and land reclamation activities have driven many Asian nations closer to the United States. Tokyo and Washington revised their joint defense guidelines, and Japan has largely jettisoned its post-World War II pacifist stance. The Philippines is asking U.S. military forces to come back 25 years after kicking them out. Even Vietnam, a communist country with close trade ties with China, is moving closer to Washington and seeking to buy U.S. weaponry to push back against Beijing.

Novice Packet Files 286

Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN) Net Benefit Uniqueness and Link ASEAN mistrusts the US because we don’t consult them on regional security issues Sheldon W. Simon & Evelyn Goh, September 21, 2007, China, the United States, and South-East Asia: Contending Perspectives on Politics, Security, and Economics (Asian Security Studies), SHELDON W. SIMON is Professor of Political Science and Facilty Associate for the Center for Asian Studies and Program in Southeast Asian Studies at Arizona State University, where he has also served as Chair of Political Science and Director of the Center for Asian Studies - Evelyn Goh is Shedden Professor of Strategic Policy Studies at Australian National University College of Asia and the Pacific, she holds an DPhil, MPhil, and MA,https://www.amazon.com/China-United-States-South-East- Asia/dp/0415569508

In contrast, the United States is often perceived as displaying less commitment, attention, and care. US failure to consult ASEAN states on matters of Southeast Asian concern is a longstanding complaint but many in ASEAN nevertheless see it as indicative of the unimportance the United States attaches to Southeast Asia or a lack of interest in the region. Most recently, the United States has also been criticized for not paying enough attention to the concerns of Southeast Asian states and East and Southeast Asian issues. For example, of the major powers, the United States comes across as having the least respect or patience for ASEAN and ASEAN- derived processes. US officials that work with ASEAN can, in fact, be quite blunt about this. This leads to Washington's preference for dealing with states bilaterally, as opposed to multilaterally, but ASEAN consequently sees Washington as being less supportive of ASEAN as an organization. Some also worry about potentially divisive effects on ASEAN that come from this bilateral approach.

Novice Packet Files 287

Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN) Net Benefit Impact US-ASEAN partnership accesses all major impacts – 5 reasons Nina Hachigian, 17 February, 2016, Ambassador Hachigian’s Remarks at the U.S. ASEAN Business Council Conference, San Francisco, CA, US Mission to ASEAN, Nina Hachigian is US Ambassador to ASEAN, Ambassador Nina Hachigian was previously a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was the editor of Debating China: The U.S. – China Relationship in Ten Conversations and co-author of The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (Simon & Schuster, 2008), as well as many reports on Asia policy,https://asean.usmission.gov/ambassador-hachigians-remarks-at-the-u-s-asean-business-council-conference-san-francisco-ca/

Now let me take a step back and address a basic question–What motivated President Obama to focus on ASEAN? Why did the US Government spent a relatively large amount of the most precious resource we have—the President’s time at Sunnylands this week? In other words, why does ASEAN matter to the United States? The short answer is: We are investing in ASEAN because it is in our clear national interest to do so. ASEAN unity and integration benefit the United States. Of course there will always be other parts of the world that also need our attention. But there are many reasons the U.S. will retain a focus on ASEAN, no matter who the next President is. Let me share five reasons why I believe ASEAN is important to the U.S., from my vantage point in Jakarta, but it boils down to three words: growth, stability and rules. Economics You know the first one well: economics. ASEAN is important to American prosperity. Trade and investment with ASEAN means jobs and profits at home. American companies are by far the largest investors in Southeast Asia. U.S. private-sector cumulative investment is larger than China’s, Japan’s, and South Korea’s combined. ASEAN countries are now returning the favor, directing their investment towards the United States, and a number of my fellow Ambassadors in the region have led reverse trade missions here. Investment in the United States by ASEAN countries has increased more than from any other region in the past decade. ASEAN is a rapidly growing region with an expanding workforce and a growing middle class. The ASEAN Community and, in particular, the ASEAN Economic Community, is good for U.S. business because many want to take a regional approach. Trade with ASEAN, reaching a quarter of a trillion dollars in 2014, makes ASEAN America’s fourth largest trading partner. Importantly, this trade accounts for over half a million jobs in the U.S.– jobs in every single state in the Union. The ASEAN middle class is growing by leaps and bounds, with some reports suggesting that it will more than double by 2020. Importantly, ASEAN has a plan, a very detailed set of blueprints for the ASEAN Economic Community, to reach its ambitious goal of a single market and production base. And the plan has strong political will behind it. It won’t happen overnight, but I am confident it will happen. To support the AEC, the United States government has been helping ASEAN to establish the ASEAN Single Window an electronic customs system to reduce red tape and customs opportunism in the region. It will launch with five ASEAN countries this year, and one day will connect all ten, so importers and exporters will only have to fill out paperwork once for the whole region. Transnational Challenges The second reason for our engagement is that ASEAN is a strategic partner for the U.S. on key transnational challenges that face us all— climate change, terrorism, cyber security, human trafficking and wildlife trafficking, to name a few. In Sunnylands, leaders agreed to work harder together to prevent such attacks as occurred in Jakarta, and San Bernardino. They also discussed trafficking in persons. ASEAN signed its landmark new Convention in 2015. Two ASEAN nations have already ratified it and once six have done so, it will go into effect and there will be better tools for combatting what President Obama has called “modern slavery.” We will work with ASEAN to help implement the Convention. Another challenge that I have focused on during my time in the region is the degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems. Southeast Asia is home to a greater concentration of marine biodiversity than anywhere else in the world. The waters there support many thousands of fish species and other marine animals that are vital for maintaining healthy ecosystems, offering livelihoods for millions of people in Southeast Asia, and providing seafood that they eat and that we in the U.S. also consume every day. This marine bounty, and its beauty, is under severe threat. Climate change, the construction of artificial islands on coral reefs, harvesting of endangered species, and illegal and overfishing are all happening to an alarming degree. We are partners with ASEAN on all these fronts. Moreover, new regulations that the U.S. will enact this year to help prevent illegally caught fish from entering our ports will send a powerful market signal to the region and will, I think and hope, change behavior on the ground. Geopolitics The third reason the United States will have a long-term focus on ASEAN is because an integrated, unified ASEAN is geopolitically stabilizing. It is stabilizing because ASEAN works to institutionalize cooperation, threatens no one, dedicates itself to non-violence and seeks strategic independence. ASEAN forms the stable center of a region with multiple big powers—China, Japan, India and the United States each have a major stake. Whereas it could be difficult for any one ASEAN country to stand up to a big power when it takes actions that increase tensions and risks, ASEAN as a group can and has. We want Asia to continue to enjoy the peace that

Novice Packet Files 288

has allowed so many to prosper, and ASEAN is a critical part of that. In this sense, ASEAN leads by example. It has helped preserve stability among its incredibly diverse member nations for nearly 50 years. If you think about the tumultuous geopolitical environment in Southeast Asia at the time of ASEAN’s founding in 1967, it is remarkable that ASEAN managed to forge and keep the peace until today. Further economic integration will only increase the stabilizing political role ASEAN plays. Convening Power Fourth in my list of why the United States cares about ASEAN is that ASEAN convenes Asia. No one else can bring all the countries of Asia together at the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other for a every year to discuss difficult strategic questions. At the East Asia Summit last November in Kuala Lumpur, President Obama and leaders of half the world’s population discussed key political and security issues facing the region and globe. We believe that it is vital that officials discuss these issues and not sweep them under the rug. Rules-Based Order in Asia Finally, but in some ways most important in my list of five reasons why the United States is focused on ASEAN is this: ASEAN plays a vital role in advancing the rules-based order for the Asia Pacific. What binds ASEAN together is a shared commitment to a set of principles. Three of them are: the importance of rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the upholding of international law. Rules and norms provide the connective tissue of the ASEAN Community. Common approaches, standards and rules are the currency of ASEAN; it is through their harmonization that countries are integrating. ASEAN also shares our respect for international law which connects it to outside powers and defines expectations for our behavior. Rules and norms create predictability. They create a sense of fairness because all countries have the same burden of compliance and responsibility. Common rules and norms foster habits of cooperation. In other words, over time, when countries follow shared rules and norms they can create trust. That is not easy, but in ASEAN, because the ten countries agree on some basic principles and have built up an infrastructure of rules and norms, they have developed a baseline of trust. Beyond the five reasons I have discussed, the United States and ASEAN are, of course, connected through personal and cultural links. The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are bound to Southeast Asia by millions of threads through families, through educational exchanges, through tourism. These enduring ties bind us in friendship and humanity. For these reasons and more, America will remain deeply engaged in ASEAN for generations to come. As Secretary Kerry has said: “The future of the United States and the future of ASEAN are absolutely interconnected.” I hope to see you out in the region soon. Thank you.

Novice Packet Files 289

Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN) Permutation Permutation fails: ASEAN will discover the lie – government will leak the secret James Q Wilson, John J. DiIulio, & Meena Bose, 2013, American Government: Brief Version, p. 131, James Q Wilson is Professor of Political Science at UCLA; John J Dilulio is Professor of Political Science at Princeton, Meena Bose is Executive Dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy, and International Affairs, and Director of Hofstra’s Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, https://books.google.com/books?id=TdI1cDI2MvoC&dq=%22American+government+is+the+leakiest+in+the+world.+The+bureaucracy,+memb ers+of+Congress,+and+the+White+House+staff+regularly+leak+stories+favorable+to+their+interests.+Of+late+the+leaks+have%22&source=gbs _navlinks_s

American government is the leakiest in the world. The bureaucracy, members of Congress, and the White House staff regularly leak stories favorable to their interests. Of late the leaks have become geysers, gushing forth torrents of insider stories. Many people in and out of government find it depressing that our government seems unable to keep anything secret for long. Others think that the public has a right to know even more and that there are still too many secrets. However you view leaks, you should understand why we have so many. The answer is found in the Constitution. Because we have separate institutions that must share power, each branch of government competes with the others to get power. One way to compete is to try to use the press to advance your pet projects and to make the other side look bad. There are far fewer leaks in other democratic nations in party because power is centralized in the hands of a prime minister, who does not need to leak in order to get the upper hand over the legislature, and because the legislature has too little information to be a good source of leaks. In addition, we have no Official Secrets Act of the kind that exists in England; except for a few matters, it is not against the law for the press to receive and print government secrets.

Novice Packet Files 290

Topicality to SCS Aff 1. Interpretation: FONOPs are military, not diplomacy FENG Zhang, Mar. 10, 2016, Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Modus Vivendi between the US and China?, Feng Zhang is a Fellow in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University’s Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs and an Adjunct Professor at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, China, ippreview.com/index.php/Home/Blog/single/id/43.html

Who defines “excessive maritime claims”; which countries or international institutions have the right to take concrete actions to safeguard freedom of navigation; is military force the best instrument—these are all legitimate questions that can be asked about FONOPs. In conducting FONOPs, the US claims to safeguard the rule-based liberal international order. But a rule-based international order demands diplomacy and international institutions to solve disputes in the first instance, not unilateral assertions of military power. The US claims that its failure to ratify UNCLOS does not undermine its effort to uphold the treaty’s principles in practice since UNCLOS reflects customary international law. But while the principles it upholds may be true to UNCLOS, its FONOPs approach is rather anti-UNCLOS since UNCLOS would call for diplomatic rather than military means to safeguard freedom of navigation. 2. Violation: FONOPs do not meet the term ‘diplomatic engagement’ in the resolution 3. Standards: a. Fairness: The only fair debate is a topical debate. If a case is not topical then it is unpredictable, moots our resolutional arguments, and shifts the ground of the debate. An unfair debate skews to the affirmatives advantage and makes it more difficult to be the negative. When debate is unfair it makes students want to quit. b. Education: If the affirmative is allowed to run untopical plans it destroys our education. We have no incentive to learn about the topic so that we can challenge their facts. The framer’s intent was for students to learn about and understand the US’ economic and diplomatic interactions with China so that we can become better decision makers and citizens – the plan destroys that. 4. Voters: Topicality is a voting issue because it is a gateway issue. If the affirmative is untopical then there can be no meaningful debate – you should vote against them on topicality before evaluating any other positions.

Novice Packet Files 291

Topicality to SCS Aff 2nc/1nr Interpretation Extension Diplomacy and FONOPs are different strategies GORDON Lubold & JEREMY Page, Sept. 24, 2015, U.S. to Press China on Island Expansions, The Wall Street Journal, Gordon Lubold is a senior military writer for Defense One. Before that, he was a senior national security writer for Foreign Policy magazine & Jeremy Page is a reporter in the Wall Street Journal's Beijing bureau, covering domestic politics, international relations and security, www.wsj.com/articles/u-s- to-press-china-on-island-expansions-1443141465

Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic maneuvering is part of an Obama administration “name and shame” strategy, publicly calling out Beijing for claims that the U.S. says threaten a major trade route and create instability. The U.S. has opted for the diplomatic course over the one suggested by U.S. military commanders: more aggressively countering China by sending American aircraft or warships throughout the islands as a signal that Washington doesn’t recognize Beijing’s claims. Instead, the Obama administration has turned to what the State Department calls “creative diplomacy” in turning up the heat on China by isolating them on the issue. Mr. Xi’s visit this week will determine if it will work.

Novice Packet Files 316

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Counterplan Text Counterplan: The United States Federal Government should reallocate funding from space colonization to infrastructure investment

Novice Packet Files 317

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Solvency 3 to 1 return on investment & necessary for long term growth David W. Wise, April 01, 2015, The dividend on infrastructure investment, The Hill, Wise, a resident of Annapolis, is a retired business executive and frequent commentator on public policy. He holds a graduate degree in international business from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/237542-the-dividend-on-infrastructure-investment

As is often the case when things make no sense, ideology is involved. In an effort to counter perceived liberal bias for “tossing money out of helicopters,” conservatives seem to have taken the view that investment in infrastructure is some type of boondoggle. What is required is a pragmatic middle course that focuses on return on investment. The early roads, trails, canals and railroads that marked U.S. westward expansion involved the national government in a central and catalyzing role. This was also true of the Interstate highway system and the Internet. Silicon Valley, the preeminent economic engine, was based on decades of government investment as part of the Cold War buildup in such things as microprocessors that were too big and risky for the private sector. Those first roads built in the United States were the result of fixing a defect in the Articles of Confederation that called for the government to establish only post offices, which the Framers of the Constitution corrected by adding for the government to provide “post roads” in Article I Section 8. In truth our history and our future depend on partnership and cooperation between government and private industry. As American prosperity attests, infrastructure spending when done well is not a fiscal cost, but provides a return on investment and is the wellspring of national prosperity. The Federal Reserve places the return infrastructure as $1.5 to $3 for every dollar invested, a number supported by the International Monetary Fund. As is often the case Ronald Reagan can be quoted to support policies opposed by his supposed disciples such as when he argued for increasing the gas tax to reinvest in the highway system.

Novice Packet Files 318

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Solvency Infrastructure has more relevance on more peoples’ lives and has a greater effect – should be prioritized Henderson and Blackwell, 2015 ( Wade Henderson is president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Angela Blackwell is founder and CEO of PolicyLink, a research and action institute focused on social and racial equity. “How better transportation can fight income inequality,” The Hill. June 15, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/244832-how- better-transportation-can-fight-income-inequality) CDY

With our nation facing growing income disparities and aging, often inequitable, transportation systems, long•term investment in transportation couldn’t be more essential to the lives and livelihoods of Americans. Transportation not only connects us to jobs and economic opportunities, it plays a key role in access to quality housing, schools, and health care, all of which are crucial for families trying to get ahead in life. For the 7.5 million households in metropolitan areas without a car, public transit can be a bridge or a barrier to opportunity, depending on its availability. A fare hike or change in bus route can determine whether or not someone can get to a doctor’s appointment, job, or grocery store, and whether they’re able to access child care and juggle going back to school to help improve the odds for their entire family. Take the case of Shelia Williams, a 38•year•old single mother of five in Memphis, Tenn., who was putting herself through college when the city cut the only bus route she could take to get to school. Facing the prospect of failing her classes, Williams joined the Memphis Bus Rider’s Union and with other advocates was able to win back her route, soon after being elected as the first transit•dependent member on the Memphis Transit Board. Stories like hers, though sadly not uncommon, are a powerful illustration of the interaction between transportation and economic opportunity, and how easily the loss of one can cripple one’s access to the other. But stories like Williams’ are not told – or heard – nearly enough. Though reliable transportation is an overwhelmingly important factor in helping hard•working Americans move out of poverty, critical decisions about transportation investments are often made without the input of low•income people, people of color, people with disabilities, and the elderly. This means that those who are most affected by transportation systems are also those least likely to have any say in them. Equitable transportation policy has the potential to foster economic mobility, ensuring that everyone in the community can participate in and benefit from the local economy. As Congress seeks a long•term funding solution to reauthorize surface transportation legislation, it is imperative that politicians in DC — and here in Tennessee — realize and prioritize the vital link between mobility and economic mobility, and recognize the importance of including the voices of low•income communities and communities of color in the decision•making process.

Novice Packet Files 319

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Permutation Answer Permutation fails, the politics link is based on new funding which the permutation still does – the counterplan only shifts funding so the counterplan doesn’t link. Additionally there is always tradeoff because the US budget is finite, funding for something always has to be taken from something else.

Novice Packet Files 320

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Politics/Net Benefit Defense No Link Turns: Republicans dislike creating new funding, not infrastructure investment – reallocation is bipartisan Keith Laing, 05/12/15, GOP senator introduces bill to create infrastructure bank, The Hill, Keith Laing is a national government and politics reporter who works for The Detroit News in their Washington, D.C bureau. At The News he covered auto regulation and lobbying and the Michigan Congressional delegation. Prior to coming to The News, he covered transportation policy in Congress for The Hill, thehill.com/policy/transportation/241789-gop-senator-introduces-transportation-bill

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) has introduced legislation to create a national infrastructure bank as lawmakers are struggling to come up with a way to pay for an extension of federal transportation funding. The legislation, which has been dubbed the “Build USA Act,” would create a new infrastructure bank to provide funding for states to apply for loans at low interest rates. Under the proposal, states would return unused federal dollars from previous construction projects to provide a pool of funding for other projects. In exchange for agreeing to a participate in the program for a three-year period, states would receive greater control over their transportation projects and also have the ability to apply for low-interest federal loans for “core infrastructure projects.” Fischer said the looming transportation funding deadline showed it was time for lawmakers to create a new system of addressing the nation’s infrastructure problems. “Our nation’s infrastructure is in need of repair and expansion,” she said in a statement. “As millions of Americans sit in endless traffic jams and travel over decaying bridges, our government continues to waste time and money. It is time to think outside the box and offer bold solutions that will stop this cycle and provide states with the flexibility to start rebuilding our core infrastructure.” Fischer’s legislation comes as lawmakers are facing a May 31 deadline for extending the current transportation funding measure that is scheduled to expire then. Lawmakers in both parties have expressed a desire to pass an extension of the infrastructure bill, but they are struggling to come up with a way to pay for it. The traditional source of transportation funding has been revenue from the federal gas tax since its inception in the 1930’s. The tax has not been increased since 1993, however, and has struggled to keep pace with construction costs as U.S. cars have become more fuel efficient. The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in about $34 billion annually at its current rate. Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget in recent years to close the gap, but transportation advocates have complained the resulting temporary patches are preventing states from undertaking badly needed large construction projects. Transportation advocates have pushed Congress to increase the tax for the first time in two decades to pay for a long-term infrastructure funding extension, but lawmakers have been reluctant to ask drivers to pay more at the pump. Fischer said her bill to create an infrastructure bank would be a more viable solution to the transportation funding shortfall than increasing gas taxes. “My bill adheres to three important points: reduce regulatory burdens, redirect funding, and provide states with more authority to manage their highways and bridges,” she said. “Nebraska has gained successful results with this model and it’s time to bring best practices from our states to the national discussion. By letting our states manage these projects, we can get America moving safely and securely for decades to come.”

Novice Packet Files 321

Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure) Politics/Net Benefit Defense No Link Turns: 3 to 1 return on investment and very popular Jamie Hennigan, September 23, 2014, New Report Shows Status Quo on Infrastructure Hampers Competitiveness, National Association of Manufacturers, Jamie Hennigan is vice president of strategic communications at the National Association of Manufacturers. Before joining the NAM, Mr. Hennigan served on the staff of the House Natural Resources Committee under Chairman Doc Hastings,www.nam.org/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2014/09/New-Report-Shows-Status-Quo-on-Infrastructure-Hampers-Competitiveness/

A new study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and conducted by Inforum at the University of Maryland offers a view into the economic benefits the U.S. economy would reap with a more concerted effort to address the nation’s infrastructure needs. In total, the study finds that a targeted and long-term increase in public infrastructure investments from all public and private sources over the next 15 years will: Increase jobs by almost 1.3 million at the onset of an initial boost; Grow real GDP 1.3 percent by 2020 and 2.9 percent by 2030; Create a progressively more productive economy, which, due to cumulative effects through time, will benefit from a $3 return on investment for every $1 invested in infrastructure by 2030; and Provide Americans an increase in take-home pay after taxes—a $1,300 net gain per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030 (measured in 2009 dollars). The report also reveals a decade of troubling trends in infrastructure formation, such as a 3.5 percent drop per year in the volume of highway, road and bridge investments as well as further sharp decreases in mass transit, aviation and water transportation infrastructure investment. Last year, the NAM sounded the alarm on this troubling trend by partnering with Building America’s Future to survey manufacturers about their perspectives on the state of infrastructure in the United States. Some 70 percent responded that American infrastructure is in fair or poor shape and needs a great deal or quite a bit of improvement.

Novice Packet Files 322

Topicality to Space Aff 1. (Interpretation) Diplomatic engagement are negotiations that aim to modify the behavior of another state Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 2014, Ten Principles of Operational Diplomacy: A Framework, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training is a non-profit dedicated to the history and theory of diplomatic studies - it's board and staff are made up of many distinguished lawyers and politicians, adst.org/the-stump/ten-principles-of-operational-diplomacy-a- framework/ Diplomacy is defined by the Department of State as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations and maintaining relations between nations; skill in handling affairs without arousing animosity.” Another recent definition from Indian General KA Muthanna described diplomacy as “the conduct of international relations by negotiation and engendering goodwill and mutual trust rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law.” Among these and other classic definitions of diplomacy are a common theme: the essence of diplomacy is communication between different parties with the goal of reaching agreement on an issue or on a basis for state interaction. The proposed ten principles are intended to contribute to diplomatic practice and to the development of effective diplomatic approaches to achieving foreign policy objectives. 2. (Violation) Space cooperation is science engagement – not diplomatic or economic engagement Cathy Campbell, June 28, 2012, A Consortium Model for Science Engagement, Science and Diplomacy Magazine, Cathy Campbell is president and chief executive officer of CRDF Global (independent nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration), www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/consortium-model-for-science-engagement

In many ways, the consortium’s approach builds on the U.S. science engagement with the USSR and the People’s Republic of China. The most obvious commonality is the underlying recognition of the value of science engagement during periods of strained official relations between countries. Even at the height of the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet scientists were meeting through informal venues such as the Pugwash Conferences, begun in 1957, and the interacademy exchanges that began in 1959. By creating channels of communication and demonstrating models for engagement, these exchanges set the stage for the government-to-government cooperation that followed. By the early 1970s science and technology figured prominently in the U.S.-USSR agenda with new agreements signed in science and technology, environment, space cooperation, and medical sciences and public health. Similarly, as part of his historic opening to China in 1972, President Richard Nixon included science as one of the main directions for building a new relationship with China. 3. (Violation) Repeal is not engagement – it only opens the possibility of engagement David Axe, Oct 23, 2012, A Giant Leap Forward, Pacific Standard, David Axe is an American military correspondent who writes on military life and aspects of current conflicts. Axe is a prolific blogger and has published several books. Defense IQ ranked David Axe's website, War is Boring, as one of the top ten defense blogs of 2011, https://psmag.com/a-giant-leap-forward-aa701da31cfa#.62rcy8okv

With more open-minded lawmakers in key positions, two simple steps could reverse America’s self-defeating blockade of the Chinese space program: a repeal of most, if not all, of the legal prohibitions in the U.S. against cooperating with China in space, and a commensurate diplomatic effort by Washington to bring Beijing into the existing international space program.

Novice Packet Files 323

4. Standards: a. Fairness: All of our evidence is based off the US increasing diplomatic or economic engagement with the PRC – that means their case avoids all our best disadvantage and Kritik links and puts us at a severe disadvantage in this debate. The resolution specifies the types of engagement affs must use and that is the only predictable standard off which to base our arguments. b. Education: The resolution framers didn’t intend for us to learn about science cooperation – they wanted us to learn about diplomatic and economic engagement. Debate trains us to be effective lawyers, politicians, and advocates – the only way to be effective change-makers is to learn about societal factors like diplomacy and economics. Also, an untopical aff moots all the research we do out of round – it disincentives us to learn more about economics, diplomacy, and the topic since it won’t be relevant in the debate. c. Effects topicality: Their case is not on-face topical, it just removes a barrier which could lead to a topical action. Effects topicality is bad because it explodes the limits of debate. In the world of the aff any action between point A and point Z is acceptable as long as point Z is topical. That means they could solve world hunger, global warming, and give everyone a coke as long as they somehow end up engaging with China. That’s a bad model of debate and you should reject it. 5. Voters: Plans that are untopical destroy the reason we do debate. If debates are unfair, not educational, or abuse the rules of the game it makes students want to quit and undercuts all the transformative potential of debate. Vote neg to maintain the value of debate. Topicality is a gateway issue, if they don’t win it then it means the debate is tainted and you should not vote on the other positions.

Novice Packet Files 324

Cyber Negative

Novice Packet Files 325

Inherency Answers - Cyber US-China are working together on cyber now White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 25, 2015, FACT SHEET: President Xi Jinping’s State Visit to the United States, The Office of the Press Secretary coordinates and releases the information about White House affairs, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/fact-sheet-president-xi-jinpings-state-visit-united-states

The United States and China agree that timely responses should be provided to requests for information and assistance concerning malicious cyber activities. Further, both sides agree to cooperate, in a manner consistent with their respective national laws and relevant international obligations, with requests to investigate cybercrimes, collect electronic evidence, and mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from their territory. Both sides also agree to provide updates on the status and results of those investigation to the other side, as appropriate. The United States and China agree that neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors. Both sides are committed to making common effort to further identify and promote appropriate norms of state behavior in cyberspace within the international community. The United States and China welcome the July 2015 report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International security, which addresses norms of behavior and other crucial issues for international security in cyberspace. The two sides also agree to create a senior experts group for further discussions on this topic. The United States and China agree to establish a high-level joint dialogue mechanism on fighting cybercrime and related issues. China will designate an official at the ministerial level to be the lead and the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, Ministry of Justice, and the State Internet and Information Office will participate in the dialogue. The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney General will co-chair the dialogue, with participation from representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Intelligence Community and other agencies, for the United States. This mechanism will be used to review the timeliness and quality of responses to requests for information and assistance with respect to malicious cyber activity of concern identified by either side. As part of this mechanism, both sides agree to establish a hotline for the escalation of issues that may arise in the course of responding to such requests. Finally, both sides agree that the first meeting of this dialogue will be held by the end of 2015, and will occur twice per year thereafter.

Novice Packet Files 326

Inherency Answers - Cyber Obama can is already planning to use sanctions Franz-Stefan Gady, January 29, 2016, What Does 2016 Hold for China-US Relations in Cyberspace?, The Diplomat, Franz-Stefan Gady is an Associate Editor with The Diplomat. His interests include civil-military relations, revolution in military affairs, and cyber diplomacy. He also is a Senior Fellow with the EastWest Institute where he edits the Policy Innovation Blog. Franz-Stefan has reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy Magazine, The National Interest, Vice News, The Middle East Eye, The Christian Science Monitor, Profil, Der Standard, and Die Presse among other publications, thediplomat.com/2016/01/what-does-2016-hold-for-china-us-relations-in- cyberspace/ Sino-U.S. relations in cyberspace in 2016 will be defined by three key policies: attribution, sanctions, and norms. The first two tacks will be used by the United States to contain malicious Chinese activities in cyberspace (and to assuage the U.S. private sector and U.S. public opinion), whereas the last device will be used for promoting strategic stability between both nations by deepening the understanding of what is acceptable behavior in the cyber realm. First, while it is true that attribution, i.e. tracing a cyber attack back to its originator, remains difficult, it is not impossible. Both the U.S. government and the private sector have repeatedly called out Chinese hackers in so-called “naming and shaming” campaigns. This tactic consists of either leaking classified intelligence to the press or publishing cyberattack reports by U.S. cyber security firms (which over the years became a clever marketing ploy for those companies). And while “naming and shaming” sustained a severe setback with the Snowden revelations, we will certainly witness a number of such cyberattack disclosures in 2016. However, the shock value—and as a consequence its potential negative impact on the Sino- U.S. bilateral relationship—will be less severe than in 2014 and 2015, given that, after the recent Office of Personal Management data breach and the Snowden disclosures, the threshold for disclosures with the potential to severely undermine the Sino-U.S. bilateral relationship has substantially risen. At the same time “naming and shaming” will at least contain both sides from going overboard when it comes to cyber espionage activities and aggressive network intrusions. Second, sanctions, while an imperfect tool, appear to have caught the attention of the Chinese leadership in 2015 and will likely play a role in Sino-U.S. relations in 2016 as well. On April 1, 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13694, which argues that “the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” As a consequence, the Obama White House threatened China with economic sanctions and individual Chinese citizens with travel restrictions should Beijing not rein in its hacker community. One indication that this worked has been the arrest of a number of Chinese hackers prior to the September 2015 state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, although there is considerable debate among experts whether there is a genuine connection between the two events. However, the threat of economic sanctions will have significantly higher impact on the senior Chinese leadership in 2016, primarily due to China’s deteriorating economic situation, but also due to the international humiliation the country would suffer from being the first nation subject to economic sanctions for cyber attacks.

Novice Packet Files 327

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-unique: China doesn’t hack – they are dedicated to working with the US Xi Jinping, Sept. 22, 2015, Full Transcript: Interview With Chinese President Xi Jinping, Wall Street Journal, Xi Jinping is the current president of the People's Republic of China, www.wsj.com/articles/full-transcript-interview-with-chinese-president-xi-jinping-1442894700

China takes cybersecurity very seriously. China is also a victim of hacking. The Chinese government does not engage in theft of commercial secrets in any form, nor does it encourage or support Chinese companies to engage in such practices in any way. Cybertheft of commercial secrets and hacking attacks against government networks are both illegal; such acts are criminal offenses and should be punished according to law and relevant international conventions. China and the United States share common concerns on cybersecurity. We are ready to strengthen cooperation with the U.S. side on this issue. I will have in-depth exchanges of views with President Obama on bilateral relations and the international developments and engage the American public in order to jointly chart the course for growing China-U.S. relations. I am sure that this visit will send a positive message to the international community that China and the United States will strengthen cooperation and jointly meet global challenges.

Novice Packet Files 328

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: Hacking is too hard to track – US is just guessing its China Xinhua News Service, June 4, 2015, U.S. allegations about hacking from China "not responsible, counterproductive": embassy, The Xinhua News Agency is the official press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is the biggest and most influential media organization in China, news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-06/05/c_134300516.htm

China on Thursday cautioned the United States against jumping to conclusion in accusing China of hacking U.S. federal computer networks to steal personnel information, saying such accusation is "not responsible and counterproductive." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement earlier Thursday that massive data from the Office of Personnel Management and the Interior Department had been compromised in the hacking. Some U.S. media reports, quoting unnamed U.S. officials, alleged that the hacking was done by hackers based in China, without providing further proof. "Cyber attacks conducted across countries are hard to track and therefore the source of attacks is difficult to identify. Jumping to conclusions and making hypothetical accusation is not responsible and counterproductive," Zhu Haiquan, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the United States, said in a statement. He pointed out that Chinese laws prohibit cyber crimes of all forms and China has made great efforts to combat cyber attacks in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations.

Novice Packet Files 329

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Internal Link Answers No internal link: Aff’s studies are biased – IP just isn’t that important Eli Dourado and Ian Robinson, 2014, How Many Jobs Does Intellectual Property Create?, Mercatus Research, Eli Dourado is a research fellow in the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He specializes in Internet governance, intellectual property, political economy, and the economics of technology & Ian Robinson holds an MA in economics from George Mason University and is an alumnus of the Mercatus MA Fellowship program, mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Dourado-IP-Jobs.pdf

Perhaps most fundamentally, jobs are not ends in themselves, and counting the number of jobs created is therefore not the best way to evaluate a policy. As Bryan Caplan notes, “Economists have been at war with make-work bias for centuries. [19th-century French economist Frédéric] Bastiat ridicules the equation of prosperity with jobs as ‘Sisyphism,’ after the mythological fully employed Greek who was eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill.”8 Economic progress, Bastiat says, is defined by an increasing ratio of output to effort—indeed, economic nirvana is achieved when there is high output and zero labor effort. Lawmakers could create jobs by requiring that construction projects be performed with spoons instead of shovels or tractors. Such a policy, however, would reduce worker productivity and decrease total economic output. Consequently, this spoon mandate would not promote economic progress. Likewise, some of the jobs created by IP may harm the economy instead of helping it. Suppose IP laws necessitated that every firm hire 10 additional IP lawyers, but otherwise left output unchanged. IP could be said to create millions of additional jobs, but these would be jobs that reduced real output per worker, jobs that moved society further away from economic nirvana. They should be reckoned as economic costs of IP, not economic benefits. If (counterfactually) this were the only effect of IP, then abolition of IP would mean that the effort of the heretofore unproductively employed IP lawyers could be redirected to more productive uses. Second, an accounting of the employment created by intellectual property necessarily focuses on what Bastiat called the “seen,” as opposed to the “unseen,” effects of IP. Consumers ultimately pay the salaries of any newly employed workers through their (now higher) expenditure on IP-intensive products. But in the absence of the “new employment,” consumers would have extra money to spend on other products and services, which would support the creation of different jobs, which of course cannot be observed. Unless the jobs that intellectual property creates are better for the economy than the ones that are replaced, IP at best moves jobs from this “unseen” domain to the seen one. Third, as a matter of basic logic, it is not the case that every job—or even most jobs—in IP-intensive industries would not exist but for the existence of IP. The fact that an industry is IP- intensive, as defined by IPUSE, does not necessarily indicate that an industry’s output or employment is IP- dependent.10 As a reductio ad absurdum, consider the blogging “industry.” As a matter of law, all authors are automatically, without registration or any other formal notice, bestowed with a copyright in their blog posts. Since the entire output of the blogosphere is copyrighted, under IPUSE’s methodology it would qualify as an IP-intensive industry (if it were considered an industry). Nevertheless, it seems clear that copyright protection accounts for at best a tiny sliver of bloggers’ output—the vast majority of blogs are accessible without a paid subscription, and many bloggers do not attempt to monetize their posts (with ads, say) at all. If some industries resemble blogging—for example, if copyrights are automatically awarded but not relied on, or if patenting is done for primarily defensive purposes, or if trademarks exist but are rarely relied on by consumers—then IPUSE and the other reports that rely on simplistic counts of IP grossly overstate the number of jobs due to intellectual property. For these industries, IP intensity is not a reliable indicator of IP dependence. Fourth, intellectual property is not the only way to incentivize creation and invention. Prizes and awards can stimulate production of new innovations or creative works. Assurance contracts, such as those enabled by new online crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, are another mechanism by which creation can be rewarded. Governments or wealthy individuals can also commission creative works or fund research teams. When these studies estimate the number of jobs created by intellectual property, they typically make a static comparison to a baseline in which no other policies or institutions adapt to accommodate the need to incentivize creation. These studies will therefore overcount the number of jobs due to IP.

Novice Packet Files 330

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Internal Link Answers Internal link turn: More IP protection actually hurts the economy MATT Ridley, June 21, 2013, A Welcome Turn Away From Patents, Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley, is a British journalist who has written several popular science books.[1] He is also a businessman and a Conservative member of the House of Lords.[2][3] Ridley is best known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324520904578553700647653828

The economist Arthur Laffer is reputed to have drawn his famous curve—showing that beyond a certain point higher taxes generate lower revenue—on a paper napkin at a dinner with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the Washington Hotel in 1974. Another economist, Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University, last year drew a similar curve on a virtual napkin to argue that, beyond a certain point, greater protection for intellectual property causes less innovation. He thinks that U.S. patent law is well beyond that optimal point. Last week the Supreme Court came out against the patenting of genes, on the grounds that they are discoveries, not inventions, though it did allow that edited copies of the DNA of a breast cancer gene should be seen as invented diagnostic tools. Dr. Tabarrok thinks that decision and other recent rulings are nudging patent law back in the right direction after a protectionist drift in the 1980s and '90s. The argument for patents is that, without the monopoly they grant, inventors will not make discoveries, and if they do, they won't share them. So inventors get 20 years of protection against imitators. The counterargument is that patents are often used defensively to deter rival innovators and thus to discourage innovation. America's Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 resulted in more patenting but less innovation as firms tried to build up defensive "war chests" of patents to use in disputes with each other. Many firms use patents as barriers to entry, suing upstart innovators who trespass on their intellectual property even en route to some other goal. In the years before World War I, aircraft makers tied each other up in patent lawsuits and slowed down innovation until the government stepped in. Much the same has happened with smartphones and biotechnology today. New entrants have to fight their way through "patent thickets" if they are to build on existing technologies to make new ones. In his 2010 book "The Gridlock Economy," Michael Heller compares this monopolistic use of patents to a "phantom tollbooth" (a phrase borrowed from Norton Juster's 1961 children's book). Biotech companies that patent molecular techniques act like medieval barons along the Rhine who stifled trade by taking advantage of weakened imperial authority to extract tolls from passing cargo boats. The logical next step in the corruption of the patent system was the invention of the patent "troll"—a company that buys up little-used patents not to develop the product in question but just to prosecute trespassers and extract money from them. The result has been some huge payouts, including one from BlackBerry. Dr. Tabarrok argued in his 2011 book "Launching the Innovation Renaissance" that patents cannot encourage innovation if they raise its costs. In fields where innovation is a cumulative process, he argued, restricting patents would cause firms to lose some of their monopoly rights, but they would gain the opportunity to use the innovations of others. "The result is greater total innovation." Patents are supposed to prevent imitation, but in practice, imitation is often more costly than innovation. Most patent disputes are not about firms copying each other's inventions but about two companies discovering simultaneously the next step in an innovative process. Yet patent law can't easily handle that type of situation.

Novice Packet Files 331

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Impact Answers Turn: US Growth bad – hurts the poor and the environment Samuel Alexander, September 22, 2015, Sustained economic growth: United Nations mistakes the poison for the cure, The Conversation news aggregator, Samuel Alexander is a research fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne, theconversation.com/sustained-economic-growth-united-nations-mistakes-the-poison-for-the-cure-47691

The defining flaw in the United Nations’ agenda is the naïve assumption that “sustained economic growth” is the most direct path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This faith in the god of growth is fundamentally misplaced. It has been shown, for example, that for every $100 in global growth merely $0.60 is directed toward resolving global poverty. Not only is this an incredibly inefficient pathway to poverty alleviation, it is environmentally unsupportable. By championing economic growth, the Sustainable Development Goals are a barely disguised defence of the market fundamentalism that underpins business-as-usual. But in an age of planetary limits, sustained economic growth is not the solution to our social and environmental ills, but their cause.

Novice Packet Files 332

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Impact Answers Turn: Economic growth is harmful and bad – 3 reasons Graeme Maxton, April 21, 2015, Economic growth doesn't create jobs, it destroys them, The Guardian, Graeme Maxton is secretary general of the Club of Rome (The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues), www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome After so many years of being told the same thing, it is barely surprising that we believe it. Economic growth is good, we are told, and essential to all we do. Growth creates work. Work creates wealth. Wealth closes the gap between rich and poor. Once we have a stronger economy, the economists say, we can tackle our environmental problems. The only trouble is, this is all wrong. 1. Growth does not create jobs: The way the current economic system is designed, it does the opposite. The constant drive to increase productivity, which is what economic growth really is, requires manufacturers to steadily reduce input costs. Economic growth destroys jobs. Before the 1980s this didn’t matter much, because many new manufacturing businesses were established to soak up a rising working population. Since then, though, this has not happened – growth has increased the number of people without jobs, certainly in the rich world.In the last 35 years, the world has experienced the fastest economic growth in human history. Yet, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), unemployment went up. Even extreme policy tools introduced since 2007, such as ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing, have not achieved much. We were told that these would generate faster economic growth, yet growth has remained weak and unemployment is still higher than it was three decades ago. 2. Economic growth does not reduce inequality: Because the system is designed to reward those who already have money and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich. This is especially true since 2008 as government and consumer debts in the rich world have risen and average incomes have stagnated or fallen. The gap between the rich and poor is bigger today than in 1914. The gap between rich countries and poor ones is also much greater. The coming wave of new technology will make these problems worse. A study on the future of employment at Oxford University predicts that almost half of all jobs are at threat from robotisation in the next 20 years. Many of these are highly skilled jobs, such as those done by pilots, doctors, accountants and lawyers. The jobs that will be left are those that require a great deal of personal attention or artistic input – in other words, those that are generally poorly paid. 3. Boosting growth is not the way to solve environmental problems: Economic growth is the cause of them. It requires a constant increase in the flow of raw materials extracted from the planet to be turned into goods, services and waste. The more we grow, certainly using current economic thinking, the more resources we need to use and the more pollution we create. Rather then pursuing economic growth then, we should tackle our problems head on. We should develop policies to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on, because it leads to healthier and more stable societies. We should plan to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and we need to stop prevaricating when it comes to the environment and actually do something.

Novice Packet Files 333

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Impact Answers Utilitarians agree, growth is immoral Avram Hiller, Ramona Ilea, & Leonard Kahn, Dec 4, 2013, Consequentialism and Environmental Ethics, Routledge, Avram Hiller is an Associate Professor in the Philosophy Department at Portland State University, Ramona Ilea is professor at Pacific University in Oregon, Leonard Kahn is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola university in New Orleans, https://books.google.com/books?id=x1VKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq="economic+growth"+"consequentialism"&source=bl&ots=a2 38LmgFvM&sig=2EGT1DzYzJUsefcWMHuWZo8x- QM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86cmb8LLOAhUrzIMKHQ2eDV8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=mill's%20views%20on%20stationary%20growth&f =false

Mill's views on the stationary growth economy are linked with his ideas that we should focus our attention to improving the Art of Living and improving the quality of life rather than the quantity of consumer products: It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary state of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. (CW 3: 756) These claims and statements clearly resonate with the spirit of ecofeminists Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva's (1993) promotion of a life of voluntary simplicity. Mies and Shiva promote an anti-oppression ideal that they conceive of as a life that liberates the consumer and unhooks people from what they call the maldevelopment of Western industrialized and technological society. Maldevelopment is explained in terms of the existence of an inverse relationship between the good life and economic growth. In this view, carefully explained by Mics and Shiva and also widely held by environmentalist thinkers and activists, economic growth and quality of life and well-being are in conflict. The standard view that economic growth is needed for well-being is rejected as lacking contact with reality. According to Mics and Shiva, economic growth, increased production, and materialism act as barriers to rather than producers of well-being. On the contrary, they suggest that well-being depends upon reconceiving the good life and unhooking it from consumerism and materialism. We should replace this compulsive and addictive view with one that detaches the good from pursuit of and consumption of material objects. This goes along with a more just distribution of the economic and material basis of a good life, so that no one is deprived of the basic material goods needed for a decent standard of living that meets vital needs. This ideal removes the addictive and compulsive pursuit of materialism and replaces it with an ideal of moderate use of nature to provide for vital human needs. This notably resonates with the sentiments expressed by Mill in his attacks on the materialism of his day. Mill was prescient in his views, since few nineteenth-century thinkers foresaw that the resources of nature were limited and under threat by consumerism.

Novice Packet Files 334

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Solvency Answers Past actions like plan have failed – US can’t deter Chinese hackers ELIAS Groll, SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, The U.S. Hoped Indicting 5 Chinese Hackers Would Deter Beijing’s Cyberwarriors. It Hasn’t Worked, Foreign Policy, Elias Groll is a staff writer at Foreign Policy, covering cybersecurity, privacy, and intelligence, foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/02/the- u-s-hoped-indicting-5-chinese-hackers-would-deter-beijings-cyberwarriors-it-hasnt-worked/ On May 19, 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder walked up to a podium at the Justice Department and accused a group of five hackers with names like UglyGorilla and KandyGoo of carrying out a high-tech campaign of electronic burglary against prominent American businesses like U.S. Steel and Westinghouse Electric. Despite their teenage monikers, the 48-pageindictment said the perpetrators were soldiers from Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army, a premier crew of cyberwarriors within the Chinese military. Going after the Chinese officers, Holder said, “makes clear that state actors who engage in economic espionage, even over the Internet from faraway offices in Shanghai, will be exposed for their criminal conduct and sought for apprehension and prosecution in an American court of law.” For good measure, the Justice Department even distributed wanted posters with pictures of the hackers in their Chinese military uniforms. But nearly a year and a half after that indictment was unveiled, the five PLA soldiers named in the indictment are no closer to seeing the inside of a federal courtroom, and China’s campaign of economic espionage against U.S. firms continues. With Chinese President Xi Jinping set to arrive in Washington for a high- profile summit with President Barack Obama later this month, the question of how — and, indeed, if — the United States can deter China from pilfering American corporate secrets remains very much open. The indictment of the PLA hackers now stands out as a watershed moment in the escalating campaign by the U.S. government to deter China from its aggressive actions in cyberspace — both as an example of the creative ways in which the United States is trying to fight back and the limits of its ability to actually influence Chinese behavior. Since the indictment was announced, cybersecurity experts say China has altered some of the methods used by its hackers but that its campaign against U.S. firms remains active. “We’ve seen tactical change but strategic continuity,” said Jen Weedon, a manager for threat intelligence at FireEye, a leading cybersecurity firm. She added that Chinese hackers have changed some of the malware and infrastructure they used for attacks but were continuing to target U.S. firms. Government agencies like the Pentagon, meanwhile, say that Chinese hackers attempt to infiltrate their systems hundreds of thousands of times per day.

Novice Packet Files 335

Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber Solvency Answers Unilateral retaliation fails Roy Kamphausen, May 2014, New Collaborative Approaches to IP Protection, The National Bureau of Asian Research, ROY KAMPHAUSEN is a Senior Advisor for Political and Security Affairs at the National Bureau of Asian Research, www.nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/eta/New_Collaborative_Approaches_to_IP_Protection.pdf

The IP Commission Report, however, recognized that its recommendations are limited in their applicability; principally, inputs from countries that are trading partners were not incorporated in the description and analysis of the problem of IP theft. The ramifications of poor IP protections, however, are felt by more than just a single country; consequently, solutions are not completely possible if pursued on a purely unilateral basis. Indeed, multilateral approaches are most likely to be successful over time. This working paper picks up where the IP Commission Report leaves off, by taking up the issue of how to multilateralize the protection of intellectual property. The principal challenge in such an approach centers on how to manage the sharing of information in effective and trustworthy ways.

Novice Packet Files 336

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-unique: US has the strongest cyber forces – and getting stronger DANNY Vinik, December 9, 2015, America’s secret arsenal, Politico, Danny Vinik is the assistant editor of The Agenda at Politico. He previously was a staff writer at The New Republic and his work has appeared in the Washington Monthly and Business Insider. He graduated from Duke University in 2013 with majors in economics and public policy, www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/defense-department- cyber-offense-strategy-000331

Stuxnet's origins have never been officially acknowledged, and the extent of American meddling in malware is still unknown. But for the past few years there’s been something new developing within the U.S. military that has taken "cyber" from a theoretical idea to a deliberate—if secretive—part of U.S. policy. The first ripple came in January 2013, when the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was significantly expanding its cybersecurity forces across all the service branches. By that October, the U.S. Army had launched two teams of technical experts dedicated purely to the cyber realm. Just a year later, the number was up to 10. The growth has been snowballing. Last year, the secretary of the Army created a new branch for cyber—the first new Army branch since Special Forces was created in 1987. By October of this year, there were 32 teams, coordinated out of a new joint force headquarters for cyber opened last year in Fort Gordon, Georgia. By next summer, the Army expects to have 41. What's going on? The growth points to one of the most cutting-edge, but also obscure, realms of American military activity: its cyber strategy, and especially its strategy for cyber offense. The United States already has, most observers believe, the most powerful cyberattack capabilities in the world. Much less clear is just what its capacities actually are—and when the Department of Defense believes it should use them.

Novice Packet Files 337

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: Cyber defense good and getting better Barack Obama, February 2015, NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, Barack Obama is president of the United States, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

In the last 6 years alone, we arrested the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and catalyzed a new era of economic growth. We increased our competitive edge and leadership in education, energy, science and technology, research and development, and healthcare. We achieved an energy transformation in North America. We are fortifying our critical infrastructure against all hazards, especially cyber espionage and attack. And we are working hard to safeguard our civil liberties while advancing our security.

Novice Packet Files 338

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Impact Answers Turn: Cyber Deterrence risks more escalation Lee Hsiang Wei, April 16, 2015, The Challenges of Cyber Deterrence, POINTER, JOURNAL OF THE SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES VOL.41 NO.1, Lee Hsiang Wei is a Major in the Singaporean armed forces, www.mindef.gov.sg/content/dam/imindef_media_library/graphics/pointer/PDF/2015/Vol.41%20No.1/3)%20V41N1_The%20Challenges%20of %20Cyber%20Deterrence.pdf

The aftermath of a successful retaliation against an initial cyber-attack is difficult to predict or control. A mistimed or misinterpreted action could well result in the escalation of the situation, resulting in more cyber-attacks. The timing, choice, scope and nature of the retaliation would affect the perceived message by the attacker. Adding to this complexity in messaging, the difficultly in tracing the source of the cyber attacker can take up to several months. This will result in a delay between the attack and the retaliatory action. The act of cyber retaliation may itself take months to execute before the effects are felt and noticed by the attacker. By the time the retaliatory cyber-attack is discovered, the retaliation could possibly seem both arbitrary and unrelated to the original incident. If the messaging had indeed been misinterpreted, the defending nation would run the risk of the attacker responding by escalating the matter to an armed conflict. If the attacker becomes convinced that he would lose the cyber tit-for-tat, the option to counter retaliate in a different domain becomes an inviting proposition.39 In 1998, it was reported that Russia, being concerned about their ability to control ‘information warfare,’ was openly declaring that it reserved the option to react to a strategic cyberattack with the choice of any weapon in its arsenal, which included their nuclear arsenal.40

Novice Packet Files 339

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Impact Answers Turn: Cyber deterrence leads to an arms race - especially dangerous for the US Clorinda Trujillo, September 30, 2014, The Limits of Cyberspace Deterrence, Joint Force Quarterly 75, Clorinda Trujillo is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force - The essay this exerpt is taken from is an essay which won in the Chairman’s strategic research paper category, ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7849/Article/577560/jfq-75-the-limits-of-cyberspace-deterrence.aspx

Third, there is a risk of asymmetric vulnerability to attack in cyberspace—that is, the threat that the use of a capability could backfire. As one actor develops offensive and defensive capabilities, other actors will strive to improve their offensive and defensive skills as well. This continuous endeavor could push a model that leads to a cyber “arms race.”37 In 1998, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director announced the United States was developing computer programs to attack the infrastructure of other countries.38 By then, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated over 120 state and nonstate actors had or were developing information warfare systems.39 Information on exploiting vulnerabilities and attacking networks is readily available on the Internet,40 and with American dependency on cyberspace being greater than most, the United States is taking a risk by developing advanced cyberspace capabilities.

Novice Packet Files 340

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Impact Answers Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to

Novice Packet Files 341

feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.

Novice Packet Files 342

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Solvency Answers Cyber deterrence doesn’t solve – it’s an outdated way of thinking P.W. Singer, DECEMBER 18, 2015, How the United States Can Win the Cyberwar of the Future, Foreign Policy, P.W. Singer is director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. Allan Friedman is a visiting scholar at the Cyber Security Policy Research Institute at George Washington University, foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/18/how-the-united-states-can-win-the-cyberwar-of-the-future- deterrence-theory-security/

The problem is that the evidence disproves this link between building up more cyber-offensive capability as the way to scare off the other side. There is not yet any direct pathway to deterrence the way building up nuclear capability yielded it back in the day. Unlike concerns over bomber and missile “gaps” during the Cold War (which notably turned out to be wrong), the United States’ hugely superior position in cyberspace has never been in question. And for anyone somehow in doubt, there were the series of Washington designed to take credit for Stuxnet, the cyberattack that successfully slowed Iran’s nuclear program and showed off a whole new class of cyberweapon. Then came Edward Snowden’s dump of thousands of NSA documents. While Snowden’s disclosures obviously angered his former employers, they also show that the folks at Fort Meade have much to be proud of. They have developed unmatched, amazingly exotic capabilities, from a mindboggling scale of global monitoring devices to new classes of cyberweapons that use radio signals to jump software over the previously protective physical divides between systems. And the leaks show the capability is not mere lab work, but that the NSA has used them in operations against targets ranging from Iranian nuclear research facilities to Chinese command networks. Yet despite this offensive capability and the demonstration of its potency, attacks on the United States have only grown, in both number and intensity. In the year after the Snowden leaks proved the United States’ offensive prowess, there was 55 percent more confirmed data breaches than the year before — and that doesn’t even include the operations targeting major government sites like OPM or the Pentagon’s Joint Staff network. The problem is not with deterrence theory, or with cyberweapons’ offensive utility, but that too many people are trying to peel off the bumper-sticker version of complicated Cold War debates on deterrence and apply them to a more complicated present and future. So what to do instead? Here are the three better ways for the United States to draw the right lessons from the Cold War and create better and more obtainable cyber-deterrence goals.

Novice Packet Files 343

Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber Solvency Answers Turn: Cyber deterrence isn’t like nuclear deterrence – their analysis fails and lulls us into a false sense of security Patrick Cirenza, 22 FEBRUARY 2016, The flawed analogy between nuclear and cyber deterrence, Bulliten of the Atomic Scientists, Patrick Cirenza is a master's student at Cambridge University who studies cyber warfare and cyber espionage. He obtained his bachelor's degree in political science from Stanford University, where he was a research assistant for professors Condoleezza Rice and Scott Sagan, General James Mattis (Ret.), and Kori Schake. His undergraduate honors thesis on the nuclear-cyber analogy won the William J. Perry award for policy-relevant research in international security studies, thebulletin.org/flawed-analogy-between-nuclear-and-cyber-deterrence9179

On the surface, the analogy is compelling. Like nuclear weapons, the most powerful cyber weapons— malware capable of permanently damaging critical infrastructure and other key assets of society—are potentially catastrophically destructive, have short delivery times across vast distances, and are nearly impossible to defend against. Moreover, only the most technically competent of states appear capable of wielding cyber weapons to strategic effect right now, creating the temporary illusion of an exclusive cyber club. To some leaders who matured during the nuclear age, these tempting similarities and the pressing nature of the strategic cyber threat provide firm justification to use nuclear deterrence strategies in cyberspace. Indeed, Cold War-style cyber is one of the foundational cornerstones of the 2015 US Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. However, dive a little deeper and the analogy becomes decidedly less convincing. At the present time, strategic cyber weapons simply do not share the three main deterrent characteristics of nuclear weapons: the sheer destructiveness of a single weapon, the assuredness of that destruction, and a broad debate over the use of such weapons. The development of fission and then fusion nuclear weapons made it possible to inflict truly unacceptable costs upon an adversary. The invention of delivery technologies—such as secure second-strike capabilities, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear payloads with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles—guaranteed the credibility of the threat. And finally, the vibrant and interconnected debates within government, academia, and think tanks about the use of nuclear weapons have guided policy and technology toward an outcome of stable deterrence. It took the combination of these three characteristics to create a truly unacceptable and credible deterrent threat. By contrast, strategic cyber weapons have not met these criteria. Sheer destructiveness. Despite former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen claiming in 2011 that cyber weapons are the “single biggest existential threat that’s out there,” they have actually inflicted very little physical destruction to date. Stuxnet, the largest known cyber weapon to cross the cyber-physical barrier, only damaged a thousand uranium enrichment centrifuges. Further, it is generally accepted that not a single person has died as a direct result of a cyber attack. The destructive power of even the smallest of nuclear devices still greatly eclipses that of the demonstrated destruction of cyber weapons. Even if the reverential statements of world leaders about the potential destructiveness of strategic cyber weapons are taken at face value, their power still does not compare to that of nuclear weapons. As Colonel Jamie Wakefield, currently the chief of contingency operations for US Northern Command, said in an interview for my thesis in April 2015, “Cyber may be able to threaten the way we live or the way we do business, but nuclear weapons threaten the fact that we live at all.” Simply put, strategic cyber weapons are not currently capable of inflicting the unacceptable costs necessary for stable deterrence in cyberspace. Assuredness of destruction. Questions about the assured delivery of cyber “payloads” also weaken strategic cyber weapons’ credibility as a deterrent. While the delivery of a nuclear weapon relies on the vehicle that carries the weapon’s warhead, the delivery of a strategic cyber weapon is much more dependent on weaknesses in the target’s defenses. If a network administrator patches vulnerabilities in the target computer code, or an agent is unable to insert a USB drive to cross an air-gapped system (a system that is physically disconnected from unprotected networks), then a strategic cyber weapon that was deliverable yesterday might not be today. Even if a strategic cyber weapon makes it past a system’s defenses, there is no guarantee that it will have its intended effect—it could do nothing at all or cause significant unintended collateral damage. There simply is no analogue in the nuclear world, where a weapon’s destruction is a predetermined, known quantity. As President Barack Obama observed when I spoke with him at the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection in February 2015, “With nuclear weapons there is a binary. Either there are no nuclear explosions or there are big ones and it is a real problem. In cyberspace, there are all sorts of gradations.” While a state may promise to massively retaliate against a cyber attack, neither the attacker nor the defender can be entirely sure that this will happen because the state may not have the capability to fulfill its threat. This problem significantly undermines the feasibility of applying deterrence principles in cyberspace. A common understanding. Finally, the open-source debate surrounding the use of strategic cyber weapons is still very much in its infancy. In the absence of major public demonstrations of strategic cyber weapons, the debate largely centers on speculation about cyber capabilities. Without a common understanding of strategic cyber weapons, participants take uncoordinated stabs in the dark over what

Novice Packet Files 344 the policy implications of the weapons are. In combination with the limited interaction between the public debate and its classified counterpart, the result is a rather weak conversation. As former CIA director Michael Hayden commented when I interviewed him in March 2015, “No one has yet begun to write the On Thermonuclear War [Herman Kahn’s classic 1959 text on nuclear strategic concepts] for cyber conflict.” Admiral Jim Ellis, former commander of US Strategic Command, put it far less charitably in my interview with him, also in March 2015, saying that the debate was “like the Rio Grande, a mile wide and an inch deep.” The flawed analogy of nuclear and cyber weapons is dangerous because it creates the illusion of security when potentially there is none. At present, a number of factors—including other forms of deterrence and economic interdependence—are discouraging use of the strategic cyber weapons that states around the world are quickly amassing. However, if the global security situation unexpectedly changes, and the United States bases its cyber policy on the shaky assumption that it can deter strategic cyber weapons, then it could be vulnerable to attack by those who do not share its views. Chinese experts, for example, have espoused skepticism about the feasibility of cyber deterrence. A misjudgment now about strategic cyber weapons could have catastrophic consequences later.

Novice Packet Files 345

Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC) Counterplan text Counterplan text: The United States Congress should implement the medium-term recommendations of the 2013 Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property against the People’s Republic of China excluding sanctions

Novice Packet Files 346

Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC) Counterplan Solvency Sanctions fail – cultural differences Malena Carollo, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, The Christian Science Monitor, Malena Carollo is a reporter at Passcode where she covers surveillance, encryption, and law enforcement. She has written for the Tampa Bay Times and the Staten Island Advance. She earned her M.S. degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where she focused on investigative and data journalism. Her Master’s project, published in Passcode, was a deep-dive into the upcoming industry of social media monitoring companies that claim to be able to deter school violence, www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode- Influencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage

“The problem with the US imposing sanctions on China for economic cyberespionage is that the Chinese don’t understand the US position that there is a difference between economic espionage - which the US claims it does not do - and national security cyber espionage, something the US does daily. The line seems arbitrary to the Chinese culture. ...The truth is, key players on the international stage believe what China believes. France is notorious for industrial espionage, and the Russians, until recently, have just been stealthier about their operations, compared to their Chinese brethren...The real question is not whether we should distinguish between industrial cyber espionage and state secret cyber espionage. The real question is what do we do about cyber espionage in general. … After the Cold War and since the Internet has become the ubiquitous access tool it now is, the change in espionage has been one of scale. Before the Cold War, spy organizations stole secrets one at a time at considerable peril to their secret agents in the field. After, cyber spies can now hoover up libraries of secrets from the safety of their own living rooms. China, Russia, and France understand this and believe it would be silly not to take advantage of the situation. Imposing sanctions on countries for pursuing this activity would not stop it. Most countries would consider it the cost of doing business. The libraries of hoovered secrets would be worth the price. So, sanctions are not the answer. What might work are incentives. We need to find ways that make it mutually beneficial to all players not to conduct cyberespionage operations. I am not sure what those might be, but I am positive that the U.S. imposing sanctions on China will have no effect and will just raise tensions between the two countries.”

Novice Packet Files 347

Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC) Counterplan Net Benefit – Uniqueness and Link Punitive measures could cause a trade and cyber war – we are on the brink now Lawrence L. Muir, Jr. August 22, 2014, Triangulating Cyberespionage for Better US Diplomacy, The Diplomat, Lawrence L. Muir, Jr. is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Washington & Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia. He has taught W&L’s Cyber Crimes Seminar since the Spring Semester of 2012. Professor Muir is a former Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, where he prosecuted cybercrimes in the Computer Crime Section, thediplomat.com/2014/08/triangulating-cyberespionage-for-better-us-diplomacy/

The United States is on the brink of both a trade war and a cyberwar with each country. Chinese cyberespionage, for which China accepts no responsibility, has contributed to America’s economic malaise. McAfee estimates cybercrime reduces U.S. GDP growth by up to 0.8 percent. In response to Chinese hacking, the FBI indicted five officers of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army on cybercrime charges. This unilateral American effort, undertaken because bilateral diplomatic efforts failed to reach an accord on cyber-issues, has proven to be a foreign policy blunder. American companies have faced retribution from the Chinese government. The U.S. has retaliated with trade sanctions against Chinese solar companies. The Chinese, in turn, have stated that a promising bilateral investment treaty now faces serious difficulties. The two nations, so dependent upon each other for economic growth through exports, stand on the precipice of a trade war exacerbated by a cyberwar, due in no small part to the foolishness of an indictment that will never produce convictions.

Novice Packet Files 348

Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC) Counterplan Net Benefit - Impact US-China trade-war would destroy the US and world economy Paul Brandus, May 26, 2016, Opinion: How much a Trump trade war could cost you, Market Watch, An award-winning member of the White House press corps, Paul Brandus founded WestWingReports and provides reports for media outlets around the United States and overseas. His career spans network television, Wall Street, and several years as a foreign correspondent based in Moscow, where he covered the collapse of the Soviet Union for NBC Radio and the award-winning business and economics program Marketplace, www.marketwatch.com/story/how-much-a-trump-trade-war-could-cost-you-2016-05-26

“Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” Trump scoffed at a New Jersey event this month. I suppose when you’re super wealthy like he is, it doesn’t matter if the price of a TV or pair of sneakers or even a car goes up 35% to 45%. But when you’re just about anyone else, it matters. A lot. On top of that, the report by the nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy adds that if those countries retaliated against us (we export stuff to them too, you know) it would destroy lots of American jobs. “Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” I’ll bet the one in six American workers whose jobs are linked to trade do. Even American companies that don’t export would be hurt by Trump’s tariffs: their reliance on cheap, imported raw materials would drive up costs— which would just be passed on to us. Importers, exporters, manufacturers and consumers, Trump’s trade agenda could hurt everyone. Just how many jobs could be lost in a Trump-inspired trade war? Moody’s Analytics studied that problem for the Washington Post. It concluded that Trump is right: big tariffs on China and Mexico would push both countries into a recession. But because we live in a global economy, we’d be dragged into a recession as well. “Up to 4 million American workers would lose their jobs,” the Post notes, while “another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.” Seven million jobs. Gone.

Novice Packet Files 349

Topicality to Cyber Aff 1. Interpretation: The People’s Republic of China is the sovereign state of China Collins Dictionary, 2014, People's Republic of China, Collins Dictionary 12th edition, Collins Dictionary is one of the premier dictionaries in the world - it is the official dictionary for Scrabble, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/peoples-republic-of-china a republic in East Asia: the third largest and the most populous country in the world; the oldest continuing civilization(beginning over 2000 years bc); republic established in 1911 after the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty by Sun Yat-sen; People's Republic formed in 1949; the 1980s and 1990s saw economic liberalization but a rejection of political reform; contains vast deserts, steppes, great mountain ranges (Himalayas, Kunlun, Tian Shan, and Nan Shan), a central ruggedplateau, and intensively cultivated E plains. Language: Chinese in various dialects, the chief of which is Mandarin. Religion:nonreligious majority; Buddhist and Taoist minorities. Currency: yuan. Capital: Beijing. Pop: 1 349 586 000 (2013 est). Area: 9 560 990 sq km (3 691 502 sq miles) 2. Violation: Plan targets individual people and companies – not the PRC Malena Carollo, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, The Christian Science Monitor, Malena Carollo is a reporter at Passcode where she covers surveillance, encryption, and law enforcement. She has written for the Tampa Bay Times and the Staten Island Advance. She earned her M.S. degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where she focused on investigative and data journalism. Her Master’s project, published in Passcode, was a deep-dive into the upcoming industry of social media monitoring companies that claim to be able to deter school violence, www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode- Influencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage“The sanctions are not against ‘China,’ but the specific entities involved in the theft of trade secrets,” Mr. Healey said. “This is directly targeting those involved in the illegal conduct, locking them out of US markets or refusing them visas. So while it is certainly escalatory, it is less so than counter-hacking or other aggressive state versus state action.”

Novice Packet Files 350

3. Standards a. Fairness: Non-topical plans are absolutely unfair. The links to all our arguments are based on the affirmative actually doing something with the PRC – if they don’t use the PRC we lose all our best links and our argumentation ground. If we can’t argue the core of the topic then there is no way we can have a fair debate. b. Education: The key to topical education is debating engagement between the US and PRC. Plan moots the core of this engagement and destroys topical education. Topical education is key because the US-China economic relationship affects all of our lives and if we want to become politicians, academics, or business people we will need to understand the US-China relationship. c. Extra topicality: Plan does more than the resolution calls for, it sanctions actors other than the PRC. That’s bad because it means that if their case is fine then any case that’s 99% untopical can be acceptable as long as there’s 1% topicality. This means they could read nearly anything and get away with it. That’s a bad world of debate. 4. Voters: Evaluate topicality first; non-topical plans kill education and fairness for debaters which means topicality is a gateway issue. Without education or fairness debate is not a meaningful game – preserve education and fairness by voting neg.

Novice Packet Files 351

Topicality to Cyber Aff (2NC/1NR Violation extension) Actions are against companies, not the PRC The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Co-chaired by Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative), www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf

While this process would have no effect on goods or processes that do not enter the U.S. market, it will have a strong deterrent effect on major foreign companies with international ambitions, as it forces them to choose between obtaining IP illegally and selling in the U.S. market. This quick response capability is based on identification of a particular good or service that incorporates stolen IP. The penalty for the infraction is taken against the product or service. When a Chinese or other foreign company is identified as a repeat offender, using stolen IP on a larger scale, then action needs to be taken against the company itself.

Novice Packet Files 352

Convention on the Rights of the Child Negative

Novice Packet Files 353

Inherency Answers - CRC Courts already include the CRC in decisions Arthur Milikh, March 31, 2015, Decayed Decision-Making, Heritage Foundation, Arthur Milikh is Associate Director at the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/3/decayed-decision-making

Even the relatively high standard of Senate ratification has not prevented the use of unratified treaties in U.S. courts. In the 2005 case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the course of deciding what “cruel and unusual” meant in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As Allan explains: Top American judges . . . cited and gave weight to treaty-based international law that the elected branches had specifically and explicitly refused to incorporate into domestic law.

Novice Packet Files 354

Inherency Answers - CRC The CRC can still be used as legal basis for laws and decisions in the US – also has wide legal support Parental Rights Nonprofit, 2006, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Parentalrights.org, Parental Rights is a nonprofit focused on conserving traditional values - it is staffed by many policy and governmental experts, www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC=%7B56EEC7D0-195F-410B-97FE-9A961583A1F4%7D&DE=

This danger to the American family may not seem imminent - but it is. Even if the UNCRC is not ratified, the dangers it contains could soon become reality for millions of parents. Under the traditional principles of international law, a treaty may only obligate a nation which has ratified its provisions. But today a growing coalition of international jurists and legal scholars are challenging the necessity of ratification before implementation, citing a complex legal doctrine known as customary international law. In contrast to international treaties, where a specific document is drafted, signed, and ratified, customary international law is an unwritten law, "comprised of the customs and usages among nations of the world." Through customary international law many of the key provisions of the UNCRC could easily be applied to insert the long arm of government intrusion into millions of American families, simply because this treaty is being ratified by governments around the world.

Novice Packet Files 355

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: The president has credibility and it is increasing Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, June 2014, Interview with Emilie M. Hafner-Burton: “Avoiding Using Power Would be Devastating for Human Rights”, Conectas Human Rights Journal, Emilie Hafner-Burton is a professor at the UC San Diego’s School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and is the Director of the School’s new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation, www.conectas.org/en/actions/sur- journal/issue/20/1007386-“avoiding-using-power-would-be-devastating-for-human-rights” Obama has made some genuine efforts to rebuild America’s image as a world leader on human rights. His administration has taken steps toward improving US credibility through greater engagement on democracy and human rights promotion in some places—think Honduras after the coup in 2009 or Cote d’Ivoire after the election crisis in 2010-11—with a softer, less “preachy” tone than his predecessor. In 2009, the US joined the UN Human Rights Council with an eye toward reform and engagement. And total US government spending in support of democracy and human rights promotion has gone up under Obama.

Novice Packet Files 356

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: Other countries already dialogue with the US about human rights Stephen Collinson, September 25, 2015, U.S. and China make progress, but differences lurk, CNN Politics, Collinson is a senior enterprise reporter for CNN Politics, covering the 2016 presidential campaign and politics across the United States and around the world, www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/obama-xi-jinping-white-house/

Xi said he was willing to have a human rights dialogue with the United States, but as is customary with Chinese leaders, he pointed out that the concept of human rights was seen differently in Beijing. "We must recognize that countries have different historical processes and realities, that we need to respect people of all countries in the rights to choose their own development independently," he said.

Novice Packet Files 357

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Impact Answers Turn: Human rights promotion makes things worse – 3 reasons FRAME, 31 July 2014, Report on the positive and negative human rights impacts of non-state actors, Fostering Human Rights among European Policies, FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world, www.fp7- frame.eu/wp-content/materiale/reports/04-Deliverable-7.1.pdf

Negative human rights impacts a) Obstacles to accuracy in monitoring and fact-finding. While monitoring, fact- finding and reporting on human rights violations is one of the main weapons used by HRDs, it can also be a double- edged sword. On occasions HRDs may let their own biases, or closeness to individuals or groups in the civil society, hamper the accuracy of their work. This can arise for various reasons. HRDs may want to speed up their reporting due to urgency, for instance, and therefore do not spend enough time checking facts when assessing and evaluating the alleged human rights violations. In other cases, HRDs, perhaps driven by ideological commitment, arrive in a country with a fixed opinion about human rights violations, or possibly the lack thereof, and may, deliberately or otherwise, adjust the ‘evidence’ in support of that opinion, invent stories or even breach confidentiality. 576 Besides, many HRDs may have a very narrowly defined area of human rights violations on which they focus, therefore their reporting does not necessarily reflect the full scope of violations. Inaccurate or misleading monitoring and reporting can have a negative impact not only on the credibility of HRDs, but also on victims and witnesses. b) A lack of impartiality. The perception of HRDs is another problem. Some HRDs, for example those motivated by particular religious or ideological beliefs, may be seen as being against a specific culture or religion, or incapable of recognising the values of indigenous peoples. HRDs may be perceived as, inter alia, promoting Western values of universality of human rights vs. cultural relativism; or encouraging religious fundamentalism which undermines the universality of human rights. 577 For these reasons, and similarly as in the case of other NSAs, such as NGOs, a lack of impartiality on the part of HRDs can lead to negative human rights impacts by playing into the hands of state authorities who are looking for opportunities to ostracise their work by labelling them as biased. It makes it easier for states to discredit their reporting and potentially endangers the position of individuals and vulnerable communities. c) Lack of gender sensitivity in monitoring and fact-finding Women’s human rights have been widely neglected in many societies, communities and cultures. Many women and girls in these environments occupy a subordinate position and their human rights are not respected (e.g. as a result of laws and policies, beliefs in society, cultural practices, access to economic resources and legal systems or family relationships). HRDs, in many instances, may contribute to underdocumenting human rights violations against women and girls. Gender discrimination, or a lack of gender sensitivity by HRDs monitoring and fact-finding - whether intentional or not - can lead to: (1) violation of women’s and girl’s rights being undocumented; (2) marginalisation of women activists; and (3) a lack of respect or sensitivity for women and girl victims of human rights abuses. 578

Novice Packet Files 358

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Impact Answers Impact and Framing Turn: Human rights promotion crushes local culture – rights are not universal Peacebuilding Initiative, 2008, Human Rights Promotion & Protection: Key Debates & Implementation Challenges, The Peacebuilding Initiative is a project of HPCR International, in partnership with the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office and in cooperation with the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University - it is staffed and advised by many professors, lawyers, and politicians from around the world, www.peacebuildinginitiative.org/indexb2b7.html?pageId=1850

The cultural relativist perspective Cultural relativism has been used frequently as an argument against the universality of human rights. Two main elements lie at the core of this school of thought: the fear of (neo)imperialism and the desire to demonstrate cultural respect.7 The history of the notion of human rights, the tendency to concentrate, in practice, more on individual and political rights than on collective as well as economic, social and cultural rights, and the international political context in which human rights are most often situated, explain and at times may support the perception that their universality is not such a given. "Cultural relativists, in their most aggressive conceptual stance, argue that no human rights are absolutes, that the principles that one may use for judging behavior are relative to the society in which one is raised, that there is infinite cultural variability, and that all cultures are morally equal or valid."8 Western anthropologists and sociologists themselves have in part supported that view, combating a posture inherited from colonialization and its implications of superiority on the part of the West keeping extending and imposing its culture to the rest of the world. In that perspective, all cultures are morally equal and, as a consequence, no value can claim to be superior.

Novice Packet Files 359

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Solvency Answers Turn: CRC trades off with the Constitution which is a better instrument for ensuring and promoting rights Karen Attiah, November 21, 2014, Why won’t the U.S. ratify the U.N.’s child rights treaty?, Washington Post, Karen Attiah is the Washington Post's Opinions Deputy Digital Editor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-wont-the-u-s- ratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/

“When the United States at first didn’t sign on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we were concerned that this would have implications toward showing support for children around the world,” Dr. Heymann said. “But in fact, it didn’t get in the way of the fact that nearly other country did sign on and that there has been deep global commitment. But I think we have to worry a lot about what it means that we haven’t had focused attention on children in the United States.” Michael P. Farris, is a constitutional lawyer and president of ParentalRights.org, an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights” such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. “The chief threat posed by the CRC is the denial of American self-government in accord with our constitutional processes,” said Farris in an email interview. “Our constitutional system gives the exclusive authority for the creation of law and policy on issues about families and children to state governments. Upon ratification, this nation would be making a binding promise in international law that we would obey the legal standards created by the U.N. CRC. American children and families are better served by constitutional democracy than international law.” The group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s “right to be heard” could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like. But is the U.S.’s non-ratification of the CRC hypocritical when the U.S. lectures other countries on children’s rights? Farris says that the “United States demonstrates its commitment to human rights whenever it follows and enforces the Constitution of the United States, which is the greatest human rights instrument in all history.”

Novice Packet Files 360

Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC Solvency Answers US is already meeting most CRC standards – the ones it doesn’t meet it just won’t follow Ellenmai Korkoya, November 3, 2015, Convention on the Rights of the Child: Would Ratification Impact American Kids?, North Carolina Journal of International Law, Ellenmai Korkoya is a legal student at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law and a staff member of the North Carolina Journal of International Law - she will be graduating in 2017,blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2015/11/03/convention-on- the-rights-of-the-child-would-ratification-impact-american-kids/

Ratification by the U.S. is unlikely to substantially impact the rights of children for two reasons. First, U.S. law is already consistent with most of the Convention's elements. Apart from the Constitutional provisions, U.S. federal law provides similar protections for children. For example, federal child-labor statutes, which protect children’s safety when they work,[17] are consistent with Article 32 of the Convention.[18] Also, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act[19] helps protect children from child abuse as the Convention requires.[20] Since children are already afforded these rights, ratifying the Convention is unlikely to augment those rights further. Second, where the Convention is inconsistent with U.S. law, the Convention’s provisions are not likely to alter the rights of children because the U.S. Senate has typically ratified human-rights treaties with RUDs that render them non-self-executing.[21]It has been argued that this practice is meant to keep U.S. judges from adjudicating local human-rights conditions under international standards.[22] Article 37 of the Convention, which prohibits sentencing children to death or life imprisonment without a possibility of parole, was one area in which U.S. laws directly contravened the Convention.[23] It was not until 2005 that the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons,[24] ruled the execution of juveniles unconstitutional.[25] Similarly, it was not until 2012 that the Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama,[26] ruled the sentencing of juvenile to life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional.[27] The U.S. could ratify the convention with inconsistent provisions; however, as a non-self-executing treaty, the U.S. can choose to implement only parts that are consistent with domestic laws while inconsistent provisions remain ineffective absent domestic legislation.

Novice Packet Files 361

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: Youth movements are strong and growing MELINDA D. ANDERSON NOV 23, 2015, The Other Student Activists, Atlantic Journal, MELINDA D. ANDERSON is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and is based in Washington, D.C, www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/student-activism-history-injustice/417129/ More than 50 years later movements for racial and educational justice are once again building momentum. A surge of student activism has swept across academia in recent weeks as black students and their allies forcefully call attention to racist climates on American college campuses. And even as some college-student leaders cite the Black Lives Matter social-justice movement as their inspiration, what’s happening in higher education is being matched by younger peers. High-school youth are flexing their collective muscles for equity: fighting budget cuts and out-of-school suspensions as they take on racial issues and academic offerings. Andrew Brennen, 19, sees parallels between the movements at the high-school and college levels. A national field director for Student Voice, a youth-led nonprofit growing a corp of involved middle and high schoolers, he points to students’ shared desire “to have agency and voice in their … institutions” and a newfound ability to network and organize through social media. “The student-voice movement is mobilizing around the sense that students are ignored as active agents of their own destiny,” says Brennen, adding that student input is “largely relegated to the margin when it comes to conversations about education policy creation, feedback, and reform.” But many youth today are not content to be on the sidelines. Like several hundred Chicago teens who rallied against public-school cutbacks and potential teacher layoffs earlier this month. With the state budget at an impasse and politicians locked in a showdown, students held a die-in to signify the harmful impact of yet another budget shortfall. Similarly, Philadelphia students, rocked by a severe school-funding crisis, took to the streets this fall to protest cuts to neighborhood schools. “We just want to let people know … students around the district still feel the effects,” youth organizer Cy Wolfe, a senior at the Philadelphia High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, told the local ABC affiliate. “If we don't raise our voice, then who will?” A 2012 paper on youth and social movements, a collaboration between Lady Gaga's Born this Way Foundation and Harvard University's Berkman Center, found young people to be powerful agents for social change, crediting undocumented-youth sit-ins for convincing President Obama to grant DREAMers a reprieve from deportation in 2012. The paper’s author writes of youth activists primed to “call out or identify systems of oppression, speak up, and mobilize their peers.”

Novice Packet Files 362

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Uniqueness Answers Non-Unique: There are already broad laws in favor of youth rights Law Library of Congress, 2007, INTERNATIONAL LAWS CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, The Law Library of Congress is the branch of the US federal library that provides information to Congress and the public - it is staffed by many experts and professionals from many different fields, www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/pdfs/Children's%20Rights-International%20Laws.pdf It was not until the late nineteenth century that a nascent children’s rights’ protection movement countered the widely held view that children were mainly quasi-property and economic assets. In the United States, the Progressive movement challenged courts’ reluctance to interfere in family matters, promoted broad child welfare reforms, and was successful in having laws passed to regulate child labor and provide for compulsory education. It also raised awareness of children’s issues and established a juvenile court system. Another push for children’s rights occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when children were viewed by some advocates as victims of discrimination or as an oppressed group. In the international context, “[t]he growth of children’s rights in international and transnational law has been identified as a striking change in the post-war legal landscape.”1 The purpose of this overview is to sketch in broad strokes some of the key provisions of major international legal instruments on children’s rights that form part of that landscape.

Novice Packet Files 363

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Impact Answers Some adultism is often appropriate and necessary – blanket refusal is bad Adam Fletcher, Dec 22, 2015, Adultism in Democratic Education, Common Action Engagement Consulting, Adam Fletcher is an advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as "perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy studies, commonaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/adultism-in-democratic-education.html

In the face of this discrimination, I have found that it is never good to falsely sooth ourselves into believing we're being anti-adultist. Every adult practices adultism. By confronting the situations and naming what they are, I have found we can successfully challenge them from an informed place of critical awareness instead of a naïve place of self-satisfaction with status quo. No Alternative to Adultism From my own position of experience and privilege, I want to propose that there is no alternative to adultism. It is not one of the Big "Ism"s, like the racism, sexism, and classism. Most people define those "isms" as exaggerated beliefs focused on a group or category of people, and while we popularly refer to adultism this way, that's not the right framework. As any bias towards adults, adultism forms a foundation of our social relationships. There's something askew in the thinking that all adultism anywhere ever is inherently wrong, bad, and eeeeevil. Nature habituates hierarchical relationships among many species in order to propel evolution forward. Given the absence of adults in their species, many animals simply die, while others live only to procreate. I will not abandon our young people to their own devices and defenses in the name of personal freedom, if only because I believe that with the rights I enjoy as a human being, there are inherent responsibilities I possess as well. One of them is to raise young people in ways that are just and fair, which is more important than free and unhindered. My adult privilege tells me so, and adultism informs that.

Novice Packet Files 364

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Impact Answers Turn: ‘Adultism’ as a concept lacks nuance - that overly simplistic understanding harms education and youth rights movements Adam Fletcher, Dec 22, 2015, Adultism in Democratic Education, Common Action Engagement Consulting, Adam Fletcher is an advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as "perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy studies, commonaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/adultism-in-democratic-education.html Rather than using adultism incorrectly to describe the discrimination young people face in democratic education, we should use the correct terms to identify why and how this reality is conjured, surfaces, lives, and sustains itself. Words like ephebiphobia, which is the fear of youth; pediaphobia, the fear of children; and adultcentrism, which is the belief that adults are better than young people; these words should be used throughout democratic education, instead of or along with adultism, which should only be used to describe bias towards adults. Paternalism, patriarchy, infantalizing, and even maternalism should be used accordingly, too, as each plays a unique role in democratic learning environments. The continued usage of adultism without deep examination of its extended parts will actually be detrimental to the growth of democratic education. Using the misunderstood definition or applying it in a blanketed way across all discrimination facing young people reflects a lazy, irrelevant analysis that is inconsistent with the goals of what a lot of well-meaning adults say they want through democratic education practices and organizations. Overcoming Naïveté The concepts we're looking for, I think, are within grasp. We are on the brink of a social transformation that insists on recognizing the evolving capacities of young people, youth/adult equity and social justice for children and youth. Democratic education can claim youth/adult partnerships as a cornerstone right now, positioning young people in substantive, rich relationships with adults in strategic, intentional, and deliberate ways. Every day, each of us can strive and enact justice with young people in our personal and professional relationships with all young people of every age in all locations we find ourselves. This naïveté is at the core of democratic education today, and it can be overcome, if we’re willing to learn. Understanding that adultism is deep in our work, but not the only thing worth learning, is essential to this fight. I have found that by directly confronting adultcentrism, paternalism, and ephebiphobia I am compelling society towards becoming more just and fair for young people - and- adults; by fighting adultism, I am merely spinning my wheels. Are you ready to take up arms against semantics and engage in a real struggle? It is time we address adultism in democratic education.

Novice Packet Files 365

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Impact Answers Utilitarian calculus is the only way to determine rights’ relative importance Richard Brandt, June 26, 1992, Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge University Press. Pg 199., Richard Brandt is professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, https://books.google.com/books?id=9lTYQGEcHnoC&q=199#v=snippet&q=199&f=false

Before turning to possible " deeper" difficulties, let me make just one point favorable to the utilitarian view, that it tells us, in principle, how to find out what are a person's rights, and how stringent they are, relative to each other, which is much more than can be said of most other theories, unless reliance on intuitions is supposed to be a definite way of telling what a person's rights are. How does one do this, on the utilitarian theory? The idea, of course, is that we have to determine whether it would maximize long-range expectable utility to include recognition of certain rights in the moral code of a society, or to include a certain right with a certain degree of stringency as compared with other rights. (For instance, it might be optimistic to include a right to life with more stringency than a right to liberty and this with more stringency than the right to pursue happiness.) Suppose, for instance, one wants to know what should be the scope of the "right to life." Then it would be proper to inquire whether the utility-maximizing moral system would require people to retrain from taking the life of other adults, more positively to support life by providing adequate medical care, to abstain from life-termination for seriously defective infants or to refrain from abortion, to require abstaining from assisting a person with terminal illness in ending his own life if he requests it, to refrain from assisting in the discharge of a sentence of capital punishment, or to refrain from killing combatants in war time and so on. If one wants to know whether the right to life is stronger than the right of free speech on political subjects, it is proper to inquire whether the utility maximizing moral code would prefer free speech to the cost of lives (and in what circumstances).

Novice Packet Files 366

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Solvency Answers Turn: The CRC is deeply adultist – written by and for adults Kel Kray, February 7, 2015, Adults Just Don’t Understand: Checking Out Our Everyday Adultism, Everyday Feminism Magazine, Kel Kray is a fiercely friendly social justice warrior who spends their days advocating with and on behalf of queer youth at an LGBTQIA+ youth center in Philly. A firm believer in the transformative power of dialogue, Kel coordinates a youth-driven education and training program that facilitates community workshops on gender and sexuality with an intersectional lens. A righteous product of the Midbest, Kel earned a Bachelor of Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Master of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania,everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/everyday-adultism/

The Word Might Be New, But Adultism Certainly Isn’t. An essential ingredient in all recipes for social justice is self- determination: the ability to author your own life. To be the subject, rather than the object, of your life. And yet the denial of youths’ right to self-determine is as old as civilization itself. Literally. In 350 BCE, Aristotle stated that children were the property of their father because he had produced them, not unlike a tooth or a hair. Millennia later, adultism is one of the stealthiest players in modern society, built into the foundations of family, community, culture, and government. In 1946, children were formally recognized within the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The minimum standards for those rights weren’t set until 1989, when the United Nations established the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These agreements are crucial for protecting youth from human rights violations. However, they don’t get at addressing adultism because the privileging of adulthood is entrenched within the policies themselves. How many of them do you suppose were co-authored by the young people they aim to protect? Essentially: Youth aren’t necessarily the subject of children’s rights. Historically, they’ve been the objects.

Novice Packet Files 367

Identity Politics Advantage - CRC Solvency Answers Legal and adult centric solutions can never escape adultism – only authentic ‘bottom up’ movements can Gertrud Lenzer, 2015, The Vicissitudes of Children’s Rights, The International Journal of Children's Rights, Volume 23, Issue 1, Gertrud Lenzer is the founder and director of Children’s Studies, as well as a professor of sociology at both Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718182-02301010

As for the major goal of Children’s Rights from Below, Liebel wishes to discuss ‘the ways children’s rights can be understood as subjective or agency rights of children and whether they can be enforced by children themselves’ (emphasis added, p. 2). And he argues that children themselves can and should be able to enforce their own rights. This theme recurs throughout Liebel’s attempt to reconceptualise children’s rights and is one of the central and extraordinary, not to say eccentric, claims of this argument. In this connection, a major element of Liebel’s contributions and Vandenhole’s chapter, “Localising the Human Rights of Children”, is a critique of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to Liebel: We will address what we consider a problematic trend in large parts of the debate on children’s rights, namely, a focus on the responsibilities of states (and derivatively of adults) and legal procedures. The framework and starting point for many authors are the rights enshrined in the u.n. Convention on the Rights of the Child … and much of the analytic interest lies in the ways of implementation and exercise of the rights codified therein …. We certainly agree these are necessary ingredients to an analysis of children’s rights. But for several reasons we also consider that this focus severely hinders an adequate reconceptualization of children’s rights. emphasis added, p. 1 In Liebel’s view, the uncrc represents the work of adults and has as a consequence led to a paternalistic system, especially in the realisation of the rights of children. (Children, he states on several occasions, were neither consulted in the drafting process nor the adoption of the Convention.) According to him, the difference between children and adults is ‘socially “constructed” in the sense that the life world of children is separated from the adult world and that children are made dependent on adults … Understood paternalistically, even children’s rights can bring about and intensify this dependence.’ By contrast, Liebel understands the rights of children as envisioned by him ‘as a possible way to reduce socially constructed children’s dependence, to strengthen their autonomy and make their agency a reality’ (p. 3). In other words, the uncrc, together with state parties and legal instruments which implement the treaty repeat this pattern of adultism and so prevent children from exercising their rights. It is for this reason, so Liebel argues, that the uncrc can neither provide the “framework” nor the “starting point” and therefore necessitate Liebel’s “reconceptualization” of children’s rights. He claims that ‘it is time to shift the discussion from the “Geneva scene” to the grassroots level where children’s rights must be realized in their actual context’ and by the children themselves (p. 2). This is what he means by “children’s rights from below”. He sees this claim as opposed to the dominant ‘technical debate on the most effective and efficient way’ (p. 2) of how to implement and monitor children’s rights, as is the means followed by most authors dealing with the uncrc. Thus, the major substance of the book – with the exception of Karl Hanson’s chapter on “Schools of Thought in Children’s Rights” – argues from a central criticism of the “Geneva scene”, the UN CRC and the un Committee on the Rights of the Child which together with state parties, national legislation and supraregional and regional entities impose children’s rights from above. In so doing, the actual living conditions of children, so the argument goes, are not taken into account and people at the grass roots are prevented from articulating and pursuing the realisation of their own human rights. Vandenhole, in his chapter on “Localizing the Human Rights of Children”, echoes this criticism when he says: ‘Standard-setting on children’s rights and, by extension, on human rights, has traditionally been a top-down exercise. States conclude treaties, which are then to be implemented on the ground. Monitoring bodies at the un or the regional level offer an authoritative interpretation or settle disputes’ (p. 80). He continues that this ‘approach has been questioned and challenged’

Novice Packet Files 368 and new approaches instead ‘draw attention to the daily realities and the way human rights are received by ordinary citizens on the ground. A bottom-up approach would allow a response to culturally or otherwise specific challenges and local issues’ (p. 80).

Novice Packet Files 369

Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States) Counterplan text The 50 states and the District of Columbia should implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty

Novice Packet Files 370

Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States) Counter Plan Solvency States solve better than the federal government or international law Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, April 2016, Human Rights Recommendations to the United States: A Desk Reference for State and Local Human Rights Agencies, The Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute has expertise along three primary axes: (i) Human Rights in the United States, (ii) Counterterrorism and Human Rights and (iii) Human Rights and the Global Economy. The Institute works closely with the Graduate Legal Studies Program to select Human Rights Fellows for the LL.M. program, and with the Center for Public Interest Law to select fellows to work in human rights after graduation. The institute works closely with the University- wide Institute for the Study of Human Rights, web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/desk_reference.pdf

State and local agencies and officials can, and do, use a range of innovative strategies that advance human rights and build a culture of human rights based on dignity, freedom from discrimination, and opportunity. Specifically, state and local agencies and officials are well‐placed to:  Monitor, document, and report on human rights  Build human rights into local law and policy  Conduct human rights‐based audits and impact assessments  Foster participatory governance  Engage in human rights education For example, in 2014, the Tennessee Human Rights Commission held a series of hearings around the state to gather testimony and data on human rights and civil rights issues relevant to local communities. The Commission framed the conversation around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following the hearings, the Commission drafted a report to distill the testimony from around the state, and it plans to use the report as a basis for shaping its work and priorities moving forward.3 The Eugene, Oregon Human Rights Commission has played an important role in the city’s efforts to assess human rights impacts of proposed policies through the “Triple Bottom Line” tool. The Commission has conducted trainings regarding the tool and also facilitates community events and consultations to support implementation.4 The Recreation Department used the tool to review budgets and minimize the impact of resource constraints on core services and accessibility, and the Community Development Division used it to prioritize brownfield assessments. The Commission has also provided education on human rights standards and issues for city executives, managers, and staff, and has undertaken robust community outreach to raise awareness of the potential for an international human rights framework to advance the equality and dignity of local residents.5 In Salt Lake City, Utah, the Human Rights Commission, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Council have worked together to address discrimination. They held a series of dialogues on gender discrimination that revealed concerns about unequal educational opportunities and employment discrimination. In response, the Commission and its partners are currently exploring the possibility of adopting the international human rights treaty on women’s rights (CEDAW) at the local level.6 In 2015, the Illinois Department of Human Rights embarked on a study to develop recommendations regarding best practices to prevent discrimination and promote diversity and inclusion in a number of areas, including employment, housing, and education.7 These are just a few of the ways state and local agencies promote and protect human rights at the local level.8 “State, local, and tribal officials are normally the closest authorities to the people they serve. They are often best positioned to solve problems, and they are often directly accountable to local populations. Moreover, different levels of government in our federal system have been described as laboratories of democracy, because they may develop and test different and creative solutions. Where their solutions work well, these best practices may be shared and emulated elsewhere.” ‐ Keith Harper, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council 8

Novice Packet Files 371

Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States) Counter Plan Solvency Human rights treaties empirically fail Eric Posner, 4 December 2014, The case against human rights, The Guardian, Eric Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights Each of the six major human rights treaties has been ratified by more than 150 countries, yet many of them remain hostile to human rights. This raises the nagging question of how much human rights law has actually influenced the behaviour of governments. There are undoubtedly examples where countries enter into human rights treaties and change their behaviour. The political scientist Beth Simmons, for instance, has described the observable impact in Japan and Colombia of the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The puzzle is how to reconcile this with the many examples of blatant human rights violations. Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers. In a very rough sense, the world is a freer place than it was 50 years ago, but is it freer because of the human rights treaties or because of other events, such as economic growth or the collapse of communism? The central problem with human rights law is that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The ambiguity, which allows governments to rationalise almost anything they do, is not a result of sloppy draftsmanship but of the deliberate choice to overload the treaties with hundreds of poorly defined obligations. In most countries people formally have as many as 400 international human rights – rights to work and leisure, to freedom of expression and religious worship, to nondiscrimination, to privacy, to pretty much anything you might think is worth protecting. The sheer quantity and variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests, can provide no guidance to governments. Given that all governments have limited budgets, protecting one human right might prevent a government from protecting another.

Novice Packet Files 372

Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States) Counterplan Net Benefit Defense No Link Turn: Contentious treaties are watered down and lead to political fighting – Delegating to the states avoids any link Kevin L. Cope, 2014, Lost in Translation: The Accidental Origins of Bond v. United States, Michigan Law Review First Impressions Volume 112, Kevin Cope is Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=mlr_fi

A similar effect may be at work when Congress implements international agreements like the CWC. Congressional drafters have little to gain by developing creative approaches to fulfill those agreements. If they play it safe and simply import the CWC’s language, they can rest assured knowing they have covered all their international-law bases. Any negative domestic consequences can be blamed on the treaty itself, on other members of Congress for not inserting reservations (although the CWC itself prohibits them), or on the president for signing the treaty in the first place. These incentives should tend to produce literal translations from the international law to the domestic law. In most other cases, Congress is attentive to the federalism implications of multilateral treaties: consider the roadblocks faced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These treaties all require state parties to prohibit behaviors that are often within the traditional purview of U.S. states, e.g., child neglect, criminal punishment, and state-government procurement. Each treaty lingered for years or was stymied altogether, largely because of federalism concerns.18

Novice Packet Files 373

Topicality to CRC Aff 1. Interpretation: Engagement must be ongoing Evan Resnick 2001, “Defining Engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Dr. Evan Resnick holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University and is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357749?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND APPEASEMENT: In contrast to many prevailing conceptions of engagement, the one proposed in this essay allows a substantive distinction to be drawn between engagement and appeasement. The standard definition of appeasement--which derives from the language of classical European diplomacy, namely "a policy of attempting to reduce tension between two states by the methodical removal of the principal causes of conflict between them"(n29)--is venerable but nevertheless inadequate.(n30) It does not provide much guidance to the contemporary policymaker or policy analyst, because it conceives of a foreign policy approach in terms of the ends sought while never making clear the precise means involved. The principal causes of conflict between two states can be removed in a number of ways.(n31) A more refined definition of appeasement that not only remains loyal to the traditional connotations but also establishes a firm conceptual distinction from engagement might be: the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state by ceding territory and/or a geopolitical sphere of influence to that state. Indeed, the two best- known cases of appeasement, Great Britain's appeasement of the United States at the turn of the 20th century and of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, reveals that much of this appeasement adopted precisely these guises. The key elements of the British appeasement of the US- acceptance of the Monroe Doctrine-permission for the US to build and fortify a Central American canal, and acquiescence to American claims on the border between Alaska and the Yukon--consisted of explicit acknowledgement of American territorial authority.(n32) Meanwhile, the appeasement of the Third Reich by Great Britain was characterized by acquiescence to: Germany's military reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936); annexation of Austria (1938); acquisition of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia as decided at the Munich Conference; and absorption of the remainder of Czechoslovakia (1939).(n33) A more contemporary example of appeasement is the land for peace exchange that represents the centerpiece of the on-again off-again diplomatic negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas both policies are positive sanctions--insofar as they add to the power and prestige of the target state-- engagement does so in a less direct and less militarized fashion than appeasement. In addition, engagement differs from appeasement by establishing an increasingly interdependent relationship between the sender and the target state. At any juncture, the sender state can, in theory, abrogate such a relationship at some (ideally prohibitive) cost to the target state.(n34) Appeasement, on the other hand, does not involve the establishment of contacts or interdependence between the appeaser and the appeased. Territory and/or a sphere of influence are merely transferred by one party to the other either unconditionally or in exchange for certain concessions on the part of the target state. 2. Violation: Treaty ratification is a one-time act – it is not ongoing 3. Standards: a. Fairness: If the plan is not topical that makes it impossible to have a fair debate. If a plan is a one-time act that means our links can only be about that one action – that takes away a lot of our ground. It is also an unreasonable burden because it means our evidence has to be about a particular law at this particular time – there just aren’t enough people writing about this for the literature base to be relevant and robust enough to sustain clash in a debate. b. Education: The point of debate is to be educated – an untopical plan means we lose education. The framers’ chose this topic so that we could learn

Novice Packet Files 374

about US-China relations, this affirmative doesn’t teach us anything about those relations. It teaches us about obscure theories and a law that will never be passed – that’s and unproductive use of our time. 4. Voters: Topicality is a gateway issue – if the plan isn’t topical then you should vote against them without looking at the other positions because topicality is an apriori burden of the affirmative – there can be no fairness or education without a topical plan.

Novice Packet Files 375

Topicality to CRC Aff Interpretation extension Plan is not engagement – engagement is ongoing and building DANIEL Larison, December 17, 2012, Engagement Is Not Appeasement, The American Conservative, Daniel Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, he has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas, www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/

Hagel’s views are being grossly misrepresented here. That isn’t surprising, but it still deserves a response. Hagel has rejected the lazy, common conflation of diplomatic engagement with appeasement. He repudiates the latter. What does Hagel mean by engagement? James Joyner reported on his recent speech at the Atlantic Council: The former Republican Senator from Nebraska could have been speaking to his former colleagues when he insisted, “Engagement won’t fix all problems, but engagement isn’t appeasement or surrender or even negotiation—it’s a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand” others on the basis of “mutual self respect.” The most important error Rubin makes is the assumption that engagement mainly benefits the regime being engaged over the long term. Cutting off contacts with other regimes doesn’t hasten their downfall or weaken their hold on power. On the contrary, such regimes can take advantage of attempts at isolation to suppress dissent, consolidate power, and rally their nations behind them. It is not the purpose of engagement to undermine other regimes. The purpose is and should be to advance the interests of the United States. It is more likely that authoritarian regimes will gradually lose their grip on power if the people in their countries are exposed more regularly to contacts with other nations than if they are shut off from them.

Novice Packet Files 237

CCP Collapse Disadvantage Cyber Links Sanctions kill CCP legitimacy and stability Leon Whyte, July 25, 2015, China’s Elegant, Flawed, Grand Strategy, The Diplomat, Leon Whyte is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as well as the Senior Editor for the Current Affairs section of the Fletcher Security Review. His research interests include transnational security and U.S. alliances in East Asia, thediplomat.com/2015/07/chinas-elegant-flawed-grand-strategy/

In a sterile environment, this strategy is elegant and comprehensive, but in reality the other side always gets a vote and often does not act as planners predict or prefer. American strategic thinker Edward Luttwak describes this problem as the paradoxical logic of strategy. According to the logic of strategy, as China grows economically, it will spend more on military capabilities, as it develops more military capabilities other states will fear China’s rise and will counter-balance against China and seek to constrain China through economic and strategic means. For China, pursuing its current grand strategy has not resulted in increased moral legitimacy and attractive power; instead it is triggering an Asian security dilemma, encouraging increased military spending by other powers in the region like Japan and South Korea while driving countries like Vietnam and Singapore to closer alignment with the United States. In addition, even if China can deter the United States from using forcing through its anti-access strategy, the U.S. and others can respond through geo-economic means, such as targeted financial sanctions, trade barriers for sensitive technology, or even restrictions on trading raw materials. Any of these geo-economic strategies has the potential to undercut China’s economic growth and threaten the CCP’s legitimacy, undermining the original goal of long-term regime survival.

Novice Packet Files 251

Elections Disadvantage Specific Links – CRC aff Social issues animate conservative voters but not liberals Molly Ball, November 4, 2015, Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars, The Atlantic, Molly Ball is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers U.S. politics, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/?utm_source=SFFB

In Tuesday’s elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal-immigrant sanctuaries; they reacted equivocally to gun-control arguments; and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay marriage. Democrats have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years, believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against Republicans. But Tuesday’s results—and the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats not named Barack Obama—call that view into question. Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate’s enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo. Consider these results: Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana by a 30-point margin. Voters in Houston—a strongly Democratic city—rejected by a 20-point margin a nondiscrimination ordinance that opponents said would lead to “men in women’s bathrooms.” The San Francisco sheriff who had defended the city’s sanctuary policy after a sensational murder by an illegal immigrant was voted out. Two Republican state senate candidates in Virginia were targeted by Every town for Gun Safety, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group. One won and one lost, leaving the chamber in GOP hands. Matt Bevin, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Kentucky, pulled out a resounding victory that defied the polls after emphasizing social issues and championing Kim Davis, the county clerk who went to jail rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. Bevin told the Washington Post on the eve of the vote that he’d initially planned to stress economic issues, but found that “this is what moves people.” There were particular factors in all of these races: The San Francisco sheriff was scandal-ridden, for example, and the Ohio initiative’s unique provisions divided pro-pot activists. But taken together these results ought to inspire caution among liberals who believe their cultural views are widely shared and a recipe for electoral victory. Democrats have increasingly seized the offensive on social issues in recent years, using opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage to paint Republican candidates as extreme and backward. In some cases, this has been successful: Red-state GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost after making incendiary comments about abortion and rape in 2012, a year when Obama successfully leaned into cultural issues to galvanize the Democratic base. “The Republican Party from 1968 up to 2008 lived by the wedge, and now they are politically dying by the wedge,” Democratic consultant Chris Lehane told the New York Times last year, a view echoed by worried Republicans urging their party to get with the times. But the Democrats’ culture-war strategy has been less successful when Obama is not on the ballot. Two campaigns that made abortion rights their centerpiece in 2014, Wendy Davis’s Texas gubernatorial bid and Mark Udall’s Senate reelection campaign in Colorado, fell far short. In most of the country, particularly between the coasts, it’s far from clear that regular voters are willing to come to the polls for social change. Gay marriage won four carefully selected blue-state ballot campaigns in 2012 before the Supreme Court took the issue to the finish line this year. Recreational marijuana has likewise been approved only in three blue states plus Alaska. Gun-control campaigners have repeatedly failed to outflank the N.R.A. in down-ballot elections that turned on the issue. Republicans in state offices have liberalized gun laws and restricted abortion, generating little apparent voter backlash. An upcoming gubernatorial election in Louisiana is turning into a referendum on another hot button issue—crime—with Republican David Vitter charging that his opponent, John Bel Edwards, wants to release “dangerous thugs, drug dealers, back into our neighborhoods.” The strategy, which has been criticized for its racial overtones, may or may not work for Vitter, who is dealing with scandals of his own. Yet many liberals angrily reject the suggestion that the push to reduce incarceration could lead to a political backlash based on anecdotal reports of sensational crimes. To be sure, Tuesday was an off-off-year election with dismally low voter turnout, waged in just a handful of locales. But liberals who cite this as an explanation often fail to take the next step and ask why the most consistent voters are consistently hostile to their views, or why liberal social positions don’t mobilize infrequent voters. Low turnout alone can’t explain the extent of Democratic failures in non-presidential elections in the Obama era, which have decimated the party in state legislatures, governorships, and the House and Senate. Had the 2012 electorate shown up in 2014, Democrats still would have lost most races, according to Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist, who told me the turnout effect “was worth slightly more than 1 percentage point to Republican candidates in 2014”—enough to make a difference in a few close races, but not much across the board. Liberals love to point out the fractiousness of the GOP, whose dramatic fissures have racked the House of Representatives and tormented party leaders. But as Matt Yglesias recently pointed out, Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideologically flexible big-tent party, while Democrats are in lockstep around an agenda whose popularity they too often fail

Novice Packet Files 252 to question. Democrats want to believe Americans are on board with their vision of social change—but they might win more elections if they meet voters where they really are.

Novice Packet Files 253

Elections Disadvantage Specific Links – CRC aff ‘Politically correct’ social policies are perfect punching bags for Trump – they strongly galvanize his broad base Victor David Hanson, June 14, 2016, Election 2016: Knows and Unknowns, National Review, Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. As a National Review Institute fellow, he has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, www.nationalreview.com/article/436551/election-2016-trump-vs-hillary

Trump Factor X. Will the so-called “Trump disconnect” continue, an intangible that for over a year has humiliated pundits who have made serially erroneous forecasts of his demise? In other words, no one has yet been able to calibrate the degree to which Trump has made politics irrelevant and substituted harsh, politically incorrect, and often crude expression and rhetoric for any kind of detailed agenda. No one knows quite how the weird Trump factor that propelled him through the primaries will play in the far wider arena of the general election, but all of us have met in our own circles the most surprising and unexpected Trump supporters, who cite no resonant political affinity with Trump other than shared furor over politically correct and censored speech, and the need for someone — almost anyone will do — to throw a wrecking ball through the politically correct glass houses of our society. No one knows how many of his supporters are silent, embarrassed to state publicly their support for one so uncouth; no one knows what he may say or do on any given day — or the full effect of his outbursts — and no one quite appreciates that what appears outlandish to elites may appear genuine and earthy to others. Today experts laugh that a supposedly buffoonish Sarah Palin sank the otherwise sober and judicious McCain campaign; but, in truth, polls at the times suggested that she was either not a factor or perhaps a plus to the ticket. In any case, the McCain–Palin ticket was ahead of Obama until the Wall Street meltdown in September of 2008. Elites who said they knew no one who liked Palin in truth must have known very few Americans at all.