NHSI 2008 Seniors (File Name) 1 Subsidies Da

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 1
SUBSIDIES DA
Subsidies DA....................................................................................................................................................1
1NC – Generic version.....................................................................................................................................3
1NC Generic.....................................................................................................................................................4
Uniqueness – Ethanol Specific.........................................................................................................................5
Impact Internals – 1NC Extension....................................................................................................................7
Impact Internals – More Evidence....................................................................................................................8
Links...............................................................................................................................................................10
Impacts – 1NC Extension...............................................................................................................................11
Impacts – Global Economy Module...............................................................................................................12
Impacts – Food Crisis Module........................................................................................................................14
Impacts – Laundry List...................................................................................................................................16
Impacts – Subsidies Turns Environment........................................................................................................18
Impacts – Protectionism Turns Environment.................................................................................................20
Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................22
Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................23
1NC- Europe version......................................................................................................................................24
1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25
1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25
1NC Europe Version.......................................................................................................................................27
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................28
U.S. /European relations- middle east............................................................................................................29
U.S./European Relations- Middle East ..........................................................................................................31
US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................36
US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................37
US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................38
US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................39
US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................40
US/European Relations - Environment..........................................................................................................43
US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................44
US/European Relations - Multilateralism.......................................................................................................47
Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................48
Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................49
Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................50
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................51
Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................53
Environmental protectionism bad...................................................................................................................59
Free Trade Good.............................................................................................................................................60
Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................61
Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................62
Northwestern University Debate Society

National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 2
Free Trade good..............................................................................................................................................63

Uniquness: Protectionism now.......................................................................................................................64
Uniquness: protectionism now.......................................................................................................................65
Uniqueness—subsidies low............................................................................................................................66
Energy subsidies bad......................................................................................................................................67
*Aff Answers*................................................................................................................................................68
Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................69
Subsidies non-unique......................................................................................................................................70
Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................71
Protectionism Non-Unique.............................................................................................................................72
AT: – Protectionism........................................................................................................................................73
AT:– Economy................................................................................................................................................75
AT: – Food Crisis .........................................................................................................................................77
AT: – Food Crisis...........................................................................................................................................78
AT: “Protectionism Turns Case”....................................................................................................................79

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 3
1NC – GENERIC VERSION
A. Uniqueness – The House has failed to extend subsidies that expire at the end of this year due to
failed support – subsidies are getting cut now
International Herald Tribune 6/2/08

[Alternative energy on edge in U.S., lexis]
Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are
backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for
the burgeoning renewable energy industry.After several failed attempts by Congress to
prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this
year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their
sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting
business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. ''It's a
major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to
adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives.''
The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of
renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts
to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue
over how to pay for them.
B. Links – Attempts at energy independence through subsidies fosters counterproductive

protectionism
The American 07
[Q&A: Energy independence, http://www.american.com/energy/q-a-energy-independence/]
15. How should we think about energy security going forward?A sensible
policy goal would be not independence, but diversification: a portfolio of
energy technologies and global supplies that minimizes the economic and
political risk of disruptions from any particular region or energy source. A
diversification strategy can recognize that, even if supplies are precarious,
the case for free trade in energy is just as strong as for any other commodity
or economic activity. Energy independence, which could also be described as
energy protectionism or isolationism, is a counterproductive goal. By limiting
ourselves to only what we can make at home, we make ourselves poorer. If a
desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions motivates us to discourage oil
consumption, we should avoid the temptation to provide specific subsidies to
particular alternative approaches.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 4
1NC GENERIC
Protectionist policies violate the WTO

Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies, World Trade Review,
University of Toronto)
However, as will be discussed below, subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging
as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. These subsidy policies
may conflict with international trade rules. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created
and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. Because of the broad scope
and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol,
thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. Section 2 discusses
potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of
subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. It argues that subsidies
policy can play a positive role, particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use
potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. Such a policy
would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry), which
are a significant source of greenhouse gases. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or
increased energy efficiency by particular industries. However, while there is a potentially positive
role for subsidies, there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic
production at the expense of imports. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to
adopt such protectionist subsidies. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb
protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. Section 3 sets out
the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental
subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or
inappropriate climate change policies. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy
policies, WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at
addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy
policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises
interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes
C. Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict
Spicer 96 - Economist; member of the British Parliament,

[Michael, “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West,” p. 121]
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after
World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the
adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out
markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for
innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it
won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods
that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the
emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and
inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a
major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will
be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons
at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 5
UNIQUENESS – ETHANOL SPECIFIC
Democrats and republicans both support the removal of alternative energy subsidies now – They
realize that previous subsidies have caused market distortions.
The Washington Times 5/1/08

[“Congress' ethanol affair is cooling; Subsidies tied to food deficit,” Lexis]
Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on

consumers and will move to roll back federal supports for it - the latest sure
signal that Congress' appetite for corn-based ethanol has collapsed as food
and gas prices have shot up.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Democrats will use the pending farm bill to
reduce the subsidy, while Republicans are looking to go further, rolling back
government rules passed just four months ago that require blending ethanol
into gasoline. " The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the
Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are
unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions, " Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat,
told reporters yesterday. Only a year ago, Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a
near-magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas
Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and
emissions.
mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers
into buying gasoline blended with it. But as farmers switched crops, they left a dearth in
other foods - which, coupled with higher worldwide living standards and higher demand - has caused food
shortages. Food riots have erupted in some nations, while even in the U.S., some stores have said they will
the most common phrase when lawmakers talk
ration sales of staples such as rice. Now
about ethanol is " unintended consequences. " " This is a classic case of the law of
unintended consequences, " said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who introduced a bill this week to end
the entire slate of federal supports, including the mandates for blended gasoline, the tax credits for
Congress surely did not
ethanol producers, and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol. "
intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's
happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now, " Mr. Flake said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, is working on her own plan
to freeze the ethanol-renewable-fuel-replacement mandate at this year's levels. "
I've talked to cattle producers, I've talked to pig producers. They are all saying the same thing: The cost of
food and the cost of fuel is just killing their ability to continue to operate, " Mrs. Hutchison
told radio
Rush Limbaugh yesterday, taking her case to the airwaves. " I think it's going
talk show host
to get worse, and I'd like to try to do something that might mitigate this and
not cause the crisis. "
[ ] Ethanol subsidies are being scaled back replaced by private investment loans
Inside Energy 06
[Daniel Whitten, “U.S. sees loans driving ethanol, reducing subsidies,” Lexis]
A senior Bush administration official said last week that the United States will
meet its goal of displacing 30% of gasoline with 60 billion gallons of ethanol
by offering private investors loan guarantees, rather than a full helping of tax
breaks or grants.
Agriculture Department Under Secretary Thomas Dorr, one of the administration's principals on alternative
fuels, said Tuesday that the private sector is already investing in projects to develop
rather than a multi-billion dollar infusion of
cellulosic ethanol and that loan guarantees

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 6
subsidies will lead the country toward the 2030 goal. That view has been promoted in
recent weeks by a host of ethanol advocates who say that by moving to the homegrown fuel, the
government can roll back farm subsidies and scale back, if not eliminate,
incentives for the burgeoning industry.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 7
IMPACT INTERNALS – 1NC EXTENSION
Green subsidies collapse trade and promote protectionism because

they anger the foreign energy market that in turn imposes
duties on imports.
The Financial Post 4/28/08

[“U.S., EU exchange threats over biodiesel subsidies; Barriers to trade; European board requests
punitive duties,” Lexis]
European biodiesel producers kicked off a new transatlantic trade row yesterday
when they asked Brussels to impose punitive duties on U.S. biodiesel, and their
U.S. rivals said they would hit back. With demand for plant-based fuels
starting to soar as the world seeks ways to fight climate change, the European Biodiesel
Board (EBB) said companies in the European Union were going out of business
because of unfair U.S. subsidies. "Since 2007, as a result of these measures, there has been a
dramatic surge in U.S. biodiesel exports to the EU, thus creating a severe injury to
the EU biodiesel industry," the EBB said in a statement. The EBB said it was formally
requesting the EU's executive commission to hit U.S. imports with anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy duties. The EU has set itself a target of using biofuel for 10% of its
transport fuel by 2020, something that will require large amounts of imports, EU officials say. The
European industry has long complained that U.S. subsidies for "B99" biodiesel, which
is blended with small amounts of mineral diesel, break World Trade Organization rules. The U.S.
exports are also eligible for EU subsidies. The head of a U.S. biodiesel group accused the EU sector of
trying to use litigation for protectionist ends and said his group would "aggressively challenge" EU trade
obstacles. "It is hypocritical for the European Biodiesel Board to cry foul while they benefit from a blatant
trade barrier," said Manning Feraci, vice-president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board. He said
EU biodiesel fuel specifications were discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules. "Our industry will
aggressively challenge existing EU trade barriers -- such as the EU's discriminatory biodiesel fuel
specification -- and other EU biofuel policies that are inconsistent with WTO rules and provide preferential
treatment to European fuel producers," Mr. Feraci said in a statement. The
European producers
have previously said they would seek to hit U.S. imports with duties.
Yesterday's complaint starts the clock on the EU procedure for handling such
cases. The European Commission has 45 days from receipt of a complaint to decide whether to launch
investigations. It would then have up to nine months to impose duties provisionally if it finds evidence that
trade rules were broken. Those duties may eventually be made definitive, usually lasting five years. "We
will look at it very carefully," said Peter Power, a spokesman for Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade
Commissioner, referring to the European industry's complaint yesterday. "We will not under any
circumstances tolerate unfair trade."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 8
IMPACT INTERNALS – MORE EVIDENCE
Subsidizing energy is a form of economic nationalism and collapses global trade talks
The Independent 06
[“'Economic nationalism' is damaging us all, warns IMF chief,” Lexis]
The International Monetary Fund yesterday accused politicians across the world of "pandering" to the
growing hostility towards immigration and the rise in protectionism. In what will be seen as a scathing
governments were increasingly pursuing an attitude of
attack on rich countries, it said
"me, my, mine". It came as Gordon Brown unveiled a $750m (pounds 397) bid to break the logjam in
the stalled trade talks, whose collapse has been blamed on the protectionist stance
taken by the US and continental Europe. Raghuram Rajan, the financial watchdog's chief economist,
said that governments were failing to sustain the benefits of the technological revolution that helped to
combat poverty. In his valedictory briefing before he stands down later this year, he said: "Strong political
forces strengthened by rising inequality are gathering to combat the influence of technology and global
competition, andfar too many politicians are pandering to the discontents." He said:
"The rising tide of economic nationalism [and] the strengthening resistance to immigration
are all signals pointing in the same direction. In terms of national advantage -
an attitude of me, my, mine - politicians are once again ensuring collective
disadvantage." He urged political leaders to find a way of reducing poverty and to lessen inequalities
of wealth and income that could fuel social tensions. "For the good times to continue, today's leaders
should focus from spending the dividend to reinvesting for the future," he said. He highlighted the US
where he said there was evidence that income inequality was rising, especially when
pensions and healthcare payments were taken into account. "The question is, does this increase social
tensions especially if [wages at] the low end are completely flat. I think it does. People don't just look at
absolute incomes but at relative incomes and they feel they are being left behind." His comments will be
seen as an attack on governments in Washington and European capitals that have blocked cross-border
takeovers to protect their national champions. The US blocked a Dubai firm from buying six US ports while
France moved to keep the yoghurt giant Danone French. Even the UK, one of the world's most free trade-
oriented countries, has recently become lukewarm over the prospect of thousands more eastern European
workers coming to Britain when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU next year. "Europe's leaders need to find
the will to take on vested interests in both labour and in the corporate sector," he said. "This necessary but
difficult domestic battle is constantly postponed till after the next election - but the next election will never
come." He also criticised Latin American leaders for adopting "populist" policies such as nationalising
the collapse of the world trade talks -
foreign-owned energy concessions. He highlighted
known as the Doha round - which poverty campaigners have blamed on the refusal of
Europe and the US to make cuts in the agricultural subsidies that would benefit farmers in the
developing nations. "This could not be more serious," he said. "For the medium-term health of
the world economy, we need continuous improvement on the trade front and therefore the breakdown of
the Doha round is clearly a problem." It is understood that Washington is anxious to rekindle negotiations
and will use the opportunity of the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank to explore how it might
do so.
Energy subsidies disrupt market patterns
News Times 11/30/06

[“Alternative energy subsidies skew market, It’s the government, not consumers, who drive
demand for green power,” http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/opinion/story.php?
story_id=116482619508208700]
Subsidies, tax credits and grants have made it very easy for individuals and
companies to purchase and install their own alternative energy generators. In
a recent study by ECONorthwest, two of the three highest factors for commercial users in purchasing solar
equipment are “Return on Investment and Rebates” and “Tax Credits.” In a recent Daily Journal of
Commerce article, wind energy proponents admit that the government is necessary
to build demand and to persuade consumers to purchase renewable energy.
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 9
Companies involved in methane digester

Studies on methane digesters tell the same story.
projects, such as Portland General Electric, have decided they cannot fund these
projects on their own in the future. Government aid, not the market, is the
real engine driving the boom in alternative energy. Subsidies and tax breaks
provide incentives to adopt alternative energy, inducing consumers to
purchase goods that are simply not market-friendly. The Energy Trust of Oregon, for
example, plans to spend $29.8 million subsidizing alternative energy this year. The organization is funded
by a 3 percent sales tax on customers of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power & Light and Northwest
Natural Gas. The group spent $53 million of taxpayer money in 2005. A number of promising technologies
are emerging in both alternative and traditional energies. The falling costs of wind and solar energy,
improvements in methane digester technology, CO2-free coal plants, third- and fourth-generation nuclear
power plants with improved safety designs, and many other developments and innovations are pouring out
of laboratories, universities and R&D companies. These technologies should succeed or fail
on their own merits, not because government officials and lobbyists in Salem or
Washington, D.C. favor them.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 10
LINKS
Protectionist policies violate the WTO

However, as will be discussed below, subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging
as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. These subsidy policies
may conflict with international trade rules. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created
and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. Because of the broad scope
and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol,
thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. Section 2 discusses
potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of
subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. It argues that subsidies
policy can play a positive role, particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use
potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. Such a policy
would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry), which
are a significant source of greenhouse gases. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or
increased energy efficiency by particular industries. However, while there is a potentially positive
role for subsidies, there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic
production at the expense of imports. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to
adopt such protectionist subsidies. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb
protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. Section 3 sets out
the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental
subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or
inappropriate climate change policies. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy
policies, WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at
addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy
policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises
interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes.
Subsidies cause market distortion

These risks arise from the impact of subsidies on prices and on the production of the
subsidized product. Subsidies may be harmful, from an international trade
perspective, where they lower the marginal costs (either short run or long run) of
producers, leading to their lowering the price for their products. Such lower prices
may reduce or eliminate market access rights of exporting countries to the market of
the subsidizing state, divert customers in other countries away from the
products of non-subsidizing states towards products of the subsidizing state, and/ or
reduce global welfare by distorting resource allocation towards the subsidized
industry (Sykes, 2003a and Trebilcock and Howse, 2005).

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 11
IMPACTS – 1NC EXTENSION
Protectionism fosters global war in a nuclear age; humankind cannot

survive its consequences
Miller and Elwood 88 – International society for individual liberty

[http://www.free-market.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html ]
When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the
goods of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by
erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade
war in which both sides lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only
negative outcome of a trade war . . . WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS,
ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars
escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries,
when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive
markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions
on Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free
trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built
up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a
petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year,
over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was
plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE
The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free
trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again
see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians.
Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these
economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the
nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism:
embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of
protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago
French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to
specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home."
In the 20th century, journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization
possible, and specialization increases output, and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. That being so, the
market place is a most humane institution." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current waves
of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace,
and that it is important to your future, we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their
interference with free trade. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this
pamphlet to them. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Check on how the issue
is being taught in the schools. Widespread public understanding of this issue, followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too
important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians. "For thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women has been
spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade. "Over the same span of
history, the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively
The
moving communities farther apart. When trade is cut off entirely, the real producers may as well be on different planets.
protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change, fear of

challenge, and the jealous envy of genius. The protectionist is not against the
use of every kind of force, even warfare, to crush his rival. If mankind is to
survive, then these primeval fears must be defeated."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 12
IMPACTS – GLOBAL ECONOMY MODULE
Protectionism disrupts the global economy
The Times 06
[“Business leaders must now make the positive case for globalisation,” Lexis]
Gordon Brown says the

world must be given a wake-up call about the dangers of
retreating back into protectionism.
Today, when G8 finance ministers meet in St Petersburg, the speed, scope and scale of globalisation is at
the top of the agenda. Just as rising interest rates worldwide and widening interest rate spreads create a
more challenging economic environment, darker protectionist and anti-globalisation
forces are on the increase, threatening world growth. "Economic patriotism"
across Europe, with country after country blocking cross-border acquisitions, is antithetical to both
the spirit and the rules of an open single market. Protectionist calls from parts
of the United States, which would seek to halt necessary change, also send out
the wrong message, implying that globalisation is a threat, not the
opportunity it should be. The rising tide of populism in Latin America and continuing
protectionism in Asia are direct assaults on the very idea of globalisation itself. Everywhere, instead of
barriers coming down, they appear to be going up. Instead of focusing on the potential 50 per
cent increases in world trade a successful Doha round could bring, the world trade negotiations are
increasingly dominated not by talk of gains but by fears of what countries will lose. Ironically, even
globalisation's beneficiaries -the millions who are seeing cuts in consumer goods prices, lower inflation and
lower interest rates, and higher economic growth and employment -are acting as if they are victims. With
even winners thinking like losers -and the popular focus on lost manufacturing, lost service jobs off-shored,
lost jobs to newcomers moving into their communities - the argument is being run by the hardest hit
producers, forgetting the benefits to consumers. But it is not the side-effects or the inevitable strains of
Under assault are the very foundations of
globalisation that they have put under attack.
globalisation -the free movement of capital, goods and services, and labour -
that would be destroyed by this three-pronged attack from protectionism, economic
patriotism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The world is being given a wake-up call about the dangers of
retreating back into the kind of beggar-thy-neighbour, heads-in-the-sand protectionism that set nation
our first task, indeed our responsibility as economic leaders,
against nation in the 1930s. So
is to demonstrate to an insecure and uncertain public that either defending a
status quo that cannot endure, or retreating into protectionism is a false
prospectus. Attempts to stop the clock, and to shelter from globalisation, will
lead only to less trade, lower growth and lower employment.
And global economic collapse causes nuclear extinction
Bearden 00 - Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists and a Fellow Emeritus
of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
[T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly"]
desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final

History bears out that
economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and
number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea (2) launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and
South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China
whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other
nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a
few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 13
compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real

legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective
defense, the only chance a nation has lo survive at all, is to launch immediate
full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly
and massively as possible. As the studies showed, escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with
a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will
destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least
for many decades.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 14
IMPACTS – FOOD CRISIS MODULE

[ ] Protectionism worsens the food crisis by causing prices to reach record levels
Financial Post 5/27/08
[“Protectionism is to blame for the food crisis,” Lexis]
The world has enormous capacity to produce food to deal with the current food
crisis. But this potential has been held back by agricultural protectionism in developed
economies and, more recently, by export restrictions imposed by some less developed countries. Contrary
to what is often heard, today's crisis cannot be explained by higher demand for food in emerging countries
or by speculation. In addition to natural catastrophes such as the Australian drought that has slightly
reduced world production recently, ill-advised government policies are largely to
blame. A sustainable decline in prices will be possible only with an increase in
agricultural supply and its corollary, the dismantling of protectionism. This reform
would meet both the rise in demand for food and the unpredictable behaviour of Mother Nature. This
debate is difficult in Quebec and Canada, where one can get the impression that we are benefiting from
high international prices and reaping profits while people die of hunger in faraway places. But exporters
cannot be blamed for the fact that grain, energy and fertilizer prices are hitting
record levels. Canada is the world's biggest producer of potassium, a fertilizer found mostly in
Saskatchewan and Alberta. The price of potassium and other fertilizers has been pushed up by increased
corn production. More corn is being grown because of the huge rise in the world's
heavily subsidized production of ethanol and other biofuels. This has also led
to corn being diverted away from animal feed and human consumption as
well as to a reduction in land areas used to grow wheat and soybeans. Up to a
quarter of the land used to grow corn will be devoted to ethanol production in the
United States in 2008. This situation benefits our economy but hurts subsistence agriculture in developing
countries. Fertilizers and fuels account for just a small portion of food costs here, but not in less developed
countries where food is significantly less processed. We hear regularly that worldwide income growth,
especially in India and China, has caused higher demand along with the resulting price pressure. The good
fortune of some does not always bring misfortune to others: Greater wealth cannot explain the explosion in
food prices seen in the last two years. Grain demand has tended to rise continuously, at a rate that has not
varied substantially in the last 10 years. The only solution for feeding the planet is to increase agricultural
supply and then to let prices fall naturally. How do we get there?
[ ] Food crisis causes wars, famine, disease and the extinction of

humanity
Winnail 96 – PhD, MPH
[Douglas S., “On the Horizon: Famine,” September/October,
http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm]
As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes,
"No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food
prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic
instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even wars. The chaotic weather
conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of
pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the
effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms--could be
catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an
With world food stores
increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor.
dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next
couple of years will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to
bring supplies back up to normal. However, poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create
severe food shortages and push millions over the edge. Is it possible we are only one
or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today? Where
is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they
Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people!
get better.
Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 15
famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that

have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of
humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a
growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is
facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases, and the
demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's
resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous
series of potential global crises at the same time! However, droughts and shrinking
grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. According to the U.N.'s studies, all 17 major
fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. In fact, nine of these areas
are in serious decline. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and
land-based sources is a troubling one . It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal
protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. In the early 1970s, the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the
world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing. If this happens
on a global scale, we will be in deep trouble. This precarious situation is also
without historical precedent!

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 16
IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST

Subsidies distort free trade and cause deforestation, economic insecurity and food price inflation
Lloyd's List 10/23/07

[World Bank highlights cost of biofuel industry subsidies; Production said to have had an upward
effect on feedstock prices, Lexis]
Large biofuel production subsidies and high protective tariffs are proving costly for
developing countries such as Brazil which are efficient producers in profitable
export markets, a World Bank reports says. "More than 200 support measures cost
around $5.5bn-$7.3bn a year in the US," it says, amounting to around $0.38-$0.49 per litre
petroleum equivalent for ethanol. The long list of support measures includes
consumption incentives such as fuel tax reductions, production incentives
through tax incentive schemes, loan guarantees and direct subsidy payments
and mandatory consumption requirements. The report says that domestic
producers in both the US and the European Union also receive additional support
through 'high import tariffs on ethanol'. Last year global production of ethanol was around
40bn litres, of which nearly 90% was produced in Brazil and in the US. In addition about 6.5bn litres of
biodiesel were produced worldwide, of which about 75% was produced in the EU. The latest annual world
development report for 2008, entitled Agriculture for Development, highlights that biofuel production has
also had an upward effect on feedstock prices. "The clearest example is whose [feedstock] price rose by
over 60% from 2005 to 2007, largely because of the US ethanol programme combined with reduced stocks
in major exporting countries."World Bank economists predict feedstock prices are likely to remain
constrained in the near term. The report says biofuels represent both an opportunity and a challenge, such
as promising new opportunities for mitigating the threats of climate change and ushering in new markets
for agriculture through the production of biofuels, influenced to a degree by high energy prices. But it also
admits that few of the biofuel programmes are economically viable and that
many pose social risks because of rising food prices and environmental risks
through deforestation. Looking ahead, the report argues that future biofuel technology "may rely
on dedicated energy crops and timber waste instead of food crops, potentially reducing the pressure on
food crop prices". For example, the report outlines that, according to recent forecasts, about 30% of the US
maize harvest could be used for ethanol, but the same projections underscore that this would still account
for less than 8% of US gasoline consumption. "Second generation technologies, using agricultural biomass,
could make a higher contribution to energy security," the report concludes. Turning to the global trade
talks, the report argues that the complete removal of farm subsidies, tariffs and other
barriers to trade could result in real increases in international commodity
prices. World Bank agricultural economists forecast that prices, such as cotton, could increase by 20.8%,
oilseeds by 15.1%, coarse grains by 7%, wheat by 5% and sugar by 2.5%. The report says the World
Trade Organisation-sponsored talks "must urgently be concluded, particularly to
eliminate distortions such as US cotton subsidies, which are detrimental to the
poorest nations". "We must level the playing field in international trade," said
World Bank president Robert Zoellick. Mr Zoellick, a former US trade representative, added: "It will require
political will to move forward with reforms that improve the governance of agriculture."Countries
must deliver on vital reforms such as cutting distorting subsidies and opening
markets," he said. The report says full liberalisation in developing countries would increase their share
of global agricultural exports to 65% from 54%, and in the case of oilseeds and cotton by more than double
this amount, with projected increases of 34% and 27% respectively. The World Bank estimates that the
overall amount of support for agricultural producers in rich industrialised countries increased from $242bn
a year from 1986- 1998 and to $273bn annually from 2003- 2005. It forecasts that the global welfare
costs of trade tariffs and subsidies will reach $100bn-$300bn by 2015, with
about two-thirds of the costs likely to come from farm tariff and subsidies. The report calls for greater
investment in agriculture in developing countries. "We need to give agriculture more prominence across
the board," Mr Zoellick said when releasing the report in Washington. "A dynamic agriculture for
development agenda can benefit an estimated 900m rural people in the developing world who live on less
than $1 a day, most of whom are engaged in agriculture," the World Bank chief added.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 17

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 18
IMPACTS – SUBSIDIES TURNS ENVIRONMENT

Energy subsidies foster more environmental exploitation – they are ethically and environmentally
irresponsible
Bozeman Daily Chronicle 06

[Pete Geddes, “The Perils of Energy Subsidies,” http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?
id=486]
I recently met with a Bozeman writer about my opposition to subsidies for alternative fuels. Am I opposed
to all subsidies, including those for fossil fuels, or just for wind, solar, and synfuels? Of course, I responded,
I’m opposed to all commodity subsidies on ethical and environmental grounds. But I support federal
investments in basic research and projects like the construction of the Hyalite handicapped trail. Here’s
how I think about the difference. When we subsidize things that trade in the market,
we benefit the well off and well organized at the expense of the most
vulnerable members of society. This holds true whether in Bozeman, Boston, or Birmingham.
Princeton Ph.D. George Will said it well: “The world is divided between those who do and
do not understand that activist, interventionist, regulating, subsidizing
government is generally a servant of the strong and entrenched against the
weak and aspiring.” For a primer on how this process works, I recommend the late Mancur Olson’s
book, The Logic of Collective Action. Olson examines how political forces derail the greater good. His
explanation is straightforward: small, wealthy, well-connected groups easily organize
into cohesive, effective units. They then use the political process to reap
huge benefits while dispersing the costs over 290 million citizens. Rarely is this
graft challenged, especially not in the Bush administration. But isn’t it reasonable to support
subsidies for the “right” kind of energy, e.g., wind and solar? No, for the same
pathological logic applies. Here’s an example. Wind farms are enjoying a
boom. Alas, their popularity has more to do with harvesting advantages in the
tax code than with their environmental or energy merits. Following The Logic of
Collective Action, we’re not surprised to learn these “good” subsidies annually transfer
hundreds of millions of dollars from customers and taxpayers to a few large
companies. Wind “farmers” reap more revenue from tax breaks and subsidies
than from the sale of their product. They benefit at the expense of other
taxpayers and energy consumers. Subsidies cause tremendous environmental
harm. Here’s the unintended but predictable consequence of European Union
mandates for biofuels. The New Scientist reports: “The drive for ‘green energy’ in the
developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction
of tropical rainforests. From ... Borneo to the Brazilian Amazon, virgin forest is being
razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to fuel cars and power stations in
Europe and North America....” “The expansion of palm oil production is one of
the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. It is one of the
most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet,” says Simon Counsell,
director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation. Here’s a key point. If consumers really derive superior
value (i.e., in terms of price and performance) from alternative energy sources, won’t entrepreneurs rush
to deliver these products to them? We all care about our energy future; some of us
care for the environmental consequences. They include: human health,
natural beauty, and ameliorating the negative effects of climate change. Most
folks primarily value warm homes in the winter, fast and convenient transportation, and inexpensive
energy. The questions we face involve balancing competing values. In what
combination and in what amounts should we seek the things we want? My writer
friend is frustrated by our slow transition to a green energy future. She believes we can hasten this process
by the government subsidizing the “right” fuels. Perhaps. But if a technology is not
economically competitive, no amount of public subsidy or special political
favors will make it so. Isn’t it ironic that western environmentalists who spend
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 19
their careers fighting the perverse environmental impacts of governmental

subsidies (e.g., dams on western rivers) believe that government, rather than the
market process, must guide our energy future? How can they forget that the
West best exemplifies the environmental harms resulting from the subsidized
exploitation of the environment? This is a result of the alliance between big
government and big business. Are they sure the government will get it right
this time? When considering our energy future, understand there are no
solutions, only trade-offs. All energy production has environmental impacts.
Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives. It’s ethically
and environmentally irresponsible to pretend this reality away.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 20
IMPACTS – PROTECTIONISM TURNS ENVIRONMENT

Protectionism turns case – It disables companies from investing in cleaner technologies which has
adverse effects on the environment
China Post 2/3/08

[Kendra Okonski and Caroline Boin , Environment program at International Policy Network,
PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL, Lexis]
The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where
European and American producers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game would
artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade would be
replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation.
Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions are
concentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business
from competition, especially when supported by moralists, such as environmentalists, who claim that such
protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised labor unite. The Lieberman-Warner
bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade
unions. Similarly, various European trade unionshave applauded calls for punitive trade measures against
non-EU competitors. But in reality, it is far more moral to support liberalization. Trade
barriers of
any kind, including"green" subsidies, tariffs and quotas, harm both consumers and
producers. They artificially increase costs,leading to unnecessary waste of
scarce natural and human resources. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase the
same goods and services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future. Although
some claim that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually
counterproductive. They favor the status quo by rewarding inefficient
producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-saving
technologies. Consider bananas. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and
Russia. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in warm places, and then exporting them
to consumers around the world. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory
Coast. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably. Poor
countries
would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers -- with adverse
effects on both people and the environment. Protectionism will mean fewer
products from poor countries being sold to industrialized countries. So local
companies will have less money to invest in new, cleaner technologies.
Instead, they will continue to use older, dirtier production methods and thus
will use scarce resources less sustainably. This effect would be exacerbated
by reduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover, less trade
means less wealth, which translates into fewer resources available to invest
in environmental conservation. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984,
India had one car manufacturer, which produced just one car -- the Ambassador -- which was
technologically inferior, belched pollutants, and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began
to open its market to foreign car producers. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of
Indians have benefited from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner,
moretechnologically advanced and efficient. Environmental ideologues continue to make
dour prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume less,
have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based on their
scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent
decades, these claims should not be heeded seriously. Such demands may
suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their
practical ability to enable humanity to use scarce natural and human
resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. The competitive market
process, underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is inherently
more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 21
mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green, harms the vast majority of

people as well as the environment -- and is best avoided.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 22
IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD

[ ] Ethanol subsidies promote deforestation and food price
inflation that has disastrous consequences worldwide
Canberra Times 07
[Daniel Howden; in Sao Paolo, “Ethanol proves sweet alternative but at a cost,” Lexis]
The ethanol boom is coming. The twin threats of climate change and energy security are creating an
unprecedented thirst for alternative energy with ethanol leading the way. That process is set to reach a
landmark this week as US President George W.Bush arrives in Brazil to kick-start the creation of an
international market for ethanol that could one day rival oil as a global commodity. The
expected
creation of an "OPEC for ethanol" replicating the cartel of major oil producers has spurred
frenzied investment in biofuels across the Americas. But a growing number of
economists, scientists and environmentalists are calling for a "time out" and
warning that the headlong rush into massive ethanol production is creating
more problems than it is solving. To its advocates, ethanol which can be made from corn,
barley, wheat, sugar cane or beet, is a green panacea a clean burning, renewable energy source that will
see us switch from dwindling oil wells to boundless fields of crops to satisfy our energy needs. In its first
major acknowledgment over the dangers of climate change, the White House this year committed itself to
substituting 20 per cent of the petroleum it uses for ethanol by 2017. In Brazil that switch is more
advanced than anywhere in the world and it has already substituted 40 per cent of its gasoline usage.
Ethanol is nothing new in Brazil. It has been used as fuel since 1925. But the real boom came
after the oil crisis of 1973 spurred the military dictatorship to lessen the country's reliance on foreign
generals poured public subsidies and incentives into the
imports of fossil fuels. The
sugar industry to produce ethanol. Today, the congested streets of Sao Paolo are packed with
flex-fuel cars that run off a growing menu of bio and fossil fuel mixtures, and all filling stations offer
"alcohol" and "gas" at the pump, with the latter at roughly twice the price by volume. But
there is a
darker side to this green revolution which argues for a cautious assessment
of how big a role ethanol can play in filling the developed world's fuel tank.
The prospect of a sudden surge in demand for ethanol is causing serious
concerns even in Brazil. The ethanol industry has been linked with air and water
pollution on an epic scale, along with deforestation in both the Amazon and
Atlantic rainforests, as well as the wholesale destruction of Brazil's unique
savannah land. Fabio Feldman, a leading Brazilian environmentalist and former member of Congress
who helped to pass the law mandating a 23 per cent mix of ethanol to be added to all petroleum supplies
in the country, believes that Brazil's trail-blazing switch has had some serious side
effects. "Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have
replaced important eco-systems," he said. There are also mounting calls for a study on the effects on the
water supply of the huge quantities of industrial fertilisers used in the plantations. Despite its leading role
in biofuels, Brazil remains the fourth largest producer of carbon emissions in the world due to
Clouds of black smoke from the arc of destruction across the
deforestation.
Amazon are visible from space as the most important carbon sink and climate
control on the planet is cut and burned. While Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source
alcohol from its sugar crop, the US has turned to its industrialised corn belt for the raw material to
The effect of competition between food and fuel producers for
substitute oil.
sugar in Brazil, the world's leading producer, has seen sugar prices double in the last
two years. While this has had little impact on the world food economy, a similar competition
for corn between food producers and ethanol distilleries could have
disastrous consequences worldwide.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 23
IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD
Subsidies for bio-fuels and ethanol heavily inflate food prices

causing famine and food scarcity
Runnalls 07 - CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development
[The Globe and Mail, Lexis]
For example, the competition among small towns for the attention of the builders of prospective ethanol
distillery plants is as spirited as the 19th-century competition for rail lines. Meanwhile, U.S.
government subsidies to biofuels have been promoted as a way to
simultaneously address concerns related to the environment, energy security
and rural development. But the cost-effectiveness of achieving these goals
under the current subsidy regime is low. The IISD report finds, for example, that biofuels are an
extremely high-cost means for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Under optimistic
projections, it costs at least $500 in federal and state subsidies to reduce one
metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent through the production and use of corn-based
ethanol. And that may be a conservative estimate. Five hundred U.S. dollars could purchase
more than 30 tonnes of equivalent offsets on the European Climate Exchange, or
nearly 140 tonnes on the Chicago Climate Exchange. And if coal-based electricity has been used
to power the ethanol plant, the cost of carbon dioxide reduction approaches infinity,
as little or no carbon dioxide has been reduced. In fact, it would be just as
sensible in climate-change terms to use a gallon of normal gas. The sheer
levels of government support for biofuels appear out of proportion to their
ability to satisfy domestic transportation fuel requirements. Current forecasts are that
biofuels will account for less than 5 per cent of total global transport fuel use in 2010. While corn farmers
are happy with this system, other rural dwellers are not. The price of corn has more than
doubled, since it is now a competitor to oil rather than food grains, putting
ranchers, hog farmers and other feed users under enormous pressure. According to U.S. food policy expert
Lester Brown, if all the ethanol plants that have been approved for the next year are built, ethanol will
be eating more than 40 per cent of the entire U.S. grain crop by 2008. What
happens if we have another African famine or one or two bad crop years in
North America?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 24
1NC- EUROPE VERSION
The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulations
Stephen Boucher, Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM - Prof. @
Science Po in Paris, 4/4/’8 [Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate
Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-
ClimateChange-en.pdf]
The business community also has spoken in favor of a comprehensive government response to
the issue. Large US corporations have thus formed the United States Climate Action Partnership
(US-CAP), calling for “a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate
protection.” 30 The members’ list is impressive, including Alcoa, Ford, General Electric, and Xerox. Signatories to the Global
Roundtable on Climate
Change, which include CEOs of major international and US-based corporations, have also expressed a desire for government action
on climate change through a statement released in February of 2007.31 The United Steelworkers, with the Sierra Club, has
commissioned a series of new reports highlighting the economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable
energy.Most importantly, public opinion has shifted, albeit belatedly. 91% of Americans have
heard of the issue.33 71% view human activity as a significant cause of climate change.34 A
large majority (59%) favors quick action, including by raising taxes.35
What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only be
modest in the context of an electoral campaign. However, with the promising trends described above, an
unprecedented opportunity has arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global
warming. Climate change could now be seen as a common cause for the EU and the USA, rather
than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other. There is the possibility
to help drive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of
global warming.
Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of these positive signals for a global climate treaty, while
engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Most importantly, they should not talk unwisely of
“border adjustments”47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing.
Rightly so, EU Commission President
Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light of international
negotiations. EU government should adhere to this discipline. This is true also for the USA,
where import tariffs have been requested by a number of business interest groups.
The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefit
from US plans. Whether with each campaign individually, or the US policy arena collectively, the most important thing is
for Europe to engage Americans actively on the climate issue. The American mainstream is fast
becoming aware of the climate problem, and could benefit from learning of Europe’sexperience
in tackling the issue. Also, it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towards harmonization
and integration, especially for the functioning of carbon markets. Therefore, at this formative
stage, the European Union, the United States, and the world would benefit from a closer
alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic.
They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable, as opposed to a form of beauty contest some seem to
believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. This could lead to the creation before the end of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus
helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty of being leader and
worries about the impact on its economy, its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the
next US administration, setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation
with developing countries.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 25
1NC EUROPE VERSION
The Aff Creates the Perception that the US is Shifting Towards Voluntary Incentives, Ensuring
European Tariffs on the US
Thomas L. Brewer, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, Washington, DC and

Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), June 08 [The
Trade and Climate Change Joint Agenda CEPS Working Document No. 295/June 2008,
http://shop.ceps.eu/downfree.php?item_id=1673.]
Issues have arisen about whether provisions in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation
Act of 2007 are compatible with the WTO plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement
(GPA), to which the US is a signatory (NFTC, 2007, pp. 14-17). A key issue is whether
provisions such as those requiring US government agencies to purchase ‘low greenhouse gas
emitting’ vehicles and to take into account energy efficiency standards in their purchasing
decisions could violate WTO non-discrimination principles or constitute disguised
protectionism.
Among the climate-trade issues that have emerged to date, one of the most contentious concerns
the possible use of offsetting border measures to reduce free rider, carbon leakage and
international competitiveness problems. The underlying problem in the terminology of political
economy is that there can be ‘free riders’ on international agreements, in this case multilateral
climate change agreements.
Climate Sanctions Ensure All Out Trade War
Robert Collier, @ Policy Syndicate, 5/2/’8 [Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate
Change?, http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000051]
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and
industrial chambers of commerce strongly advocate a similar tariff system, leading many
analysts to predict that the EU will also adopt some sort of green tariff system in the next
few years.
Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward, U.S. Trade Representative Susan
Schwab argues that green trade sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules. In a
recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, she wrote, "We believe this
approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one of persuasion, that
will take us down a dangerous path and adversely impact U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and
consumers."
Developing nations' allies, meanwhile, are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the
chances of a post-Kyoto treaty. Chinese diplomats have not responded directly, but they
have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. In February, China's top climate
negotiator, Yu Qingtai, said at the UN that rich nations, which "caused the problem of climate
change in the first place," must be treated as "culprits," and developing countries as "victims."
1NC EUROPE VERSION
Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 26
Spicer 96 - Economist; member of the British Parliament,

[Michael, “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West,” p. 121]
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after
World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the
adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out
markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for
innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it
won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods
that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the
emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and
inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a
major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will
be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at
two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 27
1NC EUROPE VERSION
US-Eu Trade relations are key to .political relations, the global economy, and international trade
EurActive, European news paper, July 26th 2002, EU-US Economic Disputes: There is More to Trade
than Goods and Services http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-us-economic-disputes-trade-goods-
services/article-116971
The EU-US trade relationship is of great importance in today's global economic system. Not
only do bilateral economic relations between these two economic giants make up over 40% of
world trade, but their trade relationship also greatly influences political cooperation between the
two unions. As Leon Brittan, former EU commissioner for trade recently wrote, there is a
loose linkage between economic and political cooperation and partnership. If serious strains arise
on one side of the relationship, there is always a risk that the other will suffer. The US-EU trade
relationship draws wider circles, however, and also serves an important signalling effect to the
world trading system as a whole. Indeed, it is difficult to move the global trade agenda forward
when the EU and US pull on opposite strands.
Insert relations impact

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 28
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

A. US/European cooperation is needed to solve for WMD conflicts in the Middle East, prevent
terrorism, and stabilize Russia
Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University,
6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p. lexis
If our efforts in these areas are ultimately to be successful, however, they must be part of more
comprehensive transatlantic strategies aimed at the modernization and transformation of the Greater
Middle East itself. A circle--with its center in Tehran-- that has a diameter roughly matching the length of
the continental United States covers a region that encompasses 75 percent of the world's population, 60
percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. The Greater Middle East is the region of the
world where unsettled relationships, religious and territorial conflicts, fragile and failed regimes, and
deadly combinations of technology and terror brew and bubble on top of one vast, relatively
contiguous energy field upon which Western prosperity depends. Transformation of this region is
the strategic challenge of our time and a key to winning the campaign against terrorism. Choices
made there could determine the shape of the 21st century--whether weapons of mass destruction will
be unleashed upon mass populations; whether the oil and gas fields of the Caucasus and Central Asia
will become reliable sources of energy; whether the Arab world will meet the challenges of modernization
and globalization; whether Russia's borderlands will become stable and secure democracies;
whether Israel and its neighbors can live together in peace; and whether the great religions of the
world can work together. This is a long term effort. We cannot hope to transform this turbulent region into
an area of democratic stability and prosperity soon. But we can act more successfully together to defend
common interests, to dampen the negative trends that are gaining momentum, and to work with those in the
region who seek to carve out areas of civil society where the state does not intrude. Such an effort is far
more likely to succeed if America and Europe were to pool our energies and resources and pursue
it together.
B. Middle East conflicts will go global
John Steinbach, Analyst, Center for Research on Globalization, 2002 (“Israeli Weapons of Mass
Destruction: A Threat to Peace” - Center for Research on Globalization)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has
serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of
nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any
Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as
a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said
"The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it
the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that
the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets
and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite
in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously
complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of
nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their
actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel
refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason-
the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 29
U.S. /EUROPEAN RELATIONS- MIDDLE EAST

Collapse of US/European relations leads to global war and instability
Doyle McManus, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times, 3/21/2004 (“Transatlantic Wounds Won’t Heal Overnight” – Los
Angeles Times) p. lexis
Over time, Kissinger warned, the consequences could be grave. "What

if the United States believes that Europe has
become irrelevant and is
just another player with which we have relations of convenience?" he asked.
"Then we will be living in a world very similar to the pre-World War I world" -- an era when major
powers competed with one another for influence, forged no strong alliances and plunged into "an
armaments race and ... a huge conflict."
US/European cooperation are key to solving a host of global problems – terrorism, the environment,
disease, and nuclear proliferation cannot be solved without Europe
James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution,
Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. OUP Journals
Both the United States and Europe face new global threats and opportunities that, in almost every
case, can be dealt with far more successfully if we act together. Transnational threats, from
terrorism and international crime to environmental damage and disease pose an increasing danger
to our wellbeing. Porous borders and the extraordinary global flows of goods, money, people and
ideas facilitate the spread of economic opportunity – but also foster the proliferation of technology for
weapons of mass destruction. Weak states threaten our security as much as powerful ones. Ocean and
land barriers offer little protection. Non-state actors – from businesses and NGOs to terrorist and money-
launderers – play an increasingly influential role. In the place of geopolitics, a new ‘global politics’ is
required to address the threats and opportunities that affect us all. If we can work together, we are
likely to be far more successful at meeting the new global threats, and preserving our freedom and
prosperity, than if we try to achieve these goals alone.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 30
European cooperation is critical for the US to undertake any foreign policy – it cannot solve global
problems or economic stability without cooperation
Robert E. Hunter, Senior Fellow, RAND Corporation, and Former Ambassador to NATO, 1993-1998,
Winter 2003/2004 (“Europe’s Leverage” – The Washington Quarterly) p. lexis
Nothing has happened to lessen the importance of the continent of Europe as the most important
landmass—economically and politically—to be kept free of a hegemonic power at odds with U.S.
interests, values, and objectives (the stuff of three world wars in the twentieth century). Europe still
depends on U.S. power, influence, engagement, and leadership to be fully assured of its own
independence, security, long-term prosperity, and in some places even domestic tranquility. Meanwhile,
the U.S. and European economies, especially those of the European Union, are now so intermingled
that both sides would suffer grievous injury if either tried to lessen their level of entanglement with
one another significantly. The panoply of economic interaction between the United States and the EU,
including trade in goods and services, investment, cross-ownership, travel, and finance, must now be
valued in the trillions of dollars, with the power to control and influence rarely having a clear locus on one
side of the Atlantic or the other; certainly neither side is able to claim decisive predominance. Indeed,
transatlantic economic interdependence is now so much a fact of life that the concept is no longer
even questioned. At the same time, a broad array of relatively common values and institutions of
incalculable worth bind the United States and Europe together, creating an interpenetration of influence
unrivaled among any other set of major powers. Much of what the United States seeks to do
elsewhere in the world will depend on its ability to gain the support and active engagement of
European power—and European powers— politically, economically, and militarily.
US/European relations are key to solve proliferation, terrorism, democracy, and free trade
Doug Bereuter, Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and
President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and John Lis, Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic
Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee, Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the
Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com
Yet, the reality is that common

interests -- fostering a more open trading order and a more democratic
world as well as combating common threats such as global terrorism and weapons proliferation -- make
transatlantic cooperation as imperative today as it was during the depths of the Cold War. The United States
needs a strong European partner to help promote common interests in Europe and the world beyond.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 31
U.S./EUROPEAN RELATIONS- MIDDLE EAST
US/Europe relations are key to preventing terrorism, proliferation, and maintaining the US economy
David Manning, British Ambassador to the United States, 10/19/2004 (“European Studies Program Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies ‘Changes in Europe and America’ with British Ambassador to the United States David Maning” –
Federal New Service) p. lexis
My view is that we have, and I believe it's essential that we should. Much is going on that we are
doing together that isn't in the headlines: counterterrorism cooperation is now at the center of
daily transatlantic business, as is cooperation on counter-proliferation. And we've worked well
too on issues that have been making headlines recently. First, free elections in Afghanistan;
success in persuading the Libyans to renounce WMD; and in rolling out A.Q. Khan's networks.
And we need to remember too that our prosperity is interdependent. The trade and financial flows
across the Atlantic are of an extraordinary magnitude. A few statistics for you: The U.S. invested
$3.2 billion in China and Hong Kong in 2003, compared with $30.5 billion in the U.K. -- ten
times as much. Two-way trade in goods and services between the EU and U.S. last year was
worth just under $400 billion. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that $3.3 million U.S.
jobs were supported by EU investment in 2002. Visible trade between the U.S. and the EU last
year was worth $50 billion.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 32
US/European cooperation is needed to transform the Middle East thereby removing systemic causes
of terrorism and WMD proliferation
Robert Asmus, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 5/6/2002 (“United We’ll Stand: Recasting NATO to Face a Perilous
World Together” – The Washington Post) p. lexis
The bad news is that America and Europe again face an existential challenge. It is what German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer has called a "new totalitarian threat" to Western societies: the toxic mix of terrorism, weapons of
mass destruction, radical Islam and failed states. That threat emanates principally from a geographic area that
extends from Israel eastward to Central Asia and includes the Greater Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The challenge
of our time is addressing this new threat. Tracking down Osama bin Laden or toppling Saddam Hussein will not be enough. We
must dramatically expand our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We must work to
lift failed states, from which our enemies draw sanctuary, support and successors. The problem is more than just terrorism, and the
answer must be more than simply a military one. Ultimately, we must support a process by which the greater
Middle East is transformed from within -- into more equitable and open societies that no longer produce ideologies and
people intent upon killing our citizens. Success may require decades of sustained political, economic and military
cooperation, much of it between the United States and Europe.
Acting independently will undermine Middle Eastern reforms – only acting with Europe will strike
the right balance
Maura Reynolds, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times, 2/28/2004 (“Their Rift is in the Past, Schroeder Says” –
Los Angeles Times) p. lexis
One diplomat involved in discussions over the broader Middle East democracy initiative said both the
Europeans and Americans face a dilemma in how to help reformers change repressive societies. He
said supporting reformers too much can get them branded as foreign lackeys. Help them too little,
he said, and they don't stand a chance against their governments. That balance is easier to strike if the
United States cooperates with Europe, the diplomat said.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 33
Actively cultivating relations is needed to solve the major problems of WMD terrorism and reform in
the Middle East – Iraq proves European support is needed
Daila Dassa Kaye, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University
and a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs Winter 2003/2004 (“Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East” – The
Washington Quarterly) p. lexis
The example of Iraq demonstrates the need for material and political support from European allies to
address the shared challenges emanating from the Middle East adequately. None of the major
problems in the region today—terrorism, proliferation, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, regional
political and economic reform—can be solved by one power alone. A stable, democratic, and
prosperous Middle East depends on the United States and Europe working together in the region.
Building cooperation on areas such as those identified above to promote a transatlantic agenda will not
entirely narrow the transatlantic divide nor avoid future crises, but it can contribute to a more pragmatic
and hopefully constructive approach toward a region that is likely to affect global stability for some
time to come. Europeans and Americans cannot afford to be complacent and to expect that a variety
of common threats emanating from the Middle East will inherently produce transatlantic cooperation.
US/European cooperation is the only way to resolve threats from the Greater Middle East region
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic
Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost
Ultimately, America can look to only one genuine partner in coping with the Global Balkans:
Europe. Although it will need the help of leading East Asian states like Japan and China--and Japan will
provide some, though limited, material assistance and some peacekeeping forces--neither is likely at this
stage to become heavily engaged. Only Europe, increasingly organized as the European Union and
militarily integrated through NATO, has the potential capability in the political, military and economic
realms to pursue jointly with America the task of engaging the various Eurasian peoples--on a
differentiated and flexible basis--in the promotion of regional stability and of progressively widening
trans-Eurasian cooperation. And a supranational European Union linked to America would be less
suspect in the region as a returning colonialist bent on consolidating or regaining its special economic
interests. America and Europe together represent an array of physical and experiential assets with
the capability to make the decisive difference in shaping the political future of the Global Balkans.
The question is whether Europe--largely preoccupied with the shaping of its own unity--will have the will
and the generosity to become truly engaged with America in a joint effort that will dwarf in complexity and
scale the earlier, successful joint American-European effort to preserve peace in Europe and then end
Europe's division.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 34
The Greater Middle East region is the greatest threat to world order – instability there risks
collapsing US hegemony and splitting the Atlantic Alliance
FOR THE next several decades, the most volatile and dangerous region of the world--with the
explosive potential to plunge the world into chaos--will be the crucial swathe of Eurasia between
Europe and the Far East. Heavily inhabited by Muslims, we might term this crucial subregion of Eurasia
the new "Global Balkans."(n1) It is here that America could slide into a collision with the world of
Islam while American-European policy differences could even cause the Atlantic Alliance to
come unhinged. The two eventualities together could then put the prevailing American global
hegemony at risk. At the outset, it is essential to recognize that the ferment within the Muslim world
must be viewed primarily in a regional rather than a global perspective, and through a geopolitical
rather than a theological prism. The world of Islam is disunited, both politically and religiously. It is
politically unstable and militarily weak, and likely to remain so for some time. Hostility toward the
United States, while pervasive in some Muslim countries, originates more from specific political
grievances--such as Iranian nationalist resentment over the U.S. backing of the Shah, Arab animus
stimulated by U.S. support for Israel or Pakistani feelings that the United States has been partial to India--
than from a generalized religious bias.
There’s no solution to the Greater Middle East crisis without US/European cooperation
In the short run, America has the power and the will to disregard Europe's views. It can prevail by
using its military might and temporarily prompt reluctant European accommodation. But the European
Union has the economic resources and financial means to make the critical difference to the
region's long-run stability. Thus, no truly viable solution in the area will be possible unless the
United States and the EU increasingly act in common.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 35

US/European cooperation in the Middle East is key to stabilize oil producing nations which are key
to the economy and hegemony
More broadly, American-European cooperation in promoting a stable and democratic Iraq and in
advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace--in effect, a "regional roadmap"--would create more favorable
political preconditions for addressing the unsatisfactory strategic equation that prevails in the oil-
and natural-gas-producing areas of the Persian Gulf, Iran and the Caspian Basin. Unlike energy-rich
Russia, the states of this zone--from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan all the way down to Saudi Arabia--
are almost entirely exporters, but not major consumers, of the energy that is extracted from their ground.
They have by far the world's largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Since reliable access to reasonably
priced energy is vitally important to the world's three economically most dynamic regions--North
America, Europe and East Asia--strategic domination over the area, even if cloaked by cooperative
arrangements, would be a globally decisive hegemonic asset. From the standpoint of American
interests, the current geopolitical state of affairs in the world's principal energy-rich zone leaves much to be
desired. Several of the key exporting states--notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--are weak
and politically debilitated. Iraq faces a prolonged period of stabilization, reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Another major energy producer, Iran, has a regime hostile to the United States and opposes U.S. efforts on
behalf of a Middle Eastern peace. It may be seeking WMD and is suspected of terrorist links. The United
States has sought to isolate Iran internationally, but with limited success. Just to the north, in the southern
Caucasus and Central Asia, the newly independent energy-exporting states are still in the early
stages of political consolidation. Their systems are fragile, their political processes arbitrary and
their statehood vulnerable.
US/European cooperation is key to stabilizing Iran and the rest of the energy-exporting countries of
the region
Active strategic partnership between the United States and the European Union would also make it
more likely that Iran could eventually be transformed from a regional ogre into a regional stabilizer.
Currently, Iran has a cooperative relationship with Russia, but otherwise either wary or hostile relations
with all of its neighbors. It has maintained a relatively normal relationship with Europe, but its
antagonistic posture toward America--reciprocated by restrictive U.S. trade legislation--has made it
difficult for European-Iranian and Iranian-Japanese economic relations to truly prosper. Its internal
development has suffered accordingly, while its socioeconomic dilemmas have been made more acute by a
demographic explosion that has increased its population to 70-odd million. The entire energy-exporting
region would be more stable if Iran, the region's geographic center, were reintegrated into the global
community and its society resumed its march to modernization. That will not happen as long as the United
States seeks to isolate Iran and is insensitive to Iran's security concerns, especially given the presence in
Iran's immediate neighborhood of three overt and one covert nuclear powers. More effective would be an
approach in which the Iranian social elite sees the country's isolation as self-imposed and thus
counterproductive, instead of something enforced by America. Europe has long urged the United States to
adopt that approach. On this issue, American strategic interests would be better served if America were to
follow Europe's lead. A promising start in this regard has been made by the European initiative on
the complex issue of the Iranian nuclear program, an issue that should not be addressed in a manner
reminiscent of the earlier U.S. exaggerations of the alleged Iraqi WMD threat.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 36
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ECONOMY
A. US/European relations are key to the global economy
Gareth Harding, Europe Correspondent for United Press International, 9/7/2002 (United Press
International) p. lexis
Despite their differences, EU and U.S. leaders know that a breakdown in relations between the two sides
would be disastrous for the international economy and global stability. Together, Europe and
America have the biggest trade and investment relationship in the world -- amounting to over $1
billion a day -- accounting for half the planet's wealth and forming the cornerstone of the world's most
powerful military alliance, NATO.
B. Economic collapse causes nuclear wars
Chris Lewis, Professor, University of Colorado, 1998 (The Coming Age of Scarcity) p. 56
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to
withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United
States, Europe, and Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain
within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass deaths,
suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and
political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a
global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. However, these
neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and political hegemony, will cause
the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex economic
and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the
global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case
scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 37
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ECONOMY
The US/European economic partnership forms the core of the global economy
William Drozdiak, President, American Council on Germany, and Former Executive Director, German
Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center, January/February 2005 (“The North Atlantic Drift” – Foreign
Affairs) p. ebscohost
Any reassessment of the transatlantic alliance must start with an important but often overlooked
premise: the United States and the EU are still the twin turbines of the global economy. Together,
they account for more than half of trade and investment flows in the world. Their business with
each other exceeds $2.5 trillion a year and provides jobs for some 12 million workers. Over the past
eight years, Americans invested twice as much in the Netherlands as in Mexico and ten times as much as in
China. During that time, Europeans invested more in Texas than Americans did in Japan. And today,
American business invests 60 percent more in eastern Europe than in China: $16.6 billion against
$10.3 billion, according to the latest data from the U.S. Commerce Department. Conversely, Europe
provides 75 percent of all investment in the United States, and it is far and away the biggest foreign source
of American jobs: the German industrial giant Siemens alone employs some 70,000 Americans. These
transatlantic investments have proved very profitable. In 2003, while the media reported that Americans
were pouring Bordeaux wine down the drain to protest Paris' position on the war in Iraq, corporate America
saw its investment inflows and profits from France surge to the highest levels in nearly a decade: $2.4
billion and $l.7 billion, respectively. Profits earned by U.S. affiliates in Europe soared to a record $77
billion, and U.S. investments in Europe jumped by 30 percent to $87 billion. Large U.S. technology firms,
such as Microsoft and Intel, predict that half of their global revenues will come from Europe in 2005. Thus,
U.S. business leaders say that the EU's 450 million affluent consumers still form the largest pool of
purchasing power in the world. They also say that economic self-interest should be enough to persuade
both Democrats and Republicans in the United States to want to protect the Atlantic partnership--all the
more so because the combined Economic power of the United States and Europe would give them
enormous leverage to deal with major global challenges. Despite the billions of dollars already
invested on both sides, the full potential of the U.S.-European economic relationship is not yet
realized.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 38
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TRADE
A. US/European cooperation is key to a more open and stable global trading system
Doug Bereuter, Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and
President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and John Lis, Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic
Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee, Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the
Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com
The United States and the EU have been the driving forces behind the World Trade Organization’s
(WTO) 2001 Doha Round, which is aimed at issues such as market access for developing countries,
enhanced trade in services and agricultural products, and intellectual property rights. Although serious
tensions in the transatlantic trade relationship still exist in areas such as agricultural and steel production
subsidies, biotechnology, and export subsidies, these should not deter the United States and the EU
from working together toward a more open global trading system. This would help competitive
businesses in Europe and North America gain access to international markets while saving consumers
money by facilitating imports of competitively priced products. In addition, that system should aim to make
it easier for developing countries to grow economically through trade, especially by providing reasonable
market access in key areas such as agriculture and textiles. Unfortunately, the collapse of the September
2003 Cancun WTO ministerial meeting has set back this effort. The EU and United States must work
with the developing countries to get the Doha Round back on track, and that will require each to act
conscientiously on the legitimate concerns of developing countries in exchange for the reductions in tariffs
and increased market access that we demand. With U.S. investment in Europe exceeding $3 trillion and
European investment in the United States on a similar scale,7 Dan Hamilton, director of the Center for
Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, notes that regulatory policy, traditionally a domestic
policy field, is becoming a transatlantic concern. As the two largest economic actors in the world, the
United States and the EU enact regulations that alternatively become the de facto starting point for
regulators elsewhere in the world. If potential differences between U.S. and EU regulations can be
identified and addressed early in the regulatory process, we may be able to reduce some of the barriers for
U.S. and European companies doing business overseas. For example, since Congress passed the Sarbanes-
Oxley financial reform legislation in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom debacles, European financial
institutions doing business in the United States have experienced substantial difficulties in complying with
new U.S. regulations. Likewise, U.S. chemical companies are concerned about the possible effect that
proposed EU regulations may have on their ability to do business in Europe. Better consultation,
cooperation, and coordination is needed between the Congress and the European Parliament on regulatory
legislation. By working together when cooperation is in our mutual interest, both legislatures could
help facilitate the ability of our companies to operate in each other’s markets.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 39
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TRADE
B. The global trading system is key to prevent nuclear war
Copley News Service, 12/1/99, p. lexis
Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that
threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups tike the WTO not just to further their own
prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the
threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle
protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War
protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is
environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in
Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher
Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and
nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would
probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the
past might have been settled by bullets and bombs.As long as nations are trading peacefully. and their
economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war.
(That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the
United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases
demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 40
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TERRORISM
A. International cooperation with Europe is the main tool in preventing terrorism – other tools won’t
be enough
Richard Rosecrance, Professor of Political Science, University of California-Los Angeles and Project
Director of the University of California-Los Angeles-Carnegie Study on Globalization, Summer 2003
(“Croesus and Caesar” – The National Interest) p. 34
Then there is the continuing threat of terrorism. This threat will not disappear now that the war with
Iraq is over; terrorism may even spread, at least in the short run. Neither the technical revolution in
military affairs that has occurred in the United States nor the growing imperial reach of America's
conventional forces can vanquish terrorism. For that, the United States will need cooperation and
the shared intelligence of many other countries, particularly those of an enlarged European Union.
There are no superpowers in the war against terrorism-every nation can be a military theater where battles
may be won, and Pakistan's cooperation may be as important as Russia's. International cooperation
between the United States and Europe is essential to win the long bout against terrorism.
B. Terrorism will inevitably go nuclear
Graham Allison, Professor of Government and Former Director of the Belfer Center, Harvard University,
and Andrei Kokoshin, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and Member of the Board of
Directors, NTI, Fall 2002 (“The New Containment” – the National Interest) p. lexis
In sum: even a conservative estimate must conclude that dozens of terrorist groups have sufficient
motive to use a nuclear weapon, several could potentially obtain nuclear means, and hundreds of
opportunities exist for a group with means and motive to make the United States or Russia a victim of
nuclear terrorism. The mystery before us is not how a nuclear terrorist attack could possibly occur, but
rather why no terrorist group has yet combined motive, means and opportunity to commit a nuclear attack.
We have been lucky so far, but who among us trusts luck to protect us in the future?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 41

C. That causes global nuclear war
Louis Rene Beres, Terrorism Expert and Professor, Purdue University, 1987 (Terrorism and Global
Security) p. 50-51
Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale nuclear war between states. Such war could involve the
entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a nonnuclear state to
systemwide nuclear war. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about?
Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists “hosted”
in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1980s, Israel and her Arab state
neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral
treaty between Israel and Egypt already several years old, only the interests of the Palestinians-as defined
by the PLO-seem to have been left out. On the eye of the proposed signing of the peace agreement, half of
a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many as Israeli cities. Public grief
in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response
to the public mode, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in
Lebanon, whereupon the Lebanese government and its allies retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire
region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered
unprecedented destruction. Of course, such as scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider
destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the
Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue,
one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet.
What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human, the
consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. Only such a paradigm would
allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of
human destructiveness. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences.
Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, it would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a
planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 42
Transatlantic cooperation is essential to prevent bioterrorism attacks that are highly probable, quick
timeframe, and as dangerous as nuclear war
Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University,
6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p. lexis
It is unlikely that a successful effort to strengthen homeland security can be conducted in
isolation from one's allies. The U.S. may be a primary target for Al-Qaeda, but we know it has also
planned major operations in Europe. A terrorist WMD attack on Europe would immediately
affect American civilians, American forces, and American interests. If such an attack involved
contagious disease, it could threaten the American homeland itself in a matter of hours. The SARS
epidemic, while deadly, is simply a "mild" portent of what may be to come. Bioterrorism in particular
is a first-order strategic threat to the Euro-Atlantic community. A bioterrorist attack in Europe or
North America is more likely and could be as consequential as a nuclear attack, but requires a
different set of national and international responses. Europeans and Americans alike are woefully ill-
prepared for such challenges. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, it has become very clear that
controlling borders, operating ports, or managing airports and train stations in the age of globalization
involves a delicate balance of identifying and intercepting weapons and terrorists without excessively
hindering trade, legal migration, travel and tourism upon which European and American prosperity
increasingly depends. Efforts to protect the U.S. homeland against cyberattack, for example, can
hardly be conducted in isolation from key allies whose economies and information networks are so
intertwined with ours. Unless there is systematic trans-European and trans-Atlantic coordination in the
area of preparedness, each side of the Atlantic is at greater risk of attack.
The war on terrorism depends on skills that only US/European cooperation can produce
Stephen Holmes, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, April 2003 (“Why We Need
Europe” – The American Prospect) p. lexis
That this assumption is fallacious is the very least that might be said. The September 11 attacks were
partly planned, organized and financed in Europe. The Muslim diaspora communities into which
terrorist cells can invisibly blend remain the likeliest staging grounds for future al-Qaeda attacks on
the United States. In other words, Europe remains a frontline region in the war against terrorism just
as it was in the war against communism. As daily press reports also reveal, the European police have been
acting in a perfectly Hobbesian manner, arresting scores of suspected terrorists. In other words, despite his
pose as a no-nonsense realist, Kagan has apparently failed to realize the degree to which the contours of
American national security have been redrawn since 9-11. The home front and the foreign front have now
been disconcertingly blurred. National-security strategy must now operate in a domain where soldiering
and policing have become of coequal importance. This profound change helps us understand the erroneous
premise of Bush's foreign policy. In our new security environment, despite the prevailing cliche, the
United States is not the world's only superpower. The war on transnational terrorism depends
essentially on information gathering and policing, and in these respects the Europeans are
anything but security pygmies. Their capacities to respond effectively to today's greatest security
threats easily rival those of the United States. Europeans' linguistic skills and cultural knowledge
alone ensure that they can make indispensable contributions to U.S. security. They can perform
essential tasks of monitoring, infiltration, disruption and apprehension for which our own unrivaled
military machine is patently inadequate. Dismissing the "platitude" that the United States cannot protect
itself without European help, Kagan announces that "the United States can 'go it alone.'" This is apparently
the thinking (if you can call it that) behind the administration's mindlessly denigrating remarks about
Europe. True, European leaders can sometimes be hypocritical and foolishly condescending. But let it pass.
We cannot afford, for the sake of a frisson, to undermine American security by further poisoning
relations with capable allies in a time of unprecedented national peril.
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 43
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ENVIRONMENT
A. US/European relations are critical to saving the environment
James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution,
Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. OUP Journals
Yet, the objective realities of environmental risk inevitably will force both the United States and Europe to
work more closely together – the main question is whether this will be sooner rather than later. In the end,
global environmental problems can only be addressed through effective global action. But
enhanced US-European cooperation is an essential precondition for the broader global efforts to
succeed. European efforts, may, for example, help to bring about the coming into force of the Kyoto
Protocol, but it will have marginal benefits if the United States stays outside. Conversely, continued US-
European disputes can magnify international disagreements, as each side seeks to line up
supporters in both the developing and developed world.
B. Environmental collapse risks extinction
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University, and Fellow of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, May 1998 (“Rivets and Redundancy” – BioScience) p. lexis
But just because some functional groups consist of single species that warrant special attention, it does not
follow that where there is significant redundancy in a functional group we can afford to lose some of
the species. Such a policy would lead to loss of resilience. The essential message of both the
redundancy and rivet-popper hypotheses is that we force species and populations (Hughes et al.
1997) to extinction at our own peril. Humanity is utterly dependent on services delivered by
ecosystems (Daily 1997). Considering the uncertainties and complexities in the relationships between
biodiversity and ecosystem services, policy decisions should have a large “insurance” bias toward
protection of biodiversity – and therefore especially toward functional groups in which there is little or no
redundancy.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 44
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - LEADERSHIP
A. US/European relations are essential to US power projection, global stability, and the base of US
leadership
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Professor of American
Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2003 (The Next American Century edited by Jeffrey T. Bergner)
p. 69
The transatlantic alliance is America's most important global relationship. It is the springboard for
U.S. global involvement, enabling America to play the decisive role of arbiter in Eurasia-the
world's central arena of power-and it creates a coalition that is globally dominant in all the key di-
mensions of power and influence. America and Europe together serve as the axis of global
stability, the locomotive of the world's economy, and the nexus of global intellectual capital as
well as technological innovation. Just as important, they are both home to the world's most successful
democracies. How the U.S.-European relationship is managed, therefore, must be Washington's highest
priority.
B. Leadership prevents global nuclear war and is key to global stability
Zalmay Khalilzad, Research Analyst at the RAND Institute, Spring 1995 (“Losing the Moment? The
United States and the World After the Cold War” – Washington Quarterly) p. lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term
guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which
the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of
law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major
problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the
United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including
a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 45
European cooperation is the only way to maintain domestic support for leadership and solve global
problems
Ivo Daalder, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, and James M. Goldgeiger,
Professor of Political Science, George Washington University, Spring 2001 (“Putting Europe First” –
Survival) p. Ingenta
Although America today enjoys unrivalled military, economic and political power, it lacks the
capacity to deal with many of the critical global challenges – ranging from weapons proliferation
and terrorism to environmental degradation and the rapid spread of infectious disease – without
support from allies. There are also fundamental political problems with such an approach. The
unilateralism implied by assigning primary responsibility for global security and stability to the United
States without support from or regard for the perspective of regional allies and other countries is hardly
consistent with the desire, repeatedly emphasised by the incoming team, to exercise American power
‘without arrogance and to pursue its interests without hectoring and bluster’. At a time when the United
States is already regarded by much of the world as an overbearing ‘hyperpower’, insisting on a
division of labour that assigns Washington the main international security role to the exclusion of
others is unlikely to be popular among its allies. Such a posture is also unlikely to be popular at home.
In recent years, it has become very clear that the American public will support the use of US military
forces overseas only if other countries share the burden. This is not only in the case of so-called
humanitarian interventions, but also when it involves the defence of such vital national interests as the
world’s supply of crude oil. In either case, international legitimacy of action and a commitment by
other nations to share the costs will be a political prerequisite for gaining public support. Despite
Europe’s internal weaknesses and divisions, no part of the world offers the United States a better
prospect for becoming a strong partner in taking on global challenges and opportunities.
US/European partnership is need to prevent imperial overstretch from undermining the credibility
of US leadership and deal with international crises
Rob de Wijk, Professor of Strategic Studies and International Relations and Director of the Clingendael
Center for Strategic Studies in the Netherlands, Winter 2003/2004 (“European Military Reform for a
Global Partnership” – The Washington Quarterly) p. lexis
Washington must develop a vision of a strategic partnership between the United States and the
EU and acknowledge that a Europe with stronger forces can influence U.S. foreign policy. For the
United States, the risk of imperialistic overreach is one of many powerful incentives for such a
partnership. With U.S. forces tied up in South Korea, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the
United States will find it increasingly difficult to deal with rogue states or international crises,
undermining the credibility of U.S. coercive diplomacy. The Europeans must accept the reality
that the use of hard power could be unavoidable and must learn from the United States on this
score. The methods of warfare used in Afghanistan and Iraq hold great promise for the future.
Armed force will become a more usable instrument of foreign policy and could reduce Europe's
reluctance to use it. As long as Europe lacks credible military capabilities, however, there is no
other option but to strive for a temporary division of labor where each of side of the Atlantic
specializes in the military operations suited to its political culture. For the time being, a stronger
partnership must be built on the U.S. preponderance of war fighting and the European
preponderance of stabilization and reconstruction.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 46
US/European relations are key to avoid a power struggle and threats to US leadership
Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, Senior Fellows in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution,
Summer 2003 (“Power and Cooperation: An American Foreign Policy for the Age of Global Politics” –
Agenda for the Nation, Brookings Institution)
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/daalder/20030814.pdf
Nevertheless, the drifting apart of erstwhile allies has both short- and long-term costs. Many of the
most important global challenges—terrorism, global warming, poverty—can be dealt with only if the
major powers cooperate. Moreover, rancor, especially between the United States and Europe,
ultimately could lead to competition for power and global leadership. Even if America could win
such a competition, the inevitable costs suggest that wise policy would work now to avoid it. The
value of seeking cooperation from America’s most important partners, even when their contribution is
not strictly required, lies precisely in maintaining mutually supportive relations and avoiding the
drift that over time can turn into destructive rivalry.
US/Europe relations are key to checking US isolationism – it’s the best way to shore up
internationalism
Dominique Moisi, Senior Adviser, the Intitut Francais des Relations Internationales and Professor, College
of Europe in Warsaw, November-December 2003 (Foreign Affairs) p. lexis
It is all too easy for Washington to view Europe with a mixture of indifference, commiseration, and
derogatory paternalism. But the United States still badly needs Europe -- although not for the reasons it
thinks. Washington seems to view Europe as being somewhere between its deputy sheriff and its cleaning
lady. "America fights, Europe funds, the un feeds," the thinking goes. The problem with this vision is that it
does not fit today's geopolitical realities. In our complex, interdependent world, "hard" and "soft" power
are increasingly intertwined. The clear-cut definition of military force has disappeared, and
classical notions of territory and boundary have become a thing of the past. In this context the United
States needs Europe -- and not just for its intelligence networks, sophisticated judicial systems,
humanitarian efforts, or police. Europe is the best protection that the United States has against its
inner evils: its isolationist narcissism, its ignorance of the way others feel and think. To remain
truly internationalist in a positive, constructive -- and republican -- way, the United States must be
reminded of the best aspects of its past. How, otherwise, will Americans achieve idealism without illusion,
realism without cynicism? Learning from past European empires is also vital to the success of the
American imperial enterprise today. One of the first of these lessons -- a particularly pertinent one for
American administrators in Iraq -- is that no power should ever define what is good for others without those
people being involved.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 47
US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MULTILATERALISM
Failure to reverse transatlantic disputes risks the collapse of all forms of multilateralism and
international order – the US will lashout in response to European constraints
Joachim Krause, Professor of International Relations, the University of Kiel and Member of the Council of
the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Spring 2004 (“Multilateralism: Behind European Views” –
The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_krause.pdf
The current transatlantic rift must be prevented from gaining any momentum that will exacerbate the
situation. A certain cycle appears increasingly underway, and it bodes ill for all kinds of
multilateralism. Even while the United States is at war with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, the U.S.
administration, a huge majority in the U.S. Congress, and public opinion all hold the view today that
that there are major security problems that need to be resolved, preferably through international
institutions but unilaterally if a multilateral approach cannot address these problems. The more
that European governments, particularly France and Germany, continue to use international
organizations such as the Security Council and international law to check alleged U.S. hyperpower,
the more Washington will circumvent international organizations, disregard international law, and
look for unilateral ways or for "coalitions of the willing," no matter which party controls the White House
and Congress. If this dynamic continues unabated, the Atlantic Alliance as well as the UN could be
damaged beyond repair, and the existing Western liberal order risks eroding as rapidly as the
international order of the nineteenth century did in the two decades preceding World War I.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 48
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism kills the global economy – empirical examples

Walter Block 1998 (Necessity of Free trade, Department of Economics and Finance
University of Central Arkansas)
Mutual Free Trade
Protectionist measures give domestic producers an artificial advantage over their foreign
counterparts. At first glance, such barriers may seem to be advantageous measures that save
jobs. In truth, however, policies that exclude foreign products only hurt the global economy and all
who participate in it. Consumers in the importing nation have to pay more for that widget–when it
could have been produced and imported from another country at a lower cost. These restrictions
undoubtedly benefit local producers but are an inefficient use of money for everyone else.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s England raised its tariffs to extremely high levels and
used its navy to restrict the flow of goods produced elsewhere from entering. This was
accomplished at great expense to British taxpayers and despite the efforts of many smugglers to
avoid the tariffs. Then, in 1939, Adolph Hitler generously provided this same service to the British
with the German navy and its U-boats. Moreover, the Germans provided this service at no
expense to the British taxpayers. All costs were paid by the German people. One would expect
an outpouring of gratitude from the British for this kindness from their German neighbors, but it
was not to be. On the contrary, this was an act of war by an implacable enemy–not the generous
act of a friendly nation. Yet, what Germany was doing to Britain was merely what the British
government had been doing to its own people only a few weeks earlier. Indeed economically
speaking, by pursuing protectionist policies, our own government does to us in peacetime what
enemy governments do to us in time of war.
The British consumer paid dearly for the blockade of his shores, whether it was imposed by the
Germans or by his own government. In either case, however, did not the prohibition of imports
protect British jobs? Things that otherwise could have been imported now had to be produced
domestically–even though it was more costly to do so. Yes, jobs were protected or even “created”
in industries in which England was less efficient. But that meant that workers were no longer
available to work in industries where England was more efficient, that is, in which it had a
comparative advantage. Moving workers from where they produce more to where they produce
less is a recipe for government-imposed poverty.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 49
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism creates a vicious cycle of retaliation and ensure economic collapse

US Department of State 1985 (Protectionism: A Threat to Our Prosperity, Government
Publication)
The Dangers of Protectionism

The most serious threat to the world economy--and to our domestic economy--is the swelling tide
of protectionism. People who would never condone protectionism at home somehow accept that
it should be practiced internationally. To illustrate this point with a hypothetical example, suppose
that the State of Virginia decided that North Carolina tobacco was making excessive inroads in
the Virginia market, and suppose that Virginia (defying the constitutional prohibition against
internal tariffs) managed to impose a special levy on all tobacco entering the state. Of course,
North Carolina would retaliate against products from Virginia. Clearly, total economic activity--and
our prosperity --would be reduced. No one in this room would consider that trade barriers among
the 50 States would be anything but a disaster; but many people (economists included) appear to
assume that a different set of economic rules operates on the international scene. By this same
logic--or lack of logic--they assume that with impunity we can introduce protectionist measures at
our international borders without hurting all parties concerned--ourselves more than others.
Protectionist measures invite a spiral of retaliation, and, even in the absence of retaliation.
They foster inefficient uses of scarce resources and raise the cost of living in the country
introducing the protection. A favored group or industry may initially benefit from a quota, for
example, but even greater additional costs are borne by the majority of the population.
It may seem strange that in the United States, historically the champion of the free market, I
should feel the need to make a plea for a free and open trading system. But, while most persons
would readily agree that such a system is demonstrably superior in principle, I often find them
advocating policies that would produce the opposite result. When individuals, industries, or even
whole sectors perceive their economic interests to be threatened, they often rationalize a course
of action that has, over and over again, proven to be a failure: protectionism. "We believe in free
trade,' they say, "but it must be fair trade.' "Fair trade' is not defined, but implicitly it means trade
in which we win. Protectionist measures, and trade-distorting measures in general, are not really
actions taken by one country against another country. Instead, they are actions that benefit one
domestic group at the expense of other groups in the same country. Producers oppose
consumers, and industries that compete with imports oppose industries that export. It is
disheartening but not surprising that protectionism's advocates are found in all nations, and
always have been, but that does not validate their cause. Their arguments, in whatever language
they may be phrased, are founded on the same fallacies, and neither eloquence nor vehemence
will alter the fundamental fact that protectionism is inevitably self-defeating. Protectionism is like a
disease--not only pernicious but contagious. When it appears, it spreads and leaves a trail of
economic disability. By "protectionism,' I mean any measure that gives a domestic producer an
artificial advantage over foreign producers. I include tariffs, quotas, voluntary export restraints,
subsidies, unnecessary licensing, health and safety standards, and all other measures that distort
trade.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 50
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism turns food crisis

UPI 2008 (Protectionism could worsen food crisis. April 21)
The U.N. chief is warning countries to resist protectionism, saying it will exacerbate the global
food crisis resulting in increased threats to security. U.N. Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon, speaking at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development in Ghana, said that
global trade has resulted in two decades of economic prosperity. Ban said that despite the
current food crisis in poor countries, if government officials turn toward protectionist policies it
will only make the situation worse and potentially escalate security concerns, the United
Nations reported. "International grain markets must remain open and functioning normally,"
Ban said in a statement. "Ultimately, our task is to ensure that the virtuous cycle goes on and
its benefits extend as broadly as possible -- most especially to those who have so far missed
out. More trade, not less, will get us out of the hole we're in."
Recent protests and riots resulting from the surging costs of basic foods including rice, wheat
and corn have caused many critics to call for protectionist policies that could stifle global trade.
Ban acknowledged that at the same time leaders around the world have to support the
countries that have been bypassed in the global market. But he noted that the world's
consumption level is greater than the amount of food produced and called the situation
unsustainable. He urged wealthy nations to rethink subsidy programs. "Grain stocks are at
their lowest in 30 years," Ban said. "The situation is unsustainable. ... It is time for wealthier
nations to rethink old-fashioned program of agricultural subsidies. Economists agree that they
inhibit trade and disproportionately penalize poorer nations, contributing to the current
emergency."
Protectionism causes trade wars

Dr. John Rutledge 2007 (PROTECTIONISM - THE REAL THREAT TO GROWTH, STABILITY.
Dr John Rutledge is a leading economist who has advised several presidents, including the
current administration, as well as multinational corporations and financial institutions. China Daily
august 3)
Today, when a political leader announces a new protectionist measure, crowds cheer. I believe
that rising protectionism, nationalism, and social instability are rooted in the turbulence caused
by rapid economic change. Rapid economic change raises average incomes but it creates new
industries and destroys others, creating uncertainty in the lives of many people. Those, whose
fortunes have been temporarily or permanently reduced, as well as those who are simply afraid
of change, appeal to political leaders for relief; political leaders who promise to stop or reverse
change will gain power over leaders who counsel openness. Left unchecked, this process can
lead to global trade war as country after country erects non-market barriers to the smooth flow
of trade. Ultimately, these mounting frictions can produce system failure, akin to the blackouts
caused by failures of an electricity network, in which the global economy stops growing, as it
did in the 1970's. Rampant protectionism could also breed social and political instability and,
ultimately, bring nations into conflict. Political instability would put all the gains of the past
quarter century at risk. The unintended consequences of protectionism would be harmful for
people living in developed countries; they would be a tragedy for the world's three billion poor
people. We can choose a better course. Although we cannot entirely eliminate calls for
protectionism, there are things we can do to retard its growth and mitigate its harmful effects.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 51
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism turns case – it harms the environment by rewarding inefficient policies and
delays the adoption of cleaner technologies – it also impoverishes the vast majority of
people – India proves
Turkish Daily News 2008 (Februrary 5, PROTECTIONISM HARMS CONSUMERS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT)
Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually
counterproductive. They favorthe status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus
delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-savingtechnologies. Consider bananas. These could
be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and Russia. But to do so would be farmore
costly than growing them in warm places, and then exporting them to consumers around the
world. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. As a
result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably.
Poor countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers with adverse effects
on both people andthe environment. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor
countries being sold to industrialized countries. Solocal companies will have less money to
invest in new, cleaner technologies. Instead, they will continue to use older,dirtier production
methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. This effect would be exacerbated
byreduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover, less trade means less wealth,
which translates into fewerresources available to invest in environmental conservation. India
demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984, India had one car manufacturer, which
produced just one car the Ambassador which was technologically inferior, belched pollutants,
and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began to open its market to foreign car
producers. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have
benefited from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner,
moretechnologically advanced and efficient. Environmental ideologues continue to make dour
prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume less, have fewer
children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based on
theirscaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades,
these claims should not be heededseriously. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda
but they have little merit in terms of their practical abilityto enable humanity to use scarce
natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner.
The competitive market process, underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is
inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom mongers.
Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green, harms the vastmajority of people as well as the
environment and is best avoided.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 52
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism turns case – artificially stimulates one player creating unequal

opportunities paving the way for environmental degradation
China Post 2008 (PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL, Feb 3)
The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where European and
Americanproducers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas
emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game would artificially make all
players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade wouldbe replaced by losses in
consumer welfare and environmental degradation. Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization
are widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions areconcentrated and tend to be very
effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business fromcompetition,
especially when supported by moralists, such as environmentalists, who claim that such
protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised labor unite. The
Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity
providers and their associated trade unions. Similarly, various European trade unionshave
applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. But in reality, it is far
more moral to support liberalization. Trade barriers of any kind, including"green" subsidies,
tariffs and quotas, harm both consumers and producers. They artificially increase costs,leading
to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human resources. Consumers and producers spend
more to purchase thesame goods and services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to
save for the future.
Protectionism turns case – hurts the environment – empirically proven – free trade solves
GABRIEL STEIN 2007(Chief International Economist, Lombard Street Research. Will
environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in.(A
SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS))
Insisting on imposing environmental standards as a condition for trade will have one of two
effects. Either it will create substantial tension with emerging economies, who rightly claim that
today's advanced economies ignored the environment when they grew rich. In this case the
efforts will be unsuccessful and the political consequences harmful. Or else the efforts will be
successful, but at the cost of condemning billions of people in emerging economies to continued
poverty. But that would be self-defeating, since history shows that people care more about the
environment the richer they are. Ultimately, the best way to improve the world's environment is to
help poor countries grow rich. An easy way to do that is to practice free trade.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 53
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism causes retaliation – free trade solves

JIM O'NEILL 2007 (Head of Global Economic Research, Goldman Sachs International. Will
Moreover, it is likely that global environmental standards will not be raised by protectionist
behavior. Trade limitations on one side incite retaliations on the other. As a result trade
becomes more expensive and the price level increases. Why should countries that are made
poorer by protectionism be more ready to improve their environmental standards? There is a
more positive strategy. Economies should enhance trade in environmental technologies.
Sophisticated machinery that allows sustainable production without polluting the environment
should be in high demand, especially in countries that face environmental problems. The same
applies to technologies that clean up an already polluted environment. Economies supplying
these technologies benefit from higher growth and those buying them benefit from an improved
environment. What will happen? There are good reasons to believe that the latter strategy has at
least a fair chance. Even in China, politicians are well aware of their environmental problems.
Chinese economic growth will only become sustainable if environmental standards are raised.
There are firms in the United States and Europe that could help China achieve this aim. Trade
pays.
Protectionism has been on the decline – only free trade solves

WILLIAM E. BROCK III 2007(Former U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Labor. Will
Over the past few decades, demands for egregious acts of protectionism have been faced with a
slow but increasing reluctance in Washington, in part because most Americans have realized that
in many cases the affected firm's competitive weakness was largely self-imposed. The result has
been a growing reliance on a rules based world trading system, a slow but steady improvement in
more open markets, and a rapid, even dramatic, growth in world trade In sum, the forces of
protectionism were being hard pressed, thus the need for new and more acceptable arguments to
justify governmental intervention. Yet just as the demands and "justifications" for protectionism
seem endless, so too are the methods and tactics employed by those who prefer market
intervention to competition. Environmentalism to the rescue!
[Continued]
The task for our economic and trade leadership is to find a way to craft approaches which satisfy
the public demand for environmental progress, and that will require global as well as bilateral
agreements, without allowing those agreements to become a subterfuge for protectionism.
The potential for error is large, and the potential consequences enormous.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 54
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism create economic instability – it outweighs any potential benefits. Only free
trade solves
Gene Smiley 1989 (“Protectionism Threatens U.S. Prosperity” He is an associate professor of
economics @ Marquette university)
If the government imposes quotas or tariffs on, say, imported steel, then reduced supplies and
higher prices for imported steel allow domestic steel producers to sell more steel and raise their
prices. That, in fact, is what has recently happened. Firms that purchase steel, such as the
producers of stainless steel kitchenware, are facing rising prices. Rexworks, a small industrial firm
in Milwaukee, found that even though it had an excellent year in production and sales,
unanticipated increases in steel prices wiped out $2 million in profits. Meanwhile the steel
producers are reaping huge gains. These harmful effects extend far beyond the direct
purchasers of the protected products. The reduced sales of foreign steel decrease the number of
American dollars foreign countries receive. Because foreigners have fewer dollars, their demand
for American exports must fall. American exporters find that there is less foreign demand for their
products, and their sales and prices and incomes fall. While the measures designed to protect
selected U.S. firms raise their incomes, they reduce the incomes of American firms and
individuals that serve foreign markets. Consumers who buy protected products must pay higher
prices and face a reduced range of choices. The benefit for the protected firms and industries,
then, comes at the expense of consumers in general and firms that export. Unfortunately, the
losses incurred by those who are harmed by the protective measures will be greater than the
gains of those who are helped. In free markets, specialization and exchange encourage people to
engage in those activities for which they are the most productive. Trade protection stifles this
process, so that total output falls. And, when this occurs, we begin the long trek down the
road to the general impoverishment of our society -- in the name of "protecting" those
firms whose owners and employees are enriched at everyone else's expense.
We have gone through this before. In June 1930, during the early stages of the Great
Depression, Congress tried to protect Americans by enacting huge tariff increases. Such
intervention served only to lengthen and worsen the depression. Current proposals are inviting
another Great Depression. The freedom to choose our specialization and to exchange with
whomever we wish is the only way to guarantee prosperity.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 55
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism hurts the environment – free trade solves.

James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. James M. Sheehan
is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank)
Environmentalists need not fear that expansion of trade will produce growth in pollution. To the
extent that expanded trade is generating economic growth, environmental quality should also
improve. This fundamental economic reality does not change simply because goods and services
are crossing borders. The same free-market institutions which generate economic gains also
generate environmental gains. To the extent that protective tariffs and subsidies restrict and
distort trade, they reduce income and, hence, the demand for environmental quality.
Environmentalists have more to fear from protectionism. Current agricultural policies cause major
distortions of world food production and trade. Industrial countries encourage agricultural
production with price supports and other subsidies totaling $200 billion per year, while developing
countries discourage agricultural production through tax and trade policies. Agricultural subsidies
in the United States, for example, are responsible for intense chemical pesticide and fertilizer use
on farmlands. By fostering inefficient land use, US subsidies and land set-aside programs
contribute to soil erosion and loss of wetlands and forests. Federal mismanagement also
encourages farmers to overplant while discouraging crop rotation, depleting soils and
exacerbating pest eradication. By scaling back interventionist government policies, trade
liberalization would have significant environmental benefits.
Protectionist structures turns case – it causes environmental degradation – empirically

proven.
James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. James M. Sheehan
is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank)
The Folly of Government Regulation

Even though growth coincides with environmental improvement, "market failure" is often blamed
for the existence of pollution itself. Many environmentalists consider the system of capitalism and
private enterprise inherently responsible for environmental externalities. Only government
regulation in the public interest can force businesses to internalize social costs, according to this
argument, and such regulation must be extended to trade. Thus, there is a strong anti-market
bias to environmentalist arguments. The market-failure argument leads inexorably to central
planning; any human activity with environmental impacts must be politically controlled.
Government is entrusted to effectively foster only the types of economic growth which are
environmentally friendly, while preventing the types that are not. Yet no government has the
capability of assimilating the vast amounts of economic, technological, and scientific data
necessary to make such determinations. The task of ecological central planning is no easier than
economic central planning. If market failure was truly the cause of pollution, we would expect the
absence of markets in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe would have been
environmentally beneficial. On the contrary, without the profit motive of the market, some of the
worst environmental degradation in the world occurred in the former Soviet Bloc. Central planning
failed largely because it could not efficiently distribute resources. Neither could it safeguard
environmental resources. Data from sample market and socialist economies shows that market
economies become more resource-efficient with economic growth. Socialist countries, however,
are generally more resource intensive, even in times of recession. Without a profit motive, there is
little incentive for political owners of a resource to conserve for the future in order to maximize
returns.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 56
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism causes retaliatory measures

The Socialist 2006 (“World Economy: Trade Wars and Protectionism” Ken Smith, writer for the
socialist weekly)
THE BIG danger associated with imposing protectionist measures for any capitalist class, as well
as a slow down in world economic growth, is that it brings the prospect of retaliation and closes
down areas of the world market to them. Whilst there are tensions between different sections of
the capitalist classes about how far to advance globalisation and free trade, the capitalists
generally prefer to avoid greater protectionism in the global economy, whilst trying to create the
most favourable conditions - often through disguised protectionism - for their own indigenous
industries. An almighty economic crisis, however, could probably bring about deep-rooted
protectionist measures in most major economies - as happened in the 1930s. The capitalist
classes are aware that this could lead to a depressing effect on world economic growth - again as
happened in the 1930s. The capitalists are not blind to the consequences of their actions but
these measures would be deemed necessary to protect national economies against their rivals
At present, there is little chance of the advanced capitalist countries going fully down a
protectionist road. Yet, as the pace of job losses and industrial closures increases in the USA,
Europe and other parts of the world, the demand for protectionism to safeguard jobs could find a
bigger echo in the workers' movement. Workers cannot safeguard their future through adopting
the type of protectionist measures advocated from time to time by certain sections of the capitalist
class.
Protectionism kills growth and causes trade wars

Business Times 2006 (“Execs see protectionism as rising threat: EIU study;
Backlash can cut world GDP growth by one percentage point” November 24, 2006)
(SINGAPORE) Protectionism is increasingly viewed as a major threat to corporate growth, a

global study has found. According to a new study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) -
part of the Economist Group which publishes The Economist - business executives around the
world believe that protectionism is on the rise in both developed and emerging markets.
The survey, which also outlines some of the strategies that companies are using to deal with
the problems caused by protectionism, was commissioned by UK Trade & Investment, the UK
government's international business development agency. The report comes in the wake of
recent bad news on the free trade front. The Doha trade talks of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) have stalled, with little likelihood of a quick resolution. Developed markets seem
increasingly willing to stop foreign takeovers of key firms. And the sweeping victory by the
Democrats in the US Congress has fanned fears of rising economic nationalism in the US.
According to EIU forecasts, the impact on economic growth of a rise in protectionism could be
severe - a relatively modest backlash against globalisation could shave nearly a full percentage
point off annual world GDP growth during the period 2011-2020. World trade has been one of
the principal engines of global economic growth over recent decades, and increased
protectionism risks putting the brakes on that growth,' said Ian McCartney, UK Trade Minister
responsible for UK Trade & Investment.
'Protectionism leads to less trade, lower growth and, therefore, lower employment and more
poverty. Those economies that benefit from globalisation will be those that take the long-term
view and provide stability in the business environment. This allows businesses to invest and
plan ahead with greater confidence.'

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 57
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism is an ineffective way to correct recessions

Bhagwati 1988 (Jagdish Bhagwati is the Arthur Lehman Professor of Economics and a professor
of political science at Columbia University, “Protectionism.”)
One may well think that any market failure could be a reason for protection. Economists did fall
into this trap until the fifties. Economists now argue, instead, that protection would be an
inappropriate way to correct for most market failures. For example, if wages do not adjust quickly
enough when demand for an industry's product falls, as was the case with U.S. autoworkers
losing out to foreign competition, the appropriate government intervention, if any, should be in the
labor market, directly aimed at the source of the problem. Protection would be, at best, an
inefficient way of correcting for the market failure. Many economists also believe that even if
protection were appropriate in theory, it would be "captured" in practice by special interests who
would misuse it to pursue their own interests instead of letting it be used for the national interest.
One clear cost of protection is that the country imposing it forces its consumers to forgo cheap
imports. But another important cost of protection may well be the lobbying costs incurred by those
seeking protection. These lobbying activities, now extensively studied by economists, are
variously described as rent-seeking or directly unproductive profit-seeking activities. They are
unproductive because they produce profit or income for those who lobby without creating
valuable output for the rest of society.
Protectionism collapses the world economy and causes chaotic wars and proliferation.
Mead 1992 (Walter, Senior Fellow @ WP institute, Harpers Magazine)
We cannot simply outpace the competition – nor can we simply keep them out. The most vocal
critics of the Bush Administration’s trade policies are frankly protectionist: don’t sign the free-trade
agreement with Mexico, build a wall along the Rio Grande instead. Keep foreign goods out and
bring back the fifties. This is the gut instinct of the least enlightened members of the American
labor movement, and it underlies the rhetoric of America Founders on the right. But the
protectionist option is an illusion. Because the United States is the world’s leading exporter, US
jobs and economic prospects depend on the continued willingness of other countries to receive
our exports. We can be certain that if we slam our doors shut, other countries will retaliate. We
must also worry about war. Closing our doors to goods from Russia, China, and India will
wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that
would make the Cold War look like Woodstock.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 58
PROTECTIONISM BAD
Protectionism is unjust
Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Daniel T. Griswold is director of the
Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank. He is
coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and
Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to
trade and immigration)
One: Free Trade Respects Individual Dignity and Sovereignty

A man or woman engaged in honest work has a basic right to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor. It
is a violation of my right to property for the government to forbid me to exchange what I produce
for something produced by a fellow human being, whether the person I'm trading with lives
across town or across the ocean. Protectionism is a form of stealing, a violation of the Eighth
Commandment and other prohibitions against theft. It takes from one group of people, usually a
broad cross section of consumers, and gives the spoils to a small group of producers whose only
claim to the money is that they would be worse off under open competition. Free trade meets the
most elementary test of justice, giving to each person sovereign control over that which is his
own. As [economist] Frederic Bastiat wrote in his 1849 essay, "Protectionism and Communism":
Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product should have the option of applying it
immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give
him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option when he has committed
no act contrary to public order and good morals, and solely to satisfy the convenience of another
citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice.
Two: Free Trade Restrains the Power of the State
Free trade is morally superior to protectionism because it places trust in what [economic
philosopher] Adam Smith called "the natural system of liberty" rather than in a man-centered
system of centralized industrial policy. And by doing so it allows citizens to fulfill their creative and
productive potential. There is no compelling moral reason why a small group of politicians should
decide, on the sole basis of where things are produced, what goods and services an individual
can buy with his earnings. By diffusing economic decisionmaking as broadly as possible, free
trade reduces the power of people in high places—always fallible and subject to temptation and
abuse of power—to inflict damage on society.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 59
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONISM BAD
Environmental protectionism violates the WTO

GA 1998 (TRADE PROTECTIONISM DISGUISED AS ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOUR LAW
SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, SECOND COMMITTEE TOLD, Press Release)
Trade protectionism disguised as environmental and labour laws should be eliminated by

industrialized countries, the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) was told this morning,
as it considered macroeconomic policy questions. The elimination of trade-distorting policies,
protectionist practices and non-tariff barriers, in the guise of environmental, technical and labour
standards, remained urgent, said the representative of Bangladesh. Products of least developed
countries very often faced problems of access in the industrial markets due to those policies.
Close cooperation among the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
Bretton Woods institutions remained an imperative in that regard. There was an excessive array
of trade tariffs, quotas and unilateral measures that were intended to safeguard markets and limit
free trade, said the representative of Brazil, on behalf of the Southern Common Market
(MERCOSUR). Many countries invoked environmental protection and labour rights as a pretext to
control and limit trade. Access to markets and the reductions of subsidies must have priority for
future deliberations and decisions of the WTO. Speaking on the topic of globalization, the
representative of Indonesia, on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said
the phenomenon had triggered a range of opportunities for development and advanced
economies had already reaped significant benefits. However, globalization also exposed
developing countries to new and enormous risks, making them much more vulnerable to certain
external factors that were beyond their control. Preferential access on its own was unlikely to
achieve the effective integration of least developed countries into the world trading system, said
the representative of the European Union. In order to ensure that development was sustainable
and contributed to human, social and economic development, export expansion should not come
at the expense of social and environmental protection.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 60
FREE TRADE GOOD
Free trade solves war – credible studies prove

Boudreaux 2006 (November 20, Donald J. Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department
at George Mason University. Want world peace? Support free trade)
These activities employ workers here at home and raise their wages. Mountains of empirical
evidence show that protectionism is economically destructive. The facts also show that
protectionism is inconsistent with a desire for peace - a desire admirably expressed by many
Democrats during the recent campaigns. Back in 1748, Baron de Montesquieu observed that
"Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become
reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling;
and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities." If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that
trade promotes peace, then protectionism - a retreat from open trade - raises the chances of war.
Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed
promote peace. During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State
University of New York at Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and
peace. In his most recent paper on the topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers
University review the massive amount of research on trade, war, and peace. They find that
"the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign
investment. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more
that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those
countries with which it has investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie
conclude that, "The policy implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in
reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world." Columbia
University political scientist Erik Gartzke reaches a similar but more general conclusion: Peace is fostered by economic
freedom. Economic freedom certainly includes, but is broader than, the freedom of ordinary people to trade
internationally. It includes also low and transparent rates of taxation, the easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new
businesses, the lightness of regulations on labor, product, and credit markets, ready access to sound money, and
other factors that encourage the allocation of resources by markets rather than by government officials. Professor
Gartzke ranks countries on an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10, with 1 being very unfree and 10 being very free.
He then examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. His findings are powerful: Countries that rank
lowest on an economic-freedom index - with scores of 2 or less - are 14 times more likely to be
involved in military conflicts than are countries whose people enjoy significant economic
freedom (that is, countries with scores of 8 or higher). Also important, the findings of Polachek and Gartzke improve
our understanding of the long-recognized reluctance of democratic nations to wage war against one another. These
scholars argue that the so-called democratic peace is really the capitalist peace. Democratic institutions are heavily
concentrated in countries that also have strong protections for private property rights, openness to foreign commerce,
and other features broadly consistent with capitalism. That's why the observation that any two
democracies are quite unlikely to go to war against each other might reflect the consequences
of capitalism more than democracy. And that's just what the data show. Polachek and Seiglie find
that openness to trade is much more effective at encouraging peace than is democracy per se. Similarly, Gartzke
discovered that, "When measures of both economic freedom and democracy are included in a statistical study,
economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict." These findings
make sense. By promoting prosperity, economic freedom gives ordinary people a large stake in
peace. This prosperity is threatened during wartime. War almost always gives government
more control over resources and imposes the burdens of higher taxes, higher inflation, and
other disruptions of the everyday commercial relationships that support prosperity. When
commerce reaches across political borders, the peace-promoting effects of economic freedom intensify. Why? It's bad
for the bottom line to shoot your customers or your suppliers, so the more you trade with foreigners the less likely you
are to seek, or even to tolerate, harm to these foreigners. Senators-elect Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio and Jim Webb (D)
of Virginia probably don't realize it, but by endorsing trade protection, they actually work against the
long-run prospects for peace that they so fervently desire.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 61
FREE TRADE GOOD
Free trade ensures peace

Six: Free Trade Fosters Peace

In an 1845 speech in the British House of Commons, Richard Cobden called free trade "that advance which is calculated
to knit nations more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse." Free trade does not
guarantee peace, but it does strengthen peace by raising the cost of war to governments and
citizens. As nations become more integrated through expanding markets, they have more to lose
should trade be disrupted. In recent years, the twin trends of globalization and democratization have produced
their own "peace dividend": since 1987 real spending on armaments throughout the world has dropped by more than one-
third. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of major international wars has receded. In fact, today, virtually every
armed conflict in the world is not between nations but within nations. During the 1930s the industrialized
nations waged trade wars against each other. They raised tariffs and imposed quotas in order to
protect domestic industry. The result, however, was that other nations raised their barriers even
further, choking off global trade and deepening and prolonging the global economic depression.
Those dark economic times contributed to the conflict that became World War II. America's
postwar policy of encouraging free trade through multilateral trade agreements was aimed at
promoting peace as much as prosperity.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 62
FREE TRADE GOOD
Free trade solves poverty and empowers people

Seven: Free Trade Feeds and Clothes the Poor

Free trade and free markets empower poor people by giving them greater opportunity to create
wealth and support their families. By dispersing economic power more widely, free trade and
free markets undercut the ability of elites in less-developed countries to pillage a nation's
resources at the expense of its poor. Proof can be found in the immigration patterns of poor
people throughout the world. By the millions, they seek to leave closed and centrally controlled
economies for those that are more open and less controlled. Poor people themselves understand
that a free economy serves their interests, even if many of their self-appointed intellectual
advocates in the West do not. Nations open to trade tend to be more prosperous, just as cities
along coastlines and navigable rivers tend to be wealthier than those in more remote, inland
locations. The most recent Economic Freedom of the World study, by James Gwartney and
Robert Lawson, found that the nations that were most open economically from 1980 through
1998 grew nearly five times faster than those that were most closed. And that trade-related
growth lifts the lot of the poor. To cite the most dramatic example of this, the World Bank
estimates that the number of Chinese citizens living in absolute poverty—that is, on less than $1
per day—has fallen since 1978 by 200 million. Revoking China's normal trade status, among all
its other negative consequences, would set back one of the most successful anti-poverty
programs in the history of mankind. In contrast, those regions of the world where poverty has
been the most intractable, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have been the least open to trade
and foreign investment. For all those reasons, trade sanctions fall heaviest on the poor of the
target nation. Political rulers have the power to protect their pampered lifestyles, while the poor
are left to suffer the consequences of U.S. policies that were enacted in the name of helping the
very people they victimize. You can be sure that the communist leaders in Cuba and the ruling
junta in Burma will continue to enjoy their fine, catered meals and chauffeur-driven cars while the
millions of poor people they oppress are made even more miserable by U.S. trade and
investment sanctions. When all of the arguments are weighed, it should become clear that a
policy of free trade is moral as well as efficient. Free trade limits the power of the state and
enhances the freedom, autonomy, and self-responsibility of the individual. It promotes virtuous
and responsible personal behavior. It brings people together in "communities of work" that cross
borders and cultures. It opens the door for ideas and evangelism. It undermines the authority of
dictators by expanding the freedom, opportunity, and independence of the people they try to
control. It promotes peace among nations. It helps the poor to feed and care for themselves and
creates a better future for their children. For which of these virtues should we reject free trade?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 63
FREE TRADE GOOD
Free trade solves poverty and corrupt regimes

The United States trades freely with some nations that have dismal records on human rights
issues. Liberals and religious conservatives object to this practice because they say it provides
encouragement and support to regimes that violate human rights. In truth, U.S. trade threatens
such regimes by creating an empowered and financially successful class of citizens who are in a
much better position to challenge a tyrannical government than a nation of impoverished serfs
would be. A government that relies on international trade is much less likely to engage in war and
gross human rights violations as they could disrupt trade and thereby threaten the national
economy. The United States should continue to trade with tyrannical regimes not because it is
efficient or morally acceptable, but because it is morally good. Free trade is one of the most
effective ways to empower the oppressed and threaten their oppressors.U.S. trade policy is
almost always debated in terms of economic utility: Does free trade raise or lower incomes?
Does it help or hurt U.S. industry? Does it create or destroy jobs? But behind the statistics and
anecdotes lie moral assumptions about human nature, the sovereignty of the individual, and the
role of government in a free society. Free trade may deliver the goods and boost efficiency, but
is it morally superior to protectionism? At the Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec in April
[2001], anti-capitalist protesters answered with a loud no, condemning free trade as a tool of the
rich that exploits the poor and undermines democracy. Some religious conservatives portray free
trade as a tool of the devil. Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, in his 1998 book
The Great Betrayal, called the doctrine of free trade "a secularist faith ... born of rebellion against
church and crown." Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council and another failed
aspirant to the White House, compares American trade with China with appeasement of the
Soviet Union. In a speech in May before the Council of the Americas, President [George W.]
Bush joined the moral debate, telling his audience: "Open trade is not just an economic
opportunity, it is a moral imperative. Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate
for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote open
trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders
will open to democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and not always smoothly,
but in good time."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 64
UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW
Protectionism now
Robert Barro 2004 (Journal of Policy Modeling, “Current Protectionism and the Benefits of Free
Trade” Department of Economics @ Harvard University)
The other part that I see as a problem, which relates more to this session, is about protectionism.
I don’t see an overarching commitment to free trade in this administration. Instead it
seems that each policy is driven by the interest of a particular group, which often leads to
some kinds of protectionism and subsidy. Early on in the administration this showed up in
agricultural subsidies and protection of timber imports from Canada. Subsequent to that were the
infamous steel tariffs, protecting an industry which has been protected for at least 30 years. I
think this was driven by a doubtful political calculus, and the this year’s election politics. I wrote a
column in Business Week criticizing protectionism in the form of the steel tariffs. I got quite a bit of
harsh criticism, but all from the steel sector. Interestingly, the criticism was equally enthusiastic
from managers and labor union people in the steel union industry. The only real difference that I
could see is that the managers were polite and the union people tended to use a lot of colorful
obscenities. Of course, the administration has been forced, particularly by the WTO to do the right
thing on the steel tariffs and to apparently, reluctantly, eliminate them. So, we have to applaud the
fact that they did agree to eliminate them, but there’s some gesture about trying to maintain the
potential for re-instituting these tariffs if it turns out that they don’t like what’s going on with, quote
un-quote, dumping.
Protectionism on the rise

Japan Times 2008 (Hugh Cortazzi, May 14, “Protectionism won’t solve crisis”)
A renewed attempt should be made to revive the Doha round of trade negotiations although
this may already be too late. Protectionist pressures are growing particularly in the U.S.
The world sadly does not learn from history. In the first half of the 19th-century Britain, which
was moving from primarily an agricultural economy to an industrial state, protected its
agriculture from cheap imports from North America through "The Corn Laws." Land owners
feared that if these laws were repealed and imports freely allowed, their income would be
greatly reduced. But workers in the factories and mines of industrial Britain suffered greatly
as inflation and shortages pushed up prices. In Ireland in the 1840s, potato crops failed and
Ireland faced famine. Many died; the luckier ones managed to escape to North America. The
British prime minister at the time, the Conservative Sir Robert Peel, had long opposed
repeal of the Corn Laws, but in the face of the threat of social unrest and hunger, he
relented and forced the repeal through Parliament. His decision split his own party.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 65
UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW
We’re on the brink – with the US in midst of a recession, there is a growing tendency to
become protectionist
Xinhua 2008 (January 25, Gordon Brown warns against protectionism)
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned on Friday against protectionism, which tend to
find its place in part of Europe and other countries amid an uncertain global economy.
"We have to be less protectionist," Brown told a panel discussion at the World Economic
Forum, which kicked off here on Wednesday. The annual gathering of world political and
business leader was clouded this year by increasing concern about the prospect of an
economic slowdown of the global economy as economists feared the U. S. economy, troubled
by the financial turmoil, is heading for recession. In face of worldwide difficulties, there is a
danger of resorting to protectionism among some countries. "I think there is a danger. I see it in
parts of Europe where people resort to protectionism," Brown said, without identifying the
countries he was referring to. Britain, a traditional supporter of free trade within the European
Union (EU), has been in spat with France over French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for
flexibility from Europe in sticking to free market principles. "We must be champions of free
trade," Brown said.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 66
UNIQUENESS—SUBSIDIES LOW
Subsidies for alternative energy are on the decline

The International Herald Tribune 2008 (June 2, Matt Daily, “Alternative Energy on Edge in
the US”)
Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors
that are backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for
the burgeoning renewable energy industry. After several failed attempts by Congress to
prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year,
companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their sales in
Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting
business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar
equipment. ''It's a major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of
cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest,
smallest of incentives.'' The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make
prices of renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas.
Several attempts to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue
over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives approved an extension
by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was
opposed by the Senate. The latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for
one year the federal tax credit for companies that produce electricity from wind, and extend it
for three years for power generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and
solid waste. Businesses and homeowners would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of
solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before 2014 with a one-time tax credit. The measure
passed in the House last month, but the White House threatened to veto it. Democrats have
said election-year pressures and soaring gasoline prices will eventually lead to an extension of
the subsidies. But that confidence is not shared by the industry. Akeena Solar, a maker of
solar power systems, recently cut 8 percent of its work force and warned of weaker demand
this year, in part because of a pullback in large-scale projects that would not be completed by
the end of the year.
Energy subsidies have been on a sharp decline

Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis
International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies)
The overall size of energy subsidies has fallen sharply since the 1980s, mainly
due to economic reform in the former communist bloc. Subsidies dropped by more
than half in the five years to 1996 according to the World Bank (see Figure 2). A 1999 IEA
study, which examined eight of the largest non-OECD countries covering almost 60 per
cent of total non-OECD energy demand, put the total value of energy subsidies in those
countries at around $95 billion in 1998. End-use prices were found to be about one-fifth
below market levels in those countries.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 67
ENERGY SUBSIDIES BAD
Energy subsidies turn case – they hurt the poor and doesn’t help the people it attempts to
– multiple barriers.
Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis
International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies)
In reality, however, these subsidies often benefit mainly the energy companies, equipment
suppliers and the better-off households, especially in the towns and cities, and, in some cases,
may not even reach the poor at all. As a result, many energy-subsidy programmes intended to
boost poor households’ purchasing power or rural communities’ access to modern energy
through lower prices can, paradoxically, leave the poor worse off, since the costs are shared by
the entire population including the poor. There are three main reasons for this: The poorest
households may be unable to afford even subsidized energy or may have no physical access to
it, for example when a rural community is not connected to the electricity grid. Even if the poor are
able to benefit from an energy subsidy, the financial value to them may be small since their
consumption is generally modest. Higher income households tend to benefit much more in
nominal terms since they consume more of the subsidized fuel. Consumption subsidies that
involve the imposition of caps on prices below market levels may lead to a need for rationing (see
Box 1). Middle and higher income households tend to get hold of the bulk of subsidized energy in
countries where it is rationed, through petty corruption and favouritism. Price caps, where they
have led to big differences in prices with neighbouring countries, have also encouraged
smuggling in some parts of Africa and Asia. Subsidies can hurt the interests of poor people in
other ways too. In practice, energy subsidies often go to large capital-intensive projects, such as
hydroelectric dams, at the expense of local, small-scale labour-intensive alternatives, such as
biomass burners. The construction of dams usually involves displacing communities, although the
improved availability of electric power and water for irrigation can bring important social benefits
as well. Subsidies to large-scale thermal power plants, oil refineries and gas-processing plants
affect poor households close to those facilities most, since they are usually less able to move to
avoid local pollution and safety risks.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 68
*AFF ANSWERS*

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 69
SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE
[ ] Non-unique - Subsidies have doubled and are on the rise
Fordney 4/14/08 - Inside Energy with Federal Lands

[Jason, “Federal subsidies for energy double, with many intended for renewables,” Lexis]
Energy industries received $16.6 billion in federal subsidies in 2007, twice as

much as they received eight years earlier, the Energy Information Administration said in a
report released last week. The increase is largely attributable to wind and other
forms of renewable energy, a finding that played into the hands of a Tennessee senator who
requested the report. The subsidies, which include tax relief, direct expenditures
and research funding, totaled $8.2 billion in 1999, EIA said in the report, "Federal
Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007." The increasing subsidies for
renewable energy coincided with a decline in support for natural gas and
petroleum-related concerns, EIA said. The increase is spread widely across
energy sectors, EIA said, noting that the "changes in the distribution of subsidies by
fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a redirection of priorities."Subsidies for
renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in 1999 to
29% last year, the report says, while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum
declined, mostly because of the expiration of the alternative fuels production
tax credit. The tax credit was applied to "unconventional" gas projects in 1999, and refined coal
technologies were the prime recipient last year. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since
1999, EIA said. In addition to these subsidies, the federal government reduced the tax liability of energy
companies by $10.4 billion in fiscal 2007, more than triple the level of tax breaks handed out in 1999, EIA
said. The report said such subsidies are likely to increase, mostly because of recent
legislation like the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007.
[ ] Overall energy subsidies are high and rising
Global Power Report 4/17/08

[“Federal incentives for energy sector have doubled to more than $16 bil, says EIA,” Lexis]
Annual federal incentives for the energy sector have doubled in the last
decade, a new federal report says, with $16.6 billion in subsidies going out in
fiscal 2007 in a trend that has marked steady increases in subsidies for
renewable energy concerns.
Republican of Tennessee, who said it indicates that too many subsidies are being handed out, particularly
to the high-growth wind energy industry. Alexander ? unlike many legislators a staunch foe of wind
development ? introduced an amendment to the federal housing stimulus package last week that would
have halved the production tax credit for wind energy and bring the incentive to the same level as other
fuel types such as biomass, small irrigation power, and wind and tidal facilities. His amendment, which was
rejected, would have reduced from 2 cents/kWh to 1 cent/kWh the tax credit, although it would have
extended the duration of the credit for all "emerging technologies" from one year to two. Federal subsidies
range from direct expenditures to tax relief, research and development funding, and support of electricity
concerns, according to the report. Within these subsidies, the federal government reduced the tax liability
of energy companies by $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007, more than triple the level of tax breaks handed
out in 1999, says the study, titled "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007."
The increasing subsidies for renewables coincided with a decline in subsidies for natural gas and
petroleum-related concerns, the report says, although coal-related technologies still receive the largest
share. Out of the overall $16.6 billion devoted to energy concerns total, $6.7
billion was devoted to electricity production, including subsidies and tax
breaks. Broken down by fuel type, in 2007 wind received $734 million in subsidies and
tax breaks out of the approximate $1 billion set aside for renewables, according
to the report. Hydroelectric power, which includes emerging wave and tidal

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 70
power, received $174 million, biomass $36 million, $14 million for solar and
landfill gas $8 million. This is compared to study results for "refined coal" technology, which
received the largest subsidy in fiscal 2007 at $2.2 billion and standard coal $854 million. The nuclear
industry received $1.3 billion and natural gas $227 million. The increase in
energy subsidies is spread widely across all sectors of the energy industry, the
report says, but "changes in the distribution of subsidies by fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a
redirection of priorities." Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in
1999 to 29% last year, the report says, while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined, mostly due
to the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit. The tax credit was applied to
"unconventional" natural gas projects in 1999, and refined coal technologies were the prime recipient last
year. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since 1999, EIA said.
Subsidies are already high – policymakers are pilling them on
Runnalls 07 - CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development
[The Globe and Mail, Lexis]
the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Global

A recent report by
Subsidies Initiative estimates that subsidies to biofuels are between $5.5-
billion and $7.3-billion (U.S.) a year. Those figures are expected to grow
significantly if current policies remain in place, because the bulk of biofuel
subsidies are tied to output - and output is increasing at double-digit rates of
growth. The IISD report estimates that the subsidy content of a gallon of E-85 - the almost pure blend of
ethanol that "flex fuel" cars are designed to run on - at roughly $1. In mid-February, the price at the pump
Many of these subsidies are being
of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. Midwest was $2.26.
piled on top of one another without policy-makers having a clear idea of their
potential impact on the environment and the economy. And these are not just
federal subsidies; everyone wants in on this act. The report estimates there
are more than 200 individual subsidies for biofuels in the United States.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 71
[ ] Big subsidies are already in place and are inevitable
Business Week 07
[“ETHANOL IS NOT THE ONLY GREEN IN TOWN; Memo to Feds: Make subsidies available to the
whole field of biofuel innovation,” Lexis]
But not with the current mix of energy subsidies. Thanks to years of lobbying by ethanol
and
biodiesel producers, those two fuels get the big breaks. A number of states mandate that
ethanol or biodiesel be blended with oil-based fuels, and Congress has locked in tax subsidies
of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol and $1 per gallon of biodiesel. The laws also
narrowly define biodiesel in terms of a specific process, shutting out innovations and improvements. Which
leaves out not just Amyris but others working on better green fuels. DuPont and BP PLC have a joint
venture to make bio-butanol, a relative of ethanol, while startup LS9 Inc. mimics an ingredient in gasoline.
State and federal rules create hurdles for both approaches. "Policies should not discourage new
There
technologies," says Louis Burke, manager of alternative energy and programs at ConocoPhillips.
are legitimate arguments about whether subsidies are needed at all, but with
the White House and Congress rushing to promote alternatives to fossil fuels,
incentives are almost inevitable. So the subsidies need to be smarter. "We need a
level playing field for all the processes," says Henrik Erametsa, president of the U.S. subsidiary of Finland's
Neste Oil, which has a new plant making renewable diesel--not classed as biodiesel--from animal fat.
[ ] Subsidies are increasing
F.E.R.C. 4/14/08
[“Despite big hike in federal subsidies, energy production has hardly changed, report finds,” Lexis]
Where renewables are concerned, there has been a steady increase since FY-
99 in subsidies, said the report commissioned by Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican-Tennessee.
Alexander has maintained that wind developments get too large a share of federal
subsidies compared to other energy sources, such as nuclear. An aide to Alexander
on Wednesday said the senator plans to use the EIA report to support an amendment he has introduced
that would cut the incentive rate for wind energy in a new House bill (H.R. 3221). Subsidies
for
renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in FY-99 to
29% in FY-07 while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined, mostly due to the expiration of
the alternative fuels production tax credit, said the report.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 72
PROTECTIONISM NON-UNIQUE
[ ] Protectionism is growing in the US- Paulson agrees
Lee 07 - Currency Analyst

[Richard, “Treasury Secretary Paulson Hints At Growing Protectionism,” June 6,
http://www.dailyfx.com/story/dailyfx_reports/top_fx_market_movers/Treasury_Secretary_Paulson_H
ints_At_1181165164777.html]
In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Washington today, US Treasury Secretary Henry

Paulson suggested that protectionism is growing in both nations of the US and China.
Further escalation of such relationships will likely damage current trade flows
exponentially as a trade war potential looms. According to Paulson ‘we who believe in
open economies are swimming against a strong protectionist tide these
days….protectionism isn’t’ a growing force only in the United States. It is playing a role in domestic
politics in China as well." The statements don’t come as a surprise as rhetoric has been less than
encouraging from both sides in recent months, even leading up to the strategic economic dialogue
that took place last month. The significance of this, however, is in the fact that it seems the situation may
be spiraling out of the hands of both countries as policy makers gear up for political counterpunches,
notably current legislation on currency intervention by the US. One thing is for certain, and that is Chinese
officials may ultimately have to revalue in order to shift the focus, or come up with further concessions to
appease US politicians.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 73
AT: – PROTECTIONISM
[ ] Free Trade destroys global resources, collapses the global
economy, creates pollution and damages the environment
Robinson 03 – Global Exchange

[Lindsey, “The Myth of Free Trade,” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html]
The Bush administration seems unwilling to see the white elephant in its White House living room. Turning
a blind eye on the upcoming Kyoto Protocol and continuing unilateral compromises in the Doha Free Trade
agreement, Bush and Co. won't admit that the true culprit to environment degradation, as well as the
regression in America's standard of living, loss in manufacturing jobs, growing national debt, and record
trade deficits is due to international free trade. "Competitive protectionism is a proven idea with a lot of
success. Free trade is historically a relatively new idea with a lot of failure," said Dr. Ravi Batra ,
international economist, in his book, The Myth of Free Trade. "Free trade has done to the us
what Hitler and imperial Japan could not do during the war," he said. Wasteful
investment from intra industry trade and raw materials trade are crippling
world economies in many ways. Batra claims together they represent 90 percent of global
commerce, yet have no rational economic justification behind them. Since world trade has
soared faster than economic activity, trade is a bigger polluter than
industrialization-in spite of fuel efficiency. Trade in energy intensity industries
reaches far above that of GNP of America and most nations, and continues to
rise. Being green doesn't sell as pollution taxes on domestic trans nationals
would further put them at a disadvantage in global markets and governments
don't want to inhibit world trade, corporate profits and growth. Destroying the
world's resources unnecessarily, free trade increases pollution, and creates
higher energy prices, while risking higher global rates of economic contagion
(Asian Contagion, Russia and Argentina debt default), and international vulnerability to economic shocks
like the OPEC crisis of 1973 or 1979. "By far international trade comes out as the worst
villain in the destruction of the environment....Yet about 60 percent of international trade
today is of the intra industry variety-another 30% in raw materials...The cost of transporting trade
worldwide equals most countries GNPs...(indeed,) air freight fuel consumption almost tripled in just two
decades from 1970-1990, emitting millions of tons of nitrogen oxides," said Batra. According to Global
Outlook 2000 every year about 3,000 million tons of crude oil or petroleum products are shipped around
the globe. In the process two million tons slip into the marine environment from routine tanker operations
like tanks cleaning, oil spills from tankers and platforms.* (Batra). Indeed, the oil trade is linked to the
trade in other goods. "If intra industry trade were eliminated and countries
manufactured and produced from their own raw materials, global oil demand
would plummet. There would be no need to transport so many goods,
materials, and oil across the seas. Global energy prices would fall generating
massive growth around the world. Not only would the environment benefit,
production costs would also decline thanks to declining energy prices...Few
people realize that international trade is the worst polluter among all
economist activities," said Batra. Batra contends that every successful country in the
postwar period: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Mayalasia, and Thailand, excluding
Germany have become world leaders in trade thanks to competitive
protectionism. In contrast, US, Australia and to some extent Canada who adopted freer
trade have suffered a drop in real earnings in spite of rising productivity-- what Batra calls
agrification syndrome, where Americans continue to loose manufacturing jobs and are suffering declining
wages, in spite of their rising productivity. During GATT's history, "Of the countries US, Great Britain,
Australia, India, Italy, Canada, Mexico, France, Japan, Korea, Germany, and Taiwan-only Germany has
pursued free trade through much of its history. All others except for India and Mexico became
affluent by adopting competitive protectionism over the first two centuries of
development," Batra said. Americas demise began with our commitment to free trade
beginning in 1973. Today's joint ventures and regional trade agreements represent a move towards a fairer
protectionist free trade agreement, if foreign investment is reciprocal and anti-dumping is enforced. The
goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, and keep American foreign manufacturing connected

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 74
to foreign markets, raw materials and consumers. When multinationals make more money off of hedging
derivatives (i.e. currency exchange, swaps, indexing stocks, bonds, interest rates, and commodities), price
transfer, cross ownership of subsidiaries or securitizing debt than on products and services, the system is
faulty. In fact, cyber money laundering has become such a potential threat as to cause global stock market
and international banking financial crises. Everyone is linked by globalization in today's international
casino economy. Batra argues free trade liberalization has caused real falling wages,
declining living standards, and the exporting of foreign investment,
manufacturing, technology, jobs and capital abroad creating domestic
recessions and deflation, seriously disrupting and distorting our economy. "It is
free trade, not productivity that has been the real cause of falling wages in industry," said Batra. "If your
wages fall sharply while you're working harder and becoming more efficient,
the system is broke...Indeed, US productivity has been reaped by foreign
labor and the multinationals," he said.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 75
AT:– ECONOMY
[ ] Protectionism is more than necessary for infant industries
like the alternative energy market to grow, market tools are
necessary for economic development
Chang 07 - Professor of economics at the University of Cambridge

[Ha-Joon, The Independent, “Protectionism: The truth is on a $10 bill,” Lexis]
However, just as children need to be nurtured before they can compete in high-productivity jobs,
industries in developing countries should be sheltered from superior foreign
producers before they "grow up". They need to be given protection, subsidies,
and other help while they master advanced technologies and build effective
organisations. This argument is known as the infant industry argument. What is little known is that it was first
theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States - Alexander Hamilton,
whose portrait adorns the $10 bill. Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. After all, Adam Smith,
the father of economics, had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. However,
over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of
1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the
The US may have invented the theory of infant industry
Second World War.
protection, but the practice had existed long before. The first big success
story was, surprisingly, Britain - the supposed birthplace of free trade. In fact,
Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721
industrial development programme, based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies, which
had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy. Britain and the US may have been the
most ardent - and most successful - users of tariffs, but most of today's rich
countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote
their infant industries. Many of them also actively used government subsidies
and public enterprises to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries
have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly financed the
highest share of research and development in the world. Singapore, despite its free-
market image, has one of the largest public enterprise sectors in the world, producing around 30 per cent of the national
income. Public enterprises were also crucial in France, Finland, Austria, Norway, and Taiwan. When they needed to protect
their nascent producers, most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. In the 19th century, the US strictly
regulated foreign investment in banking, shipping, mining, and logging. Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign
investment in manufacturing. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20
per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises". While (exceptionally) practising free trade, the Netherlands and
Switzerland refused to protect patents until the early 20th century. In the 19th century, most countries, including Britain,
France, and the US, explicitly allowed patenting of imported inventions. The US refused to protect foreigners' copyrights
until 1891. Germany mass-produced counterfeit "made in England" goods in the 19th century. Despite this history, since
the 1980s the "Bad Samaritan" rich countries have imposed upon developing countries policies that are almost the exact
these countries condemning tariffs, subsidies,
opposite of what they used in the past. But
public enterprises, regulation of foreign investment, and permissive
intellectual property rights is like them "kicking away the ladder" with which
they climbed to the top - often against the advice of the then richer countries. But, the reader
may wonder, didn't the developing countries already try protectionism and
miserably fail? That is a common myth, but the truth of the matter is that
these countries have grown significantly more slowly in the "brave new
world" of neo-liberal policies, compared with the "bad old days" of
protectionism and regulation in the 1960s and the 1970s (see table). And that's despite the dramatic
growth acceleration in the two giants, China and India, which have partially liberalised their economies but refuse to fully
embrace neo-liberalism. Growth has failed particularly badly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where neo-liberal
reforms have been implemented most thoroughly. In the "bad old days", per capita income in Latin America grew at an
impressive 3.1 per cent per year. In the "brave new world", it has been growing at a paltry 0.5 per cent. In sub-Saharan
Africa, per capita income grew at 1.6 per cent a year during 1960-80, but since then the region has seen a fall in living
standards (by 0.3 per cent a year). Both the history of rich countries and the recent records of developing countries point
Economic development requires tariffs, regulation of foreign
to the same conclusion.
investment, permissive intellectual property laws, and other policies that help
their producers accumulate productive capabilities.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 76
[ ]

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 77
AT: – FOOD CRISIS
[ ] Multiple studies and indicators prove long-term food

availability
Richman 95 - Senior Editor at the CATO Institute

[Sheldon, Testimony on The International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act (S.
1029), July 20, http://cato.org/testimony/ct-ps720.html]
Food is abundant. Since 1948, according to the UN Food and Agriculture

Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, annual world food
production has outpaced the increase in population. Today, per capita production and
per-acre yields are at all-time highs. Prices of agricultural products have been falling for over 100 years.
The average inflation-adjusted price of those products, indexed to wages, fell by more than 74 percent
between 1950 and 1990.While Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute and the noted butterfly
expert Paul Ehrlich predict higher food prices and increasing scarcity, food is
becoming cheaper and more plentiful. That good news is due largely to technological
advances (the "green revolution") that have provided better seeds, fertilizers,
pesticides, and methods of farming. The only obstacles to agricultural progress are the
impediments created by governments. Imagine what the world would be like today if the fertile farmland of
the former Soviet Union or China or India had been in productive private hands operating in free markets
for the past several decades. Since permitting market incentives in agriculture, India has been come a net
food exporter and agricultural production in China has boomed. Catastrophists argue that the
bright past does not imply a bright future; they arbitrarily assert that
mankind has crossed some fateful threshold. But the earth is capable of
feeding many more people than are now alive. The late Roger Revelle of Harvard
University (whom Gore claims as a mentor) estimated that Africa, Asia, and Latin America
alone, simply by using water more efficiently, could feed 35 to 40 billion
people--seven to eight times the current world population. And that assumes no change in technology--a
groundless assumption, to be sure. Those who annually predict imminent famine (while
urging readers to subscribe to next year's publications) seize on any change as evidence that man's
alleged strain on the biosphere is finally beginning to show. Thus, if
the price of seafood rises,
they announce that the seas are nearing exhaustion. They never consider the
myriad other possibilities, such as the shift in diet from meat to fish, the
decline of the Russian fishing industry during the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, or the "tragedy of the commons" associated with the lack of property rights in the oceans and
lakes. The most telling indication of the trend in food production is the
presence of a farm lobby in every industrial capital. Those lobbies spend millions of
dollars a year to persuade their governments to hold food prices up and food supplies down. They
apparently don't expect help from nature.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 78
AT: – FOOD CRISIS
[ ] Famine is caused by issues of politics and power and is not

limited to only production
Wyk 01
[Jo-Ansie wan, FOOD FOR THOUGHT? The politics of food, resources and development in Africa,
New Zealand International Review]
The issue of food security is not just an issue of food alone. Food security is
really about politics and power. Famine is one of the most severe illustrations
of food insecurity. A brief review of past famines and food insecurities in Africa indicates the degree
of risk to which states are exposed. Ethiopia has experienced about ten major famines in its history. Kenya
has experienced about 15 famines since 1979. Since the 1960s, famines have occurred in the Democratic
Food security entails
Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sahel.
improving a developing nation's access to cheaper food from comparatively
advantaged exporting countries. It is generally more efficient and cheaper for
a developing state to import food than to produce it. This form of security
also requires that richer countries lower their tariffs on all goods from
developing countries so that these developing countries can earn some
foreign currency. One of the unfolding emergencies in Africa is the growing imbalance between food
and people. Africa remains the only continent where per capita income, food production and industrial
production have declined since the 1980s. Per capita food production dropped by 12 per cent between
1980 and 1990, and more than 220 million people in Africa live below the poverty line. African concern
with food security began in ancient times.
Resources and food have figured persistently
throughout history in the relations between states. They were often the
driving force for many international political events. They were the primary motives for
the European colonisation of most of Africa, which underlies much of the current trade relations between
developed and developing countries.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 79
AT: “PROTECTIONISM TURNS CASE”

[ ] Protectionism doesn’t turn case – Global trade could collapse
and the environment would benefit tremendously
Robinson 03 – Global Exchange

[Lindsey, “The Myth of Free Trade,” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html]
"Migration of factories to mineral rich areas can trim international trade by as

much as 25% without reducing global living standards. We can eliminate intra
industry trade altogether without much effect on planetary production. Global
trade can be cut by at least 75%with out much harm to overall output-
benefiting the environment tremendously. Energy use would plummet, oil
prices would tumble, oceans would be safer from oil and chemical spills, the
atmosphere would be safer," said Batra..
[ ] Free trade causes governments to relax environmental

standards in order to compete on the market
Harris 07- Adjunct Associate Professor of International Economics at Tufts University's Fletcher School
of Law and Diplomacy
[Jonathan M., “Trade and the environment,” Encyclopedia of Earth, May 18]
Trade can impact domestic as well as international policy, weakening the autonomy
of nations to define their own environmental and social policies. Concerns have
arisen of a “race to the bottom”, in which nations reduce environmental and
social standards in order to gain competitive advantage. In principal, producers
located in nations enforcing strict process standards will suffer a competitive
disadvantage compared with producers located in member states enforcing
less strict standards. All things being equal, this may result in increased sales,
market share and profitability for those producers located in low-standard
nations. Faced with the prospect of their industries suffering a competitive disadvantage when
compared with companies located in low-standard nations, some nations may choose not to
elevate environmental standards or may even relax current standards.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 Seniors (File Name) 1 Subsidies Da

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NHSI 2008 Seniors (File Name) 1 Subsidies Da

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NHSI 2008 SENIORS

Northwestern University Debate Society

Free Trade good..............................................................................................................................................63

Northwestern University Debate Society

1NC – GENERIC VERSION

International Herald Tribune 6/2/08

B. Links – Attempts at energy independence through subsidies fosters counterproductive

Northwestern University Debate Society

Protectionist policies violate the WTO

Spicer 96 - Economist; member of the British Parliament,

Northwestern University Debate Society

UNIQUENESS – ETHANOL SPECIFIC

The Washington Times 5/1/08

Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACT INTERNALS – 1NC EXTENSION

Green subsidies collapse trade and promote protectionism because

The Financial Post 4/28/08

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACT INTERNALS – MORE EVIDENCE

Energy subsidies disrupt market patterns

News Times 11/30/06

Companies involved in methane digester

Northwestern University Debate Society

Protectionist policies violate the WTO

Subsidies cause market distortion

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – 1NC EXTENSION

Protectionism fosters global war in a nuclear age; humankind cannot

Miller and Elwood 88 – International society for individual liberty

protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change, fear of

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – GLOBAL ECONOMY MODULE

Protectionism disrupts the global economy

Gordon Brown says the

And global economic collapse causes nuclear extinction

desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final

compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – FOOD CRISIS MODULE

[ ] Food crisis causes wars, famine, disease and the extinction of

Northwestern University Debate Society

famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST

Lloyd's List 10/23/07

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – SUBSIDIES TURNS ENVIRONMENT

Bozeman Daily Chronicle 06

their careers fighting the perverse environmental impacts of governmental

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – PROTECTIONISM TURNS ENVIRONMENT

China Post 2/3/08

mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green, harms the vast majority of

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD

Northwestern University Debate Society

IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD

Subsidies for bio-fuels and ethanol heavily inflate food prices

Northwestern University Debate Society

1NC- EUROPE VERSION