Contention 1: Sugar Ethanol Shift

Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol market is superior to American corn-based ethanol. It will slow the rate of climate change, pesticide use, and dead zones.
Specht 13
[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2,]

IV. Environmental Effects of Ethanol¶¶… domestic ethanol industry. n68

Plan Text

The United States federal government should authorize the licensing of American companies to participate in the development of Cuba’s sugar ethanol industry and allow Cuban sugar ethanol imports.

Scenario 1: Monoculture

Domestic corn-ethanol production is the root of massive species loss and ecosystem destruction in the Great Plains
Specht 13
[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2,]

Incentivizing farmers to grow … filtered contaminants disappear. n100

Monoculture model independently causes extinction
Leahy 7
[Stephen- international environmental journalist, “Biodiversity: Farming Will Make or Break the Food Chain”, Inter Press Service, 5-3-07,]

"If all agricultural … lost species is too many.

Scenario 2: Climate Change

Global Warming is happening – most recent and best evidence concludes that it is human induced
Muller 7-28-2012 [Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic”,]

CALL me a converted skeptic. …trapped in polar ice.

CO2 is the primary driver of climate change – outweighs all alt causes
Vertessy and Clark3-13-2012[Rob, Acting Director of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Megan, Chief Executive Officer at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, “State of the Climate 2012”,]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions … of fossil fuels.

Global warming makes global agricultural production impossible – resulting in mass starvation
Potsdam Institute, 2012 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November,

The overall conclusions … of nonclimatic factors.

4 degrees of warming make sustaining biodiversity impossible – the impact is extinction
Potsdam Institute, 2012 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November,

Ecosystems and their … in human experience (Barnosky et al., 2012

4 degree warming is inevitable with current carbon usage trends – deceasing carbon emissions solve
Potsdam Institute, 2012 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November,

The emission pledges … more than 6°C.

Contention 2: Solvency

Cuban sugar based ethanol is essential to replace oil based fuel—it’s the best solution for a transition away from oil-based fuel dependence—allowing access to the U.S. market is key
Specht 13
[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2,]

"The United States of America cannot afford … thus far received.

And, joint ventures jumpstart the Cuban ethanol energy industry
Alonso-Pippo et al. 8
[Walfrido Alonso-Pippo- former Vice-President of the Solar Energy Department at the University of Havana and a former member of the Cuban National Renewable Energies Front, where he was a specialist in biomass energy use, Carlos A. Luengo, John Koehlinger, Pierto Garzone, Giacinto Cornacchia, “Sugarcane energy use: The Cuban case,” Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 6, June 2008,]

The rise of the price of oil source of energy.
Sugar ethanol importation from Cuba is superior to alternatives and solves impacts from domestic corn ethanol production—no environmental damage
Specht 13
[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2,]

B. Environmental Effects of Sugarcane-Based Ethanol…should be encouraged.

Contention 3: Impact Debate

No great power war – interdependence, democracy , deterrence
Robb 2012
[Doug, US Navy Lieutenant, “Now Hear This – Why the Age of Great-Power War Is Over”, May, 5/2012 [Lieutenant, US Navy, “”, US Naval Institute,]
In addition to geopolitical …, archaic, and improbable.
Miscalc is impossible
Quinlan 2009
[Sir Michael, visiting professor at King's College London, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and former senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, “Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects,” Oxford University Press]
One special form of conventionally armed launch.
Intervening actions check escalation
Trachtenberg 2000
(Prof of History, Pennsylvania (Marc, The "Accidental War" Question,
The second point … to general war.
Nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction
Socol 2011
Yehoshua(Ph.D.), an inter-disciplinary physicist, is an expert in electro-optics, high-energy physics and applications, and material science and Moshe Yanovskiy, Jan 2,“Nuclear Proliferation and Democracy”,, CMR
Nuclear proliferation should … states than the former.


Round 4 versus GSQ AP for real disclosure


Our Interpretation is that “economic engagement” means the aff must be an exclusively economic action – it cannot encompass broader forms of engagement
Jakstaite 10 - Doctoral Candidate Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political Sciences and Diplomacy (Lithuania) (Gerda, “CONTAINMENT AND ENGAGEMENT AS MIDDLE-RANGE THEORIES” BALTIC JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS VOLUME 3, NUMBER 2 (2010), DOI: 10.2478/v10076-010-0015-7)

The approach to engagement ... behaviour and to improve bilateral relations.
b. Violation – the affirmative increases border infrastructure
c. That’s a voting issue
1. Predictable Limits – allowing infrastructure opens up transportation infrastructure between the U.S. and Mexico to increase bilateral relations, which explodes the topic and increases the research burden, making it impossible for us to prepare.
2. Predictable Ground – all of the negative links are based on economic engagement, which means that we will never have any core generics to run against them – kills clash.
3. Topic education – transportation infrastructure was last year’s topic. This year we should be learning about economic engagement.
4. Effects Topicality – they increase the infrastructure, which then increases bilateral relations. At best, they do not solve for their affirmative.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Politics Disadvantage

Immigration reform will pass - political capital key

Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Hispanic Democratic legislators on Wednesday that he will invest his political capital in an immigration reform package whose principles will be revealed during a forum in the next two months. That is what members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported after their first meeting with Obama on the subject of immigration. In remarks to reporters, the lawmakers expressed confidence that, with the president’s support, this year the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform will be resumed, opening a path to legalization for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez said that the president assured the group “he is a man of his word” and would fulfill his campaign promises to push for immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said that during the meeting Obama assured lawmakers that he will invest part of his political capital in moving forward on immigration reformthat includes strong measures for border security and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Menendez said that the lawmakers will work with Obama on the “principles” of that reform package, which will be presented at a public forum in the next two months with the aim of starting the dialogue about how to fix the country’s problematic immigration system. “He understands that this is a matter of civil rights,” the senator said of Obama.Gaining approval ofa reform plan, Menendez acknowledged, will be “a struggle,” taking into account the opposition of many Republicans and other conservative groups.

PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013,, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday he’s eager to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that he has a severely limited time framebefore the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. Obama told a San Francisco television station that he wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. “Once we get through this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”Obama’s remarks were an acknowledgement thata second-term president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congresson issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigrationreform and gun control.

Link- Plan specifically derails immigration reform - Economic engagement initiatives PERCEIVED as deprioritizing necessary focus on security issues and drug war while kowtowing to Mexico – perception is key and hardliner target spin control to play on fence sitters largest fears

Shear, 13
(Michael, NYT White house correspondent, 5/5,

Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message. Relationships with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on economic development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos that have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their own course on security, with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid certain slang words in reports. “The problem will not just go away,” said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue. “It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that includes but goes beyond stimulating economic growthand alleviating poverty. “Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the region’s overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to economic progress,” he added. “It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line.” Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Calderón. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears not to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence, which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs, Mr. Peña Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to dominate the security agenda. “It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States,” he said, standing next to Mr. Peña Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. “But the main point I made to the president is that we support the Mexican government’s focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the Mexican government deems appropriate.” In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, in which American supremacy is played down, at least publicly, in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with the concerns of lawmakers in Washington, who have expressed frustration with what they see as a lack of clarity in Mexico’s security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the driver’s seat on security marks a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and, analysts said, will carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration billthat is expected to include provisions for tighter border security. “If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the hands of those who oppose immigration reform,” said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Realistically, the border is as tight as could be and there have been few spillovers of the violence from Mexico into the U.S.,” she added, but perceptions count in Washington “and can be easily distorted.” “Drugs today are not very important to the U.S. public over all,” she added, “but they are important to committed drug warriors who are politically powerful.” Representative Michael T. McCaul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has warned against the danger of drug cartels forming alliances with terrorist groups. “While these threats exist, you would be surprised to find that the administration thinks its work here is done,” he wrote in an opinion article for Roll Call last month, pressing for more border controls in the bill. The Obama administration has said any evidence of such cooperation is very thin, but even without terrorist connections, drug gangs pose threats to peace and security. Human rights advocates said they feared the United States would ease pressure on Mexico to investigate disappearances and other abuses at the hands of the police and military, who have received substantial American support. The shift in approach “suggests that the Obama administration either doesn’t object to these abusive practices or is only willing to raise such concerns when it’s politically convenient,” said José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas division. Still, administration officials have said there may have been an overemphasis on the bellicose language and high-profile hunts for cartel leaders while the real problem of lawlessness worsens. American antidrug aid is shifting more toward training police and shoring up judicial systems that have allowed criminals to kill with impunity in Mexico and Central America. United States officials said Mr. Obama remains well aware of the region’s problems with security, even as he is determined that they not overshadow the economic opportunities. It is clear Mr. Obama, whatever his words four years ago, now believes there has been too much security talk. In a speech to Mexican students on Friday, Mr. Obama urged people in the two countries to look beyond a one-dimensional focus on what he called real security concerns, saying it is “time for us to put the old mind-sets aside.” And he repeated the theme later in the day in Costa Rica, lamenting that when it comes to the United States and Central America, “so much of the focus ends up being on security.” “We also have to recognize that problems like narco-trafficking arise in part when a country is vulnerable because of poverty, because of institutions that are not working for the people, because young people don’t see a brighter future ahead,” Mr. Obama said in a news conference with Laura Chinchilla, the president of Costa Rica.

Expanding high skilled immigration key to stop bioterror attack
Goldberg et al 2004 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill, Ashcraft, Paul, Burlingame, Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John, Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies 2004: Biotechnology, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University)

Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much the same way information technology did during the previous two decades. Biotechnology is still an immature industry that has yet to reach its full potential, but it is already an important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S. with a tremendous opportunity to address many of the country’s most pressing defense, health, and economic issues. It also holds promise for improvement in global health and welfare but only to the degree that other nations are willing to utilize the technology and are successful in their respective biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government investment in basic science, government regulation, and the government product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial base provides the U.S. with a unique competitive advantage and is a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader in biotechnology. While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained long-term growth. Demographics and a geometric expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century. The U.S. is the world leader in the biotechnology industry in all aspects – the number of companies, size of the research base, number of products and patents, and level of revenue. While the U.S. is the dominant player in today’s biotechnology market, other countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively investing in government sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US dominance overall. The U.S.’ future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage of U.S. scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer U.S. college graduates in math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on foreign students and scientists. Unfortunately, biotechnology’s potential for improving the quality of life in the U.S. and the rest of the world is tempered by the risk of enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or bioweapons against the US or its allies. The potential dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective non-proliferation policies and mitigate bio-weapons threats. As biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and industrial sector, policy makers at the U.S. and global level must continue to refine global non-proliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure biotechnology’s potential for mis-use does not outweigh its ability to address the world’s most pressing needs.
A bioweapons attack threatens human survival
Carpenter and Bishop 2009 (P. A., P. C., July 10, Graduate Program in Studies of the Future, School of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA, Graduate Program in Futures Studies, College of Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. A review of previous mass extinctions and historic catastrophic events, ScienceDirect)

The flu of 1890, 1918–1919 Spanish flu, 1957 Asian flu, 1968 Hong Kong flu, and 1977 Russian flu all led to mass deaths. Pandemics such as these remain major threats to human health that could lead to extremely high death rates. The 1918 pandemic is believed to have killed 50 million people [27]. AIDS (HIV) has killed an estimated 23 million people from 1978 to 2001 [15]. And there have been numerous other incidents of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, influenza, scurvy, smallpox, typhus, and plague that have caused the deaths of many millions throughout history. Clearly, these biological diseases are much greater threats to human survival than other natural or environmental disasters. Because bacterium and viral strains experience antigenic shifts (which are small changes in the virus that happen continually over time, eventually producing new virus strains that might not be recognized by the body’s immune system), another devastating pandemic could appear at any time. It should also be noted that the threat from biological weapons is quite real. In fact, scientists from the former Soviet Union’s bioweapons program claim to have developed an antibiotic-resistant strain of the plague [26].
Trewavas 00 [Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5,]

But these are foreign examples; global warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There are already worrying signs of salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced theintensity of the sun that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our environment. There are apparently 100 such volcanoes round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion woulddestroy much of our civilisation. Onlythosewith agricultural technologysufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival. Colliding asteroids are another problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer between us andannihilation.


1) No chance the plan solves – only trilateral cooperation with Canada can ensure successful integration
Pastor 12 – prof and director of the Center for North American Studies @ American
Robert A, Beyond the Continental Divide, July/August,, CMR

The problem is that our leaders do not think continentally. As long as they persist in focusing on bilateral or Asian relationships, they will be blind to the promise and the problems of North America. At base, today’s problems are the result of the three governments’ failure to govern the North American space for mutual benefit. Once they visualize “North America” and decide to approach their problems from a continental perspective, solutions will appear that were previously invisible. None of the many proposals that have been advanced for the region can be achieved without such a vision. Americans and Canadians will not contribute to a North American Investment Fund to narrow the development gap with Mexico without being convinced that Mexico’s growth will benefit their countries. There is little prospect of reaching an agreement on labor mobility, harmonizing environmental standards, forging a transportation plan, or most any proposal that would cost money or change the status quo unless there is a vision of a wider community that could attract the support of the people and their legislatures. The right vision can inspire the three nations to rethink North America and incorporate the idea into our consciousness and policies. We can be more than the sum of our three great countries, but only if we first see the possibility.
2) No Solvency- Their O’Neil card doesn’t say anything about the plan will get Mexico will or needs to invest

3) No Solvency: improving cross-border trade isn’t sufficient – problems related to the drug trade will undermine cooperation
Walser 2013

Ray Walser, Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation “Obama in Mexico: Change the Reality, Not the Conversation” 5/1/13

Of course there is much value in an opportunities-oriented approach to U.S.–Mexico relations. The two countries have unique ties based on patterns of trade, investment, integrated manufacturing, and the movement of peoples. Both nations should continue to deepen this relationship by focusing on everything from trade, global competitiveness, and modernizing and securing our shared 2,000-mile border in ways that advance economic freedom and improve educational quality and energy development. Yet addressing hard, seemingly intractable issues related to the illicit traffic in drugs, people, guns, and money moving with relative ease across theU.S.–Mexico border remains a major challengefor both leaders. The Obama Administration has done little to reduce drug demand in the U.S. Consumption of marijuana is on the rise among teens. There is legal confusion in Washington following passage of legalization measures in Colorado and Washington. Resource reductions for drug interdiction and treatment are built into the fiscal crisis. Prior objectives for drug prevention and treatment established by the Obama Administration have not been met, according to the Government Accountability Office. Meanwhile, cash and guns flow south largely unchecked into Mexico. Cooperation with Mexico may be scaled back or waning as U.S. officials are excluded from intelligence fusion centers the U.S. helped to set up. A new emphasis on citizen security may take the law enforcement heat of trafficking kingpins, who will likely attempt to move drugs across Mexico with less violence and greater efficiency as Mexican law enforcement focuses on the most violent criminal elements.

4) No Solvency- Their O’Neil card doesn’t say Mexico will say yes- it only says they SHOULD, no evidence that it will reciprocate it
5) No Solvency – Mexico says no - the new Nieto administration in Mexico is less likely to cooperate with the US on security measures
O’Neil 4/29/13

Shannon O'Neil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. She holds a BA from Yale University, an MA in International Relations from Yale University, and a PhD in Government from Harvard University. “Obama Heads to Mexico” Latin America’s Moment

Yet no less important for the two neighbors is security. Under Felipe Calderón’s administration, more than 70,000 Mexicans were killed and many more disappeared in violence related to drugs and organized crime. Regular crime, too, has risen, with 40 percent of Mexicans in a recent survey reporting that they or a family member had been a victim of a crime in the past year. This growing crisis opened the door to greater bilateral efforts. After years of cautious circling, U.S.-Mexico security cooperation — through the Mérida Initiative and other efforts — blossomed, setting the two neighbors on a different and more collaborative path. On this policy front, the direction Peña Nieto’s government plans to take is less clear. While repeatedly promising to reduce violence, the details of his administration’s security plan remain vague — suggesting more spending on prevention and social programs. Even the concrete shifts announced— for instance, creating a new federal gendarmerie — have been clouded by contradictory explanations and timelines. The efforts to recentralize the security apparatus by bringing the autonomous Federal Police back under the control of the Ministry of Interior still await the definition of basic reporting lines and the stamp of a finally confirmed executive secretary of the national public security system charged with coordinating security efforts (an area where the previous government struggled). Finally, the leaders of this side ofPeña Nieto’sgovernment— Osorio Chong, ex-governor of Hidalgo; Manuel Mondragón y Kalb, the deputy secretary of public safety and previously Mexico City’s top cop; and Jesús Murillo Karam, Mexico’s attorney general and also an ex-governor of Hidalgo — are less familiar to the United States, and some worry less open to working with their neighbor than their predecessors. To be fair, security is harder. After more than a decade of underperformance, most Mexicans agree on what needs to be done economically. In contrast, there is no ready security blueprint for the way forward, for what will work to make Mexico — and by extension the United States — safer. And the issues on which there is some consensus — cleaning up Mexico’s police forces and courts and expanding programs to help youths and communities at risk — were started under the Calderón administration, making it a tricky sell for a government trying to differentiate itself. For Obama, the challengethis week will be to push forward on both fronts, recognizing and embracing the economic ambitions while also ensuring that security cooperation doesn’t falter. What really matters is what happens after the visit and how the U.S. government works with all of these elements and directions in Peña Nieto’s Cabinet. Because the outcome matters — as no other country affects the United States on a day-to-day basis as much as Mexico.

6) 2 cards in the 1ac card new technology, zones of operation, and facial restructure is key, nothing about the plan gets Mexico to restructure how it’s law enforcement works, their own evidence says that’s necessary for there to be any effects


1. U.S. power and influence are set to decline markedly—at best will be a powerful state among many others
Christopher Layne, Professor, National Security, Texas A&M University, “The Global Power Shift from West to East,” THE NATIONAL INTERST, May/June 2012, p. 21-22.
Such protestations, however, cannot forestall real-world developments that collectively are challenging the post- 1945 international order, often called Pax Americana, in which the United States employed its overwhelming power to shape and direct global events. That era of American dominance is drawing to a close as the country’s relative power declines, along with its ability to manage global economics and security. This does not mean the United States will go the way of Great Britain during the first half of the twentieth century. As Harvard’s Stephen Walt wrote in this magazine last year, it is more accurate to say the “American Era” is nearing its end. For now, and for some time to come, the United States will remain primus inter pares—the strongest of the major world powers—though it is uncertain whether it can maintain that position over the next twenty years. Regardless, America’s power and influence over the international political system will diminish markedly from what it was at the apogee of Pax Americana. That was the Old Order, forged through the momentous events of World War I, the Great Depression and World War II. Now that Old Order of nearly seven decades’ duration is fading from the scene. It is natural that U.S. leaders would want to deny it—or feel they must finesse it when talking to the American people. But the real questions for America and its leaders are: What will replace the Old Order? How can Washington protect its interests in the new global era? And how much international disruption will attend the transition from the old to the new?
2. multipolarity is inevitable as the US loses cultural hegemony. The plan’s boost of hard power only spurs adventurism, undermining overall American power
Allenby, 05 (Brad Allenby, Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the College of Law at Arizona State University. “High Technology Military Dominance: The Opiate of Modern Empire” November 2005.
The general public perception that national power is predominantly a matter of military capability has long been recognized as oversimplistic and naïve. While different conditions will result in specific and somewhat unpredictable responses from the nation-states involved, it is nonetheless possible to identify five foundational sources of modern hegemonic power: economic, scientific and technological, military, institutional, and cultural. Economic power, for example, propelled Japan into the first rank of powers despite its relative military weakness, while institutional weaknesses in its political structure have contributed significantly to its drift over the past decade. The European Union retains its dominant international position despite a relatively unimpressive economy and military in part because its institutions reflect a resilient and open social-democratic political framework and its culture is widely admired. China’s rise reflects an economic boom, and those who predict its demise do so in large part because of perceived institutional weaknesses. Even in the case of past empires, flexible governance structures and the institutions that knit together distances were as important as sheer military power (Roman roads and administration, for example, did as much to support the Empire as the Legions). In a world where the most advanced economies are characterized by increasing reliance on information networks, highly flexible economic and political institutions tending towards the flat and virtual rather than the hierarchical, and reduced dependence on direct control of resources, the key to obtaining and keeping hegemonic power increasingly is balanced among the five core constituents. This is arguably the key to the dominance of the United States, which until recently has been the one power that has appeared to be globally competent in all five categories: the largest single economy, a currently unmatched science and technology capability (and underlying academic infrastructure), a military that is far more advanced than any other in many ways, an institutional structure that is both relatively transparent and defined by law rather than relationship, and a cultural ascendancy that is reflected in the widespread idea of American exceptionalism, entrepreneurism, and corporate trademark dominance (especially in consumer culture: Coca-cola, McDonald’s, Disney). Although different commentators focus on different aspects of this hegemonic power structure – the French, for example, who do not fear the United States militarily because it is an ally, tend to emphasize American cultural domination, while the Chinese, who face projection of American power and particularly its blue water Navy as they look towards Taiwan, are much more concerned with its military aspect – it is the balance of high competence in all five dimensions that makes America truly formidable. Moreover, the essence of American power is more subtle than just the components in themselves, as the Japanese, Chinese, and European Union experience reveals. It is not enough to develop a better, more aggressive economy, as Japan in some ways did; or to challenge American exceptionalism and cultural appeal, as Europe increasingly does. To truly challenge America over time, it is necessary for the rising power to become competent in all five dimensions. To complicate matters, all five dimensions are not independent of each other; rather, success in each requires synergism among all. A challenger, then, need not reflect the same balance nor certainly the same choices as characterize the United States, but it does need to be able to successfully compete with the US in all five dimensions – and to integrate them effectively so they are mutually supporting as well. To take only one dimension, consider the daunting implications of trying to match the United States in science and technology (S&T). The American research and development budget, especially when contributions from private industry are included, dominates global R&D expenditures and ensures American supremacy in this critical area. But, worse yet from the perspective of those who would challenge America’s S&T capabilities, it is buttressed by institutional and cultural dimensions. The American higher educational system is not only the best in the world overall, but it draws intelligence from other societies around the world, much of which remains in the United States, either as intellectual property or as working, thinking, highly educated human beings. The American venture capital system, again the most highly developed in the world, supports this structure by ensuring that S&T advances are rapidly translated into entrepreneurial activity and thus economic power. The American culture, which tends to be technologically optimistic, underpins these systems (in contrast to, for example, the European Union which, through formulations such as the Precautionary Principle, expresses a greater skepticism of technology). A culture that seeks to match American supremacy in science and technology, therefore, cannot do so simply by increasing research spending, or trying to develop a few world-class technical institutes. It must create a network across its culture that understands excellence in this area as an emergent characteristic of excellence across all five dimensions – a much more difficult task. Understood from this systems perspective, it is tempting to err on the side of historical determinism and conclude that American hegemony is strong enough that it will dominate all others for the foreseeable future. This would be a mistake, and not just for the generic reasons that all determinisms are over-simplistic, and that history gives many examples of apparently dominant societies that, having outlived their optimistic and bold youth, have grown old and collapsed. It is perhaps true that an external frontal assault on American hegemony is unlikely to succeed, certainly in the short term. The European Union is increasingly favoring stability and order over messy and unpredictable technological evolution; Japan is too unidimensionally an economic power; and China is too early in its development along many of the relevant dimensions to be able to do so (as are India, Brazil, Russia and other potential challengers). But it is equally true that critical weakness can emerge internally. Consider American post 9/11 behavior and the Iraq invasion for what it says not only about American sophistication in understanding the real sources of its power and authority, but also the self-inflicted damage that may result in the absence of such understanding. Begin with the observation that America after World War II had a dominance that, although displayed in terms of the hard power supremacy of military and economic might, was primarily cultural: the United States attracted brains and capital, and, indeed, seemed to embody the mythic qualities of American exceptionalism because of its uniquely open, optimistic, entrepreneurial and mobile society. Depending on the language you want to use, it was the American brand – it was America as the “shining City on the Hill” – that knit together the dimensions of dominance. This was reflected in the numbers of students attracted to American universities, the number of non-native born entrepreneurs that created Silicon Valley and its Texas, Massachusetts and Oregon mimics, the success of American consumer goods and cultural exports (films, games, and the Marlboro Man), the continued attraction of the American experience for those prosecuted or discriminated against in other cultures. The real key to long-term American dominance, in other words,was mythic: mythic not in the sense of being imaginary, but in the sense of being a larger than life projection of American values and culture across the world. In this light, post 9/11 American policy can be seen as powerfully undermining long-term American power.Obviously, individual policy decisions affect the strength of the integrated hegemonic structure: the economic fragility caused by the Administration’s tax cuts are an example. But these need not threaten long term power trajectories. The response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, however, is potentially far more problematic. In particular, three components ofsubsequent policy have seriously degraded American power, and all for the same reason: they elevate technological projection of physical power and traditional security considerations above projection of cultural power. America is building a Maginot Line, and a very expensive one, in a world of cultural blitzkrieg. The first prong of Administration policy which is highly problematic is a domestic response which focuses on threat and fear rather than defiant openness. The serious curtailment of civil liberties and a personal sense of fear which has been cultivated by a series of policy initiatives (having colors to represent threat level assures that the public will remain fixated on the threat; coupling consumption with patriotism, while perhaps concordant with American proclivities, serves to integrate threat into core American activities) strike at the heart of the openness and optimism which have been among the most powerful components of American cultural power. While the American response may in part reflect the fact that Americans are unused to physical attack, it also reflects a shift from optimism to pessimism (from the world as America’s oyster or, more accurately, America’s market, to the rest of the world as Sartrean Other). The impacts of adopting this defensive posture are both practical – impediments to entry into the United States have significantly reduced the appeal of the U.S. for foreign students and scholars, for example – but, more importantly, mythic: the optimistic City on the Hill becomes just another gated community, another Fortress against the poor and alien. Creating a huge administrative bureaucracy that depends for its existence on continuing (and difficult to evaluate) threat ensures that this component of American policy will not be a temporary phenomenon, but rather a permanent degradation of American cultural power. Note that the importance of these policies is not in how the domestic audience responds; indeed, there is a robust debate internally on them. Rather, the importance is that it undermines the mythic component of American cultural dominance in cultures other than American. Nor is it necessary for the full deleterious impact that the United States actually sink below others in individual and creative freedom, only that American culture can be reduced by its critics to just another choice: no worse perhaps, but no better than, any other. The second is the Administration’s unilateralism and ill-disguised contempt for those who do not agree with its positions, combined with its evasion of moral responsibility. In the past, America has gained significant cultural power because it has not sought to impose its values; rather, it has simply displayed them and their attractiveness has drawn admiration, and immigration, from around the world. True cultural power is attractive, rather than imposed. The Administration’s approach, however, has resulted in America being widely perceived as arrogant, biased, and hypocritical, rather than powerful and appealing. Thus, for example, when Turkey and its public clearly wanted nothing to do with the Iraq war, perhaps not believing that the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was entirely conclusive, that nation was put under severe pressure by the Americans, leading many to conclude that America believed that democracy was a good idea so long as whatever came out of it was what the American Administration wanted. Similarly, widespread patterns of prisoner abuse were explained as mistakes of junior enlisted personnel, with no senior commander, and certainly not the Commander in Chief or the Secretary of Defense, taking responsibility. Regardless of the realpolitik rationale for torture, direct or through proxy, in a difficult period where information was clearly too scant for comfort, the policy and its clear tension with stated American beliefs reduces American exceptionalism to mere opportunism justified by hypocrisy backed by technologically enabled military power. Finally, of course, there is Iraq, which instantiates the Administration belief that military-technological power is the main component of modern hegemonic power (indeed, that is perhaps one reason those that crafted the policy so badly underestimated the Iraqi response to invasion and occupation; they were attuned to military, but not to cultural, phenomena). While various glosses have been put on that activity over time as initial justifications have proven inaccurate, the initial response of both the military and the Administration (“Mission Accomplished”) clearly illustrate a mindset focused on the ability of our technologically preeminent military to overcome less advanced forces. Iraq has failed because the political operatives managing the conflict have failed to understand that the sorts of wars America fights these days are cultural conflicts, not military conflicts (the parallels to VietNam in this regard are apparent), and that technological supremacy in the battlefield is almost besides the point. Unlike the constant resource conflicts in Africa, for example, recent American conflicts are not for conquest of territory or establishment of colonies, but to achieve ideological aims and defeat disfavored elites. And such aims necessarily involve sophistication in cultural matters. Indeed, especially to those who lack experience with the limits of military power, military prowess, embodied in incredibly potent technological capabilities, acts like a drug, leading to dysfunctionally oversimplistic policy choices. Just as countries rich in oil or other resources tend to squander their opportunities, especially in the absence of strong governance, countries rich in military-technological power may be seduced by it into misperceiving their true sources of power. Such seduction may be even more magnetic for a technologically optimistic nation which may be culturally inclined to seek technological solutions for all challenges. This does not mean that military action is never necessary, especially for a nation that has become a de facto enforcer of last resort (e.g., Bosnia). The military attack on Afghanistan, for example, was arguably justified because Afghanistan was a failed state creating an infrastructure for terrorists who had already struck the United States and, more subtly, because some sort of visceral response after 9/11 was probably a political necessity. Indeed, the use of military force in Afghanistan was broadly accepted internationally; it did not create anything like the destructive impact on the American myth that the bungled adventure in Iraq continues to generate. The United States retains its global hegemony for the time being. But American leaders across the board have failed to realize that the wellspring of that hegemony is cultural, the mythic. How mythic dominance may be defined, built, and strengthened is an interesting question, not yet fully answered – yet the United States clearly accomplished it for at last the last half of the twentieth century. What is interesting is that the United States had global dominance, a strong position against the fundamentalist Islamists, and blew it – because leaders failed to understand that the strength of the American position derived from cultural authority, not from military-technological supremacy. As a result of this serious miscalculation, it is highly likely that Iraq and the context of 9/11 responses that surrounded it, unless quickly reversed, will be seen as a critical point in the decline of American power precisely because it produced a sense of technologically enabled military success. For, ironically, it is that “success” that has proven catastrophic for the American brand, the real American boots on the ground. What saves the world from American hegemony is that its leaders, in failing to avoid the temptation of military adventurism, and in so fatally undermine the American culture’s most powerful claim: that it is the last best hope of humanity, the shining City on the Hill.
3. turn - U.S. military aggression causes nuclear terrorism and accidental US-Russian nuclear war
Chomsky, 03 (Noam. Institute Professor emeritus of linguistics and philosophy at MIT. “Failed States.” Pages 14-16)
The probability of “apocalypse soon” cannot be realistically estimated, but it is surely too high for any sane person to contemplate with equanimity. While speculation is pointless, reaction to the “stark and dreadful and inescapable” choice Einstein and Russell described definitely is not. On the contrary, reaction is urgent, particularly in the United States, because of Washington’s primary role in accelerating the race to destruction by extending its historically unique military dominance. “The chances of an accidental, mistaken or unauthorized nuclear attack might be increasing,” warns former senator Sam Nunn, who has played a leading role in efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear war. “We are running an unnecessary risk of an Armageddon of our own making,” Nunn observes, as a result of policy choices that leave “America’s survival” dependent on “the accuracy of Russia’s warning systems and its command and control.” Nunn is referring to the sharp expansion of US military programs, which tilt the strategic balance in ways that make “Russia more likely to launch upon warning of an attack, without waiting to see if the warning is accurate.” The threat is enhanced by the fact that “the Russian early warning system is in serious disrepair and more likely to give a false warning of incoming missiles. US reliance on “the high-alert, hair-trigger nuclear posture… allows missiles to be launched within minutes,” forcing “our leaders to decide almost instantly whether to launch nuclear weapons once they have warning of an attack, robbing them of the time they may need to gather data, exchange information, gain perspective, discover an error and avoid a catastrophic mistake.” The risk extends beyond Russia – and also China if it pursues the same course. Strategic Bruce Blair observes that “the early warning and control problems plaguing Pakistan, India and other nuclear proliferators are even more acute.” Another serious concern, discussed in technical literature well before 9/11, is that nuclear weapons may sooner or later fall into the hands of terrorist groups, who might use these and other weapons of mass destruction with lethal effect. Those prospects are being advanced by Bush administration planners, who do not consider terrorism a high priority, as they regularly demonstrate. Their aggressive militarism has not only led Russia to expand significantly its offensive capacities, including more lethal nuclear weapons and delivery systems, but is also inducing the Russian military to transfer nuclear weapons constantly across Russia’s vast territory to counter mounting US threats. Washington planners are surely aware that Chechen rebels, who had already stolen radioactive materials from nuclear waste plants and power stations, have been casing “the railway system and special trains designed for shipping nuclear weapons across Russia.” Blair warns that “this perpetual motion [within Russia] creates a serious vulnerability, because transportation is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear weapons security,” ranking in danger right alongside maintaining strategic nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert. He estimates that every day “many hundreds of Russian nuclear weapons are moving around the countryside.” Theft of one nuclear bomb “could spell eventual disaster for an American city, [but this] is not the worst-case scenario stemming from nuclear gamesmanship.” More ominously, “the seizure of a ready-to-fire strategic long range nuclear missile or a group of missiles capable of delivering bombs to targets thousands of miles away could be apocalyptic for entire nations.” Another major threat is that terrorist hackers might break into military communication networks and transmit launch orders for missiles armed with hundreds of nuclear warheads – no fantasy, as the Pentagon learned a few years ago when serious defects were discovered in its safeguards, requiring new instructions for Trident submarine launch crews. Systems in other countries are much less reliable. All of this constitutes “an accident waiting to happen,” Blair writes; an accident that could be apocalyptic.
4. Heg doesn’t solve war – US lacks influence to deescalate conflicts
Mastanduno 2009 [Michael, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, World Politics 61, No. 1, Ebsco]
During the cold war the United States dictated the terms of adjustment. It derived the necessary leverage because it provided for the security of its economic partners and because there were no viable alter natives to an economic order centered on the United States. After the cold war the outcome of adjustment struggles is less certain because the United States is no longer in a position to dictate the terms. The United States, notwithstanding its preponderant power, no longer enjoys the same type of security leverage it once possessed, and the very success of the U.S.-centered world economy has afforded America’s supporters a greater range of international and domestic economic options. The claim that the United States is unipolar is a statement about its cumulative economic, military, and other capabilities.1 But preponderant capabilities across the board do not guarantee effective influence in any given arena. U.S. dominance in the international security arena no longer translates into effective leverage in the international economic arena. And although the United States remains a dominant international economic player in absolute terms, after the cold war it has found itself more vulnerable and constrained than it was during the golden economic era after World War II. It faces rising economic challengers with their own agendas and with greater discretion in international economic policy than America’s cold war allies had enjoyed. The United States may continue to act its own way, but it can no longer count on getting its own way.

5. turn – prolif
Preponderance triggers nuclear proliferation
Ted Galen Carpenter, (Vice President for Defense Studies, Cato Institute), SMART POWER: TOWARD A PRUDENT FOREIGN POLICY FOR AMERICA, 2008, 112.
In addition to the motive of deterrence within a region, there is a potential motive of broader deterrence--especially to deter the United States. With regard to that factor, we need to be realistic about the unintended consequences of some U.S. actions.The United States hastaken major military action on ten occasions since the end of the Cold War. Although many Americans may think that those episodes were justified, othercountries don't necessarily see it the same way. In particular, countries such as Iran and North Korea have seen how the UnitedStateshas treated non-nuclear adversariessuch as Serbia and Iraq,and that may have led them to conclude that the only reliable deterrent to U.S. coercion was a nuclear arsenal.
b. Second, new horizontal proliferation risks several scenarios for nuclear war
TOTTEN (Assoc. Professor at University of Arkansas) ‘94
[Samuel, The Widening Circle of Genocide, p. 289 //wyo-tjc]
There are numerous dangers inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons, including but not limited to the following: the possibility that a nation threatened by destruction in a conventional war may resort to the use of its nuclear weapons; the miscalculation of a threat of an attack and the subsequent use of nuclear weapons in order to stave off the suspected attack; a nuclear weapons accident due to carelessness or flawed technology (e.g., the accidental launching of a nuclear weapon); the use of such weapons by an unstable leader; the use of such weapons by renegade military personnel during a period of instability (personal, national or international); and, the theft (and/or development) and use of such weapons by terrorists. While it is unlikely (though not impossible) that terrorists would be able to design their own weapons, it is possible that they could do so with the assistance of a renegade government.


1. turn - Disease spreads more easily through free trade
David A. Relma et al. [Professor, Medicine - Infectious Diseases @ Stanford University], Rapporteurs; Forum on Microbial Threats; Institute of Medicine¶ Infectious Disease Movement in a Borderless World:¶ Workshop Summary (2010

Modern transportation allows people, animals, and plants--and the pathogens they carry--to travel more easily than ever before. The ease and speed of travel, tourism, and international trade connect once-remote areas with one another, eliminating many of the geographic and cultural barriers that once limited the spread of disease. Because of our global interconnectedness through transportation, tourism and trade, infectious diseases emerge more frequently; spread greater distances; pass more easily between humans and animals; and evolve into new and more virulent strains. The IOM's Forum on Microbial Threats hosted the workshop "Globalization, Movement of Pathogens (and Their Hosts) and the Revised International Health Regulations" December 16-17, 2008 in order to explore issues related to infectious disease spread in a "borderless" world. Participants discussed the global emergence, establishment, and surveillance of infectious diseases; the complex relationship between travel, trade, tourism, and the spread of infectious diseases; national and international policies for mitigating disease movement locally and globally; and obstacles and opportunities for detecting and containing these potentially wide-reaching and devastating diseases. This document summarizes the workshop.
Emerging diseases cause extinction
Zimmerman and Zimmerman 1996 (Barry and David, both have M.S. degrees from Long Island University, Killer Germs, p 132) EDITED FOR GENDERED LANGUAGE

Then came AIDS…and Ebola and Lassa fever and Marburg and dengue fever. They came, for the most part, from the steamy jungles of the world. Lush tropical rain forests are ablaze with deadly viruses. And changing lifestyles as well as changing environmental conditions are flushing them out. Air travel, deforestation, global warming are forcing never-before-encountered viruses to suddenly cross the path of humanity. The result—emerging viruses. Today some five thousand vials of exotic viruses sit, freeze-dried, at Yale University—imports from the rain forests. They await the outbreak of diseases that can be ascribed to them. Many are carried by insects and are termed arboviruses (arthropod borne). Others, of even greater concern, are airborne and can simply be breathed in. Some, no doubt, could threaten humanity’s very existence. Joshua Lederberg, 1958 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and foremost authority on emerging viruses, warned in a December 1990 article in Discover magazine: “It is still not comprehended widely that AIDS is a natural, almost predictable phenomenon. It is not going to be a unique event. Pandemics are not acts of God, but are built into the ecological relations between viruses, animal species and human species…There will be more surprises, because our fertile imagination does not begin to match all the tricks that nature can play…” According to Lederberg, “The survival of humanity is not preordained…The single biggest threat to [hu]man’s continued dominance on the planet is the virus” (A Dancing Matrix, by Robin Marantz Hening.

2. Free trade disproportionately affects the people – exploited by corporate and political elite at the expense of the minorities in the name of “stability”
Shah 3-24-13 (Anup Shah, Editor of Global Issues, “Free Trade and Globalization”,

The world is becoming more globalized, there is no doubt about that. Whilethat sounds promising, the current form of globalization, neoliberalism, free trade and open markets are coming under much criticism. The interests of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade.In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discourse and even supporting dictatorships and the “stability” that it brings for their interests. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering.

3. turn environment
Natural resource conflict is probable because of disparities created by Free Trade
Burger 2011 (Andrew Burger reports on news and events at the nexus of environment, technology, political economy and society. July 15, 2011, “Resource Conflict on the Rise: Free Trade Agreements Up for Vote”

Conflicts between private businesses and investors, national governmentsand local populations over natural resource use and development are nothing new, but the far-reaching legal implications of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have placed the rights of private companies above those of local residents and even national governments. In an increasingly resource-constrained world, that could be a recipe for disaster.

Most likely scenario for war
FutureDirectionsInternational ’12(“International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity Global Food and Water Crises Research Programme”, May 25,, CMR)

There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

4. Turn – Democracy
Free trade hurts democratic efforts – incompatible
Milne 2012 (Jared Milne is a member of the Edmonton Chapter of the Council of Canadians, 11-28-12, “Free Trade and Democracy Incompatible,”

Free trade and democracy incompatible. • Long-term, legally binding agreements with multi-national corporations involving zero public and Canadian Parliamentary scrutiny. • Secretive lawsuits of any level of Canadian government by the same corporations if Canadian laws interfere with a corporation's profitability. • Export of good jobs overseas because smaller local companies can't competefor public contracts.Resulting pressure on Canadian governments to privatize our essential services. These are just a few of the negative outcomes of past trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-US FTA and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). And they will be repeated again with the impending Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA). The Harper government is trying to pass these deals with as little public awareness as possible, even though they will have a tremendous impact on Canada.

1) no internal link - The auto industry is thriving now – exports.
Rogers & Boudette 7/1/13 A Revitalized Car Industry Cranks Up U.S. Exports Wall Street Journal

The U.S. auto industry, in tatters just four years ago, is emerging as an export powerhouse, driven by favorable exchange rates and labor costs in a trend experts say could drive business for many years. In a sign of the turnaround, Honda Motor Co 7267.TO +0.40% ., once a big importer of Japanese-made cars, says it expects to export more vehicles from North America—with nearly all of them coming from its U.S. factories—than it brings in from Japan by the end of 2014. Last year, more than one million cars and light trucks were exported from U.S. auto plants, the highest recorded and a more than threefold rise from 2003, according to the U.S. International Trade Administration. More competitive labor costs and restructurings that closed unproductive factories have made American auto plants tougher competitors in the global market.Some are also looking at U.S. production as a way to serve booming emerging markets. By the end of 2014, Chrysler hopes to export as many as 500,000 vehicles a year to markets outside of North America, more than doubling the 210,000 it sent abroad in 2012. The vast majority of Chrysler's exports come from U.S. factories. "What's changed is our focus on our international markets," said Mike Manley, chief executive of Chrysler's Jeep. Majority-owned by Italian auto maker Fiat SpA, F.MI -0.94% Chrysler is using its parent's connections to build sales in Russia, China and elsewhere. "We took a very different, more aggressive view on how we could grow with the existing resources that we have," he said. Of course, the value of automobiles coming into the U.S. is still greater than those exported. The country's auto trade deficit was $105.5 billion last year, about double the $51 billion in auto shipments overseas.

2. Economic decline not cause war -- Empirically denied – recession.

Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, 8/25/200’9,

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the WorldTradeOrganization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

3. Diversionary theory is wrong – there’s no empirical evidence and the theory is based on faulty assumptions

Foster and Keller 10

(2010, Dennis, PhD in political science, Assistant Professor, Virginia Military Institute, and Jonathan, PhD in political science, Assistant Professor of Political Science, James Madison University, “Rallies and the “First Image” Leadership Psychology, Scapegoating Proclivity, and the Diversionary Use of Force,” Conflict Management and Peace Science 2010 27: 417, sage)

Despite its compelling logic, general empirical confirmation of the diversionary hypothesis remains elusive (Levy, 1989). Of the many efforts exploring this lack of support, perhaps the most significant are those which contest the assumption that armed diversion “works”. The mere employment of the strategy is fraught with considerable risks and is morally quite objectionable. Moreover, while the use of force sometimes prompts astounding gains in approval, numerous studies conclude that rallies are normally quite short-lived and are generated with little or no consistency (e.g. Lian and Oneal, 1993; Oneal and Bryan, 1995). Indeed, research by Colaresi (2007) contends that domestic audiences are likely to abstain from rallying if they suspect leaders’ decisions to be spurred by base political concerns rather than the defense of the national interest. In all, if these arguments are correct, one may conclude (as do Meernik and Waterman, 1996) that the ambivalence of diversionary findings is not simply a matter of insufficient analytical frameworks or intervening caveats; it is instead attributable to the weakness of the core theory, and the validity of the entire diversionary research paradigm is open to question.

4. no internal link -- Hiring proves that the auto industry is growing now.
Krisher 2013 “American auto industry about to go on hiring spree” Tom Krisher AP Auto Writer

The auto industry is about to go on a hiring spree as car makers and parts suppliers race to find engineers, technicians and factory workers to build the next generation of vehicles. The new employees will be part of a larger, busier workforce. From coast to coast, the industry is in top gear. Factories are operating at about 95 percent of capacity, and many are already running three shifts. As a result, some auto and parts companies are doing something they’ve been reluctant to consider since the recession: Adding floor space and spending millions of dollars on new equipment. We’re really bumping up against the edge,” says Michael Robinet, managing director of IHS Automotive, which forecasts auto production. “So it really is brick-and-mortar time.” The auto industry’s stepped-up hiring will help sustain the nation’s job growth and help fuel consumer spending. On Friday, the government said U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs in May, roughly the monthly average for the past year and a sign of the economy’s resilience. At 7.6 percent, U.S. unemployment remains well above the 5 percent to 6 percent typical of a healthy economy. Growth is still modest, in part because of higher taxes and government spending cuts that kicked in this year and weak overseas economies. But the housing market is strengthening, and U.S. consumer confidence has reached a five-year high. The auto industry’s outlook is bright. Vehicle sales for 2013 could reach 15.5 million, the highest in six years. To meet that demand, automakers must find more people. Hundreds of companies that make parts for automakers have to hire, too, just to keep up. “As volume goes up, we will really need to add heads,” says Mel Stephens, a spokesman for Lear Corp., which makes automotive seats.

Round 5 vs GMP CZ

Coloniality K

The spread of neoliberal market mechanisms by the US is part of a colonial strategy that attempts to control Latin America for the benefit of modernist structures.
Mignolo 2006 [Walter D. Mignolo, Professor of Cultural Studies at Duke University, Citizenship, Knowledge, and the Limits of Humanity American Literary History 18.2 (2006) 312-331]
I will describe the veiled connections as the logic of coloniality, and the surface that covers it I will describe as the rhetoric of modernity. The rhetoric of modernity is that of salvation, whereas the logic of coloniality is a logic of imperial oppression. They go hand in hand, and you cannot have modernity without coloniality; the unfinished project of modernity carries over its shoulders the unfinished project of coloniality. I will conclude by suggesting the need to decolonize "knowledge" and "being" and advocating that the (decolonial) "humanities" shall have a fundamental role to play in this process. Truly, "global citizenship" implies overcoming the imperial and colonial differences that have mapped and continue to map global racism and global patriarchy. Changing the law and public policies won't be of much help in this process. What is needed is that those who change the law and public policy change themselves. [End Page 312] The problem is how that may take place if we would like to avoid the missionary zeal for conversion; the liberal and neoliberal belief in the triumphal march of Western civilization and of market democracy; and the moral imperatives and forced behavior imposed by socialism. As I do not believe in a new abstract universal that will be good for the entire world, the question is how people can change their belief that the world today is like it is and that it will be only through the "honest" projects of Christians, liberals, and Marxist-socialists that the world could be better for all, and citizenship will be a benediction for all. The changes I am thinking about are radical transformations in the naturalized assumptions of the world order. The naturalized assumptions I am thinking about are imperial–colonial, and they have shaped the world in which we live in the past five hundred years when Christianity and capitalism came together and created the conditions for the self-fashioned narrative of "modernity." Hence, the transformations I am thinking about require an epistemic decolonial shift. Not a "new," a "post," or a "neo," which are all changes within the same modern colonial epistemology, but a decolonial (and not either a "deconstruction"), which means a delinking from the rules of the game (e.g., the decolonization of the mind, in Ngugi Wa Th'iongo's vocabulary) in which deconstruction itself and all the "posts-" for sure are caught. Delinking doesn't mean to be "outside" of either modernity or Christian, Liberal, Capitalist, and Marxist hegemony but to disengage from the naturalized assumptions that make of these four macronarratives "une pensee unique," to use Ignacio Ramonet's expression.2The decolonial shift begins by unveiling the imperial presuppositions that maintain a universal idea of humanity and of human being that serves as a model and point of arrival and by constantly underscoring the fact that oppressed and racialized subjects do not care and are not fighting for "human rights" (based on an imperial idea of humanity) but to regain the "human dignity" (based on a decolonial idea of humanity) that has and continues to be taken away from them by the imperial rhetoric of modernity (e.g., white, Eurocentered, heterosexual, and Christian/secular). The conditions for citizenship are still tied to a racialized hierarchy of human beings that depends on universal categories of thought created and enacted from the identitarian perspectives of European Christianity and by white males. In the Afro-Caribbean intellectual tradition—from C. L. R. James to Frantz Fanon, Sylvia Wynter, and Lewis Gordon—the very concepts of the human and humanity are constantly under fire.3 Would indeed a black person agree with the idea that what "we" all have in common is our "humanity" and that we are "all equal" in being "different"? I would suspect that the formula would rather be of the type advanced by the [End Page 313] Zapatistas: "[B]ecause we are all equal we have the right to be different."4The universal idea of humanity, believe me, is not the same from the perspective of black history, Indian memories, or the memories of the population of Central Asia. The humanities, as a branch of knowledge in the history of the university since the European Renaissance, have always been complicitous with imperial–colonial designs celebratinga universal idea of the human model. The moment has arrived to put the humanities at the service of decolonial projects in their ethical, political, and epistemic dimensions; to recast the reinscription of human dignity as a decolonial project in the hands of the damnes rather than given to them through managerial designs of NGOs and Human Rights Watch that seldom if ever are led by actors whose human dignity is at stake. Decolonial projects imply downsizing human rights to its real dimension: an ethical imperative internal to imperial abuses but not really a project that empowers racialized subjects and helps them to regain the human dignity that racism and imperial projects (from the right, the left, and the center) took away from them.
The modus operandi of the affirmative’s economics is the historical drive behind colonization and mass violence against Latin America culminating in wars, violence and genocide in the name of their economic ideals
Escobar 2004 [Arturo, Beyond the Third World:
Imperial Globality, Global Coloniality, and Anti-Globalization Social Movements, Third world quarterly 2004.‎]
One of the main consequences, for Santos, of the collapse of emancipation into regulation is the structural predominance of exclusion over inclusion. Either because of the exclusion of many of those formerly included, or because those who in the past were candidates for inclusion are now prevented from being so, the problematic of exclusion has become terribly accentuated, with ever growing numbers of people thrown into a veritable “state of nature.” The size of the excluded class varies of course with the centrality of the country in the world system, but it is particularly staggering in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The result is a new type of social fascism as “a social and civilizational regime” (p. 453). This regime, paradoxically, coexists with democratic societies, hence its novelty. This fascism may operate in various modes: in terms of spatial exclusion; territories struggled over by armed actors; the fascism of insecurity; and of course the deadly financial fascism, which at times dictates the marginalization of entire regions and countries that do not fulfill the conditions needed for capital, according to the IMF and its faithful management consultants (pp. 447-458). To the former Third World corresponds the highest levels of social fascism of these kinds. This is, in sum, the world that is being created by globalization from above, or hegemonic globalization. Before moving on, it is important to complete this rough representation of today’s global capitalist modernity by looking at the US-led invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Among other things, this episode has made at last two things particularly clear: first, the willingness to use unprecedented levels of violence to enforce dominance on a global scale; second, the unipolarity of the current empire. In ascension since the Thatcher-Reagan years, this unipolarity reached its climax with the post-9/11 regime, based on a new convergence of military, economic, political and religious interests in the United States. In Alain Joxe’s (2002) compelling vision of imperial globality, what we have been witnessing since the first Gulf War is the rise of an empire that increasingly operates through the management of asymmetrical and spatialized violence, territorial control, sub-contracted massacres, and “cruel little wars,” all of which are aimed at imposing the neo-liberal capitalist project. At stake is a type of regulation that operates through the creation of a new horizon of global violence. This empire regulates disorder through financial and military means, pushing chaos to the extent possible to the outskirts of empire, creating a “predatory” peace to the benefit of a global noble caste and leaving untold poverty and suffering in its path. It is an empire that does not take responsibility for the wellbeing of those over whom it rules. As Joxe puts it: “The world today is united by a new form of chaos, an imperial chaos, dominated by the imperium of the United States, though not controlled by it. We lack the words to describe this new system, while being surrounded by its images. ... World leadership through chaos, a doctrine that a rational European school would have difficulty imagining, necessarily leads to weakening states –even in the United States—through the emerging sovereignty of corporations and markets.” (2002: 78, 213). 7 The new empire thus operates not so much through conquest, but through the imposition of norms (free-markets, US-style democracy and cultural notions of consumption, and so forth). The former Third World is, above all, the theatre of a multiplicity of cruel little wars which, rather than barbaric throwbacks, are linked to the current global logic. From Colombia and Central America to Algeria, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East these wars take place within states or regions, without threatening empire but fostering conditions favorable to it. For much of the former Third World (and of course to the Third World within the core) is reserved “the World-chaos” (107), free-market slavery, and selective genocide. In some cases, this amounts to a sort of “paleo-micro- colonialism” within regions (157), in others to balkanization, in yet others to brutal internal wars and massive displacement to free up entire regions for transnational capital (particularly in the case of oil, but also diamonds, timber, water, genetic resources, and agricultural lands). Often times these cruel little wars are fueled by Mafia networks, and intended for macro-economic globalization. It is clear that this new Global Empire (“the New World Order of the American imperial monarchy,” p. 171) articulates the “peaceful expansion” of the free-market economy with omnipresent violence in a novel regime of economic and military globality –in other words, the global economy comes to be supported by a global organization of violence and vice versa (200). On the subjective side, what increasingly one finds in the Souths (including the South within the North) are “diced identities” and the transformation of cultures of solidarity into cultures of destruction.
The question of this debate is how best to challenge colonial institutions and foreground the lives of marginalized populations – this is an ethical imperative.
Mignolo 2009(Walter Mignolo, 2009, Epistemic Disobedience, Independent thought, and deconlonial freedom,, Walter Mignolo is a semiotician and Professor at Duke Univeristy, who has published extensively on semiotics and literary theory, and worked on different aspect of the modern and colonial world, exploring concepts such as global coloniality, the geopolitics of knowledge, transmodernity, border thinking, and pluriversality)
De-colonial thinking presupposes de-linking (epistemically and politically) from the web of imperial knowledge (theo- and ego-politically grounded) from disciplinary management. A common topic of conversation today, after the financial crisis on Wall Street, is ‘how to save capitalism’. A de-colonial question would be: ‘Why would you want to save capitalism and not save human beings?Why save an abstract entity and not the human lives that capitalism is constantly destroying?’ In the same vein, geo- and body-politics of knowledge, de-colonial thinking and the de-colonial option place human lives and life in general first rather than making claims for the ‘transformation of the disciplines’. But, still, claiming life and human lives first, de-colonial thinking is not joining forces with ‘the politics of life in itself’ as Nicholas Rose (2007) has it. Rose’s ‘politics of life in itself’ is the last development in the ‘mercantilization of life’ and of ‘bio-power’ (as Foucault has it). In the ‘politics of life in itself’ political and economic strategies for controlling life at the same time as creating more consumers join forces.Bio-politics, in Foucault’s conception, was one of the practical consequences of an ego-politics of knowledge implemented in the sphere of the state. Politics of life in itself extends it to the market. Thus, politics of life in itself describes the enormous potential of bio-technology to generate consumers who invest their earnings in buying health-promoting products in order to maintain the reproduction of technology that will ‘improve’ the control of human beings at the same time as creating more wealth through the money invested by consumers who buy health-promoting technology.
Our alternative is to reject the affirmative – when confronted with colonial projects the only ethical response is radical negativity. We are compelled to be disobedient to modernity.
Mignolo 09 [Walter D. Mignolo, Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom, Theory and Culture 2009, published 2009]
ONCE UPON a time scholars assumed that the knowing subject in the disciplines is transparent, disincorporated from the known and untouched by the geo-political configuration of the world in which people are racially ranked and regions are racially configured. From a detached and neutral point of observation (that Colombian philosopher Santiago Castro-Gómez (2007) describes as the hubris of the zero point), the knowing subject maps the world and its problems, classifies people and projects into what is good for them. Today that assumption is no longer tenable, although there are still many believers. At stake is indeed the question of racism and epistemology (ChukwudiEze, 1997; Mignolo, forthcoming). And once upon a time scholars assumed that if you ‘come’ from Latin America you have to ‘talk about’ Latin America; that in such a case you have to be a token of your culture. Such expectation will not arise if the author ‘comes’ from Germany, France, England or the US. In such cases it is not assumed that you have to be talking about your culture but can function as a theoretically minded person. As we know: the first world has knowledge, the third world has culture; Native Americans have wisdom, Anglo Americans have science. The need for political and epistemic delinking here comes to the fore, as well as decolonializing and decolonial knowledges, necessary steps for imagining and building democratic, just, and non-imperial/colonial societies. Geo-politics of knowledge goes hand in hand with geo-politics of knowing. Who and when, why and where is knowledge generated (rather than produced, like cars or cell phones)? Asking these questions means to shift the attention from the enunciated to the enunciation. And by so doing, turning Descartes’s dictum inside out: rather than assuming that thinking comes before being, one assumes instead that it is a racially marked body in a geo-historical marked space that feels the urge or get the call to speak, to articulate, in whatever semiotic system, the urge that makes of living organisms ‘human’ beings. By setting the scenario in terms of geo- and body-politics I am starting and departing from already familiar notions of ‘situated knowledges’. Sure, all knowledges are situated and every knowledge is constructed. But that is just the beginning. The question is: who, when, why is constructing knowledges (Mignolo, 1999, 2005 [1995])? Why did eurocentered epistemology conceal its own geo-historical and bio-graphical locations and succeed in creating the idea of universal knowledge as if the knowing subjects were also universal? This illusion is pervasive today in the social sciences, the humanities, the natural sciences and the professional schools. Epistemic disobedience means to delink from the illusion of the zero point epistemology. The shift I am indicating is the anchor (constructed of course, located of course, not just anchored by nature or by God) of the argument that follows. It is the beginning of any epistemic decolonial de-linking with all its historical, political and ethical consequences. Why? Because geo-historical and bio-graphic loci of enunciation have been located by and through the making and transformation of the colonial matrix of power: a racial system of social classification that invented Occidentalism (e.g. IndiasOccidentales), that created the conditions for Orientalism; distinguished the South of Europe from its center (Hegel) and, on that long history, remapped the world as first, second and third during the Cold War. Places of nonthought (of myth, non-western religions, folklore, underdevelopment involving regions and people) today have been waking up from the long process of westernization. The anthropos inhabiting non-European places discovered that s/he had been invented, as anthropos, by a locus of enunciations self-defined as humanitas. Now, there are currently two kinds or directions advanced by the former anthropos who are no longer claiming recognition by or inclusion in the humanitas, but engaging in epistemic disobedience and de-linking from the magic of the Western idea of modernity, ideals of humanity and promises of economic growth and financial prosperity (Wall Street dixit). One direction unfolds within the globalization of a type of economy that in both liberal and Marxist vocabulary is defined as ‘capitalism’. One of the strongest advocates of this is the Singaporean scholar, intellectual and politician Kishore Mahbubani, to which I will return later. One of his earlier book titles carries the unmistakable and irreverent message: Can Asians Think?: Understanding the Divide between East and West (2001). Following Mahbubani’s own terminology, this direction could be identified as de-westernization. Dewesternization means, within a capitalist economy, that the rules of the game and the shots are no longer called by Western players and institutions. The seventh Doha round is a signal example of de-westernizing options. The second direction is being advanced by what I describe as the decolonial option. The decolonial option is the singular connector of a diversity of decolonials. The decolonial paths have one thing in common: the colonial wound, the fact that regions and people around the world have been classified as underdeveloped economically and mentally. Racism not only affects people but also regions or, better yet, the conjunction of natural resources needed by humanitas in places inhabited by anthropos. De colonial options have one aspect in common with de-westernizing arguments: the definitive rejection of ‘being told’ from the epistemic privileges of the zero point what ‘we’ are, what our ranking is in relation to the ideal of humanitas and what we have to do to be recognized as such. However, decolonial and de-westernizing options diverge in one crucial and in disputable point: while the latter do not question the ‘civilization of death’ hidden under the rhetoric of modernization and prosperity, of the improvement of modern institutions (e.g. liberal democracy and an economy propelled by the principle of growth and prosperity), decolonial options start from the principle that the regeneration of life shall prevail over primacy of the production and reproduction of goods at the cost of life (life in general and of humanitas and anthropos alike!). I illustrate this direction, below, commenting on ParthaChatterjee’s re-orienting ‘eurocentered modernity’ toward the future in which ‘our modernity’ (in India, in Central Asia and the Caucasus, in South America, briefly, in all regions of the world upon which eurocentered modernity was either imposed or ‘adopted’ by local actors assimilating to local histories inventing and enacting global designs) becomes the statement of interconnected dispersal in which decolonial futures are being played out. Last but not least, my argument doesn’t claim originality (‘originality’ is one of the basic expectations of modern control of subjectivity) but aims to make a contribution to growing processes of decoloniality around the world. My humble claim is that geo- and body-politics of knowledge has been hidden from the self-serving interests of Western epistemology and that a task of decolonial thinking is the unveiling of epistemic silences of Western epistemology and affirming the epistemic rights of the racially devalued, and decolonial options to allow the silences to build arguments to confront those who take ‘originality’ as the ultimate criterion for the final judgment.1


Immigration reform will pass and it political capital is key
Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Hispanic Democratic legislators on Wednesday that he will invest his political capitalin an immigration reform package whose principles will be revealed during a forum in the next two months. That is what members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported after their first meeting with Obama on the subject of immigration. In remarks to reporters, the lawmakers expressed confidence that, with the president’s support, this year the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform will be resumed, opening a path to legalization for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez said that the president assured the group “he is a man of his word” and would fulfill his campaign promises to push for immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said that during the meeting Obama assured lawmakers that he will invest part of his political capital in moving forward on immigration reformthat includes strong measures for border security and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Menendez said that the lawmakers will work with Obama on the “principles” of that reform package, which will be presented at a public forum in the next two months with the aim of starting the dialogue about how to fix the country’s problematic immigration system. “He understands that this is a matter of civil rights,” the senator said of Obama.Gaining approval ofa reform plan, Menendez acknowledged, will be “a struggle,” taking into account the opposition of many Republicans and other conservative groups.
Drains capital – Backlash and hostage taking on unrelated priority legislation is empirically proven, likely in future and specifically true for Rubio – Cuba policy is totally unique – this is the best link card you will ever read
LeoGrande, 12
William M. LeoGrande School of Public Affairs American University, Professor of Government and a specialist in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Professor LeoGrande has been a frequent adviser to government and private sector agencies, 12/18/12,

The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political considerations played a major role in Obama's Cuba policy during the first term, albeit not as preeminent a consideration as they were during the Clinton years. In 2009, Obama's new foreign policy team got off to a bad start when they promised Senator Menendez that they would consult him before changing Cuba policy. That was the price he extracted for providing Senate Democrats with the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster on a must-pass omnibus appropriations bill to keep the government operating. For the next four years, administration officials worked more closely with Menendez, who opposed the sort of major redirection of policy Obama had promised, than they did with senators like John Kerry (D-Mass.), chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, whose views were more in line with the president's stated policy goals. At the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela favored initiatives to improve relations with Cuba, but he was stymied by indifference or resistance elsewhere in the bureaucracy. Secretary Hillary Clinton, having staked out a tough position Cuba during the Democratic primary campaign, was not inclined to be the driver for a new policy. At the NSC, Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Dan Restrepo, who advised Obama on Latin America policy during the 2008 campaign, did his best to avoid the Cuba issue because it was so fraught with political danger. When the president finally approved the resumption of people-to-people travel to Cuba, which Valenzuela had been pushing, the White House political team delayed the announcement for several months at the behest of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Any easing of the travel regulations, she warned, would hurt Democrats' prospects in the upcoming mid-term elections.43 The White House shelved the new regulations until January 2011, and then announced them late Friday before a holiday weekend. Then, just a year later, the administration surrendered to Senator Rubio's demand that it limit the licensing of travel providers in exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuela's replacement.44 With Obama in his final term and Vice-President Joe Biden unlikely to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 (unlike the situation Clinton and Gore faced in their second term), politics will presumably play a less central role in deciding Cuba policy over the next four years. There will still be the temptation, however, to sacrifice Cuba policy to mollify congressional conservatives, both Democrat and Republican, who are willing to hold other Obama initiatives hostage to extract concessions on Cuba. And since Obama has given in to such hostage-taking previously, the hostage-takers have a strong incentive to try the same tactic again. The only way to break this cycle would be for the president to stand up to them and refuse to give in, as he did when they attempted to rollback his 2009 relaxation of restrictions on CubanAmerican travel and remittances. Much will depend on who makes up Obama's new foreign policy team, especially at the Department of State. John Kerry has been a strong advocate of a more open policy toward Cuba, and worked behind the scenes with the State Department and USAID to clean up the "democracy promotion" program targeting Cuba, as a way to win the release of Alan Gross. A new secretary is likely to bring new assistant secretaries, providing an opportunity to revitalize the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which has been thoroughly cowed by congressional hardliners. But even with new players in place, does Cuba rise to the level of importance that would justify a major new initiative and the bruising battle with conservatives on the Hill? Major policy changes that require a significant expenditure of political capital rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers to take action.

PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013,, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday he’s eager to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that he has a severely limited time framebefore the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. Obama told a San Francisco television station that he wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. “Once we get through this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”Obama’s remarks were an acknowledgement thata second-term president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congress on issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigrationreform and gun control.

Guest worker is critical to sustain U.S. agriculture
AFBF ‘06
(Texas Agriculture, 2-17,
Failure to include comprehensive guest-worker provisions in any new or reformed immigration law could cause up to $9 billion annually in overall losses to the U.S. agriculture industryand losses of up to $5 billion annually in net farm income, according to a detailed study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation. If Congress ultimately approves a new immigration law that does not account for agriculture's needs for guest workers, like the bill approved by the House last year, then the consequences for American agriculture will be dire, according to the study. The fruit and vegetable sector as it now exists would disappear, the study says. Up to one-third of producers—who are especially dependent on hired labor—would no longer be able to compete. Instead of stocking produce grown and harvested in the U.S., America's grocers would increasingly fill their shelves with foreign-grown produce, resulting in billions of dollars currently kept in the U.S. being sent overseas. "The agriculture industry is unique in that we are highly dependent on temporary foreign workersto fill jobs that most Americans do not want to perform," said AFBF President Bob Stallman. "Many family farms depend on temporary labor and could not sustain the impact of net farm income losses brought about by current immigration proposals."
Removing guest workers guts U.S. agricultural productivity
Rural Migration News ‘96
The three major grower arguments were: 1. That illegal aliens comprise a significant share of the current farm labor force. Growers testified that illegal aliens are 50 to 70 percent of some harvest crews,and they implied that this percentage is typical of the entire hired farm work force despite the legalization of over one million unauthorized workers in the SAW program in 1987-88. (The US Department of Labor estimates that 25 percent of the labor force on US crop farms was unauthorized in 1993-94.) 2. That new control measures under consideration in Congress--more border controls, more interior enforcement, and a more secure work authorization document-- would prevent them from continuing to hire unauthorized workers who present fraudulent documents. Effective controls on hiring illegal aliens would leave them with a labor shortage, they asserted. 3. That the current H-2A programis too inflexible to provide them with foreign workers if labor shortages appear--the US workers recruited for employers allegedly do not show up, work hard, or remain with the employer; growers must pay US and H-2A workers the higher of three wages--prevailing, minimum, or adverse effect wage rate--and provide housing at no charge to the US and temporary foreign workers. In the words of one grower, the H-2A program is "too structured for a labor market that is relatively unstructured."
Food insecurity causes conflict
Marc J. Cohen, Special Assistant to the Director General at the International Food Policy Research Institute, 2001 (February, “2020 Vision: The Prospects for Universal Food Security in the Next Two Decades,”

<Conflict, Refugees, and Food Security. Since the end of the Cold War, internal conflicts have proliferated in developing and transition countries, particularly in Africa. Fourteen million refugees have fled these struggles, which have displaced another 20–30 million people within their own countries. Uprooted people are vulnerable to malnutrition and disease, and need humanitarian assistance to survive. Postconflict reconstruction takes years. Not only does violent conflict cause hunger, but hunger often contributes to conflict, especially when resources are scarce and perceptions of economic injustice are widespread.[1][25]>

Algae CP

Text: The United States federal government should amend relevant definitions in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include algae-derived fuels eligible for all tax credits, subsidies, and price supports.
Amending the RFS to include price supports for algae spurs green crude production. This provides clean renewable fuel – solves energy dependence and breaks the food/fuel link
Jason Pyle (Chief Executive Officer, Sapphire Energy) June 12 2008 “Renewable Fuels And Food Prices,” CQ Congressional Testimony
First, let me thank the Committee for its leadership on alternative, renewable fuels. Your keen focus and vision have resulted in the first ever Renewable Fuel Standard. Although there will inevitably be elements of RFS that will improve over time, you've guided the country along on the right path. Second, within the RFS debate, I want to thank this Committee for its vision and support for technology neutrality in RFS legislation, even though that vision did not survive final passage. As you predicted by supporting a technology neutral position, we are now seeing the evolution of an entirely new generation of renewable fuels. These fuels transcend the use of food as fuel feedstock.The current dilemma that pits fuel against food is just the first of many consequences of a technology-specific RFS. Without a technology-neutral RFS, this nation will not meet its goalsof providing 32 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Although last year's Energy Independence and Security Act has yet to foster such solutions, this Committee should be applauded for anticipating an ever-expanding universe of alternative and renewable fuels. That's why I am here. I'm Jason Pyle, Chief Executive Officer of Sapphire Energy. Sapphireis one of several of this nation's best technology companiesworking to produce the next generation of renewable fuels. At Sapphire,we focus on the production of current fuel products, such as gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel, from completely renewable sources, such as photosynthetic microorganisms, or algae. Our mission is to produce fuels for today's oil and gasoline infrastructure, and two weeks ago we announced thatSapphire had produced the first ever renewable, ASTM-compliant, 91 octane gasoline from microorganisms. Please refer to the attached two documents for more background on Sapphire Energy. The Problem One of the many reasons we have cheap food is the availability of cheap energy. We cannot expect to turn large amounts of food back into energy in an economic manner. In today's debate between food and fuel, we should not have to make a choice. Both are critical to the economy, the environment and the world at large; we should not match one against the other. But when price and demand rise for one, both suffer. Instead of a Pyrrhic choice between food and fuel, I offer the opportunity to transcend the debate and produce ample supplies of both, leading this nation toward energy independence. Instead of a dispute between two basic necessities, we need a dialogue that supports truly sustainable alternative fuel sources. Over the past year we have all seen prices and demand rise for commodities such as corn, sugar and vegetable oil. The entire world now feels the pressure. Daily we are faced with reports of people who struggle to afford essentials. A host of factors has contributed to price increases for food and fuel: weather, heightened demand, a weaker dollar, decreasing supplies. Just like energy, food is linked in a global market. Once we begin fueling our cars with food crops, we witness international repercussions. Riots occurred in Mexico earlier this year over expensive corn flour. This price increase has been attributed to U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol products, leaving less maize available for export. Protests over similar issues have occurred around the world, contributing to inflation and political instability. Even at an increased rate of production, current domestic biofuel processes will meet part, but not all, of U.S. demand. If the entire annual domestic soybean crop of 3 billion bushels were converted to biodiesel at the current efficiency of 1.4 gallons per bushel, it would provide about 6.5% of U.S. diesel fuel production. Though certainly a valuable asset to our fuel supply, it is clear that a spectrum of additional and diverse biofuels sources will be necessary to fulfill demand. Congress first adopted the Renewable Fuels Standardin 2005, but wisely recognized that neither biodiesel nor ethanol would be the final solution. It created the program as a bridge to a new generation of fuels, and established a system of incentives to create a marketplace for new technologies. Congress should consider whether the incentives are neutral and fair. Ask whether these mechanisms will lead to the support and development of fuels that will give America true energy independence.Congress should ensure that the next round of incentives can be applied to advanced technologies such as Sapphire's. American innovation is the heart of our people and our economy; I urge you to support this withadditional legislation that promotes a technology-neutral RFS. The Solution Food for fuel concerns are real, but can be managed. Industries such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from vegetable oil can continue to play an important role in the energy mix. However,if we intend to practically and economically reach the goals of the RFS, we must be ready to rapidly embrace new fuel technologies. We must call on American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism for the solutions. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it put the country on a path toward an energy future independent of imported resources. As Americans, we must support this vision. We should strive to maximize production, create fuel-efficient cars, reduce the amount of driving we do and, finally, develop alternatives to fossil fuels. All these efforts deserve increased support. But withouta truly new source of fuel, the system will remain in turmoil, prices will soar and the conflict between food and fuel will persist. Senators, my colleagues and I at Sapphire Energy have been thinking about this for a long time. We knew that an energy source based on agriculture would serve this country best as a stepping stone to a green energy future. We knew that energy requiring vast amounts of fresh water resources was not a viable option. And, finally, if we wanted to make a difference quickly, we knew we needed a fuel that could be transported and refined just like petroleum. Two years ago we asked ourselves, "In a perfect world, how should the next generation of fuel be produced and distributed?" These were our founding principles: 1.Fuel production must not use farmland. Period. 2.Fuel production must be carbon neutral. 3.Fuel production and delivery must use the existing petroleum infrastructure. 4.Fuel production must scale domestically to reach tens of billions of gallons per year. 5.The next generation of fuels must be compatible with today's vehicles. That sounded like a tall order. ButAmericans have dreamed big and delivered in the past - atomic energy, highways and railroads that crisscross our nation, a man on the moon, mapping the human genome. Now, a similar ingenuity has developed a completely renewable and homegrown source of gasoline. I offer that we do not have to sacrifice food production for fuel production. We do not have to choose between powering our industries and feeding the hungry. The Sapphire processes and technologies are so revolutionary that the company is at the forefront of an entirely new industrial category called "Green Crude Production". Products and processes in this categorydiffer significantly from other biofuels because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms, sunlight and CO2; do not result in biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are carbon neutral and renewable; and don't require any food crop or agricultural land. The Sapphireprocess produces a replica of light sweet crude, green crude that can be used in traditional refining to make real gasoline, diesel, and aircraft fuel. Our feedstocks produce10 to100 times more energy per acre than cropland biofuels.A side benefit of our process is thatthe microorganisms consume pollutants and convert them to fuel. Using the Sapphire process, we have dramatically altered the domestic energy and petrochemical landscape and avoided the food versus fuel debate. Please allow me to reiterate, the Sapphire process does not create ethanol; it does not produce biodiesel; it does not use crops or valuable farmland. Sapphire fuel is the fuel we use today, the kind that is in your car or truck or airplane right now. It's gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel. Senators, this is a solution. This is a truly renewable, truly sustainable, alternative fuel- "Sapphire's green crude oil". This fuel, Sapphire fuel, is the world's first truly renewable petrochemical product, produced by converting sunlight and CO2 into a renewable, carbon-neutral alternative to conventional fossil fuels, without the drawbacks of current biofuels. This fuel is compatible with the current energy infrastructure- cars, refineries, and pipelines. Sapphire's scalable production facilities will produce this fuel economically because production will be modular, transportable, fueled by sunlight, and not constrained by arable land, crops, or other natural resources. Sapphire has turned sunlight into gasoline.
Food/fuel link creates unique risks for escalation – food spikes now exacerbates current economic conditions – causes rampant civil conflict *gender modified*
Manila Times November 5 2008 “Let’s attend to food security”,
He tells the world that the economic meltdown now afflicting the globe is gripping(hu)mankind with “the twin crises of finance and food.The world, he warns, will be “far worse” than the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Black October of 1987 or the Asian Economic Collapse of 1997. That is because the financial crisis is accompanied by “high food prices and food shortages, and the steady erosion of agriculture and rural economies.” He says. “Food availability and affordability are the bedrocks of any society. During the Great Depression, Black October and the Asian Economic Crisis, food prices were at historic lows. No matter how dire the situation, food was still plentiful and cheap. Today, the story is different. “Food is in shorter supply; prices have been steadily climbing since 2001 and have escalated dramatically since 2006. According to the tracking of our Organization, food prices rose by 9 percent in 2006, 24 percent in 2007 and surged 51 percent in the past 12 months. “Although we saw some price drops for certain food commodities in the past months, average prices are still much higher than normal and the international markets remain volatile. During normal times, that level of ‘sticker shock’ would spell hardship for most working people and the poor. Coupled with an economic crisis of the enormity taking place today, the impact could be catastrophic.” Dr. He calls on us to give due importance to food security. “The role of food security in wider events should not be underestimated. Food shortages and runaway food price inflation have a history of leading to social unrest and political upheaval. The current crisis has already sparked riots and social turbulence in over 30 countries and contributed to the fall of at least one elected government.
Food riots escalate to global war – ignite all regional hot spots
Bernardo V. Lopez September 10 1998 “Global recession phase two: Catastrophic (Private sector views)”, BusinessWorld
Certainly, global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities. Global recession will see the deferment of globalization, the shrinking of international trade - especially of high-technology commodities such as in the computer, telecommunications, electronic and automotive industries. There will be a return to basics with food security being a prime concern of all governments, over industrialization and trade expansions. Protectionism will reemerge and trade liberalization will suffer a big setback. The WTO-GATT may have to redefine its provisions to adjust to the changing times. Even the World Bank-IMF consortium will experience continued crisis in dealing with financial hemorrhages. There will not be enough funds to rescue ailing economies. A few will get a windfall from the disaster with the erratic movement in world prices of basic goods. But the majority, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), will suffer serious shrinkage. Mega-mergers and acquisitions will rock the corporate landscape. Capital markets will shrink and credit crisis and spiralling interest rates will spread internationally. And environmental advocacy will be shelved in the name of survival. Domestic markets will flourish but only on basic commodities. The focus of enterprise will shift into basic goods in the medium term. Agrarian economies are at an advantage since they are the food producers. Highly industrialized nations will be more affected by the recession. Technologies will concentrate on servicing domestic markets and the agrarian economy will be the first to regrow. The setback on research and development and high-end technologies will be compensated in its eventual focus on agrarian activity. A return to the rural areas will decongest the big cities and the ensuing real estate glut will send prices tumbling down. Tourism and travel will regress by a decade and airlines worldwide will need rescue. Among the indigenous communities and agrarian peasantry, many will shift back to prehistoric subsistence economy. But there will be a more crowded upland situation as lowlanders seek more lands for production. The current crisis for land of indigenous communities will worsen. Land conflicts will increase with the indigenous communities who have nowhere else to go either being massacred in armed conflicts or dying of starvation. Backyard gardens will be precious and home-based food production will flourish. As unemployment expands, labor will shift to self-reliant microenterprises if the little capital available can be sourced. In the past, the US could afford amnesty for millions of illegal migrants because of its resilient economy. But with unemployment increasing, the US will be forced to clamp down on a reemerging illegal migration which will increase rapidly. Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this most affluent nation is not impossible. The weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will have primacy over food production if wars escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back to health. This will further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways internationally.


2. Sugar ethanol industry development is super slow---years before they have a chance to solve advantages
Specht 13
[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2,]

Like all new capitalist industries to emerge in the post-Castro era, whatever ethanol industry arises will have to deal with thepainful transition from socialism to capitalism. The Cuban sugarcane ethanol industry willface similar challenges to other private sector industries that arise in the post-Fidel era. One of these challenges will be simply a lack of people with skills necessary for any industry. According to Edward Gonzalez and Kevin McCarthy of the RAND Corporation, "As a result of 40-plus years of communism, the labor force lacks the kinds of trained managers, accountants, auditors, bankers, insurers, etc., that a robust market economy requires." n53 While these challenges will not be unique to Cuba's ethanol industry, they will put the country at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis existing ethanol exporters such as Brazil. This will be especially true if there is a significant lag time between the expiration of the ethanol tariff barriers at the end of 2011 and the eventual removal of the United [*181] States trade embargo against Cuba. Additionally, because Cuba's ethanol industry is currently almost non-existent, it will need a great deal of foreign expertise and investment to get started. However, such investments are unlikely to be made unless Cuba makes fundamental changes in its business climate. In the words of Gonzalez and McCarthy, "Capital investment, which Cuba's economy desperately needs and which is most likely to be supplied by foreign investors, will be difficult to attract without enforceable contracts, access to neutral adjudication of disputes, and a degree of predictability that has heretofore been lacking." n54 Any post-Castro government will likely begin to make such changes to increase the appeal of the island nation to foreign investment. However, implementing these changes will take time and trial and error, which will slow the creation of a sugarcane-based ethanol industry.

Sugarcane ethanol generates more pollution than previously thought
Campbell, Spak, and Carmichael 11 (J. E. Campbell, S.N. Spak, G. R. Carmichael, UI College of Engineering alumni, an assistant professor with joint appointments in the UI Public Policy Center, School of Urban and Regional Planning, and the UI College of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, “Sugarcane ethanol in Brazil a substantial pollution source”, Western Farm Press, an industry trade magazine that provides growers and agribusiness with in-depth coverage of the region's major crops plus the legislative, environmental and regulatory issues that affect their businesses, 12/29/11,
University of Iowa researchers and their colleagues have shown that ethanol fuel producers in Brazil — the world's top producer of ethanol from sugarcane as an alternative to petroleum-based fuel — generate up to seven times more air pollutants than previously thought. The study, titled "Increased estimates of air-pollution emissions from Brazilian sugarcane ethanol," is featured in the Nature Highlights section and published in the Dec. 11 advance online publication of the journal Nature Climate Change. The research team used agricultural survey data from Brazil to calculate emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the entire production, distribution, and lifecycle of sugarcane ethanol from 2000 to 2008.The estimated pollutants were 1.5 to 7.3 times higher than those from satellite-based methods, according to lead author Elliott Campbell of the University of California, Merced. Greg Carmichael, Karl Kammermeyer Professor of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering in the UI College of Engineering and co-director of the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research (CGRER), and UI assistant professor Scott Spak note that the findings reflect continued practices and trends that are a part of the production of sugarcane ethanol. These include the practice of burning sugarcane fields before harvest, as well as the fact that sugarcane production in Brazil continues to grow. "We found that the vast majority of emissions come from burning the sugarcane fields prior to harvesting, a practice the Brazilian government has been moving to end," says Spak. "However, the sugarcane industry has been expanding rapidly and moving into more remote areas, which makes it much more difficult to enforce new regulations over this growing source of air pollution and greenhouse gases. "As people try to determine how to integrate biofuels into the global economy, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has often been considered a more environmentally friendly fuel source than U.S. corn ethanol. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers sugarcane ethanol an 'advanced biofuel' with fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional biofuels like corn ethanol. These new findings help us refine those estimates and move closer to making more informed comparisons between different fuel sources, and ultimately make better decisions about how to grow and use biofuels," Spak says. In addition to Campbell, Carmichael, and Spak, co-researchers include C.C. Tsao and Y. Chen of the University of California, Merced, and Marcelo Mena-Carrasco of Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile. Campbell and Mena are UI College of Engineering alumni. Spak is an assistant professor with joint appointments in the UI Public Policy Center, School of Urban and Regional Planning, and the UI College of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Sugarcane mills lead to high levels of air pollution
Eudel Eduardo Cepero ’04 (“ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
FOR A CUBA IN TRANSITION” CTP, Cuba Transition Project, published 2004, __

Air. Cuba’s precarious air quality is nothing new. Available statistics¶ report a dramatic 43 percent rise in the incidence of acute respiratory diseases in the past 15 years. A study conducted in mid-2001, in Havana’s¶ so-called historic sector, revealed that the readings of sedimented dust in¶ several points of this area surpassed the limits established by the World¶ Health Organization. The study indicated, moreover, that the chloride and¶ sulfur dioxide contents were also very high in that neighborhood of¶ Cuba’s capital, where a large concentration of the population live in¶ cramped quarters. The poor air quality of several Cuban cities is generally due to local¶ pollution from industrial facilities, such as sugar cane industries, cementfactories, thermoelectric plants, hospital crematoriums, automobiles, andso on. A typical case is Moa, where toxic gases and dust from the nickelplants on the outskirts of the city cause acute respiratory diseases in theinhabitants. The residents of Moa suffer from the sharp ammonia odor, as18the nickel industry lacks the treatment systems needed to avoid the strongpollution that it causes in the area. Improving air quality in the major cities must become an urgent task,¶ given the direct relationship between air pollution and the health of citizens. Probably the best way to begin to control the problem is to establisha basic regulation that indicates which gases cannot be released into theatmosphere, the quantities of those that may be released, as well as thepermissible amounts of suspended dust and particles. Future local andmunicipal governments, due to their proximity to sources of pollution andthose affected by it, must play an important role in enforcing the rules andin handling the claims to eliminate the problem.

War Debate

Great-power nuclear war’s possible
Wittner 11Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?" 11/30/2011
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a dangerthatthey will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons.The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Prefer specific scenarios - even if things make war more difficult it doesn’t make it unthinkable
James Wood Forsyth, Professor, National Security Studies and Thomas E. Griffith Jr., Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs, National War College, "Through the Glass Darkly: The Unlikely Demise of Great-Power War," STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY, Fall 2007,
The United States cannot prepare to put down any and all potential rivals. The costs of such an undertaking would quickly prove to be enormous, especially when domestic spending on programs like social security and Medicare are factored into the security equation. Over the long haul rivals will emerge, and there is little the United States can do except balance against them, as they will prepare to balance against us. In such a world, where states compete for power, one must be concerned with survival. That being the case, it is worth remembering that the most serious threats to the great powers have historically stemmed from other great powers. In the years ahead, as strong challengers emerge, conflicts will arise, making war among the great powers more, not less, likely. 49 Contrary to popular belief, we are not living in a whole new world. The events of September 11 and the wars that have followed have had a pronounced effect on US foreign and defense policy, but they have not done away with the state system. The world is still made up of states that must look out for themselves. To pretend otherwise is to neglect history or to fall prey to presentism—something common among pundits but dangerous for statesmen and men and women of the armed forces. Historically, the most efficient and effective way to ensure state security is through military means. Thus, the importance of the balance of power, which exists to prevent one great power from dominating the rest, has not diminished. Instead, it has been reinvigoratedas states are reminded of the need to defend themselves. The implications of acknowledging the possibility of a great-power war are easier to grasp than to implement. Despite the urgency of the war in Iraq, we need to think seriously about what a great-power war would look like, how it could occur and be prevented, and how it would be fought so that we can gain some understanding about the equipment and forces needed to fight and win. The groundwork for the technologies needed for such a contest needs to be laid today. The difficulties in putting armor on vehicles for Iraq pale in comparison to creating the lead time and resources needed to fight a great-power war. Failing to do so risks lives and jeopardizes US security goals. This does not mean that we should ignore current threats or overlook the need to relieve misery and suffering around the world, what one strategist terms “minding the gap.” 50 As citizens, we should be concerned with the political and human consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, and population growth. We must also fully address the problem of terrorism. But as real as the consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, population growth, and terrorism might be, it is hard to come up with a realistic scenario involving these tragedies that would alter the balance of power. 51 Put simply, in an age of transformation, we cannot neglect the basics. Should the United States find itself in another great-power war, things that are taken for granted today, like air superiority or control of sea lanes, might come up short tomorrow. That technology, economics, democracy, and norms play a role in preventing great-power war is not the issue. The issue is whether they make it unthinkable. Regrettably, they do not, and because they do not, great-power war has a bright future, however tragic that might seem.
Nuclear taboo is eroding
Potter 10 [Dr. William Potter is Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies and Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). “In Search of the Nuclear Taboo: Past, Present, and Future” Proliferation Papers, No. 31, Winter 2010, Chetan]
Less positive indicators of the vitality and durability of any non-use norm, however, also are in evidence. A short list of bad news items includes: the rise in the threat of high consequence nuclear terrorism involving both improvised nuclear devices and intact nuclear weapons, the failure of the CTBT to enter into force, the growing reliance on nuclear weapons by some nuclear weapons possessors tocompensate for shortcomings in manpower and/or conventional weapons (e.g., the Russian Federation and Pakistan), the disavowal by the United States during the Bush administration and, more recently by the Russian Federation, of a number of the “13 Practical Steps on Disarmament” adopted at the 2000 NPT Review Conference,12 stalled negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation over the extension of several key nuclear arms control treaties that will soon expire, the barren results of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and less than encouraging indications for the next Review Conference in 2010, and the erosion of the perceived benefits of non-nuclear weapon status accentuated by the U.S.-India deal and the associated exemption granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008. Perhaps most troubling is the potential for rapid escalation from conventional to nuclear weapons use in several regions, especially in South Asia. Space does not allow a discussion of all of the aforementioned positive and negative indicators, their impact on the probability that past restraint with respect to nuclear weapons use will either persist or lapse, or the likelihood of occurrence of specific breach scenarios. An examination of several trends, however, may provide some clues as to the durability of non-use and the conditions that might trigger at least a departure fromthe current norm/tradition/taboo.

Warming Frontline

1. No extinction – species are resilient.
INPCC 11. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC. 8 March 2011.

In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records."Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present,"describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."
2. No warrant for if ethanol CO2 reduction is adequate – solvency evidence indicates they might help cars, but that leaves factories all across the world still producing CO2.
3. Warming is natural – part of a cycle.
BELL 11-3-2010 (Larry, Prof at U Houston,
Yes, there is no doubt about it. The planet is experiencing a siege of abnormally high temperatures. This has now been going on for 15,000 to 18,000 years, a life-friendly period known as an interglacial cycle. During glacial ages that exist about 90% of the time, our Northern Hemisphere is mostly covered with ice up to several miles thick. Records of these alternating glacial and interglacial fluctuations reveal the near regularity of an electrocardiogram over many hundreds of thousands of years … beginning long before the man-made inventions of agriculture, smokestacks, SUVs and carbon offset trading scams. And just how abnormally warm is it now? Let's consider some "recent" comparisons. Temperatures are probably about the same today as during a "Roman Warm Period" slightly more than 2,000 years ago, and much warmer than the "Dark Ages" that followed. They are cooler than the "Medieval Warm Period" about 1,000 years ago when Eric the Red and his Icelandic Viking tribe settled on grasslands of Greenland's southwestern coast, and much warmer than about 400 years ago when the Northern Hemisphere plunged into depths of a "Little Ice Age" (not a true Ice Age). Near the end of that period Washington's army suffered brutal cold at Valley Forge (1777), and Napoleon's, a frigid retreat from Russia (1812).

5. Carbon dioxide does not lead to global warming—Provides cooling through photosynthesis
Philip Haddad June 22, 2011 PhD Chem. E. retd. Carbon Dioxide does not Cause Global Warming!
There is a mistaken notion that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. Although there is a clear correlation between the rate of rise of temperature and the rate of rise of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, this is because 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide is just an indicator of all the energy consumed. Where does all this energy go? It goes into the atmosphere. The real damage caused by the “carbon dioxide greenhouse” myth it now is assumed that any energy source that does not produce carbon dioxide is acceptable. Hogwash! Energy is heat. As a “greenhouse” gas, carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to water vapor. For example, in arid regions the temperature swings from very hot in the day to frigid at night due to loss of heat through radiation. Yet the atmosphere there has the same carbon dioxide concentration as the more humid areas. Furthermore, carbon dioxide provides cooling through photosynthesis.

7.Too late to stop warming
CLICK GREEN 1-7-2011 (““Unstoppable effects” of climate change will last for 1,000 years,”,000-years.html)
New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres. The study, to be published next week, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary. "We created 'what if' scenarios," says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor. "What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?" The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.


2. Species loss doesn’t snowball
Thomas Gale Moore 98 (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) 1998 Climate of Fear, 98-99
Nevertheless, the loss of a class of living beings does not typically threaten other species. Most animals and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefitsprovided by a particular species from more than a single source. If it were true that the extinction of a single species would produce a cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past should have wiped out all life. Evolution forces various life forms to adjust to change. A few may not make the adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same environment often produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins. It is almost impossible to imagine a single species that, if eliminated, would threaten us humans. Perhaps if the E. coli that are necessary for digestion became extinct, we could no longer exist. But those bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with man and, as long as humans survive, so will they. Thus any animal that hosts a symbiotic species need not fear the loss of its partner. As long as the host remains, so will parasites and symbiotic species.

4. No impact—mass extinctions will be followed by recovery, not collapse
Michael Ruse(Philosopher and Author) August 24 2002 The Globe and Mail
Let me say straight out that this is the most egregiously mislabelled book I have ever encountered. The author follows in the footsteps of the late Jack Sepkoski, a Chicago paleontologist (and incidentally a sometime student of Gould's), who performed brilliant mega-analyses of the fossil record, gathering together huge amounts of data about past species (and higher taxa) and using computers to extract hitherto-unseen trends and salient features of life's history. Specifically, Sepkoski found that there are times of evolutionary breakthrough, rises in numbers of certain forms of life, followed by cooling-off periods and then rapid decline.Together with his colleague David Raup, Sepkoski also investigated the massive extinction episodes that we find in the fossil record - one of the most recent and famous being the time 65 million years ago, when a comet hit the earth and finished off the dinosaurs. Yet fascinatingly, although Sepkoski argued that extinction is incredibly important in life's history - the mammals would hardly have taken over the world if the dinos were still around - he concluded that in the long run, the overall patterns seem impervious to the extinctions. Life has a tempo of its own, apparently, and can continue despite disruptions..

Round 1 vs GSQ JA


The spread of neoliberal market mechanisms by the US is part of a colonial strategy that attempts to control Latin America for the benefit of modernist structures.
Mignolo 2006 [Walter D. Mignolo, Professor of Cultural Studies at Duke University, Citizenship, Knowledge, and the Limits of Humanity American Literary History 18.2 (2006) 312-331]

I will describe the veiled ... took away from them.

The modus operandi of the affirmative’s economics is the historical drive behind colonization and mass violence against Latin America culminating in wars, violence and genocide in the name of their economic ideals
Escobar 2004 [Arturo, Beyond the Third World:
Imperial Globality, Global Coloniality, and Anti-Globalization Social Movements, Third world quarterly 2004.‎]
One of the main consequences... into cultures of destruction.

Our alternative is to reject the affirmative – when confronted with colonial projects the only ethical response is radical negativity. We are compelled to be disobedient to modernity.
Mignolo 09 [Walter D. Mignolo, Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom, Theory and Culture 2009, published 2009]
ONCE UPON a time scholars ... for the final judgment.1

Immigration reform will pass and it political capital is key
Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told ... and other conservative groups.
PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013,, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday ..., immigrationreform and gun control.
Link- Plan specifically derails immigration reform - Economic engagement initiatives PERCEIVED as deprioritizing necessary focus on security issues and drug war while kowtowing to Mexico – perception is key and hardliner target spin control to play on fence sitters largest fears
Shear, 13
(Michael, NYT White house correspondent, 5/5,

Last week, Mr. Obama returned ... with Laura Chinchilla, the president of Costa Rica.

Guest worker is critical to sustain U.S. agriculture
AFBF ‘06
(Texas Agriculture, 2-17,
Failure to include ... current immigration proposals."
Removing guest workers guts U.S. agricultural productivity
Rural Migration News ‘96
The three major grower relatively unstructured."
Food insecurity causes conflict
Marc J. Cohen, Special Assistant to the Director General at the International Food Policy Research Institute, 2001 (February, “2020 Vision: The Prospects for Universal Food Security in the Next Two Decades,”

<Conflict, Refugees, and Food Security. Since the end of the Cold War, ... economic injustice are widespread.[1][25]>

CP Text: The fifty states of the United States and all relevant non-federal territories should fund border infrastructure for improvements of Points of Entry along the United States-Mexico Border.

State action solves – greater state initiative leads to national level policy realignment
Gerber et al. 2010

James Gerber, PhD California Davis San Diego State University Director of the Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) and a Professor of Economics;Francisco Lara-Valencia , PhD Umich, Arizona State University Associate Professor, Director, Research Network for Transborder Development and Governance; Carlos de la Parra, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, PhD Umich, professor Urban and Environmental Studies at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. “Re-Imagining the U.S.-Mexico Border: Policies toward a More Competitive and Sustainable Transborder Region” Global Economy Journal Volume 10, Issue 4 2010

The trajectory toward ... strengthening of U.S.-Mexico ties.

No chance the plan solves – only trilateral cooperation with Canada can ensure successful integration
Pastor 12 – prof and director of the Center for North American Studies @ American
Robert A, Beyond the Continental Divide, July/August,, CMR

The problem is that ... first see the possibility.

No Solvency: improving cross-border trade isn’t sufficient – problems related to the drug trade will undermine cooperation
Walser 2013

Ray Walser, Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation “Obama in Mexico: Change the Reality, Not the Conversation” 5/1/13

Of course there ... most violent criminal elements.
No Solvency – Mexico says no - the new Nieto administration in Mexico is less likely to cooperate with the US on security measures
O’Neil 4/29/13

Shannon O'Neil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. She holds a BA from Yale University, an MA in International Relations from Yale University, and a PhD in Government from Harvard University. “Obama Heads to Mexico” Latin America’s Moment

Yet no less ... as much as Mexico

Turns case – China will undermine US strategy
Ellis 6/6/13 – associate professor with the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (R Evan, “China's New Backyard”,, CMR)

The challenges arising... parts of the world.
5) China won’t go to war - no incentive
Bremmer, 10 – president of Eurasia Group and author (Ian Bremmer, “China vs. America: Fight of the Century,” Prospect, March 22, 2010,

China will not ...privileged investment opportunities.

Democratic peace either empirically disproven or not statistically significant
Rosato 11 PhD, Department of Political Science, The University of Chicago, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The Handbookon the Political Economy of War By Christopher J. Coyne, Rachel L. Mathers
Democratic wars There is c... of war between democracies trivial.

Disease burns out before it can cause extinction – lethal viruses will kill their hosts too fast.

Understanding Evolution 7 (Website on Evolution from UC Berkeley, "Evolution from a virus's view," December,

Since transmission is a ... from the virus's perspective.

No scientific evidence for tipping points or extinction – effects are gradual or localized
Brook 3/3/13 – PhD, leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and is also Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute (Barry, “Worrying About Global Tipping Points Distracts From Real Planetary Threats”,, CMR
We argue that at ... and global change science.
Global Supply
Any single policy can’t solve supply chain inefficiency.
Hoekman, 2013 Bernard Hoekman is a Professor at the European University Institute, Florence Italy, where he directs the Research Programme on International Economics in the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies’ Global Governance Programme. “Global supply chains and trade agreements: beyond business as usual” June 11th, 2013

The current approaches ... on supply-chain costs.