The Chicago Middle School Debate League
A Conference Championship
Junior Varsity and Varsity
1NCs to Case Previews
Contents
Bilateral Investment Treaty-Ogden (JV and Varsity)
Relations Advantage 1NC
CIFIUS Advatage 1NC
Solvency 1NC
Cyber: Bessie Rhodes (JV and Varsity)
Cyber relations Advantage 1NC
US Hegemony Advantage 1NC
Solvency 1NC
Earthquakes: Lincoln (JV)
Advantage 1NC
Solvency 1NC
Human Rights: Old St. Mary’s (JV and Varsity)
SuperBug: King Arts (JV and Varsity)
1NC Disease Frontline
1NC Economy Frontline
1NC Solvency Frontline
Uyghur: Nichols (JV and Varsity)
1NC Case Neg
Bilateral Investment Treaty-Ogden (JV and Varsity)
Relations Advantage 1NC
US relations with China remain strong despite ups and downs
Wu Jianmin 14: late Ambassador Wu Jianmin was Executive Vice Chairman of China Institute for Innovation and Development Strategy, a Senior Research Fellow of the Counselors’ office of the State Council of China, a Member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, a Member and Vice President of the European Academy of Sciences, and Honorary President of the International Bureau of Exhibitions (BIE), 09/26/2014, “‘The China-U.S. Relationship is Basically Good’,”
A few days ago, I was in Washington, D.C. for a conference. While there, I met some American friends. We had an interesting discussion about what seems to me to be a debate going on in the U.S. about China-U.S. relations: One side believes the China-U.S. relationship is going through a rocky patch and is at a “low point,” with many tough issues surfacing. The other side maintains that the overall China-U.S. relationship is good, notwithstanding the present difficulties. I share the second viewpoint for the following reasons: First, the foundation of the China-U.S. relationship remains strong. Let me quote President Xi Jinping’s speech at the opening of the sixth round of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue on July 9: In the past 35 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties, relations between China and the U.S. on the whole have moved forward and made historic progress although there have been ups and downs. There are now over 90 mechanisms for dialogue, and last year the bilateral trade volume exceeded $520 billion, bilateral investment accounted for over $100 billion. There are over 41 pairs of friendly provinces or states from both sides, and 202 sister cities. People-to-people exchanges exceeded 4 million every year. China-U.S. cooperation not only benefits our two peoples, but also promotes peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and the world as a whole. In both China and the U.S. there are people complaining about the lack of strategic trust between the two countries. They mention quite a few facts to illustrate their worries. No one can deny these facts, but a coin has two sides. A comprehensive vision of the China-U.S. relationship is very much needed. I went to the United States for the first time in 1971 to attend the United Nations General Assembly Session. At that time, trade between China and the U.S. was a mere 5 million U.S. dollars. Last year, it amounted to 520 billion U.S. dollars. In the 1970s, ’80s and even ’90s, such a rapid growth in bilateral trade was beyond anybody’s imagination. If there had been no mutual strategic trust, how could this growth have been achieved? It would simply have been inconceivable. I strongly believe that the mutual strategic trust can be achieved and strengthened through practical projects of cooperation. The two sides countries ought to make a greater effort to increase cooperation in all fields. Second, President Xi Jinping and President Obama have reached an important consensus on the new model of major country relationship. The two leaders held an informal summit in Sunnylands, California, in June, 2013. They agreed to build a new model of major country relationship. They were determined not to let the bilateral relationship slip into a Thucydides’ trap.The summit had historic significance; never in history had an established power and a rising power made such an agreement. The two leaders meant what they said and chose to steer the China-U.S. relationship towards a new model of major country relationship, for the benefit of the two countries and the rest of the world. Third, we have a series of mechanisms through which we can talk to each other and manage our differences. I don’t deny the existence of many problems in our bilateral relationship. But the China-U.S. relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world and no bilateral relationship is problem-free. There are problems when the relationship moves backward. There are problems when the relationship stands still. There are also problems when the relationship moves forward. I think that most problems appear along with advances in the China-U.S. relationship. China and the United States are two quite different countries. We have different histories, traditions, and cultures. We have different political and social systems. It is quite natural that we may have problems. What matters is that we have a series of mechanisms to cope with those problems. President Xi Jinping and President Obama meet frequently. They call each other by telephone from time to time and they exchange letters. At the ministerial level, our two sides meet regularly. In addition to track I exchanges, our “Track II” interactions are active and dynamic on issues of mutual concern.
Relations between US and China are resilient and will remain resilient
Peter Mattis 15: Fellow in the China Program at The Jamestown Foundation and the author of the recently-published Analyzing the Chinese Military: A Review Essay and Resource Guide on the People’s Liberation Army, 09/10/2015, “U.S. Policy Towards China: Imposing Costs Doesn't Mean Ending Engagement,”
On January 17, 1980, Michel Oksenberg wrote a memo recapping the trip of then-Secretary of Defense Harold Brown to China, observing “Our China relationship is now fully mature, comprehensive, and complex… Our relationship is mature in that each side making requests of the other in a frank and straightforward manner, confident that raising tough issues and underscoring their importance will not disrupt the relationship. The relationship is losing some of its fragility and acquiring some resilience.” The U.S.-China relationship survived Tiananmen. It survived the comparatively minor scandals of the Clinton era, like the Yinhe incident, campaign finance, and the almost certain theft of U.S. nuclear secrets. It survived the EP-3 incident in 2001 in which, from a U.S. perspective arguably backed by international law with which Beijing is signatory, the Chinese held U.S. servicemen hostage. The basic truthof Oksenberg’s observationstill stands and probably is truer today than when he typed the memo. Despite its ups-and-downs, the U.S.-China relationship is not only resilient but unavoidable if for no other reason than the world’s two largest economies are vastly different, creating trade and investment opportunities for both sides. Billions of dollars change hands. Millions of people cross the Pacific each year for education, business, official exchanges, and personal travel. China and the United States find each other in the UN Security Council as permanent members, and nothing can be resolved there without some consultation. Short of the outbreak of a full-scale war, these things will not stop overnight. The working-level discussions may be vulnerable to the political climate; however, each side finds ways to come back to the table.
CIFIUS Advatage 1NC
No risk of U.S.- China war- economic interdependence, rational leadership, and nuclear deterrence
James Crabtree 16: Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the LKY School and Contributing Editor of the Financial Times, hosted an panel discussion titled “Must America and China Clash? The Troubled Future of Sino-US Relations”. The panelists were: Mr Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Columnist for the Financial Times; Dr Tim Huxley, Executive Director of The International Institute for Strategic Studies – Asia; and Professor Huang Jing, Director of the LKY School’s Centre on Asia and Globalisation, and Lee Foundation Professor on US-China Relations, 03/31/2016, “Five reasons why America and China will not go to war,”
Are the United States and China destined for war against each other? Growing tensions between the two countries in recent years have led to fears that their differences might result in war and bloodshed, but several factors suggest otherwise. First, the background. While countries have put forward competing claims for territory in the South China Sea for centuries, tensions over the disputes have escalated in the past few years. China has built artificial islands and started naval patrols to defend its expansive claims, drawing the ire of US officials such as Admiral Harry B. Harris, Commander of the US Pacific Command, who said in February 2016 that China’s actions in the South China Sea were undermining the region’s stability and security. On the trade front, experts believe that the frontrunners of the ongoing US presidential election – Mrs Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and Mr Donald Trump for the Republicans – might take stronger stances against China if elected to office, worsening the US-China relationship. Mrs Clinton was the architect of the US’s pivot to Asia, which has been widely seen as a move to contain China’s economic rise. Mr Trump, on his part, has promised to impose hefty tariffs on Chinese exports to the US in his quest to “make America great again”. THE CASE AGAINST WAR Despite these worrisome signs, however, war between the two countries is unlikely, according to experts at a recent panel discussion on the US-China relationship, organised by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Nuclear deterrence The main deterrent is the threat of nuclear retaliation. While clashes between ruling powers and rising powers – as the US and China are now, respectively – have led to war in the past, these instances occurred before the nuclear age. Mr Gideon Rachman, who is the chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, noted that both the US and China now possess nuclear weapons. He said: “The stakes were much lower in the past. The leadership of both countries are rational, and neither wants a conflict – one hopes that because they are both nuclear powers, that it won’t come to war.” Mr Rachman said, however, that the tensions between the two countries were unlikely to lead to war: “Rising powers do tend to clash with established powers, and this has led to war in 12 out of 16 cases since the 1500s. But these instances were before the nuclear age, when the stakes were much lower. One hopes that because both China and the US are nuclear powers, it won’t come to war.” Consensus for war is unlikely China’s economic rise has also increased its interdependence with the US. China is the US’s largest goods trading partner, with US$598 billion (S$825 billion) in total, two-way goods trade in 2015. China was also the US’s third-largest goods export market in that year, as well as its largest supplier of goods imports. The multi-faceted relationship between the two countries reduces the likelihood that either side can achieve an internal consensus for war. Even if territorial disputes lead to growing tensions, the financial interests of both countries in maintaining a good relationship might trump such disagreements. “China’s rise has diversified the US’s interests to such an extent that it’s difficult for any US leader to strike a consensus-based China policy,” said Professor Huang Jing, who is director of the LKY School’s Centre on Asia and Globalisation, and the Lee Foundation Professor on US-China Relations. “That gives me hope that the interdependence between the US and China is unprecedented in such a way that you cannot reach a strategic consensus for launching a war against the other side,” he said. Foreign entanglement fatigue The US’s other foreign entanglements and priorities may also dissuade it from war with China. Mr Rachman noted: “The Chinese may have overstepped the mark (in the South China Sea), but they have been quite intelligent in making each move small enough to make it hard for the US to respond aggressively. “The US also has all these other things going in the Middle East, including its fight against ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a terrorist group).” Cooperation, not conflict In fact, the US and China have shared interests that might encourage cooperation rather than conflict. In 2014, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a historic US-China agreement to combat climate change. The two countries also worked together, and with others, to forge the global climate agreement in Paris in late 2015. Terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear threat are other common concerns. Dr Tim Huxley, executive director of The International Institute for Strategic Studies – Asia, said: “Both the US and China agree that there should be more cooperation and intelligence-sharing in the security sphere.” The tensions between the two countries may worsen in the short term, but is unlikely to lead to outright war. Prof Huang summed up their relationship: “They might have a messy engagement with each other, with constant negotiation, but they both want to optimise common interests and manage conflicts. If they both see that they are very close to a fight, they will step back.”
Economic Interdependence mean US and China will never go to war
Leon Whyte 14: second year master’s candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as well as the Senior Editor for the Current Affairs section of the Fletcher Security Review. His research interests include transnational security and U.S. alliances in East Asia, 05/26/2015, “US-China: Mutually Assured Economic Destruction?,”
According to Angell’s theory, if the United States cares about prosperity, it should avoid a war with China, from which it can only suffer economic losses. This potential for economic loss can act as a deterrent for both the United States and China, so the United States should not consider reducing economic dependence on China as a way to increase its own security, as some pundits have suggested. Beyond economic ties between the United States and China, the United States should encourage China’s further integration into the world economic system. The United States should not oppose Chinese efforts to join, or create, multilateral economic institutions, such as the new Chinese led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. In addition, the United States should not attempt to persuade allies from increasing economic ties with China, as it will reduce the chance of an ally dragging the United States into a war with China. It would be hard to find anyone in either China or America who would argue that a conflict would increase prosperity. Both economies are too big to fail without having severe effects on the entire international economic system. Because of this, there exists a state of mutually assured economic destruction between the two countries. Despite this, as John Mearsheimer points out, states value security over economic prosperity, because without security they cannot ensure their survival. This is not to say that the United States should break its economic ties with China, or try to slow China’s economic growth. That would hurt the United States economically and would have little utility for increasing security. In addition, the more economically integrated China and the United States are, the higher the cost is for China to challenge the current system, reducing the chance of war. However, if China perceives that it can benefit from conflict with the United States, China’s action will be the same whether its perception is correct or not.
No US China war- competition doesn’t mean conflict
Graham Allison 13: director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, (Robert Blackwill: Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations) 03/05/2013, “Interview: Lee Kuan Yew on the Future of U.S.- China Relations,”
Competition between the United States and China is inevitable, but conflict is not. This is not the Cold War. The Soviet Union was contesting with the United States for global supremacy. China is acting purely in its own national interests. It is not interested in changing the world. There will be a struggle for influence. I think it will be subdued because the Chinese need the United States, need U.S. markets, U.S. technology, need to have students going to the United States to study the ways and means of doing business so they can improve their lot. It will take them 10, 20, 30 years. If you quarrel with the United States and become bitter enemies, all that information and those technological capabilities will be cut off. The struggle between the two countries will be maintained at the level that allows them to still tap the United States. Unlike U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War, there is no irreconcilable ideological conflict between the United States and a China that has enthusiastically embraced the market. Sino-American relations are both cooperative and competitive. Competition between them is inevitable, but conflict is not. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and China are more likely to view each other as competitors if not adversaries. But the die has not been cast. The best possible outcome is a new understanding that when they cannot cooperate, they will coexist and allow all countries in the Pacific to grow and thrive. A stabilizing factor in their relationship is that each nation requires cooperation from and healthy competition with the other. The danger of a military conflict between China and the United States is low. Chinese leaders know that U.S. military superiority is overwhelming and will remain so for the next few decades. They will modernize their forces not to challenge America but to be able, if necessary, to pressure Taiwan by a blockade or otherwise to destabilize the economy. China's military buildup delivers a strong message to the United States that China is serious about Taiwan. However, the Chinese do not want to clash with anyone -- at least not for the next 15 to 20 years. The Chinese are confident that in 30 years their military will essentially match in sophistication the U.S. military. In the long term, they do not see themselves as disadvantaged in this fight. China will not let an international court arbitrate territorial disputes in the South China Sea, so the presence of U.S. firepower in the Asia-Pacific will be necessary if the U.N. Law of the Sea is to prevail.