Resolution

(2016-2017) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

Violations

Military isn’t T

1nc – military isn’t T

A. Interpretation - Economic and Diplomatic Engagement are attempts to influence through diplomacy or economics – it excludes the militaryResnick 01 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia [Evan Resnick, University, 2001 (“Defining engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)]

A REFINED DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENTIn order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include:DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS-Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations-Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes-Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versaMILITARY CONTACTS-Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa-Arms transfers-Military aid and cooperation-Military exchange and training programs-Confidence and security-building measures-Intelligence sharingECONOMIC CONTACTS-Trade agreements and promotion-Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grantsCULTURAL CONTACTS-Cultural treaties-Inauguration of travel and tourism links-Sport, artistic and academic exchanges(n25)Engagement is an iterated process in which the sender and target state develop a relationship of increasing interdependence, culminating in the endpoint of "normalized relations" characterized by a high level of interactions across multiple domains. Engagement is a quintessential exchange relationship: the target state wants the prestige and material resources that would accrue to it from increased contacts with the sender state, while the sender state seeks to modify the domestic and/or foreign policy behavior of the target state. This deductive logic could adopt a number of different forms or strategies when deployed in practice.(n26) For instance, individual contacts can be established by the sender state at either a low or a high level of conditionality.(n27) Additionally, the sender state can achieve its objectives using engagement through any one of the following causal processes: by directly modifying the behavior of the target regime; by manipulating or reinforcing the target states' domestic balance of political power between competing factions that advocate divergent policies; or by shifting preferences at the grassroots level in the hope that this will precipitate political change from below within the target state.

B. Violation – the plan is military – not diplomatic or economic

C. Standards –

1. Predictable Limits – allowing affs to go beyond economics or diplomacy expands the topic to an unpredictable number of affs

2. Neg Ground – the topic should be limited to economics and diplomacy to lock in neg disads.

2ac to Military isn’t T

1. We Meet – the plan makes a diplomatic push to have China stop making claims in the South China Sea – that meets their interpretation.

2. We meet – military-to-military contacts occur as a summit meeting – the PLA is a head-of state which meets their interpretation.

3. counter-interpretation – Engagement must be the establishment of continual political communicationSheen, 2 – associate professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University (Seongho, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Spring 2002, “US Strategy of Engagement During the Cold War and Its Implication for Sunshine Policy” http://www.kida.re.kr/data/2006/04/14/seongho_sheen.pdf)

Can the sunshine policy really bring positive changes within the North Korean regime and peace to the Korean peninsula? The logic behind Kim Dae-jung’s policy is a refinement of one of the major strategies of economic statecraft and military competition. In his discussion of US economic statecraft towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Michael Mastanduno provides a useful framework for understanding President Kim’s engagement policy towards the North. In general,

engagement promotes positive relations with an enemy as a means of changing the behavior or policies of a target government. It accepts the legitimacy of that government and tries to shape its conduct. Engagement also requires the establishment and continuance of political communication with the target. In engaging the enemy, the state sees political polarization with target or isolation of the target country as undesirable.

We meet that interpretation – we make mil-mil contacts permanent and annual – that creates a predictable limit on the topic and locks in neg ground.

4. Their interpretation destroys the heart of the topic – most of our interactions with China are over military issues – South China Sea, North Korea, nukes – excluding anything to do with the military makes the topic anti-educational.

5. They are wrong – the plan is diplomatic engagementReveron 07 – U.S. Naval War College [Derek S. Reveron, Shaping and Military Diplomacy, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30 - September 2, 2007, http://www.faoa.org/resources/documents/apsa07_proceeding_210193.pdf]

Abstract: While the Department of State is the lead foreign policy organization within the U.S. government, the Department of Defense plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy largely through its a long tradition of international engagement through shaping the security environment. With a forward presence, large planning staffs, and various engagement tools, geographic combatant commanders pursue regional-level engagement by hosting international security conferences, promoting transparency through military-to-military contacts, and providing American military training and equipment. Throughout history, officers, such as Commodore Matthew Perry, General Tony Zinni, and Admiral Joseph Prueher, have played critical roles in U.S. foreign policy formulation and implementation. Officers like these provide ready evidence that the

military does much more than “fight the nation’s wars.” This paper considers military diplomatic engagement activities as a part of U.S. grand strategy and explores the legal and policy implications of an increasingly militarized foreign policy

6. Topicality should be evaluated in terms of what is reasonable – if we are topical and have a reasonable interpretation that should make us topical.

Ext – Military-Military is Diplomatic

Diplomatic Engagement explicitly includes military-military exchangesBrown et al 13 - Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University [Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. Adamson, with Mike M. Mochizuki and Deepa Ollapally, Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability, August 2013, http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf]

Diplomatic Elements• The rebalance entails a significant enhancement of U.S. diplomatic activism in the region. The Obama administration has been engaged at the presidential and cabinet levels, its engagement has been intense and sustained, and its efforts have entailed a range of bilateral and multilateral efforts. U.S. goals include regional security and stability, free and open economic exchange, and political relations and values involving human rights and accountable governance.• Insufficient U.S. engagement would run the risk that Asia-Pacific states and regional groups would fail to create and sustain norms consistent with the inclusive, transparent and liberal international order long fostered by the United States that emphasizes collective security, free trade, and open societies.• Misaligned U.S. engagement would run the risk of regional states, most of which closely watch American involvement in the region, viewing U.S. policy as focused excessively on competition with China and deterrence of Chinese assertiveness and expansion, or focused excessively on accommodation with China at the expense of other regional states and their interests. The ability of the United States to strike the right balance in relations with China has implications that extend far beyond the U.S.-China relationship.Bilateral and multilateral initiatives: The strong record of Obama administration diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region has involved strengthening U.S. alliances; building deeper relationships with partners such as Singapore, Indonesia and India; deepening engagement with Asia-Pacific multilateral institutions; and managing the U.S.- China relationship.Secretary of State Clinton made far more visits to countries in East Asia and the Pacific than her three predecessors. U.S. diplomatic activism was most evident in intensified efforts to expand and upgrade U.S. participation in multilateral Asian and Asia-Pacific institutions. The latter include the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), a regular security dialogue among 27 nations, and the East Asia Summit (EAS) involving 18 Asia-Pacific states. As noted earlier, China has made concerted efforts to develop regional groupings in ways that excluded the United States.The Obama administration appreciates the great importance of regional institutions and arrangements in the AsiaPacific region. The administration sees regional institutions as opportunities for the United States to shape the security and economic development of the region.21 Through the rebalance and the focus on multilateral regional institutions, the administration seeks to advance America’s role in discussions over a broad range of issues, from maritime security and non-proliferation, to the liberalization of trade and investment across the region. Moreover, leaders in the region, particularly in Southeast Asia, generally prefer that U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific be anchored in a strong U.S. commitment to the region’s multilateral institutions. In this important respect, the new U.S. approach is very much in line with the preferences of every regional power – except China.22Starting with its 2009 decision to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) with ASEAN, the Obama administration has pursued a range of policies that have deepened U.S. participation in regional organizations, a process that led to President Obama’s attendance at the annual EAS in 2011 and 2012. The United States has also sought regional cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and disaster preparedness through its engagement in security-related multilateral institutions, as well as regional agreements on trade facilitation initiatives through APEC and the TPP. The Obama administration has sought Economic Support Fund (ESF) monies for assistance to ASEAN for the strengthening of the organization’s Secretariat, as well as education, disaster-preparedness, transnational crime, and anti-corruption programs in the region. The administration has also sought funding for disaster preparedness programs under the ASEAN Regional Forum.The annual gathering of regional defense officials at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) “Shangri-La Dialogue” in Singapore has become a favored venue for U.S. defense secretaries to explain U.S. policies and initiatives. U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel used the June 2013 meeting to highlight the strong, continuing U.S. commitment to regional security. He noted the Obama administration’s strong support for ASEAN and ASEAN-led regional groups. Secretary Hagel called attention to U.S. plans to host a meeting of the ASEAN defense ministers in Hawaii in 2014, and to U.S. support for the ASEAN Defense Ministers Plus grouping that includes the United States in a variety of security-related discussions. The secretary summarized the U.S. commitment by saying, “Our relationships with ASEAN nations are critical.”U.S. engagement with China: At the same, the Obama administration has continued to engage Beijing at the highest levels. In the first months of his second term, President Obama sent the secretaries of Treasury and State to China, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Adviser. Beijing has welcomed these initiatives and the continuation of more than 90 formal dialogues with the United States, including the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue chaired by the U.S. Treasury and State secretaries and their Chinese counterparts. As noted earlier, military-to-military exchanges also have improved. Chinese officials and non-official commentators have been more inclined to emphasize the positive, following the announcement in spring 2013 of the presidential summit in California in June.

Must be Unconditional

1nc – Must be Unconditional

Interpretation - Engagement must be unconditional—it’s distinct from conditional policiesSmith 05 — Karen E. Smith, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Foreign Policy Unit at the London School of Economics, 2005 (“Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing?,” Global Europe: New Terms of Engagement, May, Available Online at http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/484.pdf, Accessed 07-25-2013, p. 23)

First, a few definitions. ‘Engagement’ is a foreign policy strategy of building close ties with the government and/or civil society and/or business community of another state. The intention of this strategy is to undermine illiberal political

and economic practices, and socialise government and other domestic actors into more liberal ways. Most cases of engagement entail primarily building economic links , and encouraging trade and investment in particular . Some observers have variously labelled this strategy one of interdependence, or of ‘oxygen’: economic activity leads to positive political consequences.19

‘Conditionality’, in contrast , is the linking , by a state or international organisation, of perceived benefits to another state (such as aid or trade concessions) to the fulfilment of economic and/or political conditions . ‘Positive conditionality’ entails promising benefits to a state if it fulfils the conditions; ‘negative conditionality’ involves reducing, suspending, or terminating those benefits if the state violates the conditions (in other words, applying sanctions, or a

strategy of ‘asphyxiation’).20 To put it simply, engagement implies ties, but with no strings attached ; conditionality attaches the strings . In another way of looking at it, engagement is more of a bottom-up strategy to induce change in another country, conditionality more of a top-down strategy .

Violation – plans that request behavior in return aren’t topical

Standards –

Neg ground – the appeasement disad and engaging china conditionally kills neg disad ground.

Unpredictable limits – adding conditions makes anything topical since there is no check on what we could offer China in return.

Must be Conditional

1nc – Must be conditional

Interpretation – Engagement is conditional – it offers incentives for changes in behaviorBorer 04 – [Dr. Douglas A. Borer, PhD, Visiting Professor of Political Science at the US Army War College, “Problems of Economic Statecraft: Rethinking Engagement,” Chapter 12, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy2004/12borer.pdf]Visiting Professor of Political Science, Department of National Security and Strategy, US Army War College

The policy of engagement refers to the use of non-coercive means, or positive incentives , by one state to alter the elements of another state’s behavior. As such, some scholars have categorized engagement as a form of appeasement. 21 However, I concur with the view articulated by Randall Schweller that, while engagement can be classified in generic terms as a form of appeasement, an important qualitative difference exists between the two: “Engagement is more than appeasement,” he says:¶ It encompasses any attempt to socialize the dissatisfied power into acceptance of the

established order. In practice engagement may be distinguished from other policies not so much by its goals but by its means: it relies on the promise of rewards rather than the threat of punishment to influence the target’s behavior. . . .

The policy succeeds if such concessions convert the revolutionary state into a status quo power with a stake in the stability of the system. . . . Engagement is most likely to succeed when the established powers are strong enough to mix concessions with credible threats, to use sticks as well as carrots . . . . Otherwise, concessions will signal weakness that emboldens the aggressor to demand more. 22

Violation – the plan is UNCONDITIONAL – it offers engagement without expecting anything in return.

Standards – A. Boosts Aff Ground – offering things without expecting returns makes any

small aff topical because the aff can just make concessions to China. The aff should have to prove that China wants the offer.

B. Neg ground – conditional changes are key to neg ground – locks in arguments about negotiating with China which is distinct from the status quo – otherwise the aff can be small changes.

Resolution Definitions

Engagement Standards

Broad

Engagement is broad and poorly definedResnick 01 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia [Evan Resnick, University, 2001 (“Defining engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)]

While the term "engagement" enjoys great consistency and clarity of meaning in the discourse of romantic love, it enjoys neither in the discourse of statecraft. Currently, practitioners and scholars of American foreign policy are vigorously debating the merits of engagement as a strategy for modifying the behavior of unsavory regimes. The quality of this debate, however, is diminished by the persistent inability of the US foreign policy establishment to advance a coherent and analytically rigorous conceptualization of engagement. In this essay, I begin with a brief survey of the conceptual fog that surrounds engagement and then attempt to give a more refined definition. I will use this definition as the basis for drawing a sharp distinction between engagement and alternative policy approaches, especially appeasement, isolation and containment.In the contemporary lexicon of United States foreign policy, few terms have been as frequently or as confusingly invoked as that of engagement.(n1) A growing consensus extols the virtues of engagement as the most promising policy for managing the threats posed to the US by foreign adversaries. In recent years, engagement constituted the Clinton administration's declared approach in the conduct of bilateral relations with such countries as China, Russia, North Korea and Vietnam.Robert Suettinger, a onetime member of the Clinton administration's National Security Council, remarked that the word engagement has "been overused and poorly defined by a variety of policymakers and speechwriters" and has "become shopworn to the point that there is little agreement on what it actually means."(n2) The Clinton foreign policy team attributed five distinct meanings to engagement:(n3)1) A broad-based grand strategic orientation: In this sense, engagement is considered synonymous with American internationalism and global leadership. For example, in a 1993 speech, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake observed that American public opinion was divided into two rival camps: "On the one side is protectionism and limited foreign engagement; on the other is active American engagement abroad on behalf of democracy and expanded trade."(n4)2) A specific approach to managing bilateral relations with a target state through the unconditional provision of continuous concessions to that state: During the 1992 presidential campaign, candidate Bill Clinton criticized the Bush administration's "ill-advised and failed" policy of "constructive engagement" toward China as one that "coddled the dictators and pleaded for progress, but refused to impose penalties for intransigence."(n5)3) A bilateral policy characterized by the conditional provision of concessions to a target state: The Clinton administration announced in May 1993 that the future extension of Most Favored Nation trading status to China would be conditional on improvements in the Chinese government's domestic human rights record.(n6) Likewise, in the Agreed Framework signed by the US and North Korea in October 1994, the US agreed to provide North Korea with heavy oil, new light-water nuclear reactors and eventual diplomatic and economic normalization in exchange for a freeze in the North's nuclear weapons program.(n7)4) A bilateral policy characterized by the broadening of contacts in areas of mutual interest with a target state: Key to this notion of engagement is the idea that areas of dialogue and fruitful cooperation should be broadened and not be held hostage through linkage to areas of continuing disagreement and friction. The Clinton administration inaugurated such a policy toward China in May 1994 by declaring that it would not tie the annual MFN decision to the Chinese government's human rights record.(n8) Similarly, the administration's foreign policy toward the Russian Federation has largely been one of engagement and described as an effort to "build areas of agreement and...develop policies to manage our differences."(n9)5) A bilateral policy characterized by the provision of technical assistance to facilitate economic and political liberalization in a target state: In its 1999 national security report, the White House proclaimed that its "strategy of engagement with each of the NIS [Newly Independent States]" consisted of "working with grassroots organizations, independent media, and emerging entrepreneurs" to "improve electoral processes and help strengthen civil society," and to help the governments of the NIS to "build the laws, institutions and skills needed for a market democracy, to fight crime and corruption [and] to advance human rights and the rule of law."(n10)Unfortunately, scholars have not fared better than policymakers in the effort to conceptualize engagement because they often make at least one of the following critical errors: (1) treating engagement as a synonym for appeasement; (2 ) defining engagement so expansively that it essentially constitutes any policy relying on positive sanctions; (3) defining engagement in an unnecessarily restrictive manner.

Clear Definitions Key

Clear definition of engagement key to effective understanding of the topic and policy-makingResnick 01 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia [Evan Resnick, University, 2001 (“Defining engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)]

CONCLUSIONIn matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition for effective policymaking. Decisionmakers who invoke critical terms in an erratic, ad hoc fashion risk alienating their constituencies. They also risk exacerbating misperceptions and hostility among those the policies target. Scholars who commit the same error undercut their ability to conduct valuable empirical research. Hence, if scholars and policymakers fail rigorously to define "engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.The refined definition I propose as a substitute for existing descriptions of engagement is different in two important ways: First, it clarifies the menu of choices available for policymakers by allowing engagement to be distinguished from related approaches such as appeasement, containment and isolation. Second, it lays the groundwork for systematic and objective research on historical cases of engagement in order to discern the conditions under which it can be used effectively. Such research will, in turn, help policymakers acquire the information necessary to better manage the rogue states of the 21st century.

Broad too Expansive

Broad interpretations of engagement include EVERYTHINGResnick 01 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia [Evan Resnick, University, 2001 (“Defining engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)]

DEFINING ENGAGEMENT TOO BROADLYA second problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency to define the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition of engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague that essentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement. The definition put forth by Alastair lain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According to Johnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-status quo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US Foreign Policy, Robert Litwak defines engagement as "positive sanctions."(n15) Moreover, in their edited volume, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan define engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives."(n16)As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of alternative options in the realm of negative sanctions from which to choose--including covert action, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, containment, limited war and total war--it is only reasonable to expect that they should have a similar menu of options in the realm of positive sanctions than simply engagement. Equating engagement with positive sanctions risks lumping together a variety of discrete actions that could be analyzed by distinguishing among them and comparing them as separate policies.

Limits Impact

Undefined “engagement” is expansiveWallin 13 – Fellow at American Security Project, Masters in Public Diplomacy @ USC [Matthew Wallin, Jun 11, 2013, Engagement: What does it Mean for Public Diplomacy?, http://www.americansecurityproject.org/engagement-what-does-it-mean-for-public-diplomacy/] doa 4-20-16

In recent years, diplomatic circles have been relying on the term “engagement” to describe various communication and public diplomacy activities with foreign publics. The term is used almost universally in government, the military, academia, corporations and think tanks to describe a range of practices designed to influence or persuade foreign audiences.Exploring the sudden shift to “engagement” as a preferred term by these circles, Dr. Nick Cull wrote in 2009:

The term engagement has much to commend it. It is not the term public diplomacy. It is already used in slightly different ways in the worlds of marketing and the military and can therefore be assumed to fall reassuringly on the ears of both those constituencies. It has already gained currency among NGOs and other practitioners of international communication.

But missing from the discourse about engagement and its attractiveness as a term is a substantial discussion of exactly what it means. Since “engagement” is used so commonly without explanations of what it actually entails, it appears to have become little more than a buzzword developed to encompass various activities that are otherwise difficult to succinctly describe.Let’s look at a few examples of how the term engagement has been used.When presenting statistics about social media activities undertaken by the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, Ambassador Alberto Fernandez described the number of “engagements” the CSCC’s digital outreach team had made that year as in the thousands. Explaining what an engagement is, Fernandez stated that engagements “consist of written text posted to online forums, Facebook, or the comments sections of media Web sites.” So does each post the CSCC makes in a forum count as an “engagement?” Does each post on Facebook count as an engagement? If so, this appears to set a low bar for what is considered engagement.

In another case, the military uses the term to describe personal relationships and building partner capacity. However, engagement doesn’t always imply benign activities either—as when the military uses the word “engage,” it is often in the context of destroying a target.If anything, using the term engagement can sometimes provide the user with a perceived ability to forgo one of the most difficult parts of public diplomacy—that is demonstrating metrics which indicate whether or not one’s efforts are succeeding at influencing the target audience. In other words, the user of “engagement” may feel as though they needn’t actually explain the effects of their activities because they are “engaging” by nature of the word.This is why analyzing the content of engagement is vital. Is a forum post engaging? Is a billboard engaging? Is a TV advertisement engaging? This can be difficult to determine, and cannot be assumed.

Focus on the “ends” bad

Using the end as focus wrecks topic educationResnick 01 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, “Defining Engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco

Some scholars have excessively narrowed the definition of engagement by defining it according to the ends

sought rather than the means employed. For example, Schweller and Wohlforth assert that if any distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement, "it is that the goal of engagement is not simply tension-reduction and the avoidance of war but also an attempt to socialize [a] dissatisfied power into

acceptance of the established order."(n17) Such ends-based definitions hinder the study of engagement in two ways. First, because the act of policymaking consists of selecting from a variety of alternative means in the pursuit of a given end(s), it stands

to reason that policy instruments are more effectively conceptualized in terms of means rather than ends. When defined as different means, policies can be more easily compared with one another across a whole spectrum of discrete ends, in order to gauge more accurately the circumstances under which each policy is relatively more or less effective.(n18)

Second, scholars who define engagement as the end of peaceful socialization inevitably create a bias for future empirical research on engagement outcomes . This is because it is difficult to imagine a more ambitious foreign policy objective than the peaceable transformation of a revisionist state that rejects the dominant norms and practices of the international system into a status-quo state that embodies those same norms and practices. The equation of engagement with socialization alone forecloses the possibility that engagement could be employed to accomplish

more modest goals such as tension-reduction. Therefore, all else being equal, scholars using this loaded definition will be predisposed to conclude from examination only of the hardest cases of attempted socialization that the policy is ineffective.(n19) Considering engagement as a set of means would enable analysts to more fairly assess the effectiveness of engagement relative to other policies in achieving an array of ends .

Engagement is . . .

Direct Talks, Pressure to Change

Engagement requires direct talks & pressure to induce changeCrocker 09 - professor of strategic studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, was an assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1981 to 1989 [Chester A. Crocker, Terms of Engagement, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html?_r=0] doa: 4 – 19 – 16

PRESIDENT OBAMA will have a hard time achieving his foreign policy goals until he masters some key terms and better manages the expectations they convey. Given the furor that will surround the news of America’s readiness to hold talks with Iran, he could start with “engagement” — one of the trickiest terms in the policy lexicon.The Obama administration has used this term to contrast its approach with its predecessor’s resistance to talking with adversaries and troublemakers. His critics show that they misunderstand the concept of engagement when they ridicule it as making nice with nasty or hostile regimes.Let’s get a few things straight. Engagement in statecraft is not about sweet talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue regimes can be solved if only we would talk to them. Engagement is not normalization, and its goal is not improved relations. It is not akin to détente, working for rapprochement, or appeasement.So how do you define an engagement strategy? It does require direct talks . There is simply no better way to convey

authoritative statements of position or to hear responses. But establishing talks is just a first step. The goal of engagement is to change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior.Diplomatic engagement is proven to work — in the right circumstances. American diplomats have used it to change the calculations and behavior of regimes as varied as the Soviet Union, South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, China, Libya and, intermittently, Syria.There is no cookie-cutter formula for making it work, however. In southern Africa in the 1980s, we directed our focus toward stemming violence between white-ruled South Africa and its black-ruled neighbors. This strategy put a priority on regional conflict management in order to stop cross-border attacks and create better conditions for internal political change. The United States also engaged with the Cubans in an effort aimed at achieving independence for Namibia (from South Africa) and at the removal of Cuban troops from Angola. In Mozambique, engagement meant building a constructive relationship with the United States, restraining South African interference in Mozambique’s internal conflicts and weaning the country from its Soviet alignment.More recently, the Bush administration’s strategy for engagement with Libya ultimately led to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the elimination of that country’s programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.While the details differ, each case of engagement has common elements. Engagement is a process, not a destination. It involves exerting pressure, by raising questions and hypothetical possibilities, and by probing the other country’s assumptions and thinking. Above all, it involves testing how far the other country might be willing to go. Properly understood, the diplomacy of engagement means raising questions that the other country may wish to avoid or be politically unable to answer. It places the ball in the other country’s court.

Requires Dependence – excludes gift-giving

Engagement requires establishing dependence – distinct from just gift-giving, appeasementResnick 01 - Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia [Evan Resnick, University, 2001 (“Defining engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)]

Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas both policies are positive sanctions--insofar as they add to the power and prestige of the target state--engagement does so in a less direct and less militarized fashion than appeasement. In addition, engagement differs from appeasement by establishing an increasingly interdependent relationship between the sender and the target state. At any juncture, the sender state can, in theory, abrogate such a relationship at some (ideally prohibitive) cost to the target state.(n34) Appeasement, on the other hand, does not involve the establishment of contacts or interdependence between the appeaser and the appeased. Territory and/or a sphere of influence are merely transferred by one party to the other either unconditionally or in exchange for certain concessions on the part of the target state.

Distinct from “to engage”

Engagement isn’t “to engage”Capie 02 – David H. Capie, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, and Paul M. Evans, Co-CEO and Chairman of the Executive Council of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, , The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon, p. 118

According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the noun engagement and the verb to engage have several different meanings. Among these, to engage can mean "to employ busily", "to hold a person's attention", "to bind by a promise (usually a marriage)", or to "come into battle with an enemy". The noun engagement can mean "the act or state of engaging or being engaged", an "appointment with another person", "a betrothal", "an encounter between hostile forces", or "a moral commitment". The gerund engaging means to be "attractive or charming". In the literature on security in the Asia-

Pacific, engagement most commonly refers to policies regarding the People's Republic of China. However, the term has been used in many different ways leading to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty . A Business Week headline summed up the confusion: "Does 'engagement' mean fight or marry?"1

Although one of the most important and ubiquitous terms in the Asia-Pacific security discourse, engagement is generally under-theorized. Most of the literature on the term is either descriptive or prescriptive. There is little agreement about the meaning of

engagement and considerable inconsistency in its use. The New York Times noted that "there are many definitions of engagement" and described it as a "moving target" .2 This indeterminacy has prompted a host of scholars and officials to offer their own modified interpretations of engagement , for example deep engagement or conditional engagement. These, in turn, have arguably made for less, rather than greater conceptual clarity.

Government to Government

With the government – not trade OR privateDaga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (Sergio, “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic:U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela”, National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus on government-to-government engagement through 1) international trade agreements designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast government-to-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3) international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution;

however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government , some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.

Engagement requires sustained government-to-government interactionSheen, 2 – associate professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University (Seongho, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Spring 2002, “US Strategy of Engagement During the Cold War and Its Implication for Sunshine Policy” http://www.kida.re.kr/data/2006/04/14/seongho_sheen.pdf)

Can the sunshine policy really bring positive changes within the North Korean regime and peace to the Korean peninsula? The logic behind Kim Dae-jung’s policy is a refinement of one of the major strategies of economic statecraft and military competition. In his discussion of US economic statecraft towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Michael Mastanduno provides a useful framework for understanding President Kim’s engagement policy towards the North. In general,

engagement promotes positive relations with an enemy as a means of changing the behavior or policies of a target government. It accepts the legitimacy of that government and tries to shape its conduct. Engagement also requires the establishment and continuance of political communication with the target. In engaging the enemy, the state sees political polarization with target or isolation of the target country as undesirable.

Both Conditional or Unconditional

consensus of literature supports the idea that conditional engagement produces better debatesKahler 4 Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093 Scott L. Kastner Department of Government and Politics University of Maryland 3140 Tydings Hall College Park, MD 20742 STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN

Scholars have usefully distinguished between two types of economic engagement: conditional policies that require an explicit quid-pro-quo on the part of the target country, and policies that are unconditional. Conditional policies, sometimes called “linkage” or economic “carrots,” are the inverse of economic sanctions. Instead of threatening a target country with a sanction absent a change in

policy, conditional engagement policies promise increased economic flows in exchange for policy change .

Drezner’s (1999/2000) analysis of conditional economic inducements yields a set of highly plausible expectations concerning when conditional strategies are likely to be employed, and when they are likely to succeed. Specifically, he suggests that

reasons exist to believe , a priori, that policies of conditional engagement will be less prevalent than economic sanctions. First, economic coercion is costly if it fails (sanctions are only carried out if the target country fails to change policy), while conditional engagement is costly if it succeeds (economic payoffs are delivered only if the target country does change policy). Second, states may be reluctant to offer economic inducements with adversaries with whom they expect long-term conflict, as this may undermine their resolve in the eyes of their opponent while also making the opponent stronger. Third, the potential for market failure in an anarchic international setting looms large: both the initiating and the target states must be capable of making a credible commitment to uphold their end of the bargain. These factors lead Drezner to hypothesize that the use of economic carrots is most likely to occur and succeed between democracies (because democracies are better able to make credible commitments than non-democracies), within the context of international regimes (because such

regimes reduce the transactions costs of market exchange), and, among adversaries, only after coercive threats are first used. Unconditional engagement strategies are more passive in that they do not include a specific quid-pro-quo. Rather, countries deploy economic links with an adversary in the hopes that economic interdependence itself will, over time, effect change in the target’s foreign policy behavior and yield a reduced threat of military conflict at the bilateral level. How increased commercial and/or financial integration at the bilateral level might yield an improved bilateral political environment is not obvious . While most empirical studies on the subject find that increased economic ties tend to be associated with a

reduced likelihood of military violence, no consensus exists regarding how such effects are realized . At a minimum, two causal pathways exist that state leaders might seek to exploit by pursuing a policy of unconditional engagement: economic interdependence can act as a constraint on the foreign policy behavior of the target state, and economic interdependence can act as a transforming agent that helps to reshape the goals of the target state. Perhaps the most widely accepted theoretical link between economic integration and a reduced danger of military violence centers on the constraints imposed on state behavior by increasing economic exchange. Once established, a disruption in economic relations between countries would be costly on two levels. First, firms might lose assets that could not readily be redeployed elsewhere. For example, direct investments cannot easily be moved, and may be lost (i.e. seized or destroyed) if war breaks out. Second, firms engaged in bilateral economic exchange would be forced to search for next-best alternatives, which could impose significant costs on an economy as a whole if bilateral commercial ties are extensive. In short, economic interdependence makes war more costly, meaning that states will be less likely to initiate armed conflict against countries with which they are integrated economically. Constraining effects of economic interdependence may also arise more indirectly: as economic integration between two countries increases, an increasing number of economic actors within those two countries benefit directly from bilateral economic ties, who in turn are likely to support—and lobby for—stable bilateral political relations. Economic integration, in other words, creates vested interests in peace (Hirschman 1945; Russett and Oneal 2001; Levy 2003). These interests are likely to become more influential as economic ties grow (Rogowski 1989), suggesting that leaders will pay increasing domestic political costs for implementing policies that destabilize bilateral political relations. Domestic political institutions might act as important intervening variables here. For example, these effects may be most likely to take effect in democracies, which provide actors who benefit from trade clear paths through which to influence the political process (Papayoanou 1999; Gelpi and Grieco 2003; Russett and Oneal 2001). Democracies, of course, likely vary in the influence they give to commercial interests, as do authoritarian polities (e.g. Papayoanou and Kastner 1999/2000). Recently, scholars have questioned whether the increased costs of military conflict associated with economic interdependence necessarily act as a constraint on state leaders. Indeed, without further assumptions, the effects appear indeterminate: while economic interdependence increases the costs of conflict for the target state, it also increases those costs for the engaging state. On the one hand, increased costs for the target might make it less willing to provoke conflict, but on the other hand, the increased costs for the engaging state may paradoxically embolden the target state, believing it could get away with more before provoking a strong response (Morrow 1999, 2003; Gartzke 2003; Gartzke et al.

2001). This critique suggests that for an unconditional engagement policy exploiting the constraining effects of economic interdependence to work, leaders in the target state must value the benefits afforded by economic integration more than leaders in the initiating state (on this point, see also Abdelal and Kirshner 1999/2000). Such asymmetry is most likely to arise when the target state’s economy depends more heavily on bilateral economic exchange than the sending state (Hirschman 1945), and when domestic political institutions in the target state give the benefactors of bilateral exchange considerable political influence (Papayoanou and Kastner 1999/2000). The second mechanism through which economic interdependence might effect improved political relations centers on elite transformation that reshapes state strategies. This transformation can be defined as both an elevation at the national level of goals of economic welfare (and a concurrent devaluation of the old values of military status and territorial acquisition) and a systemic transformation of values away from the military orientation of the Westphalian order. Such arguments have a long heritage, including both Joseph Schumpeter's analysis of imperialism as an atavism that would be superseded by more pacific bourgeois values, and interwar idealists, who sometimes based their arguments on the material transformations underway in the international system. How economic interdependence creates transformed (and more pacific) elites is less clear. Learning may take place at the individual level—the cases of Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping come to mind—but such learning must often take place before policy encourages increased interdependence. Processes of creating shared values and identity and economic influences on broader social learning are more difficult to trace. A different and perhaps more plausible transformational route follows from the vested interests argument outlined above. What appears to be social learning is in effect coalitional change: internationalist elites committed to economic openness and international stability supplant or marginalize nationalist elites wedded to the threat or use of military force. Whether a society is a pluralist democracy or not, interests tied to the international economy become a critical part of the selectorate to whom political elites must respond. Etel Solingen (1998) outlines such a model of transformation in

regional orders when strong internationalist coalitions committed to economic liberalization create zones of stable peace. The barriers to a successful unconditional engagement strategy that aims to achieve elite transformation in the target state would appear substantial. Strategies in this vein are likely to encounter substantial resistance in the target state: most elites probably don’t want to be “transformed,” and they certainly don’t want to be replaced. Faced with likely resistance, initiating states pursuing this strategy must be prepared to open economic links unilaterally (i.e. without the cooperation of the target), hoping that the prospect of bilateral economic ties will generate a latent coalition of groups desiring a

peaceful environment in which they could take advantage of those ties, and that eventually a political entrepreneur will mobilize this latent coalition in an effort to challenge the existing order. Because transformational strategies may require long time horizons and may also incur repeated disappointments, they are perhaps most likely to be successful when a broad and stable consensus—one able to withstand changes in governing party—exists within the country initiating such a strategy (see, for example, Davis 1999).

Engagement is Unconditional

Offering rewards is unconditional

The plan is conditionalityReinhard 10 — Janine Reinhard, Research Fellow and Ph.D. Candidate at the Department for Politics and Management at Konstanz University in Germany, 2010 (“EU Democracy Promotion Through Conditionality In Its Neighborhood: The Temptation of Membership Perspective or Flexible Integration?,” Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Volume 4, Issue 3, Summer, Available Online at http://www.cria-online.org/Journal/12/Done_EU_Democracy_Promotion_through_Conditionality_in_its_Neighbourhood_Janine_Reinhard.pdf, Accessed 07-28-2013, p. 200)

How Does Conditionality Work?

Conditionality can be defined as an agreement between two actors, in which actor 1 offers a reward to actor 2 .11 This reward is granted if actor 2 fulfils certain conditions . In the case the conditions are not met by actor 2 the reward is simply withheld ( positive conditionality ) or punishment follows ( negative conditionality ). To exert conditionality as a reward-based policy between two actors, asymmetric negotiation power has to be in place: actor 1 has to be able to offer attractive incentives which actor 2 wants to have and cannot achieve easily otherwise.

When analysing social interaction from an incentives- and interest-based position, conditionality is first of all understood as a mode of action. Additionally, it

can be used purposely as a political strategy to exert a reward-based policy between two political actors and to institutionalize asymmetric interaction. Conditionality can be used to promote democracy by combining attractive rewards with certain conditions of democratic development. In this case, this study will adopt the term “democratic conditionality”.

Quid Pro Quo is conditional

Offering a quid pro quo is conditionalityTocci 07 — Nathalie Tocci, Senior Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali in Italy, 2007 (“The EU's role in conflict resolution: a framework of analysis,” The EU and Conflict Resolution: Promoting Peace in the Backyard, Published by Routledge, ISBN 1134123388, p. 10)

ConditionalityParticularly over the last decade and in the process of the eastern enlargement, the EU has developed its policies of conditionality as a means to transform the

governing structures, the economy and the civil society of the candidate countries. Generally, conditionality can be defined as a strategy whereby a reward is granted or withheld depending on the fulfilment of an attached condition . More specifically, 'political conditionality entails the linking, by a state or international organization, of perceived benefits to another state, to the fulfilment of conditions

relating to the protection of human rights and the advancement of democratic principles' (Smith 1998: 256). Obligations can thus be political and economic, as well as technical, legal, institutional and related to the EU's acquis communautaire.

Conditionality can be positive or negative , ex ante or ex post . Positive conditionality entails the promise of a benefit, in return for the fulfilment of a predetermined condition . Both the promise and the obligation are

specified in the contract. It is most frequently used in the delivery of economic assistance , as well as within the context of EU

accession. Negative conditionality involves the infliction of a punishment in the event of the violation of a specified obligation. Diplomatic and economic sanctions on Serbia (1991-2000), Syria (1987-94), Libya (1987-92/1999-03) and

Belarus (1998-9) are clear cases of negative conditionality.

Engagement excludes conditionality

Engagement and conditionality are competing strategies — yes, this is in the context of the United StatesSmith 05 — Karen E. Smith, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Foreign Policy Unit at the London School of Economics, 2005 (“Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing?,” Global Europe: New Terms of Engagement, May, Available Online at http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/484.pdf, Accessed 07-25-2013, p. 26-27)

Now, as to whether the two strategies of engagement and conditionality are incompatible or mutually reinforcing, important questions to consider are whether the strategies are to be applied by the same actor

(the EU, in our case) or by different [end page 26] international actors (the EU and the US, say), and whether both strategies are to be used on the same target country, or within the same region (south-eastern Europe, the former Soviet

Union, the Mediterranean), or globally. We already have several cases in which the EU and the US have used different strategies towards the same country: Cuba , Iran , and Libya spring to mind. The US has tried to ‘asphyxiate’ all three countries, the EU has taken a much softer stance – in particular offering engagement, but with conditions attached . Granted, there is little coordination between the US and EU over strategies, but in none of those cases can we categorically say that the combination of strategies has been mutually reinforcing – which does not augur well for the use of both by the same actor towards the same country.

There are also clear difficulties in using both strategies within the same region or even globally . This is

because, inevitably, some target countries will question why they are subjected to conditionality while others are not. Unless this can be justified to outsiders (as well as to any domestic critics) the impact of both strategies could be diminished : in one case because conditionality could spark resistance , in the other because engagement could be seen by the target government as implying it has a free hand to do as it pleases .

Economic engagement excludes short-term policies — it must be unconditional. Çelik 11 — Arda Can Çelik, Graduate Student in the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University (Sweden), 2011 (Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, Published by GRIN Verlag, ISBN 9783640962907, p. 11)

Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic Diplomacy . They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks

economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender state to change the political behaviour of target state. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools , they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes . (Kahler&Kastner, 2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway to perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as

follows “It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations’’. (p523-abstact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way that ‘’the direct and positive linkage of interests of states where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.’’

Conditionality is inherently positive and negative Smith 05 — Karen E. Smith, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Foreign Policy Unit at the London School of Economics, 2005 (“Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing?,” Global Europe: New Terms of Engagement, May, Available Online at http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/484.pdf, Accessed 07-25-2013, p. 26)

But regardless of why there is the reluctance to use negative conditionality, the outcome is inconsistent . Yet

arguably, you cannot use positive conditionality exclusively : once ‘carrots are consumed’ (the benefits offered and

taken up), there must be a way to keep up the pressure on third countries to continue with or at least not reverse reforms. Conditionality, in other words, is necessarily one coin with two sides .

Serious policy differences between engagement and conditionality — choosing the right tool is essential for foreign policy successSmith 05 — Karen E. Smith, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Foreign Policy Unit at the London School of Economics, 2005 (“Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing?,” Global Europe: New Terms of Engagement, May, Available Online at http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/484.pdf, Accessed 07-25-2013, p. 23-24)

There are well-known advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Engagement can help to establish the conditions [end page 23] under which democratic principles and human rights, for example, can be protected. It can foster the long-term processes (learning; development of a middle class; strengthening of the freedom of the press) that allow local actors to effect political and economic change. Engagement challenges sovereignty less than conditionality does , and so will be more acceptable to governments. It could be more effective to persuade governments to comply with liberal norms than to coerce them to do so – as coercion may simply induce stubborn resistance.

But put ‘constructive’ in front of the term, and some of its negative connotations become clearer : constructive engagement with apartheid South Africa was criticised for allowing Western/Northern governments (in particular the US and UK) to continue with business as usual, putting at risk no important commercial exchanges, yet to claim to domestic audiences that quiet diplomacy was more effective.

Engagement, in other words, can allow trade and investment to proceed unhindered even with quite despicable regimes.

But there is another, more practical problem with engagement: such a strategy will work only if domestic actors want to trade, invest, ‘engage’ with the target state. Where practices are so illiberal as to make the economic environment unattractive, or where conditions are impossible (in war-torn states, for example), or where the general state of development or level of natural resources is low, engagement does not seem likely to work well .

A strategy of conditionality has the potential to be quite effective if the target state wants the benefits on offer or fears losing them. Some observers have argued that conditionality is of most use in encouraging countries to improve their human rights records or implement specific economic reforms, but is not well suited for grander objectives such as encouraging democracy (which depends overwhelmingly on local conditions and cannot be

imposed by outsiders). But there are serious drawbacks to using conditionality , and negative conditionality in particular.

Engagement is Conditional

EE must be Conditional

Economic engagement must be conditional Shinn 96 [James Shinn, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia at the CFR in New York City and director of the council’s multi-year Asia Project, worked on economic affairs in the East Asia Bureau of the US Dept of State, “Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China,” pp. 9 and 11, google books]

In sum, conditional engagement consists of a set of objectives, a strategy for attaining those objectives, and tactics (specific policies) for implementing that strategy.

The objectives of conditional engagement are the ten principles, which were selected to preserve American vital interests in Asia while accommodating China’s emergence as a major power.

The overall strategy of conditional engagement follows two parallel lines: economic engagement, to promote the integration of China into the global trading and financial systems; and security engagement, to encourage compliance with the ten principles by diplomatic and military means when economic incentives do not suffice , in order to hedge against the risk of the emergence of a belligerent China.

The tactics of economic engagement should promote China’s economic integration through negotiations

on trade liberalization, institution building, and educational exchanges. While a carrots-and-sticks approach may be appropriate within the economic arena, the use of trade sanction to achieve short-term political goals is discouraged.

The tactics of security engagement should reduce the risks posed by China’s rapid military expansion, its lack of transparency, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and transnational problems such as crime and illegal migration, by engaging in arms control negotiations, multilateral efforts, and a loosely-structured defensive military arrangement in Asia.8

[To footnotes]8. Conditional engagement’s recommended tactics of tit-for-tat responses are equivalent to using carrots and sticks in response to foreign policy actions by China. Economic engagement calls for what is described as symmetric tit-for-tat and security engagement for asymmetric tit-for-tat. A symmetric response is one that counters a move by China in the same place, time, and manner; an asymmetric response might occur in another place at another time, and perhaps in another manner. A symmetric tit-for-tat would be for Washington to counter a Chinese tariff of 10 percent on imports for the United States with a tariff of 10 percent on imports from China. An asymmetric tit-for-tat would be for the United States to counter a Chines shipment of missiles to Iran with an American shipment of F-16s to Vietnam (John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, (1982). This is also cited in Fareed Zakaria, “The Reagan Strategy of Containment,” Political Science Quarterly 105, no. 3 (1990), pp. 383-88).

Conditional is Specific to a Government

Conditional engagement is with a government – unconditional is for non-governmental groupsHaass and O’Sullivan, 2k —*Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND **a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies” Survival,, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

Many different types of engagement strategies exist, depending on who is engaged, the kind of incentives employed and the sorts of objectives pursued.

Engagement may be conditional when it entails a negotiated series of exchanges, such as where the US extends positive

inducements for changes undertaken by the target country. Or engagement may be unconditional if it offers modifications in US

policy towards a country without the explicit expectation that a reciprocal act will follow. Generally, conditional engagement is geared towards a government; unconditional engagement works with a country’s civil society or private sector in the hopes of promoting forces that will eventually facilitate cooperation.

U.S. Engagement is Conditional

American style engagement uses incentivesHaass and O’Sullivan, 2k —*Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND **a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies” Survival,, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

Certainly it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign policy instruments such as sanctions or military force; in practice, there is often considerable

overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. The distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behavior of countries with which the U.S. has important disagreements.

U.S. style is differentHelweg, 2k (Diana, Professor of Public Policy @ SMU, Economic Strategy and National Security, p. 145)

Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright has argued that a U.S. policy of economic engagement with a country does not mean endorsement of its

regime. In fact, the U.S. version of engagement is different from countries, such as France and Japan, which often practice a policy of unlimited economic engagement based on the rationale that unfettered trade and investment best promotes democratic values for the targeted nation, and financial success for themselves. By contrast , U.S.-"style" engagement must be coupled with a range of policy tools that includes the targeted use of economic restrictions. In other words, it is a variation of the traditional carrot and stick approach rather than one or the other.

Distinct from Appeasement

Economic Engagement is expecting returns through conditionsMastanduno 03 Michael, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government, B.A., Economics and Political Science, and Ph.D., Political Science, Princeton University, “The Strategy of Economic Engagement: Theory and Practice,” Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate

Our knowledge of the workings of economic engagement is still at a fairly preliminary stage. What we do know thus far leads, at best, to an assessment of cautious optimism. A recent series of case studies suggests that economic engagement can be effective as in instrument of statecraft. States have managed in certain situations to use economic relations to influence the foreign policies even of potential adversaries. Economic engagement is not simply synonymous with economic appeasement. Yet we must also appreciate the difficult conditions that must be met for economic-engagement strategist to succeed. Success requires the precise manipulation of domestic political forces in the target state. It requires some ability to control the effects of interdependence. It requires that domestic politics and foreign policy of a target state be linked in predictable and desirable ways. And the success of this strategy requires the effective management of domestic political constraints in the sanctioning state. These conditions, outlined subsequently, are difficult to meet individually and all the more so cumulatively.

Economic Engagement is

Use of Economic Tools

Economic engagement is the exclusive use of economic tools to improve bilateral relationsJakstaite, 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 as economic engagement focuses exclusively on economic instruments of foreign policy with the main national interest being security. Economic engagement is a policy of the conscious development of economic relations with the adversary in order to change the target state‟s behaviour and to improve bilateral relations .94Economic engagement is academically wielded in several respects. It recommends that the state engage the target country in the international community (with the there existing rules) and modify the target state‟s run foreign policy, thus preventing the emergence of a potential enemy.95 Thus, this strategy aims to ensure safety in particular, whereas economic benefit is not a priority objective.Objectives of economic engagement indicate that this form of engagement is designed for relations with problematic countries – those that pose a potential danger to national security of a state that implements economic engagement. Professor of the University of California Paul Papayoanou and University of Maryland professor Scott Kastner say that economic engagement should be used in relations with the emerging powers: countries which accumulate more and more power, and attempt a new division of power in the international system – i.e., pose a serious challenge for the status quo in the international system (the latter theorists have focused specifically on China-US relations). These theorists also claim that economic engagement is recommended in relations with emerging powers whose regimes are not democratic – that is, against such players in the international system with which it is difficult to agree on foreign policy by other means.96 Meanwhile, other supporters of economic engagement (for example, professor of the University of California Miles Kahler) are not as categorical and do not exclude the possibility to realize economic engagement in relations with democratic regimes.97Proponents of economic engagement believe that the economy may be one factor which leads to closer relations and cooperation (a more peaceful foreign policy and the expected pledge to cooperate) between hostile countries – closer economic ties will develop the target state‟s dependence on economic engagement implementing state for which such relations will also be cost-effective (i.e., the mutual dependence).However, there are some important conditions for the economic factor in engagement to be effective and bring the desired results. P. Papayoanou and S. Kastner note that economic engagement gives the most positive results when initial economic relations with the target state is minimal and when the target state‟s political forces are interested in development of international economic relations. Whether economic relations will encourage the target state to develop more peaceful foreign policy and willingness to cooperate will depend on the extent to which the target state‟s forces with economic interests are influential in internal political structure. If the target country‟s dominant political coalition includes the leaders or groups interested in the development of international economic relations, economic ties between the development would bring the desired results. Academics note that in non-democratic countries in particular leaders often have an interest to pursue economic cooperation with the powerful economic partners because that would help them maintain a dominant position in their own country.98Proponents of economic engagement do not provide a detailed description of the means of this form of engagement, but identify a number of possible variants of engagement: conditional economic engagement, using the restrictions caused by economic dependency and unconditional economic engagement by exploiting

economic dependency caused by the flow. Conditional economic engagement, sometimes called linkage or economic carrots engagement, could be described as conflicting with economic sanctions. A state that implements this form of engagement instead of menacing to use sanctions for not changing policy

course promises for a target state to provide more economic benefits in return for the desired political change. Thus, in this case economic ties are developed depending on changes in the target state‟s behaviour.99

Unconditional economic engagement is more moderate form of engagement. Engagement applying state while developing economic relations

with an adversary hopes that the resulting economic dependence over time will change foreign policy course of the target state and reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. Theorists assume that economic dependence may act as a restriction of target state‟s foreign policy or as transforming factor that changes target state‟s foreign policy objectives.100

Thus, economic engagement focuses solely on economic measures (although theorists do not give a more detailed description), on strategically important actors of the international arena and includes other types of engagement, such as the conditional-unconditional economic engagement.

Expanding economic ties

“Economic engagement” is limited to expanding economic tiesÇelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11

Introduction

Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change the political behaviour of target stale. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and

non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway lo perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows "It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations " .(p523-abstact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way that " the direct and positive linkage of interests of stales where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.

EE—includes private $/tradeEconomic engagement includes government money, private investment and capital flows, and philanthropy

Adelman et al, 2005 [Adelman, Dr. P.H., Director, Center for Science in Public Policy¶ Jeremiah Norris, Senior Fellow¶ Jean Weicher, Research Associate¶ “America’s Total Economic Engagement¶ with the Developing World:¶ Rethinking the Uses and Nature of¶ Foreign Aid” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmercury.ethz.ch%2Fserviceengine%2FFiles%2FISN%2F19754%2Fipublicationdocument_singledocument%2F96e3f339-7957-44de-ad1f-cf88f8c27449%2Fen%2FRethinking_Foreign_Aid.pdf&ei=hS_UUeTrDobUyQH0toDQAw&usg=AFQjCNHFkL5Jho2sMJpXEkjoMyEXZifDNQ&sig2=t3SiDmwsMxngtp3ZDt3FXg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc]

U.S. Government and Private¶ International Assistance to Developing¶ Countries¶ Based on new research and new data sources, the¶ Hudson Institute has developed a considerably¶ higher figure for 2003 U.S. private international¶ assistance than the year 2000. The following table,¶ using the latest official government figures as well,¶ shows total U.S. economic engagement with developing¶ countries . This engagement includes our government¶ foreign aid or ODA, our private assistance¶ or philanthropy, and our private capital flows or¶ private investment overseas. The table illustrates¶ the small role that ODA plays in America’s economic¶ engagement with the developing world. Over 85¶ percent of that engagement is through the private¶ sector, in either philanthropy or private investment.¶ Presenting this full picture, not just a limited¶ government foreign aid number, is a more accurate¶ way of measuring American generosity and impact¶ in the world than the current system developed¶ under the OECD.

EE—Private investment key

Prefer our evidence—net capital markets and foreign direct investment are central to economic engagement policy

Adelman et al, 2005 [Adelman, Dr. P.H., Director, Center for Science in Public Policy¶ Jeremiah Norris, Senior Fellow¶ Jean Weicher, Research Associate¶ “America’s Total Economic Engagement¶ with the Developing World:¶ Rethinking the Uses and Nature of¶ Foreign Aid” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmercury.ethz.ch%2Fserviceengine%2FFiles%2FISN%2F19754%2Fipublicationdocument_singledocument%2F96e3f339-7957-44de-ad1f-cf88f8c27449%2Fen%2FRethinking_Foreign_Aid.pdf&ei=hS_UUeTrDobUyQH0toDQAw&usg=AFQjCNHFkL5Jho2sMJpXEkjoMyEXZifDNQ&sig2=t3SiDmwsMxngtp3ZDt3FXg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc]

U.S. Private Capital Flows¶ This number includes foreign direct investment and¶ net capital markets in developing and emerging¶ economies, and is an important measure of U.S.¶ total economic engagement with developing¶ nations.10 This category is most indicative of the¶ U.S. contribution to long-lasting economic growth¶ and prosperity in these countries. The number¶ includes direct investment by American companies¶ in agriculture, manufacturing and service industries¶ that creates jobs and income for poor people.¶ It represents the involvement of U.S. companies¶ and institutions in foreign capital markets as well,¶ investment that helps develop permanent economic¶ and social infrastructure in the developing world.

EE—State Dept

Economic engagement includes IPR, Terrorist finance, trade, remittances, and FDI—prefer our government definition

State Department, 2001 [The part of the Govt. in charge of the topic, Memo on the role of the “economic Engagement Bureau”, http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/92986.htm]

What is Total Economic Engagement?Total Economic Engagement seeks to integrate and coordinate all U.S. economic instruments and programs into our regional and country strategies. The Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs’ (EEB) broad cross-section of economic disciplines, interagency contacts, and expertise in such areas as trade, finance, energy, development, transportation, and telecommunications help ensure this coordination. EEB is actively involved in the entire range of international economic issues affecting America’s security and well-being. Our priorities extend from securing reliable, sustainable energy supplies to increasing market access for U.S. goods and services. Protection of American interests, such as intellectual property right s, fair play in international business, and shutting down terrorist access to financial networks , is not only part of our work, it is the foundation on which our efforts rest. But promoting U.S. economic and security interests is not a short-term endeavor; dealing creatively with emerging markets and alleviating poverty are priorities that are even more important in the era of rapid globalization than they were in the wake of World War II.To quote Franklin D. Roosevelt: “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”Poverty and political unrest walk hand-in-hand, and too many countries’ economic situations offer little hope to their citizens. However, the economic landscape does not need to remain dormant. We believe, the crop of economic security, individual prosperity and political stability can be grown through total economic engagement.Total economic engagement looks beyond the current practice of using financial development assistance as the only ox at the plow. We know that developing countries own the keys to their own economic success. Just as democracy relies on the educated and active common man, so a healthy economy rests on the liberated individual. Ronald Reagan summed it up well: “We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. “Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success – Only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free.”Our goal, therefore, must be the creation of the right conditions for individual economic growth and success. We must cultivate conditions for private sector growth, investment and trade. This cannot be accomplished through Official Development Assistance (ODA) funds alone. Foreign assistance must support a developing country’s own effort to improve their economic climate.Total economic engagement is putting all of the players to the same plow.EEB is harnessing trade and economic policy formation, proper governance, and ODA activities together. The bureau also integrates the American individual. Working with U.S. citizen-partners participating in developing economies abroad is a key element of total economic engagement.An accurate accounting of a nation’s total engagement must include economic policies as well as, trade , remittances , and foreign direct investment . In these areas, the U.S. leads the world in total economic engagement with the developing world. The private donations of American citizens, military emergency aid and peacekeeping and government assistance provide the primary sources for development financing.

In all of EEB’s endeavors with State regional bureaus, the White House, and other economic agencies (e.g., USTR, Treasury), we promote Total Economic Engagement as the standard for assessing our country and regional economic strategies because we have seen that this holistic economic strategy delivers tangible results.

EE—Tied to political

Economic engagement is a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties in order to improve political relations—excludes negative actions.

Kahler and Kastner, 2006 [¶ Miles Kahler Scott L. Kastner¶ Department of Government and Politics¶ University of Maryland¶ Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies¶ University of California, San Diego “STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE:¶

ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN¶ “ Journal of peace reseach vol 43 number 5]

Economic engagement—a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order to change the behavior of the target state and effect an improvement in bilateral political relations—is the subject of growing, but still limited, interest in the international relations literature. The bulk of the work on economic statecraft continues to focus on coercive policies such as economic sanctions . The emphasis on negative forms of economic statecraft is not without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well-documented, and several quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa 1994; Pollins 1989). At the same time, however, relatively little is known about how widespread strategies of economic engagement actually are: scholars disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft exists (Mastanduno 2003). Furthermore, beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies in this regard have focused on policies adopted by great powers.i But engagement policies adopted by South Korea and the other two states examined in this study, Singapore and Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great power politics; instead, it may be more widespread than previously recognized.

EE—Includes Conditions

Economic Engagement includes conditional actions

Kahler and Kastner, 2006 [¶ Miles Kahler Scott L. Kastner¶ Department of Government and Politics¶ University of Maryland¶ Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies¶ University of California, San Diego “STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE:¶

ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN¶ “ Journal of peace reseach vol 43 number 5]

ECONOMIC ENGAGMENT: STRATEGIES AND EXPECTATIONS

Scholars have usefully distinguished between two types of economic engagement: conditional policies that require an explicit quid-pro-quo on the part of the target country, and policies that are unconditional.ii Conditional policies, sometimes called “linkage” or economic “carrots,” are the inverse of economic sanctions. Instead of threatening a target country with a sanction absent a change in policy, conditional engagement policies promise increased economic flows in exchange for policy change. Drezner’s (1999/2000) analysis of conditional economic inducements yields a set of highly plausible expectations concerning when conditional strategies are likely to be employed, and when they are likely to succeed. Specifically, he suggests that reasons exist to believe, a priori, that policies of conditional engagement will be less prevalent than economic sanctions. First, economic coercion is costly if it fails (sanctions are only carried out if the target country fails to change policy), while conditional engagement is costly if it succeeds (economic payoffs are delivered only if the target country does change policy). Second, states may be reluctant to offer economic inducements with adversaries with whom they expect long-term conflict, as this may undermine their resolve in the eyes of their opponent while also making the opponent stronger. Third, the potential for market failure in an anarchic international setting looms large: both the initiating and the target states must be capable of making a credible commitment to uphold their end of the bargain. These factors lead Drezner to hypothesize that the use of economic carrots is most likely to occur and succeed between democracies (because democracies are better able to make credible commitments than non-democracies), within the context of international regimes (because such regimes reduce the transactions costs of market exchange), and, among adversaries, only after coercive threats are first used.

EE—Includes conditions/Doesn’t have to transform

Economic engagement may be conditional or unconditional, and may either be intended to change a state or maintain its current arrangement, depending on context.

Kahler and Kastner, 2006 [¶ Miles Kahler Scott L. Kastner¶ Department of Government and Politics¶ University of Maryland¶ Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies¶ University of California, San Diego “STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE:¶

ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN¶ “ Journal of peace reseach vol 43 number 5]

¶ In summary, we have distinguished between three types of economic engagement: conditional engagement (linkage); unconditional engagement seeking to utilize the constraining effects of economic interdependence; and unconditional engagement seeking to utilize the transforming effects of economic interdependence. We have also outlined a number of expectations, mostly drawn from the existing literature, regarding the conditions likely to facilitate the use of these various strategies. In the remainder of this essay we examine the engagement policies of South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, and we use these cases to draw conclusions concerning the conditions facilitating the strategic use of economic interdependence.¶ ¶

EE = Unconditional

Economic engagement is not conditional—it is a long term strategy to create interdependence, not a specific policy tool.

Çelik, 2011 [Arda Can, PHD student @ Uppsala University,also, according to his Fa-Bo, like swimming and coffee. “Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies: A review on coercive and non-coercive diplomatic action” , on the google books, P 11]

Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in economic diplomacy . They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectedness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender state to change the political behaviour of target state4. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes (Kahler & Kastner, 2006). They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and nonmilitarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway to perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows, "It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with an adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations " (p. 523/abstract). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly, political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosencrance (1977) in a way that "the direct and positive linkage of interests of states where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction ."

EE—Just Economic

Economic engagement is exlusively economic—not politicalJakštaitė, 2010¶ [Gerda , Doctoral Candidate ¶ Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political Sciences and Diplomacy, “containment and engagement as middle-range theories”, Baltic Journal of Law and Politics Vol 3 # 2]

Economic Engagement The approach to engagement as economic engagement focuses exclusively on economic instruments of foreign policy with the main national interest being security. Economic engagement is a policy of the conscious development of economic relations with the adversary in order to change the target state‟s behaviour and to improve bilateral relations.94 Economic engagement is academically wielded in several respects. It recommends that the state engage the target country in the international community (with the there existing rules) and modify the target state‟s run foreign policy, thus preventing the emergence of a potential enemy.95 Thus, this strategy aims to ensure safety in particular, whereas economic benefit is not a priority objective. Objectives of economic engagement indicate that this form of engagement is designed for relations with problematic countries – those that pose a potential danger to national security of a state that implements economic engagement. Professor of the University of California Paul Papayoanou and University of Maryland professor Scott Kastner say that economic engagement should be used in relations with the emerging powers: countries which accumulate more and more power, and attempt a new division of power in the international system – i.e., pose a serious challenge for the status quo in the international system (the latter theorists have focused specifically on China-US relations). These theorists also claim that economic engagement is recommended in relations with emerging powers whose regimes are not democratic – that is, against such players in the international system with which it is difficult to agree on foreign policy by other means.96 Meanwhile, other supporters of economic engagement (for example, professor of the University of California Miles Kahler) are not as categorical and do not exclude the possibility to realize economic engagement in relations with democratic regimes.97

Proponents of economic engagement believe that the economy may be one factor which leads to closer relations and cooperation (a more peaceful foreign policy and the expected pledge to cooperate) between hostile countries – closer economic ties will develop the target state‟s dependence on economic engagement implementing state for which such relations will also be cost-effective (i.e., the mutual dependence). However, there are some important conditions for the economic factor in engagement to be effective and bring the desired results. P. Papayoanou and S. Kastner note that economic engagement gives the most positive results when initial economic relations with the target state is minimal and when the target state‟s political forces are interested in development of international economic relations. Whether economic relations will encourage the target state to develop more peaceful foreign policy and willingness to cooperate will depend on the extent to which the target state‟s forces with economic interests are influential in internal political structure. If the target country‟s dominant political coalition includes the leaders or groups interested in the development of international economic relations, economic ties between the development would bring the desired results. Academics note that in non-democratic countries in particular leaders often have an interest to pursue economic cooperation with the powerful economic partners because that would help them maintain a dominant position in their own country.98

EE = can be condo

Economic engagement can be linked or unconditional—there isn’t a scholarly consensus

Jakštaitė, 2010¶ [Gerda , Doctoral Candidate ¶ Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political Sciences and Diplomacy, “containment and engagement as middle-range theories”, Baltic Journal of Law and Politics Vol 3 # 2]

Proponents of economic engagement do not provide a detailed description of the means of this form of engagement, but identify a number of possible variants of engagement: conditional economic engagement, using the restrictions caused by economic dependency and unconditional economic engagement by exploiting economic dependency caused by the flow. Conditional economic engagement, sometimes called linkage or economic carrots engagement, could be described as conflicting with economic sanctions. A state that implements this form of engagement instead of menacing to use sanctions for not changing policy course promises for a target state to provide more economic benefits in return for the desired political change. Thus, in this case economic ties are developed depending on changes in the target state‟s behaviour.99 Unconditional economic engagement is more moderate form of engagement. Engagement applying state while developing economic relations with an adversary hopes that the resulting economic dependence over time will change foreign policy course of the target state and reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. Theorists assume that economic dependence may act as a restriction of target state‟s foreign policy or as transforming factor that changes target state‟s foreign policy objectives.100

EE=solely econ/state to state/can be condo

Economic engagement is soley economic, and targets important international actors. Jakštaitė, 2010¶ [Gerda , Doctoral Candidate ¶ Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political Sciences and Diplomacy, “containment and engagement as middle-range theories”, Baltic Journal of Law and Politics Vol 3 # 2]

Thus, economic engagement focuses solely on economic measures (although theorists do not give a more detailed description), on strategically important actors of the international arena and includes other types of engagement, such as the conditional-unconditional economic engagement.

Diplomatic Engagement

Requires Behavior Shifting

Diplomatic engagement seeks behavior shiftingTakeyh 09 - Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies [Ray Takeyh, October 7, 2009, The Essence of Diplomatic Engagement, http://www.cfr.org/diplomacy-and-statecraft/essence-diplomatic-engagement/p20362] doa 4-19-16

Such views miscast the essence of diplomatic engagement. Diplomacy is likely to be a painstaking process and it may not work with every targeted nation. However, the purpose of such a policy is not to transform adversaries into allies, but to seek adjustments in their behavior and ambitions. North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran would be offered a path toward realizing their essential national interests should they conform to global conventions on issues such as terrorism and proliferation.

Is Diplomatic Interaction

Engagement is diplomatic relationsMaller, 9 – research fellow in the National Security Studies Program at the New America Foundation (Tara, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, “The Dangers of Diplomatic Disengagement in Counterterrorism”, DOI: 10.1080/10576100902888479)

Different forms of non-engagement have been employed throughout history. Haas and O’Sullivan define engagement as “a foreign policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives.” 2 They also correctly point out that an engagement strategy does not mean there cannot also be concurrent military pressure and sanctions. The present author adds to their definition the

notion that engagement also tends to entail diplomatic relations with a state , a diplomatic presence in that state and a substantial amount of interaction between high and low level diplomats. Building on their definition of engagement, the present author defines non-engagement as a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on punitive measures, a lack of positive incentives, and a general aversion to diplomatic interaction with a state to achieve foreign policy objectives. Non-engagement strategies typically are characterized by punitive strategies across the military, economic, and diplomatic realms. This article will focus specifically on the diplomatic component of non-engagement, which is characterized by severing formal diplomatic ties with a country or significantly downgrading ties from the normal level of diplomatic activity for foreign policy purposes. 3 It is also worth noting that in most cases of U.S.-initiated diplomatic sanctions, there may also be economic sanctions aimed at the economic isolation of the target state. In addition, once diplomatic ties with a state have been severed, the United States still faces choices about the degree to which it is willing to engage with a severed or downgraded state. Third party state actors may be used as a diplomatic go between for states without diplomatic relations and there may be very little face-to-face interaction between U.S. officials and officials of the target state. In some cases, certain types of diplomacy may be permissible (i.e., multiparty talks), whereas other forms of direct talks are not (i.e., bilateral talks). Regardless of the acceptable threshold for communication, cutting diplomatic ties with a state and opting for diplomatic disengagement sends a strong signal about U.S. willingness and desire to communicate and creates substantial barriers to doing so.

Generic Words

Resolved = Express by Formal Vote

Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the context of the resolutionWebster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)

Resolved:5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).

Colon Definitions

The colon is meaningless – everything after it is what’s importantWebster’s Guide to Grammar and Writing – 2k(http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm)Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.

The colon just elaborates on what the debate community was resolved to debate:Encarta World Dictionary, 07 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861598666)

co·lon (plural co·lons)noun Definition:1. punctuation mark: the punctuation mark (:) used to divide distinct but related sentence components such as clauses in which the second elaborates on the first, or to introduce a list, quotation, or speech. A colon is sometimes used in U.S. business letters after the salutation. Colons are also used between numbers in statements of proportion or time and Biblical or literary references.

“The” Denotes Specificity “The” denotes a specific, unique object.American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000 (dictionary.com)

theUsed before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days. Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass: the weather; a wind from the south. Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; the stage. Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic. Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties.

‘The’ means unique, as in there is one USFGMerriam-Webster's Online Collegiate Dictionary, 08, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

b -- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class <the President> <the Lord>

USFG is the National Government

Federal government is the national government that expresses powerBlack’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, June 1, 2004, pg.716.

Federal government. 1. A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political units that have surrendered some degree of power in exchange for the right to participate in national politics matters – Also termed (in federal states) central government. 2. the U.S. government – Also termed national government. [Cases: United States -1 C.J.S. United States - - 2-3]

Federal government is central governmentPRINCETON UNIVERSITY WORDNET, 1997, p. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=federal%20government. Federal government. n: a government with strong central powers.

Federal government is in Washington, D.C.WEST'S LEGAL THESAURUS/DICTIONARY, 1985, p. 744. United States: Usually means the federal government centered in Washington, D.C.

Federal means relating to the national government of the United StatesBlack’s Law Dictionary, 1999

federal, adj. Of or relating to a system of associated governments with a vertical division of governments into national and regional components having different responsibilities; esp., of or relating to the national government of the United States.

Should is a Duty or Obligation

Should is a duty or obligationWebster's II, 1984, p. 1078 Should is used to express duty or obligation

Should is equal to obligationWORDS AND PHRASES 1953, Vol. 39, p. 313.

The word “should”, denotes an obligation in various degrees, usually milder than ought. Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 p.2d 839, 842, 198 Or. 556.

Should indicates obligation or dutyCompact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (“should”, 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)

shouldmodal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal expressing the conditional mood. 4 used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.USAGE Strictly speaking should is used with I and we, as in I should be grateful if you would let me know, while would is used with you, he, she, it, and they, as in you didn’t say you would be late; in practice would is normally used instead of should in reported speech and conditional clauses, such as I said I would be late. In speech the distinction tends to be obscured, through the use of the contracted forms I’d, we’d, etc.

Should Expresses Desirability

Should expresses desirabilityCambridge Dictionary of American English, 07 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=should*1+0&dict=A)

should (DUTY)auxiliary verb used to express that it is necessary, desirable, advisable, or important to perform the action of the following verb

Should Excludes Certainty

Should isn’t mandatory Taylor and Howard, 05 - Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (Michael and Julie, “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa”, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)

Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance—one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition—but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.

Should is permissive—it’s a persuasive recommendationWords and Phrases, 2002 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 370)

Cal.App. 5 Dist. 1976. Term “should,” as used in statutory provision that motion to suppress search warrant should first be heard by magistrate who issued warrant, is used in regular, persuasive sense, as recommendation, and is thus not mandatory but permissive. West’s Ann.Pen Code, § 1538.5(b).---Cuevas v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 238, 58 Cal.App.3d 406 ----Searches 191.

Should means desirable or recommended, not mandatoryWords and Phrases, 2002 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 372-373)Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word “shall” instead of “should” was used, and word “should” did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use of word “should” was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable and recommended, but not mandatory. ORS 654.005 et seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or. 556.---Labor & Emp. 2857

SHOULD IS NOT MANDATORYWords and Phrases, 2002 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 369)

C.A.6 (Tenn.) 2001. Word “should,” in most contexts, is precatory, not mandatory.----U.S. v. Rogers, 14 Fed.Appx. 303.----Statut227

Should describes what is probableCompact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (“should”, 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)

should

modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal expressing the conditional mood. 4 used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.

Should is used to express probability or expectationWEBSTER'S II, 1984, p. 1078 Should - used to express probability or expectation. They should arrive here soon.

With: Lots of things

With is “accompanied by”Dictionary.com [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/with] doa – 4 – 19 – 16

With - preposition1. accompanied by; accompanying:I will go with you. He fought with his brother against the enemy.2. in some particular relation to (especially implying interaction, company, association, conjunction, or connection):I dealt with the problem. She agreed with me.3. characterized by or having:a person with initiative.4. (of means or instrument) by the use of; using:to line a coat with silk; to cut with a knife.5. (of manner) using or showing:to work with diligence.6. in correspondence, comparison, or proportion to:Their power increased with their number. How does their plan compare with ours?7. in regard to:to be pleased with a gift.8. (of cause) owing to:to die with pneumonia; to pale with fear.9. in the region, sphere, or view of:It is day with us while it is night with the Chinese.10. (of separation) from:to part with a thing.11. against, as in opposition or competition:He fought with his brother over the inheritance.12. in the keeping or service of:to leave something with a friend.13. in affecting the judgment, estimation, or consideration of:Her argument carried a lot of weight with the trustees.14. at the same time as or immediately after; upon:And with that last remark, she turned and left.15. of the same opinion or conviction as:Are you with me or against me?16. in proximity to or in the same household as:He lives with his parents.17. (used as a function word to specify an additional circumstance or condition):We climbed the hill, with Jeff following behind.

Substantial

Substantial = Contextual

Substantially should be defined by contextDevinsky, 2 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite?  Ask Person of Skill in the Art”, http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)

In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite .   Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine.  The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips.  The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite.  The district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence:  "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention."  Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention."  The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."

Alternative interpretations are even more ambiguous and destroy limitsStark 97 – patent attorney from Tennessee (Stephen, “NOTE: KEY WORDS AND TRICKY PHRASES: AN ANALYSIS OF PATENT DRAFTER'S ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT THE LANGUAGE OF 35 U.S.C., Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Fall, 1997 5 J. Intell. Prop. L. 365, lexis) 

In patent law, ambiguity of claim language necessarily results in uncertainty in the scope of protection. This uncertainty impairs all of society--the patentee, the competitor, and the public. The process of determining a particular meaning to define a term in a patent claim may result in ambiguity.1. Ordinary Meaning. First, words in a patent are to be given their ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined. n30 However, what if a particular word has multiple meanings? For example, consider the word "substantial." The Webster dictionary gives eleven different definitions of the word substantial. n31 Additionally, there are another two definitions specifically provided for the adverb "substantially." n32 Thus, the "ordinary meaning" is not clear.The first definition of the word "substantial" given by the Webster's Dictionary is "of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc." n33 Supposing that this is the precise definition that the drafter had in mind when drafting the patent, the meaning of "ample or considerable amount" appears amorphous. This could have one of at least the following interpretations: (1) almost all, (2) more than half, or (3) barely enough to do the job. Therefore, the use of a term, such as "substantial," which usually has a very ambiguous meaning, makes the scope of protection particularly hard to determine.

Substantially means in the main

Substantially means in the main, including the essential partWords and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantially,” Volume 40B, p. 324-330 October 2002, Thomson West)Okla. 1911. “Substantially” means in substance: in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.

Substantially means essential and materialWords and Phrases, 2 (40B W&P – 328)

Ind. 1962. “Substantially” means meeting requirements in essential and material parts.

Substantial has to be materiallyWords and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantial,” Volume 40A, p. 448-486 October 2002, Thomson West)

Ala. 1909. “Substantial” means “belonging to substance; actually existing; real; * * * not seeming or imaginatary; not illusive; real; solid; true; veritable.” – Elder v. State, 50 So. 370, 162 Ala. 41.

Substantial means real

Substantially means real, not imaginaryWollman ’93 (Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals – 8th Circuit, Kansas City Power & Light Company, a Missouri corporation, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Credit Company, a Delaware corporation; McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation; HEI Investment Corp., a Hawaii corporation, Appellants, 995 F.2d 1422; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 13755, L/N)

Instruction No. 10 was not given in isolation, however. The district court's instructions also contained a definition of "substantial." Instruction No. 11 defined "substantial" as meaning "true, real or likely to materialize" and as not meaning "imaginary or unlikely to materialize." This instruction properly limited the potential bases for the jury's decision, which is the essential function of jury instructions. When combined with the contract and the verdict-directing instructions, [*1432] which tracked the operative language of the contract, Instruction No. 11 required the jury to find that KCPL had determined a real risk, not some imaginary hypothetical risk premised solely on a reduction in the DRD. Because the contract provided only one means of creating a risk of making an indemnity payment--a demand notice from an Investor--the jury's discretion was properly channelled into deciding whether KCPL had sufficiently studied and honestly considered the likelihood of receiving such a demand notice. That determination is all that the contract required.

Substantially means real at present timeWords and Phrases 1964 (40 W&P 759) (this edition of W&P is out of print; the page number no longer matches up to the current edition and I was unable to find the card in the new edition. However, this card is also available on google books, Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 8, p. 7329)

The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,” in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive. Bass v. Pease, 79 Ill. App. 308, 318.

Substantially is without material qualification

Substantially is without material qualificationBlack’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]

Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.

Increase

Increase excludes create

increase requires making an already existing thing greaterBuckley et al, 06 - attorney (Jeremiah, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)

First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “ad-verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “exist-ing or applied for” in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).

Increase requires pre-existenceBrown, 03 – US Federal Judge for the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON (ELENA MARK and PAUL GUSTAFSON, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY INSURANCE COMPANY and VALLEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, Defendants, 7/17, lexis)

FCRA does not define the term "increase." The plain and ordinary meaning of the verb "to increase" is to make something greater or larger. 4 Merriam-Webster's [**22] Collegiate Dictionary 589 (10th ed. 1998). The "something" that is increased in the statute is the "charge for any insurance." The plain and common meaning of the noun "charge" is "the price demanded for something." Id. at 192. Thus, the statute plainly means an insurer takes adverse action if the insurer makes greater (i.e., larger) the price demanded for insurance.An insurer cannot "make greater" something that did not exist previously. The statutory definition of adverse action, therefore, clearly anticipates an insurer must have made an initial charge or demand for payment before the insurer can increase that charge. In other words, an insurer cannot increase the charge for insurance unless the insurer previously set and demanded payment of the premium for that insured's insurance [**23] coverage at a lower price.

Increase includes create

Increase doesn’t require pre-existenceReinhardt, 05 – U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Stephen, JASON RAY REYNOLDS; MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., lexis)

Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the insured would otherwise have been charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA. First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions, these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased [**23] before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under [*1091] the ordinary definition of the term, an increase in a charge also occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or driving record 8 --regardless of whether the customer was previously charged some other rate. According to Reynolds, he was charged an increased rate because of his credit rating when he was compelled to pay a rate higher than the premium rate because he failed to obtain a high insurance score. Thus, he argues, the definitions of "increase" and "charge" encompass the insurance companies' practice. Reynolds is correct. “Increase" means to make something greater. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The action, process, or fact of becoming or making greater; augmentation, growth, enlargement, extension."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) (defining "increase" as "growth, enlargement, etc[.]"). "Charge" means the price demanded for goods or services. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The price required or demanded for service rendered, or (less usually) for goods supplied."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) ("The cost or price of an article, service, etc."). Nothing in the definition of these words implies that the term "increase in any charge for" should be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.

One can increase from zeroWORDS AND PHRASES, 07 (CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, 2007 Vol. 20A, 07, 76.

Increase: Salary change of from zero to $12,000 and $1,200 annually for mayor and councilmen respectively was an “increase” in salary and not merely the fixing of salary. King v. Herron, 243 S.E.2d36, 241 Ga. 5.

Increase means net increase

Increase means net increaseWords and Phrases, 5 (Cummulative Supplementary Pamphlet, v. 20a, p.295)

Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of existing thermal power plant, refers to “net increase” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy Commission cannot ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant. West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 25123.

increase requires evidence of the preexisting conditionRipple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile Insurance Association, and Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816, 9/24, lexis)

Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the risk is increased by any means within the knowledge or control of the insured. However, the term "increase" connotes change. To show change, appellees would have been required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued. See 5 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence was presented, this court cannot determine, on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased. Indeed, the answer to this question may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated insuring the risk which incurred the loss.

Increase is quantitative

Increase means to become bigger or larger in number, quantity, or degree.Encarta World English Dictionary, 7 (“Increase”, 2007, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741)

Increasetransitive and intransitive verb  (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number, quantity, or degree

Increase Means to Make Greater

Increase means to become larger or greater in quantityEncarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase." <http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741>.)

in·crease [ in krss ]transitive and intransitive verb  (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number, quantity, or degreenoun  (plural in·creas·es)

Increase does not mean to decrease Websters Dictionary. 1913 ("Increase." <http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=increase>.)

In*crease" (?), v. i.To become greater or more in size, quantity, number, degree, value, intensity, power, authority, reputation, wealth; to grow; to augment; to advance; -- opposed to decrease .

Increase is the opposite of decrease.Cambridge Dictionary, 8 (“increase”, 2008, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=increase*1+0&dict=A)increase[Show phonetics]verb [I/T] to become or make (something) larger or greater The opposite of increase is decrease . 

Its

Its = Possesive

A. ‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownershipGlossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)Its means possessionEncarta, 9 (Encarta World English Dictionary, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861622735)

its [ its ] adjective  Definition:   indicating possession: used to indicate that something belongs or relates to something

The park changed its policy.

‘Its’ must exclusively refer to the preceding subject to make any senseManderino, 73 (Justice for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Sigal, Appellant, v. Manufacturers Light and Heat Co., No. 26, Jan. T., 1972, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 450 Pa. 228; 299 A.2d 646; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 600; 44 Oil & Gas Rep. 214, lexis)On its face, the written instrument granting easement rights in this case is ambiguous. The same sentence which refers to the right to lay a 14 inch pipeline (singular)

has a later reference to "said lines" (plural). The use of the plural "lines" makes no sense because the only previous reference has been to a "line" (singular). The writing is additionally ambiguous because other key words which are "also may change the size of its pipes" are dangling in that the possessive pronoun "its " before the word "pipes" does not have any subject preceding, to which the possessive pronoun refers. The dangling phrase is the beginning of a sentence, the first word of which does not begin with a capital letter as is customary in normal English [***10]  usage. Immediately preceding the "sentence" which does not begin with a capital letter, there appears a dangling  [*236]  semicolon which makes no

sense at the beginning of a sentence and can hardly relate to the preceding sentence which is already properly punctuated by a closing period. The above deviations from accepted grammatical usage make difficult, if not impossible, a clear understanding of the words used or the intention of the parties. This is particularly true concerning the meaning of a disputed phrase in the instrument which states that the grantee is to pay damages from ". . . the relaying, maintaining and operating said pipeline. . . ." The instrument is ambiguous as to what the words ". . . relaying . . . said pipeline . . ." were intended to mean.

Its means belonging to something previously mentioned – i.e the USFGCambridge Dictonary ( “Its”, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/its) Definitionbelonging to or relating to something that has already been mentioned The dog hurt its paw.Their house has its own swimming pool.The company increased its profits.I prefer the second option - its advantages are simplicity and cheapness.

Its means belonging toOxford English Dictionary, 89 (2nd edition, online)

its, poss. pron.A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus); also refl., Of or belonging to itself, its own (L. suus)

Its requires a possessor/agentWebsters, No Date (“Its”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its)

of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

Aff - Its means ‘associated with’

Its means associated withOxford Dictionaries Online, No Date (“Its”, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk)

itsEntry from World dictionarPronunciation:/ɪts/possessive determiner belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified: turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere

Its can mean relating toMacmillan Dictionary, No Date –(“Its” http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/its)

Its is the possessive form of it. 1 belonging or relating to a thing, idea, place, animal, etc. when it has already been mentioned or when it is obvious which one you are referring to

People’s Republic of China

It’s China

It’s China – Random House 16 [Dictionary.com Unabridged, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/people-s-republic-of-china]

People's Republic of China noun1. People's Republic of China, a country in E Asia. 3,691,502 sq. mi. (9,560,990 sq. km).Capital: Beijing.2. Republic of China. Also called Nationalist China. a republic consisting mainly of the island of Taiwan off the SE coast of mainland China : under Nationalist control since 1948 but claimed by the People's Republic of China. 13,885 sq. mi. (35,960 sq. km).Capital: Taipei.

CCP – not Taiwan

PRC is ruled by the CCP and distinct from the ROC and TaiwanEconomist 14 - The Economist explains [Why China and Taiwan are divided, Aug 25th 2014, 23:50 BY J.M., http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-16] doa 4 – 19 – 16

Taiwan was once a province of China. It is still officially regarded as such by both governments. The problem is that neither side agrees on what the "China" in question is: the People’s Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, or the Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (commonly known as the Kuomintang, or KMT). The KMT ruled China for more than two decades until 1949, when it was overthrown by Mao’s Communist Party and fled to Taiwan. Since then the island has retained the name Republic of China, even though the government there only administers the island of Taiwan itself and a few other much smaller ones. In Taiwan, there is an added complication to the use of the term "Chinese province". Between 1895 and 1945 Taiwan was ruled by Japan, which had seized it after a war with imperial China. Especially in the early years after 1945, KMT rule on the island was brutal. Taiwan has since become a democracy, but resentment of the KMT runs deep among many of those who were living on the island before the KMT took refuge, and the descendants of such people. Their identity with greater China is weak. Some want Taiwan to abandon any pretence of a link with China and declare independence.

Lots of Provinces

PRC has multiple provinces, regions, and citiesChina Culture 03 - People's Republic of China [http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_22844.htm]

People's Republic of ChinaThe People's Republic of China is the third-largest country in the world in terms of area (9.6 million square kilometers) and the largest in terms of population (1.2 billion). China has shared its borders for centuries with Korea, the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Skim, Bhutan, Burma, Laos and Vietnam.Under the central government there are 23 provinces, five autonomous regions -- Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Guangxi and Tibet -- and four cities -- Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing. China's topography varies from mountainous regions with towering peaks to flat, featureless plains. The land surface, like a staircase, descends from west to east. Melting snow from the mountains of western China and Tibet -- the Qinghai Plateau -- is the main water resource for many of the country's largest rivers, such as the Yangtze and the Yellow rivers. Across the mountains on the eastern edge are the plains of the Yangtze River Valley and northern and eastern China. As the homeland of the Han Chinese, the plains, known as the Middle Kingdom or Zhongguo, are the most important agricultural areas and the most heavily populated.

Excludes Taiwain

Taiwan is distinctGuide to Taipei 16 [Is Taiwan part of China?, https://guidetotaipei.com/article/is-taiwan-part-of-china] doa – 4 – 19 – 16

Is Taiwan part of China or not?At present, the nation of "China" is represented by two separate authorities: the Republic of China (commonly referred to as Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (in mainland China and commonly referred to as just China). During the aftermath of World War II, infighting on the Chinese mainland resumed, with the Republic of China government relocating to Taiwan, and the group led by Mao Zedong creating the People's Republic of China. To this day, the PRC has control over mainland China, while the ROC has control over Taiwan island, the Penghu archipelago, and minor islands Kinmen and Matsu, while each government claims sovereignty over the whole of "China". Simply put, the PRC claims Taiwan to be part of the PRC as it is the successor state to the ROC (which it views as losing the civil war), and the ROC views the PRC as an illegal state occupying China.

Taiwan is distinctDiffen c. 13 [People's Republic Of China vs. Republic Of China, http://www.diffen.com/difference/People's_Republic_Of_China_vs_Republic_Of_China] doa 4-19-16

The People's Republic of China is commonly known as China and the Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan. These are separate states with a shared history; China claims sovereignty over Taiwan.After the Kuomintang reunified China in 1928, most of mainland China was governed by the Republic of China (ROC). The island of Taiwan was under Japanese rule at the time. At the end of World War II in 1945, Japan surrenedered Taiwan to the Republic of China. In 1949, there was a civil war in China and the government (ROC) lost control of mainland China to the Communist Party, which established the People's Republic of China (PRC) and took control of all of mainland China. Only the island of Taiwan remained under the control of the ROC.Since then, both the ROC and the PRC have been claiming to represent all of "China", and both officially claim each other's territory. In the 1992 consensus, both governments agreed that there is only one "China" but each claimed to be the sole representative of the sovereignty of undivided China. The PRC's (China's) official policy is to reunify Taiwan with mainland China under the formula of "one country, two systems" and refuses to renounce the use of military force, especially if Taiwan seeks a declaration of independence.In Taiwan political opinion is divided into two camps: the Pan-Blue Coalition (majority Kuomintang) believes that the ROC is the sole legitimate government of "China" but supports eventual Chinese reunification. The opposition Pan-Green Coalition (majority Democratic Progressive Party) regards Taiwan as an independent state and seeks wide diplomatic recognition and an eventual declaration of formal Taiwanese independence.

Xi is President

Xi is the PresidentWhite House 9 – 25 – 15 [Vice President Biden Hosts a Luncheon for President Xi of the People’s Republic of China, September 25, 2015 | 34:08 | Public Domain, https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2015/09/25/vice-president-biden-hosts-luncheon-president-xi-people-s-republic] doa 4-19-16

Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry will host a lunch in honor of President President Xi of the People’s Republic of China at the Department of State. September 25, 2015.

i

ii