Topicality - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors

8/13/2019 Topicality - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors

1/243

NDI 20136WS - TOPICALITY


2/243

Violations


3/243

TRemoving Restrictions


4/243

1NC

A. InterpretationRemoving sanctions is a form of appeasement

Stern 6(Martin, University of Maryland Graduate, Debunking detente, 11/27/06, http://www.diamondbackonline.com/article_56223e79-

7009-56a3-8afe-5d08bfff6e08.html)

Appeasement is defined as "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." GivingIran international legitimacy andremoving sanctions would have maintained peace with a potentialenemy without changing the undemocratic practices of the enemy. If this isn't appeasement, I don't

know how better to define the word.

Engagement and appeasement are distinct

Resnick 1(Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS,Defining Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2,

http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301)

Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas bothpolicies 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 aremerelytransferred by one party to the other either unconditionally or in exchange for certain

concessions on the part of the target state.

B. Violationthey remove restrictionsthats appeasement

C. Voting issue

1. Limitsinfinite amount of restrictions the aff can remove explodes neg

research burden

2. GroundLose spending links based off of increases in funding
http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301


5/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must increase economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or

Venezuela

Thats key for two reasons:

1. Limitstake a stand at camp to shape the direction of this already HUGE topic

otherwise the neg will be stuck going for stupid process CPs and generic Ks all year

longthe addition of appeasement affs to this frame crushes the negative ability to

be able to do specific research because there are an infinite number of short-term

affs: that ensures that no one will dedicate the time and resources necessary to the

best case specific strategies. This decimates the best type of cost benefit analysis

which only debate can offer through the comparison of specific, well researched

strategies

2. GroundThere are tons of unique mechanisms to develop advantages for the aff

but a standard set of links and generics based off of economic engagement are key to

check against such a large topicappeasement changes link ground on DAs likepolitics and also changes the types of CPs that can be read by limiting out the

appeasement CP

Limits key in the context of engagementmeaning is inherently unclear

Resnick 1(Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS,Defining Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2,http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301)

Asecond problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency todefine the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition ofengagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague thatessentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement.The definition put forth by Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston 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 ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto 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


6/243

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.


7/243

Caselist (What they allow)

Removal of any sanction or increased sanctions on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela

Removal of any visa restrictions


8/243

AT: We meet

1. No they dont meet the aff is [which is appeasement because

]

2. Even if theyre economic engagement, theyre not an increase

Buckley 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 o rdinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater, which it believed should not be limited to cases in which acompany 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 mustnecessarily have been anexisting premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an increase occurred . Congresscould haveprovided that ad-verse action in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverseaction 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 whe re a consumer hadan 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 wordsaround it) (citation omitted).


9/243

AT: Haass (and OSullivan) EE C/IPrefer our interpretationtwo reasons 1. Their interpretation is inclusive, but oursis exclusiveinclusivity is bad because it does not set any limiting factor, means that

their interpretation cant set a scope for the resolution as a whole2. They dont meet

their counter-interpretationit lists some things that are economic engagement,and then it says other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of

penalties which clearly means their author thinks there is a distinction betweeneconomic engagement and other economic incentives. 3. Their interp links to all of

impacts abovemeans they still explode the topic and spike core ground


10/243

AT: Ground

Plenty of room for aff innovation because of broad definitions of economic

engagement mechanisms but economic engagement is a key negative check for links

to Disads like politics and competition for CPs like appeasement CPs


11/243

AT: Limits

We dont overlimit lots of mechanisms for Economic engagement allow for aff

innovationoverview proves that they allow whole different categories of

engagementour interp allows for all the core affs Mexican developmentassistance, and Venezuelan oil are all T


12/243

AT: Reasonability

1. Youre interps not reasonablethe limits debate proves you make it impossible

to be neg, especially because this topic is SO big already

2. If your reasonability topical then you are reasonably untopicalvote neg on

jurisdiction

3. Reasonability is arbitrary, varies from judge to judgecompeting interpretations

is the only objective way because we compare evidence


13/243

2NC Removing Restrictions Cards

Removing restrictions is appeasementMitchell 12 (Rodger, a "turnaround specialist", who saves troubled companies. He is the author of the book, "Free Money, Plan forProsperity" and founder of his own blog, Rodger M Mitchell.com, contains quotes from Leigh Ann Caldwell, multimedia journalist covering

politics for CBS news, Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama Are Known for Appeasement, 4/8/12,http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog2.php/2012/04/08/neville-chamberlain-and-barack-obama-are-known-for-appeasement)

Chamberlain and Obama are known for appeasement, Chamberlain to Hitler and Obama to the

Tea/Republicans. The pictures of Obama proudly signing the JOBS billwhile House Majority Leader

(Republican) Eric Cantor beams behind him, brings back memories of Chamberlain proudly waving his

document of capitulation. CBS News Obama signs JOBS Act into law, calls it a game-changer By Leigh Ann Caldwell (CBS

News) President Obama signed the bipartisan JOBS Act into lawon Thursday afternoon, saying it willremove barriers for small businesses and will lead to job creation. New businesses account for almost every new job created inAmerica, the president said during a signingceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House on Thursday. Thats why I pushed for this bill.

The JOBS Act(Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) removes restrictions for small business and startups toreceive broader access to capital and investors. Translation: The JOBS act removes business

restrictions, which Republicans always hate, even though those restrictions were not the cause of our recession or small business startup

difficulties.

Appeasement is resolving grievances, diffusing secondary threats, or buying time

includes removing restrictionsBarros et. al 9 (Andrew, Associate Professor of History at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada,Debating British Decisionmaking toward Nazi Germany in the 1930s, 2009,http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/2009%20IS%201930s%20correspondence.pdf)

Conventional definitions of appeasement generally emphasize the use of concessions to satisfy the

adversarys grievances, reduce tensions, and avoid war for the foreseeable future. We argued that

these definitionsnarrowly equate appeasement with the dominant interpretation of British and French appeasement of Nazi Germany inthe 1930s and neglect other forms of appeasement. They also fail to distinguish appeasement from other influence

strategies involving concessions. These concerns led us to propose an alternative definition of

appeasement as a strategy of sustained, asymmetrical concessions in response to a threat, with theaim of avoiding war, at least in the short term(p. 154). We then distinguished three different types ofappeasement strategies, based on the goals and expectations of the appeaser: (1) resolving grievances to create alasting peace; (2) diffusing secondary threatsto focus on a primary threatby conservingresources, denying the primary adversary an important ally, or perhaps redirecting the hostility of

the secondary threat toward the primary threat; and (3) buying time to prepare for(and perhapsdeter) a possible military confrontation by rearming or securing allies. We used this typology to distinguish our

buying-time interpretation of British appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany from a standard resolving grievances interpretation.
http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog2.php/2012/04/08/neville-chamberlain-and-barack-obama-are-known-for-appeasementhttp://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/2009%20IS%201930s%20correspondence.pdfhttp://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/2009%20IS%201930s%20correspondence.pdfhttp://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/2009%20IS%201930s%20correspondence.pdfhttp://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/2009%20IS%201930s%20correspondence.pdfhttp://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog2.php/2012/04/08/neville-chamberlain-and-barack-obama-are-known-for-appeasement


14/243

2NC Appeasement Cards

Engagement and Appeasement are distinct strategies

Dueck 6(Colin, assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the

author of Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture and Change in American Grand Strategy, Strategies forManaging Rogue States, Orbis Volume 50, Issue 2, Spring 2006, Pages 223241,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030438706000056)

The term rogue state, which has come into wide usage only over the past decade, has more to do with American political culture than withinternational law.1 Nevertheless, it does capture certain undeniable international realities, namely, the continuing existence of numerousauthoritarian states that support terrorism, seek weapons of mass destruction, and harbor revisionist foreign policy ambitions. Loosening thisdefinition a bit, we can see that rogue states are really nothing new. Over the past century, Western democracies have been faced with a series of

challenges from autocratic, revisionist, and adversarial states of varying scope and size. The democracies have always had five

basic strategic alternatives in relation to such adversaries: appeasement, engagement, containment,

rollback, and non-entanglement.

Engagement must be integration through contactDueck 6(Colin, assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and theauthor of Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture and Change in American Grand Strategy, Strategies forManaging Rogue States, Orbis Volume 50, Issue 2, Spring 2006, Pages 223241,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030438706000056)

Engagement, a popular concept in recent years, actually has several possible meanings and is used in a number of different ways. It canrefer to(1) a stance of diplomatic or commercial activism internationally;8 (2) the simple fact of ongoing political or economic contact withan existing counterpart or adversary; (3) using such political or economic contact as a strategy in itself, in the

hopes that this contact will create patterns of cooperation, integration, and interdependence with a

rogue state;9 (4) a strategy under which international adversaries enter into a limited range of cooperative agreements, alongside continued

rivalry or competition;10 or (5) the very act of diplomacy, negotiating, or bargaining, regardless of its content. Only the third

definition, focusing on integration through contact, is analytically useful. The first is too vague to beof much use; the second is a condition rather than a strategy; the fourth is more accurately

captured by dtente; and as to the last definition, there is no compelling reason to abandon the

words diplomacy, negotiating, or bargaining when they have served very well up to now.11


15/243

TLong Term


16/243

1NC

A. InterpretationEconomic Engagement must be long term

Pollins 3(Brian M., Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center,

Edward Deering Mansfield, Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for InternationalPolitics at the University of Pennsylvania, Michigan Studies in International Political Economy, Economic Interdependence and InternationalConflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, 2003, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L53fR-TusZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=%22economic+engagement%22+%22long+term%22&ots=Ew9tnp8GvC&sig=a0LuxuxsKyh1OvAhS3UjiPvV8B8#v=onepage&q=long%20term&f=false)

The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics, can be traced to

Hirschman. He viewed economic engagement as a long-term, transformative strategy . As one state

gradually expands economic interaction with its target, the resulting (asymmetrical)

interdependence creates vested interestswithin the target society and government. The beneficiaries

of interdependence become addicted to it, and they protect their interests by pressuring thegovernment to accommodate the source of interdependence. Economic engagement is a form of

structural linkage; it is a means to get other states to want what you want, rather than to do whatyou want.The causal chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change toforeign policy accommodation.

Anything else is appeasementRoberts 4(Liam, BA in the Department of Political Science from Condordia University, EngagementTheory and Target Identity: An Analysis of North Korean Responses to Contemporary Inter-KoreanEngagement, 2003,https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/56483/ubc_2004-0612.pdf)

These understandings are problematic. Firstly, "short-term versus "long-term" engagement is ultimately the

distinction between appeasement and engagement. The delivery of incentives with short-term

objectives is tantamount to "buying off" a dissatisfied power. The "short" nature of such action,

though, negates any opportunity for socialization of the target, or the inculcation of new norms ofcooperation, thus disregarding the change-oriented, constructivist elements to engagement objectives. Engagement, then, is inherently

long-term in nature, and addresses a range of concerns that motivate dissatisfied challengers - as Rock

acknowledges in his understanding of long-term strategy, sources pursuing engagement seek to fundamentally change the

nature of their adversarial relationship with the target, "securing good will and cooperation on

matters of common concern."

B. Violationthe aff only facilitates a short-term relationshipthats appeasement

C. Voting Issue

1. Limitsdozens of short-relationship opportunities the aff could useexplodes

the neg research burden

the topic is already huge

2. Groundget rid of any perception DA links based off of long-term relationships

and jacks appeasement CP ground
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/56483/ubc_2004-0612.pdfhttps://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/56483/ubc_2004-0612.pdf


17/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must foster a long-term relationship with Cuba, Mexico, or

Venezuela




longthe addition of appeasement affs to this frame crushes the negative ability to





strategies



check against such a large topicappeasement changes link ground on DAs likepolitics and also changes the types of CPs that can be read by limiting out the

appeasement CP



Asecond problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency todefine the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition ofengagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague thatessentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement.The definition put forth by Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston 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 ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of





18/243



separate policies.


19/243

AT: We meet

1. No they dont meet the aff is [which is appeasement because

]

2. Engagement must be long termexcludes one time projects or policies

Shaver 10(Charles, member of the Joint Support Team, Joint Warfighting Center, 12/14/10,Comparative Analysis of Tier 1 Joint Capability Area (JCA) Alignmentwith Joint Functions Special Study,http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA537302)

g. The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO) describes engagement. Engagement activities

seek to improve the capabilities of or cooperation with allied and other partners.They may beconducted as a complement tobroader diplomatic or economic engagement, in aid of a friendly (andsometimes not so friendly) governments own security activities, and even during war itself. They are the

primary military contribution to the national challenge of establishing cooperative security. Engagement

activities typically are long-duration undertakings , ending only when they have achieved their

goals or when either the US or partner government concludes that they have become unnecessaryor unproductive.(CCJO)

3. Engagement involves establishing long-term contactsanything else is

appeasement


Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas bothpolicies 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 targetstate.(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

merelytransferred by one party to the other either unconditionally or in exchange for certain

concessions on the part of the target state.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA537302http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA537302http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA537302


20/243

AT: C/IPrefer our interpretationtwo reasons1. Their interpretation is inclusive, but ours is exclusiveinclusivity is bad because

it does not set any limiting factor, means that their interpretation cant set a scope

for the resolution as a whole2. Their interp links to all of impacts abovemeans they still explode the topic and

spike core ground


21/243

AT: Ground



to Disads like politics and competition for CPs like one investment CPs


22/243

AT: Limits



engagementour interp allows for all the core affs Cuban Embargo, Mexicandevelopment assistance, and Venezuelan oil are all T


23/243

AT: Reasonability




jurisdiction




24/243

More 2NC Cards

Engagement is a processmeans that it is ongoing and not a one shot thing

Crocker 9[9/13/09, Chester A. Crocker is a professor of strategic studies at the Walsh School of

Foreign Service at Georgetown University, was an assistant secretary of state for African affairs from1981 to 1989. Terms of Engagement,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html?_r=1&]

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 andhypothetical possibilities, and by probing the other

countrys 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 countrys court.

Engagement shouldnt/cant be measured by the ends/success of its ends also

LONG term

Hayden 13[6/20/13, Dr. Craig Hayden is an assistant professor in the International CommunicationProgram at American Universitys School of International Service.Dr. Hayden received his Ph.D. fromthe Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California. Engagement ismore convenient than helpful: dissecting a public diplomacy term,http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/engagement_is_more_convenient_than_helpful_dissecting_a_public_diplomacy_te/]

Yet the ambiguity of engagementalso provides cover for policy-makers seekingsome relieffrom the

mandate of measurement and evaluation . One of Wallins arguments is worth quoting at length: "If anything, using

the term engagementcan sometimes provide the user with a perceivedability to forgoone of the most

difficult parts of public diplomacythat is demonstrating metrics which indicate whether or not onesefforts

are succeeding at influencing the target audience. In other words, the user of engagementmay feel as

though they neednt actually explain the effects of theiractivities because they are engaging by

nature of the word." If engagementis something that unfolds over time , and involvesa number of

intervening moments that cumulate

into something like influence it doesnt fit neatly into existing measurement models that test

specific theories of persuasion, attitude change, or whatever the user wants out of engagement.But just because measurement is hard doesnt mean we shouldnt think clearly about how acts serve the strategic ends of publi c diplomacy.

Engagement must be long termdistinct from short term exchanges and QPQs

Martin 2(Curtis H, Department of Political Science, Merrimack College, Rewarding North Korea:Theoretical Perspectives on the 1994 Agreed Framework, 2002 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 39, no.1, 2002, pp. 5168, http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51.full.pdf)

Despite a reflexive preference for taking a hard line, in the autumn of 1994 the USA offered a state perceived as hostile, agg ressive, and volatile

perhaps the most dangerous of what were called rogue states a menu of diplomatic and economic incentives to freezeand eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program. This was not an offer of broad diplomatic andeconomic engagementaimed at transforming relations(Davis, 2000: 19). It was rather what Long (1996: 3) refers to
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51.full.pdfhttp://jpr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51.full.pdfhttp://jpr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51.full.pdf


25/243

as a specific short-term benefit exchanged for an explicitly delineated response from the recipient.In fact, the carrots in the Agreed Framework are better understood as part of a limitedengagement policythat still relied principally upon the sticks of containment and isolation(Litwak, 2000: 5; Oh & Hassig, 2000: 196). The most tangible of the private benefits on offer to the DPRK at an estimated cost of over $4

billion at the timewas two more proliferation-resistant light water reactors (LWRs) to replace its older graphitemoderated nuclear plants. Theprovision of heavy fuel oil to compensate North Korea for energy production foregone as the result of shutting down or not completing their newgraphite reactors was another significant incentive, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars since 1995. The much -weakened DPRK was in

need of far more than a couple of reactors and oil shipments, however. It needed economic resuscitation and security assurances to compensatefor a deteriorating security balance in the region. The North placed great value on the pledge in Article 2, Section 1, that within three months ofthe date of this document, both sides will reduce barriers to t rade and investment, which the North took as a pledge to end economic sanctions(Harrison, 1998: 63; Manning, 1998: 156). Likewise, it attached great importance to the US reiteration a year previously of the negative securityassurances first offered by the Bush administration (Sigal, 1998: 65).


26/243

TUnidirectional


27/243

1NC

A. Interpretationtoward means in the direction of

Michigan Supreme Court 1914[Michigan Reports: Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of

Michigan, Volume 180, Google Books]Under 3 Comp. Laws, 11510 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] 14559), providing that any person who shall discharge without injury to any other

person, any firearm, while intentionally, without malice, aimed at or toward any person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., acts carelesslydone, without design to do mischief, are punishable.2. SameTowardConstruction of Statute.It is sufficient, in a prosecution for violatingthe statute, to show that the accused was making use of a rifle pointed in the direction of a passenger on a car and discharged the weapon in that

direction, without striking any one. The word toward means in a course or line leading in the direction of.

B. Violationthe resolution says economic engagement TOWARD Cuba, Mexico,

or Venezuela, means the engagement can only be uni-directional. The affsengagement is multilateral.

C. Voting Issue

1. Limitstons of bi-directional affs that they could readexplodes the neg

research burden

2. Groundthey jack bi-directional CP ground and DA links based off of uni-

directional action


28/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must increase economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or

Venezuela uni-directionally.




longthe addition of bi-directional affs to this frame crushes the negative ability to





strategies


but a standard set of links and generics based off of uni-directional action are key to

check against such a large topicthey change link ground on DAs like politics andalso changes the types of CPs that can be read by limiting out the bi-directional CP


29/243

AT: C/IPrefer our interpretationtwo reasons1. Their interpretation is inclusive, but ours is exclusiveinclusivity is bad because

it does not set any limiting factor, means that their interpretation cant set a scope

for the resolution as a whole2. Their interp links to all of impacts abovemeans they still explode the topic and

spike core ground


30/243

AT: Ground


engagement mechanisms but toward is a key negative check for links to Disads like

politics and competition for CPs like bi-directional CPs


31/243

AT: Limits





32/243

AT: Reasonability




jurisdiction




33/243

TNo Private Sector


34/243

1NC

Its refers to the United States Federal Government and is possessive

Updegrave 91(W.C., senior editor of Money Magazine for 17 years, Explanation of ZIP CodeAddress Purpose, 8-19,http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htm)

More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one will see that the first digit ofa ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State. The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical

code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]. Note the singular

possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the"United States" as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the singular sense), not

in the sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the Union, butit also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.

The private sector isnt part of the governmentPrivacy Sense 11 (website that provides information on privacy legislation for organizations andindividuals, The Difference Between the Private and Public Sector,

http://www.privacysense.net/difference-between-private-public-sector/)

It is important to understand the difference between the private sector and public sectorbecause your

privacy rights will differ depending on the legislation that an organization is governed under. The Private Sector The private sector is

usually composed of organizations that are privately owned and not part of the government. These

usually includes corporations(both profit and non-profit), partnerships, and charities.An easier way to think of theprivate sector is by thinking of organizations that are not owned or operated by the government. For example, retail stores, credit unions, and

local businesses will operate in the private sector. The Public Sector The public sector is usually composed of

organizations that are owned and operated by the government. This includes federal, provincial,state, or municipal governments, depending on where you live. Privacy legislation usually calls organizations in the public sector a

public body or a public authority. Some examples of public bodies in Canada and the United Kingdom are educational bodies, health care bodies,police and prison services, and local and central government bodies and their departments.

ViolationThe aff doesnt increase USFG engagement they just increase privatesector cooperation

Thats a voter for fairness and education

1. Limitsthere are thousands of private companies that want to cooperate with

Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuelano way that the aff can be expected to defend

against all those

2. Groundkey generics like politics and privatization CPs are limited out by their

interpretation
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htmhttp://www.privacysense.net/difference-between-private-public-sector/http://www.privacysense.net/difference-between-private-public-sector/http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htm


35/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must increase United States Federal government engagement




longthe addition of private sector affs to this frame crushes the negative ability tobe able to do specific research because there are an infinite number of companies:

that ensures that no one will dedicate the time and resources necessary to the best

case specific strategies. Furthermore its not what you do its what you justify there is no reason this should logically stop at literally agencys

cooperation would be an aff under their interpretationThis decimates the besttype of cost benefit analysis which only debate can offer through the comparison of

specific, well researched strategies


but a standard set of links and generics like politics and appeasement based off of

federal government investment is key to being able to be neg on a topic with such

diverse mechanisms

Limits key in the context of engagementmeaning is inherently unclearResnick 1(Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS,Defining Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2,http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301)

Asecond problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency todefine 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 thatessentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement.The definition put forth by Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-statusquo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology ofalternative options in the realm of negative sanctions from which to choose--including covert action,



36/243




separate policies.


37/243

AT: We meet

They dont meet the aff which is part of the

private sector

1. Its refers to the United States Federal Government and is possessive the aff

has to defend the FEDERAL government and the private sector IS NOT part of the

federal governmentthats Updegrave and Privacy Sense

2. The word substantially means that the government must play the main role.CFR No Date (Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 3.1Safeguards,http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%203_1.html)

(3) Participating substantially means that the officials involvement is of significance to thematter. Substantial participation requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory

involvement, or involvement on an administrative or peripheral issue. Participation may be substantial eventhough it is not determinative of the outcome of a particular matter. A finding of substantiality should be based not only

on the effort devoted to a matter, but on the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral

involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or participating in a critical step

may be substantial. However, the review of procurement documents solely to determine compliance

with regulatory, administrative, or budgetary procedures, does not constitute substantial

participation in a procurement.

3. Economic engagement happens at the political leveldistinct from privateRao 3/15 (Nirupama, Indian ambassador to the United States, Remarks by Ambassador Nirupama Rao atthe CSIS Statesmen's Forum, 3/15/13,http://csis.org/files/attachments/130315_Ambassador_Speech_Final.pdf)

The first of these studies, BIT and Beyond, examines th e significance of a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in the context of India USeconomic relations. The second and more recent study, by Ambassador HemantKrishan Singh and TincySoloman highlights the changing

nature of India U.S. trade and economic relations. The study suggests a possible framework for strengthening

economic ties between the two countries, which comprises negotiations on concluding a BIT;

creating a stable and predictable environment for foreign investments in India; maintaining

continuity of political level direction prioritising bilateral economic engagement, including conveningmeetings of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF); a serious effort on the U.S side to ameliorate the concerns of Indias IT industry; enhancing Indiascommitment to advanced Free Trade Agreements (FTAs); and, commencement of negotiation on a India-U.S FTA. While recognizing theambitious dimensions of this agenda, the study concludes with robust optimism that, the politics of aspiration and progress will prevail,

bringing the reward of mutual prosperity to these two great democracies
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%203_1.htmlhttp://csis.org/files/attachments/130315_Ambassador_Speech_Final.pdfhttp://csis.org/files/attachments/130315_Ambassador_Speech_Final.pdfhttp://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%203_1.html


38/243

AT: CI

1. Doesnt Solve Predictable Limits

2. Doesnt Solve Ground


39/243

AT: Ground


engagement mechanisms but USFG action is a key negative check for links to Disads

like politics and appeasement and competition for CPs like privatization


40/243

AT: Limits

We dont overlimit overview proves that they allow an infinite number of private

sector affsour interp allows for all the core affs Cuban Embargo, Mexican

development assistance, and Venezuelan oil are all T


41/243

AT: Reasonability




jurisdiction




42/243

TMust be Uncondo


43/243

1NC

QPQs are not Engagement

Smith 5(Karen E, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, London School of Economics,Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing?, May 2005, Global Europe:New Terms of Engagement,http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8-3RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14)

First, a few definitions. Engagement is a foreign policy strategy of building close ties withthegovernment and/or civil society and/or business community of another state. The intention of thisstrategy is to undermine illiberal political and economic practices, and socialise government and otherdomestic actors into more liberal ways. Most cases of engagement entailprimarily building economiclinks, and encouraging trade and investmentin particular. Some observers have variously labeled thisstrategy 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 ofeconomic

and/or political conditions . Positive conditionality entails promising benefits to a state if it fulfils

the conditions; negative conditionality involves reducing, suspending, or terminating thosebenefits 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 strategyto induce change in another country, conditionality more of a top-down strategy

Violationthe affirmative conditions on


1. Limitsthere are countless things that each and every aff can be conditioned on

multiplies neg research burden more than TWICE as large

2. Groundreciever could say no to the conditionkills links to disads
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8-3RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8-3RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8-3RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8-3RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14


44/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must unconditionally increase engagement with Cuba, Mexico,

or Venezuela




longthe addition of conditional affs to this frame crushes the negative ability to beable to do specific research because there are an infinite number of conditions: that

ensures that no one will dedicate the time and resources necessary to the best case

specific strategies. Furthermore its not what you do its what you justify there is

no reason this should logically stop at they could condition

on any number of conditions:

This decimates the best type of cost benefit analysis which only debate can offerthrough the comparison of specific, well researched strategies


but a standard set of links and generics based off an action actually happening: a

mandated increase in engagement is the only way to get access to disads that arentpurely perception based like oil




engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague thatessentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement.The definition put forth by Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-statusquo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto 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



45/243



separate policies.


46/243

AT: We meet

They obviously dont meet they condition on

1. Engagement must be unconditionalthere is a distinction in the literature

between Conditionality and Engagementthats Smith prefer our ev because our

is from a professor in economics where as theirs is from __________ - means theyre

more qualified to talk about engagement in the context of economics

2. Economic engagement is distinct from offering a quid pro quo

Celik 11 [Arda Can elik, graduate M.A in political science and international relations at UppsalaUniversity Sweden, Economic sanctions and engagement policies, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/175204/economic-sanctions-and-engagement-policies]

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 economicinterdependence. Thisinterdependence servesthe 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 andthey 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 targetsto seek deeper economic linkages viapromoting institutionalized mutual tradethusmentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly itgives 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 tieswith and adversary in order to change the behaviour

of target state and improvebilateral relations.(p523-abstact).It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as longterm economic gains and more importantly; polit ical 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 o f others in the same directionAlthough, much of

the literature focuses on the effectiveness of economic sanctions, economic engagement strategies

have rapidly gained momentum andgathers more and more attention(Kahler&Kastner,2006). Kirshner(2002) states that handful ofstudies examine the Hirchmanesque effects of economic re lations and engagement policies therefore engagement policies are new ly emerging alternative strategies

against the economic sanctions. This literature is a composition of liberal and realist approaches. Liberals underline that Effectiveness of engagement policies are valid

and ascending. On the other hand, Realists criticise the potential of engagement policies and does not give credits to the arguments of engagement strategies.LiberalApproachLiterature of liberal school points out that economic engagement policies are significantly effective tools for sender and target countries. The effectiveness

leans on mutual economic and political benefits for both parties.(Garzke et al,2001). Economic engagement operates with trade

mechanisms where sender and target country establish intensified trade thus increase the economic

interactionover time. This strategy decreases the potential hostilities and provides mutual gains. Paulson Jr (2008) states that this mechanism is

highly different from carrots (inducements). Carrots work quid pro quo in short terms and for

narrow goals. Economic engagement intends to develop the target country and wants her to be

aware of the long term benefits of shared economic goals. Sender does not want to contain nor prevent the target country withdifferent policies. Conversely; sender works deliberately to improve the target countries Gdp, trade potential, export-import ratios and national income. Sender acts in

purpose to reach important goals. First it establishes strong economic ties because economic integration has the capacity to change the political choices and behaviour

of target country. Sender state believes in that economic linkages have political transformation potential.(Kroll,1993)


47/243

AT: CI

Their interpretation is terrible for debate

1. Kills limitsthere are at least twice as many affs under their interpthat was in

the overview

2. Kills ground because there is no guarantee that the other country will say yes

3. Kills predictable aff groundaffs have an infinite range of PICs that they would

have to be prepared to defend against if they specify a QPQ

4. Radically changes competition debateseach separate QPQ will have to be dealt

with separately which in terms of competition which increases research even for

generics


48/243

AT: Ground


engagement mechanisms but guarantee that action will actually happen is a key

negative check for links to any DAs that arent completely perception based


49/243

AT: Limits

We dont over limit plenty of room for aff innovation because of diverse

mechanismthat was in the overviewour interp allows all of the core affs like

Cuban embargo, Mexican development assistance, and Venezuelan oil but limits outtiny conditions which radically change the nature of being negative on the topic


50/243

AT: Reasonability




jurisdiction




51/243

TNo Environment


52/243

1NC

Environment treaties are NOT economic engagement

Rose 8(Andrew K, professor @ Haas School of Business Administration @ University of California,Berkeley, Mark M. Spiegel, researcher @ Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Non-EconomicEngagement and International Exchange: The Case of Environmental Treaties, NBER Working PaperNo. 13988, May 2008,http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988)

We examine the role of non-economic partnershipsin promoting international economic exchange. Since far-sighted

countries are more willing to join costly international partnerships such as environmental treaties, environmental

engagement tends to encourage international lending. Countries with such non-economic

partnerships also find it easier to engage in economic exchangessince they face the possibility that debt defaultmight also spill over to hinder their non-economic relationships. We present a theoretical model of these ideas, and then verify their empiricalimportance using a bilateral cross-section of data on international cross-holdings of assets and environmental treaties. Our results support thenotion that international environmental cooperation facilitates economic exchange.

Violationthe aff is an environment treatyit


1. Limitsengagement has such a broad definition in the literature that you have to

limit to things that are primarily economicotherwise negs have to research whole

other literature bases

2. Groundkey generics rely on engagement actually being economic

environmental engagement change links to Disads like politics and Credibility
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988


53/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must be economic engagementthat excludes environmental

treaties




longthe addition of environmental affs to this frame crushes the negative ability tobe able to do specific research because the neg would be responsible for another

entire literature base: that ensures that no one will dedicate the time and resources

necessary to the best case specific strategies. Furthermore its not what you do itswhat you justifythere is no reason this should logically stop at the environment they also justify military and political engagement which expands the breadth of

education so much that it prevents us from learning about the economics of the topicThis decimates the best type of cost benefit analysis which only debate can offer

through the comparison of specific, well researched strategies



check against such a large topicenvironment changes link ground on DAs like

politics and also changes the types of CPs that can be read by limiting out

privatization and bank CPs




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 Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-statusquo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of



54/243





separate policies.


55/243

AT: We meet

No they dont meet the aff is [which is an environmental treaty

because ]

1. Environmental treaties are part of non-economic engagementthats Rose

prefer our ev because its from a professor at Berkeleys business school more

qualified to talk about international economics

2. International Environmental Agreements are Non-economic

Rose 8(Andrew K, professor @ Haas School of Business Administration @ University of California,Berkeley, Mark M. Spiegel, researcher @ Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Non-EconomicEngagement and International Exchange: The Case of Environmental Treaties, NBER Working PaperNo. 13988, May 2008,http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988.pdf?new_window=1)

Is there a cost to going it alone? Is it costly for countries to ignore international environmental

agreements? Yes. Countries have varying degrees of foreign engagement. Some aredeeply enmeshedin defense alliances, environmental treaties, and international organizations; others are not. Aboveand beyond the direct consequences of such entanglements, we have found in this paper that countrieswith greater IEA participation also have higher trade in assets. Thus membership in internationalinstitutions brings indirect benefits; not joining such partnerships has costs. We chose to examineinternational environmental arrangements as one example of non-economic interactions. However,there area variety of other domains inwhich countries interact; security arrangements andinternational organizations come to mind immediately.

3. Environmental treaties are ENVIRONMENTAL engagementnot economic

(also trade done by environmental treaties is still not topical)

Rose and Spiegel 8 [Rose is B.T. Rocca Jr. Professor of International Trade and Economic Analysis

and Policy in the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, NBER researchassociate and CEPR research fellow. Spiegel is Vice President, Economic Research, Federal ReserveBank of San Francisco. Non-Economic Engagement and International Exchange: The Case ofEnvironmental Treaties, http://halleinstitute.emory.edu/pdfs/PIEF_Rose_Spiegel.pdf]

We concludefrom all this that there is indeed a link between environmental engagement as proxied

through environmental treaty obligations and international exchanges of assets. Moreover, this

link appears to reflect both overall and joint IEA participation, suggesting that both

the pure reputation and bilateral punishment channels for reputation spillovers

play a role in the determination of cross-holdings of assets. Sensitivity analysis alsoconfirmed a role for overall IEA participation in the determination of trade levels,

although joint IEA participation did not enter measurably in this specification,

casting some doubt on the presence of bilateral environmental punishments as a

facilitator of overall trade levels
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988.pdf?new_window=1http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988.pdf?new_window=1


56/243

AT: CI

Our interp is better than their counter interp

1. Limits debate in the overview proves that they justify whole new categories of

engagement

2. Doesnt access our ground arguments changes the types of links and CPs that

the negs can readthat was also in the overview


57/243

AT: Ground



to Disads like politics and competition for CPs like bank CPs


58/243

AT: Limits





59/243

AT: Reasonability




jurisdiction




60/243

TNo Military


61/243

1NC

Economic engagement is distinct from military and diplomatic engagement

Derrick 98(Robert, Lieutenant Colonel US Army, ENGAGEMENT: THE NATIONS PREMIERGRAND STRATEGY, WHO'S IN CHARGE?, 1998,http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695)

Economic engagement coversa wide range of programs. Financial incentivesare an effectiveengagement tool since countries usually interact with the US when money is involved. Whether it isobtaining funding for a national program; acquiring materiel, food or medicine; ormaintaining MostFavored Nation 12Status, financial aide has always been a preferred way for the US to affect the

behavior of others. Diplomatic engagement ranges from recognition of sovereign states and foreigngovernments, to presidential visits, to all aspects of the embassy itself. Themere existence of anembassyis an engagement tool. Through official diplomatic ceremonies, informal meetings, and embassyemployees living among the locals, the Department of State's presenceis engagement in and of itself.Similarly, "...overseas...forces embodyglobal military engagement. They serve as role models formilitaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility thatprotects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and economic development."14 In additionto our presence overseas, our military engagement consists of a variety of military to military andpolitical to military events.U.S. and host nation defense forces conduct combined exercisesto improvecooperation and strengthen ties. Much of the peacetime efforts of the DOS and DODare engagement.This is in the form of forward presence, regional exercises, and infrastructure construction projects.The engagement tools of three of our five instruments of our National Power: Military, Economic andPolitical, (Geographical and National Will being the other two), listed below in Figure 3, are a fewexamples of how the US uses these powers to stay engaged.

Military Diplomatic EconomicCJCS Exercises State Recognition Agcy for Intl DeviDepl for Trng (DFT) Presidential Visits Econ Spt Fund (ESF)Intl Mil Ed & Tr (IMET) Demarshe Fgn Mil Sales (FMS)Counterdrug Spt (CD) Treaties & Health AidMobile Tr Teams (MTT) Agreements

Violationthe aff is military engagementit


1. Limitsengagement has such a broad definition in the literature that you have tolimit to things that are primarily economicotherwise negs have to research whole

other literature bases

2. Groundkey generics rely on engagement actually being economicmilitary

engagement change links to Disads like politics and Credibility
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695


62/243

2NC Overview

A topical affirmative must be economic engagementthat excludes military

engagement




longthe addition of the military to this frame crushes the negative ability to beable to do specific research because the neg would be responsible for another entire

literature base: that ensures that no one will dedicate the time and resources

necessary to the best case specific strategies. Furthermore its not what you do itswhat you justifythere is no reason this should logically stop at the military they

also justify environmental and political engagement which expands the breadth of

education so much that it prevents us from learning about the economics of the topicThis decimates the best type of cost benefit analysis which only debate can offer

through the comparison of specific, well researched strategies



check against such a large topicmilitary affs change link ground on DAs like

politics and also changes the types of CPs that can be read by limiting out

privatization and bank CPs




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 Alastairlain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According toJohnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-statusquo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US ForeignPolicy, 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'Sullivandefine engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentivesto achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of

http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=44

Topicality - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors

Documents

Transcript of Topicality - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors