Tournament: StMarks Hoe Down | Round: 6 | Opponent: Greenhill | Judge:
- Economic engagement requires a Quid Pro Quo—the topic demands the plan must expand economic ties with an adversary to directly change target behavior
Kahler and Kastner 06 (Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University of California, San Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, “STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN”, Journal of Peace Research)
Violation- the affirmative participates in unconditional engagement with Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico without requiring a behavioral or policy change in the target state. This is defined as economic appeasement, not economic engagement
Mastanduno 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)
3. Voting Issues
a. Limits- Unconditional economic engagement blows the lid on the number of affirmatives- justifies USFG giving aid to any number private institutions in the country to solve some small impact that even neg generics can’t access
b. Precision- Our definition has resolutional context as it defines economic engagement in relation to foreign countries the US empirically engaged with such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan