Tournament: UGA | Round: 3 | Opponent: Chattahoochee SM | Judge: Reuben Lack
Plan
As part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, the United States federal government should offer to facilitate improved efficiency and reduced congestion at Land Ports of Entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Advantage One: Manufacturing
First, congestion at the U.S.-Mexico border hamstrings bilateral trade — infrastructure is antiquated.
Farnsworth 1/15 — Eric Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society, formerly served in the White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas and the U.S. Department of State, holds an M.P.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, 2014 (“NAFTA at Twenty: Accomplishments, Challenges, and the Way Forward,” Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, January 15th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20140115/101650/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-FarnsworthE-20140115.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 3-4)
But the World has Changed in the Past 20 Years, and NAFTA has Become Dated
Since then, however, the world has changed dramatically, and NAFTA is now showing its age. AND
As trade increases, this picture will continue to get worse.
Second, the plan effectively creates a 21st century U.S.-Mexico border. The framework already exists but bilateral engagement is key.
Wilson 12/9 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2013 (“Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce With Mexico At America’s Southern Border,” Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, December 9th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20131209/101563/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-WilsonC-20131209.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 2-4)
In my judgement, the framework for border management currently in place is strong.
AND
The payoffs for each of these actions would be considerable.
Third, U.S.-Mexico trade is the lynchpin of American manufacturing — it’s key to prevent outsourcing of production and jobs.
Wilson 11 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2011 (“Working Together: An Overview of Economic Integration,” Working Together: Economic Ties Between The United States and Mexico, Published by the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ISBN 1933549742, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working20Together20Full20Document.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013, p. 21-24)
Trade with Mexico is vitally important to the U.S. economy and the livelihood of millions of Americans.
AND
To best take advantage of the large and emerging markets outside its borders, U.S. manufacturers would be well served by linking U.S. and Mexican production in ways that improve the competitiveness of regional products and take advantage of the free trade agreements signed by both nations to gain preferential access to world markets.
Fourth, strong American manufacturing is vital to economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation.
Ezell 12 — Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation—a non-partisan research and educational institute and think tank whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies to advance technological innovation and productivity, former head of the Global Service Innovation Consortium at Peer Insight—an innovation research and consulting firm, holds a B.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University with an Honors Certificate from Georgetown’s Landegger International Business Diplomacy program, 2012 (“Why the United States Needs a National Manufacturing Strategy,” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Volume 7, Number 3, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 179-183)
Why Manufacturing Matters to the U.S. Economy
A robust manufacturing sector is indispensable to the health of the U.S. economy for at least four critical reasons
AND
This is something virtually all of the United States’ major economic competitors understand, which is why dozens of nations have implemented specific strategies to bolster their manufacturing competitiveness. These countries reject the neoclassical economics belief that “all sectors are created equal,” and recognize that their manufacturing sectors are key drivers of economic growth and therefore deserve special policy focus.
Fifth, economic growth is crucial to address all global challenges — the impact is linear.
Silk 93 — Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and former Economics Columnist with the New York Times, 1993 (“Dangers of Slow Growth,” Foreign Affairs, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the firs of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world
AND
But economic growth – and growth alone – creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.
Sixth, innovation is vital to maintain the defense industrial base and U.S. technological leadership.
Yudken 10 — Joel S. Yudken, Principal and Founder of High Road Strategies, LLC—a nationally known expert on industrial, energy, economic development, and technology policy issues, Sectoral Economist and Technology Policy Analyst in the Public Policy Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, former member of the National Research Council’s Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design, holds an M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems and a Ph.D. in Technology and Society from Stanford University, 2010 (“Conclusion,” Manufacturing Insecurity: America's Manufacturing Crisis and the Erosion of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, Report Prepared for the Industrial Union Council of the AFL-CIO, September, Available Online at http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/3665/38375/manuffull_092010.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013)
The erosion and overseas migration of domestic manufacturing is also weakening America’s RandD and innovation capacity, and undermining its global technological leadership
AND
And as the United States loses its technological edge through movements of RandD offshore, underinvestment in RandD by U.S. private industry, and lack of attention to this critical loss by the U.S. government—with the shedding of millions of skilled workers as a result—the know-how needed for maintaining and advancing U.S. technology leadership vital for national security, and embodied in those displaced workers, is being lost as well.
Seventh, a strong defense industrial base is necessary to deter global conflict.
Eaglen and Sayers 9 — Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow for National Security Studies at The Heritage Foundation, served as the Principal Defense Adviser to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), former Presidential Management Fellow at the United States Department of Defense, holds an M.A. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Eric Sayers, Research Assistant for National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, holds a M.Sc. in Strategic Studies from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and an M.A. in Political Science from The University of Western Ontario, 2009 (“Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2276, May 22nd, Available Online at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/maintaining-the-superiority-of-americas-defense-industrial-base, Accessed 09-01-2013)
America's military strength remains vital to preserving the nation's interests and sustaining international stability.
AND
While technology alone has not assured American military superiority, the defense industry has nevertheless been a potent enabler of American military might. The base of this power can be found in a series of core capabilities that the U.S. has been able to maintain and continue to modernize over recent decades.
Eighth, technological leadership is key to sustain overall U.S. leadership—theoretical models and 500 years of history.
Drezner 1 — Daniel Drezner, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, International Economist in the Office of International Banking and Securities at the Department of the Treasury, International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, 2001 (“State Structure, Technological Leadership and The Maintenance Of Hegemony,” Review of International Studies, Volume 27, Issue 1, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Cambridge Journals Online, p. 3-5)
The importance of economic growth to state power is undisputed by international relations scholars.1 The importance of technological innovation to economic growth is similarly undisputed by economists.2 Logically, technological leadership is a linchpin of great-power status in the world, a fact recognized by long-cycle theorists.
AND
These innovations generate spillover effects to the rest of the lead economy, and then to the global economy. Over time, these ‘technological hegemons’ fail to maintain the rate of innovations, leading to a period of strife until a new hegemon is found.
Eleventh, U.S. leadership is the lynchpin of global stability — withdrawal opens a power vacuum that spurs conflict.
Goure 13 — Daniel Goure, President of The Lexington Institute—a nonprofit public-policy research organization, Adjunct Professor in Graduate Programs at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, Adjunct Professor at the National Defense University, former Deputy Director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has consulted for the Departments of State, Defense and Energy, has taught or lectured at the Johns Hopkins University, the Foreign Service Institute, the National War College, the Naval War College, the Air War College, and the Inter-American Defense College, holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in International Relations and Russian Studies from Johns Hopkins University, 2013 (“How U.S. Military Power Holds the World Together,” inFocus Quarterly—the Jewish Policy Center's journal, Volume VII, Number 2, Summer, Available Online at http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4397/us-military-power, Accessed 08-17-2013)
The Centrality of U.S. Power
There are three fundamental problems with the argument in favor of abandoning America's security role in the world
AND
resilience that has proved invaluable in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
Finally, U.S. leadership structurally decreases the risk of every proximate cause of conflict — best data.
Finally, U.S. hegemony ensures global peace — there’s no replacement.
Thayer 13 — Bradley A. Thayer, Tenured Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science at Utah State University, former Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Associate Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, 2013 (“Humans, Not Angels: Reasons to Doubt the Decline of War Thesis,” in “The Decline of War”—a Forum edited by Nils Petter Gleditsch, International Studies Review, Volume 15, Issue 3, September, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Wiley Online Library)
The Importance of the System and the Distribution of Power
Pinker adopts a unit level approach to his study, and so the influence of the system is neglected in his approach. He does not recognize…ifically US power for stability, there is reason to be concerned about the future as the distribution of relative power changes and not to the benefit of the United States.
Advantage Two: Trade Leadership
First, U.S. global trade leadership is waning. Reinvigorating NAFTA by investing in border infrastructure is necessary to reverse this trend.
McLarty 12/15 — Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, former White House Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, recipient of the Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Medal and the Center for the Study of the Presidency Distinguished Service Award, 2013 (“It's Time for NAFTA 2.0,” Wall Street Journal, December 15th, Available Online at http://thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32andpubID=3455, Accessed 01-14-2014)
Yet today the U.S. and the region are facing a changing international landscape for trade and investment. It brings new risks but also opportunities to strengthen our economic recovery
AND
. But as we search for ways to reinvigorate the U.S. economy, freer trade and greater cooperation with our North American neighbors is a clear winner, and perhaps an opportunity for another bipartisan moment in Washington.
Second, border investment via the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue builds trade momentum and reinvigorates trade leadership — it’s key to the success of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
COA 1/10 — The Council of the Americas, 2014 (“Comments on the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue,” January 10th, Available Online at http://www.as-coa.org/articles/comments-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue, Accessed 01-15-2014)
The Council of the Americas (Council) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments concerning the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue (HLED), particularly on the third pillar, Partnering for Regional and Global Leadership.
The Council strongly supports the HLED process as a means to enhance North America’s global competitiveness and build out broader trade expansion initiatives in the region.
AND
The Council thanks the Department of Commerce for the opportunity to submit these comments and offers itself as a continued resource for the HLED.
Third, U.S. global trade leadership through the TPP and TTIP is vital to global security. The certainty of the plan signals America’s commitment to free trade — it’s key to the economy, competitiveness, soft power, and transatlantic relations.
Heywood 10/15 — Marcela Heywood, Intern at the National Security Network, 2013 (“TPP, TTIP and Getting America's Competitiveness Back on Track,” Democracy Arsenal—a scholarly blog about foreign policy from the National Security Network, October 15th, Available Online at http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/10/tpp-ttip-and-getting-americas-competitiveness-back-on-track.html, Accessed 01-15-2014)
Last week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bali, Indonesia marked further progress for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and set an ambitious goal to finish negotiations by the end of the year. Although the U.S. government shutdown – and President Obama’s absence in Bali – did not hinder the trade talks, it did call America’s credibility into question. Government shutdown could threaten both TPP and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations by displaying uncertainty in U.S. economic and foreign policy priorities.
AND
The future of TTP and TTIP remains to be seen, and their successful negotiations and ratifications by member states is far from certain. Nonetheless, they must be viewed as the contemporary solution to international trade and provide a serious strategic alternative to the WTO stalemate, struggling American competitiveness and a sluggish domestic economy in the face of considerable uncertainty regarding the structure of the international system in the 21st century.
Fourth, transatlantic relations provide an impact dampener that prevents catastrophic global impacts.
Stivachtis 10 — Yannis. A. Stivachtis, Director of the International Studies Program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, holds a Ph.D. in Politics and International Relations and an M.A. in International Relations and Strategic Studies from Lancaster University (UK), 2010 (“The Imperative for Transatlantic Cooperation,” Research Institute for European and American Studies, Available Online at http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/78.html, Accessed 11-20-2013)
There is no doubt that US-European relations are in a period of transition,
AND
Therefore, cooperation between the U.S. and Europe is more imperative than ever to deal effectively with these problems. It is fair to say that the challenges of crafting a new relationship between the U.S. and the EU as well as between the U.S. and NATO are more regional than global, but the implications of success or failure will be global.
Fifth, any alternative to U.S. trade leadership collapses the international system and sparks nuclear war.
Panzner 7 — Michael J. Panzner, Faculty Member specializing in Equities, Trading, Global Capital Markets and Technical Analysis at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase, 2007 (“Geopolitics,” Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes, Published by Kaplan Publishing, ISBN 141959608X, p. 130-138)
With the United States losing its place at the head of the economic table, the energizing force that has long led the charge for open markets and free trade will itself retreat into isolation and protectionism
AND
As events unfold, unsettling geopolitical tensions and the continuing economic collapse will weigh heavily on the familiar routines of everyday life, forcing many Americans to wonder when, or if, it will ever end.