Tournament: Samford | Round: 2 | Opponent: Alpharetta RS | Judge: Andrew Lockwood
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 ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Wood and Wilson 9/20 — Duncan Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former Professor and Director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, former Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, holds a Ph.D. in Political Studies from Queen’s University (Canada), and 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 ("For Biden, Mexico’s endless allure," The Great Debate—a Reuters blog, September 20th, Available Online at http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/20/for-biden-mexicos-endless-allure/, Accessed 09-23-2013)
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed, the pace of progress on U.S.-Mexico economic relations has generally slowed, and, in a few sectors, even regressed. The strengthened border security after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, for example, has led to long lines at the border for legitimate commerce and travelers.
Initiatives and forums do exist to address border and other issues, but U.S.-Mexico relations are notoriously difficult because of the mix of domestic and foreign policy issues in play. In addition, a wide array of federal agencies, and even state and local governments, are involved.
The High Level Economic Dialogue will be focused on three main pillars: competitiveness and connectivity; productivity and innovation, and cooperation on regional and global issues. Initiatives are being developed in each category and are likely to be discussed on the trip. But just as important as the specific projects is the role of the vice president.
Baker Institute 9 — The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University—a nonpartisan public policy think tank, 2009 ("Developing the U.S.-Mexico Border Region for a Prosperous and Secure Relationship," Baker Institute Policy Report, Number 38, April, Available Online at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/LAI-pub-BorderSecPREnglish-041509.pdf, Accessed 07-26-2013, p. 1)
The relationship between the United States and Mexico has historically been a strong one, but internal politics in both countries today are preventing a potentially closer and more productive alliance. Problems at the border loom large in the political calculation of decision makers both in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City.
Daily news reports seem to imply that problems developing at the border stand to derail
AND
next four years to advance common goals such as economic prosperity and security.
This report on the U.S.–Mexico border aims to aid policymakers in
AND
that are more likely to hinder, rather than promote, common goals.
First, U.S.-Latin American Relations — they’re strained by the spying scandal.
AP 13 — Associated Press, 2013 ("Snowden affair chills US-Latin American ties," July 15th, Available Online at http://www.newsdaily.com/world/a59f2f63240c922b489e51540d98ec77/snowden-affair-chills-us-latin-american-ties, Accessed 08-11-2013)
Latin America’s unhappiness over the scandal involving intelligence leaker Edward Snowden is further straining the region’s already thorny relations with U.S.
Taking the opportunity to snub their noses at the U.S., Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have said they’d be willing to grant asylum for Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges in the United States for revealing the scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs that spy on Americans and foreigners. Ecuador has said it would consider any request from him.
Relations between the U.S. and these countries were already testy, and the Snowden affair is further complicating the Obama administration’s effort to improve ties with friendlier nations in the region like Mexico and Brazil.
Leaders in the region harshly criticized the U.S. earlier this week when a newspaper in Brazil, which was privy to some documents released by Snowden, reported that a U.S. spy program was widely targeting data in emails and telephone calls across Latin America. That revelation came just days after an uproar in Latin America over the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane over Europe amid suspicions, later proven untrue, that Snowden was aboard.
And all this comes right after President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Kerry have all made recent treks to the region to bolster U.S. engagement in Latin America.
"What the Snowden affair has done to the reinvigorated effort to re-engage with Latin America is to dump a pail of cold water on it," said Carl Meacham, a former senior Latin America adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It won’t stop trade deals, cooperation on energy, but it’s going to be harder for the president to portray the image that ’We are here to work with you.’ It’s a step back."
Hakim 13 — Peter Hakim, Peter Hakim, President Emeritus and Senior Fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue—a Washington-based think tank on Western Hemisphere affairs, Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has served on boards and advisory committees for the World Bank, Council on Competitiveness, Inter-American Development Bank, Canadian Foundation for Latin America, Partners for Democratic Change, and Human Rights Watch, holds a Master of Public and International Affairs degree from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, 2013 ("Obama returns to Latin America," Latin Pulse — Inter-American Dialogue, April 19th, Available Online: http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=3226pubID=329126s=venezuela-http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=3226pubID=329126s=venezuela, Accessed: 05/10/2013)
When President Obama meets with Peña Nieto in Mexico early next month, the visit will have mostly positive overtones. This is a striking contrast with the rest of Latin America, where US relations have turned cooler and more distant.
Both Mexico and the US are working toward long-deferred reforms that should open an array of fresh opportunities to upgrade their relationship. Washington is on the verge of legislating a sensible and humane reform of its immigration laws. In Mexico, Peña Nieto’s government has embarked on a far-reaching program of reform which could transform Mexico into a much stronger US economic partner.
The second stop on Obama’s trip, Costa Rica, will present the US president
AND
and social and economic progress, feels threatened by the region’s criminal organization.
A strong US commitment is essential here. No other country has the historical, demographic, and economic ties to Central America that the US does—and no other government is likely to come decisively to the region’s aid. But President Obama needs to pay close attention to views of the Central American leaders, many of whom have sharply different views from the US on issues of security and drug policy.
The US has invested some 24500 million dollars in security aid over past five years, but this has clearly not been enough. There is, moreover, a need for Washington to fashion a broader, longer term policy that gets beyond security and deals a broader set of issues. The US should also be seeking to take better advantage of the free trade arrangements it has with every Central American country.
Mexico and Central America present a test for the US. If Washington is unable
AND
where many countries are increasingly ambivalent about their relations with the United States.
And, relations resolve a wide range of global impacts — cooperation is key.
Bachelet et al. 12 — Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile, head of UN Women, and Carla A. Hills, Co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations, Chair of the National Committee on United States-China Relations, served as United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Ford and as a U.S. Trade Representative under President Bush, co-chairs of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum of the Inter-American Dialogue—a non-partisan, 100-member group of politicians, academics, business leaders, and others from the United States and Latin America, et al., 2012 ("Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America," Report of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum of the Inter-American Dialogue, April, Available Online at http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 05-20-2013, p. 3-4)
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties.
Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with
AND
, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership. ~end page 3~
Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing. If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart. The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation. Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Leonard 11/1 — Mark Leonard, Co-Founder and Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, former Director of Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Reform and Director of the Foreign Policy Centre, 2013 ("The NSA and the weakness of American power," European Council on Foreign Relations, November 1st, Available Online at http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_the_nsa_and_the_weakness_of_american_power, Accessed 11-20-2013)
The NSA scandal over phone tapping in Europe will soon blow over, conventional wisdom says. Jack Shafer has argued that, although allied leaders such as Angela Merkel are upset, they will (and have to) get over it.
Don’t believe a word of it. The public outrage that the NSA has spawned could be more damaging to the transatlantic relationship than the Iraq war was a decade ago.
If it was all up to leaders, Shafer might be right. But governments - along with their intelligence services - are increasingly boxed in by public opinion. It’s not the spying or the lying that European citizens find more hurtful. It is the perception that U.S. agencies are as oblivious to the rights of allies as they are scrupulous at upholding the rights of their own citizens.
Seen from Europe, the NSA saga is another episode in the long-running
AND
the arrival of what Fareed Zakaria called a "Post-American World."
Kagan was honest enough to admit, after the Iraq war, that Europeans helped rein in American behavior by challenging its legitimacy. "If the United States is suffering a crisis of legitimacy," Kagan wrote, "it is in large part because Europe wants to regain some measure of control over Washington’s behavior."
The Franco-German response to the hegemony of the NSA has echoes of their response to the "Global War on Terror." European citizens were not shocked that the NSA spies, but they were surprised by the power and reach of American intelligence.
When I interviewed Jose Ignacio Torreblanca, a Spanish foreign policy expert, he compared the NSA’s approach to data to the Library of Congress’ approach to books. When he asked a librarian about the library’s acquisitions policy, he learned that it didn’t have one. "We just buy everything," the librarian told him. He compares this approach to the NSA probing the emails of all European citizens and justifying the purpose afterward.
One of the few unwritten laws in international politics is when a country reaches a level of power that is out of control, other countries will come together and balance it. Now two European institutions — the unelected European Commission and the unloved European Parliament - have the power and the incentive to try to take on the region’s closest ally.
The most obvious possibility for this is cooperation on counter-terrorism. Last week
AND
the EU, William Kennard, was the former chairman of the FCC.
As the latest revelations show, Europe’s intelligence agencies have often been willing co-conspirators with their counterparts across the Atlantic, but they will now be under much stronger public pressure not to comply.
There could be commercial implications to the NSA’s behavior. The European Commission is the most powerful regulatory body in the world, and it has the strength to impose its will on America’s corporate titans. In 2004, EU regulators hit Microsoft with a record fine of 24613 million for violating European Union antitrust laws. Five years later they used the same tactics to force Microsoft to unbundle its Internet Explorer from Windows.
Sebastian Dullien, a German economist, argues that some people might call on the
AND
might force many of the tech giants to shutter their operations in Europe."
The European Commission, together with the European Space Agency, successfully funded the 245 billion Galileo project to develop a European answer to GPS. In the wake of the NSA scandal, there are calls for the EU to use similar tactics to develop safe cloud servers for Europe. Such a move could lead to a balkanisation - or at least a de-Americanisation - of the Internet.
Third, there will be consequences for the much vaunted Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
AND
, but it will make it more difficult to agree a comprehensive one.
Fears about data privacy will make it more difficult to have mutual recognition of regulations
AND
so riddled with opt-outs and exemptions that it has little effect.
The real toxicity of the NSA revelations is that they replace a sense of shared values with deep public mistrust on both sides of the Atlantic. As Torreblanca argues: "Americans do not seem to realise that powers of surveillance that are used not just for counter-terrorism but also for commercial advantage could put them in the same category as China."
The scars of the Iraq war live on long after the protagonists of that episode have moved on, as we saw in the debates about intervention in Syria. But the NSA scandals have the potential to leave an even deeper impression on an already weaker transatlantic alliance. The intelligence relationships that did so much to unite allies in the Cold War now threaten to blow up their relations during a time of peace.
And, the plan solves — improved relations with Mexico are crucial to rebuild broken relationships worldwide.
Shirk 11/14 — David Shirk, Director of the Justice in Mexico Project and Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of San Diego, former Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, former Fellow at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-San Diego, 2013 ("The NSA in Mexico: If You Can’t Betray Your Friends, Who Can You Betray?," The Expert Take—a scholarly blog from the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, November 14th, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/nsamex, Accessed 11-19-2013)
The NSA wiretapping scandal has provoked outrage around the world because of the apparently indiscriminate
AND
offering Snowden a one-year visa and, recently, a job.
Reactions in Mexico have been comparatively staid. The Mexican foreign ministry immediately summoned the
AND
as well-warranted by the pervasive corruption that infects Mexican government institutions.
There is no doubt that the NSA’s wiretapping shenanigans have serious international implications, and
AND
President Obama an opportunity to right America’s course, and rebuild our relationships.
And Mexico is a good place to start. The NSA leaks, and Mexico’s
AND
demand greater respect for the appropriate boundaries of cooperation with the United States.
Atlantic Council 11/8 — Atlantic Council, 2013 ("Stabilizing Transatlantic Relations after the NSA Revelations," November 8th, Available Online at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/19/335393/us-spying-strains-europe-relations/, Accessed 11-20-2013)
Recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s global intelligence collection efforts, including actions against
AND
and devise a comprehensive approach to the on-going crisis in Syria.
The NSA revelations put the United States in a difficult situation. The first step
AND
how either side of the Atlantic view the roles of sovereignty and privacy.
While it is important to address the fallout from the revelations, it is important to also address the larger question which Ambassador Ischinger stressed— a shift from "government to googlement." Companies and governments have unprecedented ability to intercept, gather, and process data. There are no adequate rules on how to address the issue of data privacy but the opportunity exists for the United States and Europe to work together on developing such rules.
The fallout of the NSA revelations has been compared to the crisis in diplomatic relations
AND
return to core agenda on transatlantic cooperation, such as Iran and Syria.
Frederick Kempe asked what steps can be taken or what advice can be given to help in the current situation. Ambassador Ischinger responded, saying that it is worth noting that nothing is more damaging than the results of losing faith and face because of an ally.
General Hayden agreed with Ambassador Ischinger, concerning losing face and faith in a partner. Our failure to keep secrets a secret put a friend in a bad spot and now the onus is on the United States to make the next move. As a result it is our responsibility to be more open and give more in regulation negotiations.
And, transatlantic relations prevent catastrophic global impacts.
Stivachtis 10 — Yannis. A. Stivachtis, Director of the International Studies Program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute 26 State University, holds a Ph.D. in Politics 26 International Relations and an M.A. in International Relations 26 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 that the stresses and strains of globalization are increasing both the number and the seriousness of the challenges that confront transatlantic relations.
The events of 9/11 and the Iraq War have added significantly to these
AND
require further cooperation among countries at the regional, global and institutional levels.
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.
First, inefficiency and congestion at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry cost are decimating regional competitiveness — the status quo hamstrings trade.
Wilson 9/13 — 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 ("Ad-Hoc Hearing: Redefining Border Security: Border Communities Demand to be Heard in the Comprehensive Immigration Debate," Congressional Testimony, September 13th, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border20Trade20Testimony_0.pdf, Accessed 09-23-2013)
Creating a Secure and Competitive Border
The infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and individuals entering
AND
of the region and of the United States and Mexico in their entirety.
Several studies have attempted to quantify the costs of border area congestion to the economies
AND
.S. GDP and would create thirty-three American jobs.1
Given the importance of our nation’s security and economic needs, solutions are needed that
AND
maximize existing resources, improving throughput and reducing congestion, are also needed.
For the past two decades, border security efforts along the U.S.-
AND
and efficiency needs of the official ports of entry could exacerbate this issue.
O’Rourke 9/18 — Beto O’Rourke, Member of the United States House of Representatives (D-TX), 2013 ("Interview: Rep. Beto O’Rourke on How to Build Jobs at the U.S.-Mexico Border," Americas Society / Council of the Americas, September 18th, Available Online at http://www.as-coa.org/articles/interview-rep-beto-orourke-how-build-jobs-us-mexico-border, Accessed 09-23-2013)
AS/COA: At our conference last month, you expressed concern with perceptions that identify the U.S.-Mexico border as a security threat rather than as an economic opportunity. Why should your colleagues from non-border districts care about facilitating cross-border trade?
Representative Beto O’Rourke: Members of Congress who don’t live close to the U.S.-Mexico border have a vested interest in the success of the border and helping to facilitate a healthy border because it will mean more jobs in their districts. Even more importantly, it will also mean that they won’t lose the jobs that they have now that are dependent on U.S.-Mexico trade and commerce.
The estimate is that there are about 6 million U.S. jobs that
AND
of entry, but I don’t expect them to act in our interests.
So the appeal to that member from Illinois is that there are more than 250
AND
people, goods, and commerce through our ports of entry with Mexico.
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 ("Introduction," 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. 5-8)
U.S.-Mexico economic integration boomed in the 1980s and 1990s as Mexico
AND
investment among the three North American countries, making the economies profoundly interdependent.
Outside of North America, the largest challenge to U.S.-Mexico integration
AND
and materials used to make products that are sold to the United States.
In order to protect the U.S. jobs that depend on supplying Mexican manufacturers, it is important that businesses and policymakers work to improve the competitiveness of U.S.-Mexico supply chains. Businesses might also look for ways to take advantage of Mexico’s 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries to increase jointly produced exports to the rest of the world.
Within the region, another set of challenges has emerged in the new millennium.
AND
vis other economic regions such as Europe or East and Southeast Asia.21
Many argue the border has become more difficult and costly to cross as a result
AND
new border crossings in 2010, two in Texas and one in Arizona.
There is no doubt that the economies of the United States and Mexico are facing
AND
a vision of the United States and Mexico as partners rather than competitors.
Fourth, the plan solves by improving efficiency and reducing congestion.
Lee and Wilson 12 — Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, former assistant director at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California-San Diego, holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of California-San Diego, and 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, 2012 ("The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic Wellbeing in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region," Working Paper of the Border Research Partnership—comprised of Arizona State University’s North American Center for Transborder Studies, the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, June, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, Accessed 05-14-2013, p. 2-3)
Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great—yet underappreciated
AND
Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and secure border management.
Unfortunately, the infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and
AND
, but the efforts need to be redoubled. ~end page 2~
Moderate investments to update infrastructure and to fully staff the ports of entry are certainly
AND
officials more time to focus on unknown and potentially dangerous individuals and shipments.
Fifth, 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. A full 6 million jobs are supported by U.S.-Mexico trade.51 This means one in every twenty-four American workers depend on trade with Mexico to maintain their employment. 52
Jobs related to trade with Mexico are geographically spread throughout the nation. The border
AND
-related employment than do manufacturing jobs.53 ~end page 21~
As valuable as Mexico related employment currently is to the United States, its importance
AND
producing goods for Mexican consumers and factories should also be expected to increase.
A quick, back-of-the-envelope style calculation shows how Mexican GDP growth creates new U.S. jobs:
- Mexico’s 5.4 GDP growth in 2010 was accompanied by a 2434 billion dollar increase in U.S. exports to Mexico.
- President Obama said, "every 241 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000 additional jobs."54
- The IMF forecasts Mexico’s GDP to grow 3.8 in 2011.55 This suggests that roughly 144,000 new U.S. jobs could be created due to Mexico’s economic growth in 2011.56
Despite the large and growing number of U.S. jobs dependent on trade
AND
However, the importance of production sharing takes us largely beyond these debates.
The interwoven supply chains and synchronized business cycles of the United States and Mexico imply
AND
and therefore jobs, in the United States. ~end page 23~
With the vast majority of growth occurring outside of the United States, international trade
AND
trade agreements signed by both nations to gain preferential access to world markets.
Sixth, strong American manufacturing is vital to economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation.
Ezell 12 — Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
AND
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:4 ~End Page 179~
• Manufacturing produces economies of scale and productivity gains that spill over to other industries, in part because manufacturing is the principal source of research and development (R26D) and innovation activity in the U.S. economy.
• Manufacturing is a key source of high-paying jobs and a driver of employment growth.
• The contributions made by the manufacturing sector are essential to enabling the United States to balance its terms of trade.
• Most importantly, manufacturing is the key source of an economy’s traded sector strength. The macro economy will face stiff headwinds in its efforts to grow if it lacks a healthy manufacturing sector.
Those who argue that manufacturing is no more important to the economy than any other
AND
largest multiplier of any sector of the U.S. economy.7
One reason manufacturing produces such high spillover effects is that it is the principal source
AND
States can’t have a robust service sector without complementary, healthy manufacturing industries.
Manufacturing is also vitally important to the U.S. economy because it not
AND
tech manufacturing industries, like semiconductor manufacturing, have even higher employment multipliers.
Manufacturing’s contributions will also be indispensable if the United States is to balance its trade
AND
goods will be necessary, but not sufficient to close the trade deficit.
The central reason why manufacturing matters, however, is that it is the key
AND
or personal services do not, their success is by no means assured.
For example, while we may not know whether Safeway, Giant, or Walmart
AND
if the auto plant closes, the Walmart likely will close as well.
Therefore, every time a country loses traded sector industries or enterprises, those losses
AND
figure that is very close to the number of unemployed Americans today.22
While conventional wisdom has held that U.S. manufacturing job loss is simply
AND
others supported by better national competitiveness strategies than our own—declined significantly.
Thus, the international competitiveness of U.S. traded sector enterprises, particularly
AND
has introduced similar legislation (S. 751) in the Senate.25
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. Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.
Growth will not solve all those problems by itself. 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.
Eighth, alternatives to growth kill hundreds of millions and cause global conflict—we can’t "turn off" the economy.
Barnhizer 6 — David R. Barnhizer, Emeritus Professor at Cleveland State University’s Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, 2006 ("Waking from Sustainability’s "Impossible Dream": The Decisionmaking Realities of Business and Government," Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (18 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 595), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
The scale of social needs, including the need for expanded productive activity, has
AND
, place economic and social justice high on a list of priorities. n60
The imperative of economic growth applies not only to the needs and expectations of people
AND
social justice while avoiding and mitigating the most destructive consequences of our behavior.
Ninth, 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 R26D
AND
, and embodied in those displaced workers, is being lost as well.
Tenth, a strong defense industrial base is necessary to deter global conflict and maintains US global leadership.
Eaglen and Sayers 9 — Mackenzie Eaglen and Eric Sayers, 2009 ("Maintaining the Superiority of America’s Defense Industrial Base," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder ~232276, 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. While much of this strength is derived from the professionalism and skills of America’s armed forces, the technologically superior military platforms that the U.S. has developed and fielded since World War II are also vital to ensuring a superior fighting force.
In both peace and war, America’s defense manufacturing industrial base has allowed the United States to design and build an advanced array of weapons systems and platforms to meet the full spectrum of potential missions the military may be called upon to fulfill. Securing America’s military dominance for the decades ahead will require:
- An industrial base that can retain a highly skilled workforce with critical skill sets and
- Sustained investment in platforms that offer future commanders and civilian leaders a vital set of core military capabilities and equipment to respond to any threat.
America’s military may also benefit from a more open international defense market. A 2005
AND
support increased foreign military sales to help complement America’s domestic defense industrial base.
Following the sweeping procurement changes proposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in President Barack Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget, the decisions awaiting congressional review will directly affect America’s defense industrial base for years to come. These funding decisions about what the military will and will not buy are a primary factor in determining whether America will retain its military primacy a decade from now.
The critical workforce ingredients in sustaining an industrial base capable of building next-generation systems are specialized design, engineering, and manufacturing skills. The consolidation of the defense industry during the 1990s has placed an increased burden on a small collection of defense companies, and the consolidation of major defense contractors has led to a general reduction in the number of available workers.
Already at a turning point, the potential closure of major defense manufacturing lines in
AND
difficult to recruit back and more expensive to retrain with significant project gaps.
Given the inherently unpredictable nature of the international security system, Congress must take a long-term perspective for defense planning. More specifically, Congress should closely examine the national security implications of the pending closure of several major production lines, including the F-22 Raptor, C-17 Globemaster III, F/A-18E/F, F-15E Strike Eagle, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, Airborne Laser, and various rotary-wing programs when crafting the annual defense bills for FY 2010.
The Foundation of American Military Strength
Since World War II, the United States has benefited from the skills of a
AND
conflict and to reduce risk and the loss of life on the battlefield.
The ability to maintain America’s military technological edge reflects the superior efficiency of America’s defense
AND
-shooter targeting connectivity, and all-weather guided munitions.~2~
While technology alone has not assured American military superiority, the defense industry has nevertheless
AND
and Marine to remain adequately prepared for a full spectrum of potential operations.
Eleventh, 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
AND
to Subscribing Institutions via Cambridge Journals Online, p. 3-5)
The importance of economic growth to state power is undisputed by international relations scholars.
AND
on the state’s role in fostering technological leadership. ~end page 3~
The relationship between innovation and the nation-state has been discussed in international relations
AND
from the study of economic issues, focusing more on security policies.5
In this decade, proponents of globalization argue that because information and capital are mobile
AND
from one country to another.8 The location of innovation still matters.
Long-cycle theorists have paid the most attention to the link between technological innovation
AND
stability, it cannot explain why technological hegemons lose their lead over time.
Owen 11 — John Owen, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, Faculty Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Harvard University, 2011 ("Don’t Discount Hegemony," Cato Unbound, February 11th, Available Online at http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/11/john-owen/dont-discount-hegemony/, Accessed 04-14-2013)
Andrew Mack and his colleagues at the Human Security Report Project are to be congratulated
AND
if all is going to be well, what need then for us?
Our colleagues at Simon Fraser University are brave indeed. That may sound like a
AND
academic debates, this might get mildly theoretical and even more mildly methodological.
Concerning international wars, one version of the "nuclear-peace" theory is not in fact laid to rest by the data. It is certainly true that nuclear-armed states have been involved in many wars. They have even been attacked (think of Israel), which falsifies the simple claim of "assured destruction"—that any nuclear country A will deter any kind of attack by any country B because B fears a retaliatory nuclear strike from A.
But the most important "nuclear-peace" claim has been about mutually assured
AND
that states with a second-strike capability will not fight one another.
Their colossal atomic arsenals neither kept the United States at peace with North Vietnam during
AND
War III, and little about the wisdom of banning the Bomb now.
Regarding the downward trend in international war, Professor Mack is friendlier to more palatable
AND
superpower support for rival rebel factions in so many Third-World countries).
These are all plausible mechanisms for peace. What is more, none of them
AND
and whether both might support international cooperation, including to end civil wars.
We would still need to explain how this charmed circle of causes got started, however. And here let me raise another factor, perhaps even less appealing than the "nuclear peace" thesis, at least outside of the United States. That factor is what international relations scholars call hegemony—specifically American hegemony.
A theory that many regard as discredited, but that refuses to go away,
AND
been good for the world that the United States has been so predominant.
There is no obvious reason why hegemonic stability theory could not apply to other areas of international cooperation, including in security affairs, human rights, international law, peacekeeping (UN or otherwise), and so on. What I want to suggest here—suggest, not test—is that American hegemony might just be a deep cause of the steady decline of political deaths in the world.
How could that be? After all, the report states that United States is the third most war-prone country since 1945. Many of the deaths depicted in Figure 10.4 were in wars that involved the United States (the Vietnam War being the leading one). Notwithstanding politicians’ claims to the contrary, a candid look at U.S. foreign policy reveals that the country is as ruthlessly self-interested as any other great power in history.
The answer is that U.S. hegemony might just be a deeper cause
AND
War most of its allies accepted some degree of market-driven growth.
Second, the U.S.-led western victory in the Cold War damaged
AND
in part by the emergence of the United States as the global hegemon.
The same case can be made, with somewhat more difficulty, concerning the spread
AND
U.S. material and moral support for liberal democracy remains strong.
The trouble with hegemonic stability theory is that it is difficult to test. The
AND
are now seeing is about much more than the humbling of a superpower.
Thayer 13 — Bradley A. Thayer, Tenured Professor and Head of the Department
AND
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
AND
the system in promoting and, after World War II, suppressing violence.
Accordingly, while Pinker is sensitive to the importance of power in a domestic context
AND
Leviathan and has four major positive consequences for international politics (Thayer 2006).
In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American
AND
does reduce war’s likelihood—particularly the worst form—great power wars.
Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and many
AND
more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with US leadership.
Third, along with the growth of the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, mobility of capital, and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good.
Fourth, and finally, the United States has been willing to use its power
AND
the world’s police, the global paramedic, and the planet’s fire department.
There is no other state, group of states, or international organizations that can
AND
of relative power changes and not to the benefit of the United States.