129 SS Answers to Trade Disads

8/14/2019 129 SS Answers to Trade Disads

1/55

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008 AT: Trade DisadsRegan Serrano/Strange

i got a hand full of stacks, better grab an umbrella

i got a hand full of stacks, better grab an umbrella......................................................................................................................................1Strat Sheet....................................................................................................................................................................................................2***AT: WTO Trade Disad***.....................................................................................................................................................................3 Non Unique-Incentives Increasing Now...................................................................................................................................................... Non Unique-E.U. Has Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................................................. Non Unique-Kyoto.................................................................................................................................................................................... Non Unique-No Compliance Now (General).............................................................................................................................................. Non Unique-No Compliance Now (International)...................................................................................................................................... Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Cotton)..............................................................................................................................................1 Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Antidumping)....................................................................................................................................1 No Link-General...................................................................................................................................................................................... No Link-Link Evidence Biased.................................................................................................................................................................1 No Link-Efficiency..................................................................................................................................................................................No Link-Affs that Have USFG Buy Alt Energy........................................................................................................................................15 No Link-Cap and Trade.............................................................................................................................................................................1 No Link-RPS............................................................................................................................................................................................Link Turn-Biofuels.....................................................................................................................................................................................18WTO Bad-Small Arms...............................................................................................................................................................................19WTO Bad-Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................20

WTO Bad-Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................21WTO Bad-Small Farms.............................................................................................................................................................................22WTO Bad-Small Farms.............................................................................................................................................................................23WTO Bad-Prolif.........................................................................................................................................................................................24WTO Bad-Neoliberalism...........................................................................................................................................................................25AT: China Scenario....................................................................................................................................................................................26...................................................................................................................................................................................................................26AT: WTO Key to Free Trade......................................................................................................................................................................27Prefer Our Evidence-Rose.........................................................................................................................................................................28AT: Uniqueness Counterplan.....................................................................................................................................................................29***AT: E.U. Trade Disad***.....................................................................................................................................................................30Non Unique-EU Pessimistic About US Climate Policy............................................................................................................................3Non Unique-US Increasing Alternative Energy Incentives.......................................................................................................................32

Non Unique-US EU Relations Low..........................................................................................................................................................33No Link.....................................................................................................................................................................................................34

No Impact-No Sanctions............................................................................................................................................................................3 No Impact-Trade Conflicts Dont Escalate................................................................................................................................................3AT: US-EU Relations Impact.....................................................................................................................................................................37AT: US-EU Relations Impact.....................................................................................................................................................................38AT: Middle East Impact ............................................................................................................................................................................39AT: Terrorism Impact ................................................................................................................................................................................40AT: Terrorism/Prolif Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................41***AT: China Trade Disad***..................................................................................................................................................................42

Non Unique-Environmental Disputes now................................................................................................................................................4 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................4 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................4

Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................4 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................4Non Unique-China Not Exporting Carbon Intensive Goods.....................................................................................................................48 No Link.................................................................................................................................................................................................... No Impact-Long Timeframe......................................................................................................................................................................5...................................................................................................................................................................................................................50Tariffs Good...............................................................................................................................................................................................51Tariffs Good-Jobs.......................................................................................................................................................................................52Tariffs Good-Protectionism/Warming/US Econ........................................................................................................................................53Tariffs Good-Warming...............................................................................................................................................................................54China Will Model.......................................................................................................................................................................................55

make it rain1


2/55


Strat Sheet

WTO Disad:

-You should definitely read the AT: WTOs key to free trade-its takes out the majority of their impacts-

even if their cards dont say free trade, the warrants for most of their impacts will be that the WTO

somehow influences U.S. trade policy. Plus those rose cards are fucking sweet.

EU Disad:

-Youre probably not going to win offense, just go for smart empirically denied and uniqueness

arguments

China Disad:

-I really dont think youre going to win offense-I would go for a bunch of uniqueness arguments and a

few no links.

make it rain2


3/55


***AT: WTO Trade Disad***

make it rain3


4/55


Non Unique-Incentives Increasing Now

( ) The U.S. is substantially increasing energy incentives now.

US Fed News, August 6th, 7(REP. LIPINSKI CALLS FOR CONTINUED FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, p. Lexis) [Bozman]

Vice Chairman Lipinski has been a leader in Congress in promoting alternative energy research, especially for hydrogen. Hydrogen

vehicles have the same capabilities as fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and their only emission is water vapor. Earlier this year Rep.Lipinski introduced H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007 which establishes $50 million in cash prizes for advances in hydrogen energytechnology. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 408-8 on June 6, 2007, and was included in the comprehensiveenergy bill passed by the House this past weekend, H.R. 3221. As set forth in H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy IndependenceNational Security and Consumer Protection Act, federal funding levels for alternative energy programs will dramatically increasestarting in Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, this legislation includes $2.3 billion towards research and development of hydrogenethanol, bioenergy, solar, geothermal and hydro energy. These funding levels were previously approved in legislation passed by theHouse Committee on Science and Technology.

make it rain4


5/55


Non Unique-E.U. Has Alternative Energy Incentives

( ) The EU has alt energy incentives now.Des McGinnes, VerdeXchange Staff Writer, August, 7(http://www.verdexchange.org/node/71) [Bozman]

Wave energy clearly lacks the scale of implementation of other forms of renewable energy. However, with the success of technologies

such as Ocean Power Deliverys Pelamis, the ocean wont remain an untapped source of renewable energy for long. In the followingVerdeXchange News interview, OPDs Des McGinnes explains how Europes renewable energy incentives are paving the way forwave energy abroad and how the implementation of similar technology in the United States remains largely unexplored.

make it rain5
http://www.verdexchange.org/node/71http://www.verdexchange.org/node/71


6/55


Non Unique-Kyoto

Kyoto shouldve triggered the impact.Lucas Assuno, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K(Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman]

The Kyoto Protocol will be an important first step towards internalising the climate change externality and will potentially represent

the most commendable effort by the international community to put the concept of sustainable development into practice. Thus far,however, the climate change regime has not been requested to address the need for policy co-ordination, including trade policy, in asufficiently serious way. This might have to change rather quickly once the Kyoto Protocol enters into force. A need may arise torevisit and eventually strengthen language in Article 3.5 of the Climate Change Convention and Article 2.3 of the Kyoto Protocol witha view to enhance coherence between trade, climate change and development policies. Given the complex policy solutions required totackle the global climate change problem it would seem much preferable to strengthen the Climate Convention through the KyotoProtocol and possible future protocols than to propose amendments to WTO rules to achieve the goals of the Climate Convention. Thediscussion above, albeit limited in scope, shows that there is potential forconflict between WTO trade rules and measures taken tomitigate climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. In many cases, however, these conflicts can be avoided or minimised if theGATT/WTO rules are carefully scrutinised, and efforts are made early on to comply with them.

make it rain6


7/55


Non Unique-No Compliance Now (General)

The U.S. is non compliant now-laundry list of violations.Business Wire 6-11-08(EU Raises Concerns About Signs of Growing U.S. Protectionism at WTO Trade Policy Review, p. Lexis) [Bozman]

The European Union used the opportunity of a two-day WTO review of U.S. trade policy to raise concerns about rising levels of

protectionism in America. The EU submitted more than 90 detailed technical questions to the United States about its trade policyduring the meeting In its opening statement to the ninth WTO Trade Policy Review of the United States in Geneva on 9 June, the EUexpressed its concern at worrying signs of a re-emergence of protectionist sentiment in the United States. The increasingly restrictiveimport requirements imposed by the U.S. for security purposes - new legislation requiring the 100% scanning of containers destinedfor the US was an example - and the lack of reform in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill raised doubts about the compliance and professedintent of some aspects ofU.S. trade policy with the WTO. In questions to the U.S., the European Union also raised the use offisheries subsidies, intellectual property rights enforcement, sanitary measures for food products, RTA policy and constraints oninvestment in services sectors.

US not compliant6 examplesEuropean Union Factsheet No Date but references 03 in past tenseU.S. Non-Compliance With Wto Rulingshttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/us/sum06_03/wto.pdf. [Zavell]

1. The FSC legislation provides that, certain income earned by a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. corporation would not be subject to U.S. tax. Thepurpose was to encourage the export of U.S. manufactured goods. Subsidies such as these, which are contingent upon export performance are

prohibited under the WTO. In February 2000, the WTO ruled that FSC tax exemptions amount to a prohibited export subsidy . Page 2

- 2 - Subsequently the U.S. replaced the original FSC legislation with the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act

(ETI). However this Act still provides U.S. firms with prohibited export subsidies and on 14 January 2002 the WTO appellate body

ruled that the U.S. had not complied with the original WTO ruling from 2000. Subsequent to this finding, on 7 May 2003, the WTO

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has authorised the EU to impose countermeasures against the U.S. to the tune of US$4 billion. However, in view of

the assertions by the U.S. that it intends to comply with the WTOs rulings, including a personal pledge to this effect from President Bush, the EC has

declined to implement these countermeasures so far. The European Commission has agreed a time horizon within which the U.S. should comply with

the latest WTO rulings regarding its FSC legislation. In particular, the Commission will review the situation in the Autumn. In addition to the U.S

FSC legislation, there are a number of other cases where U.S. compliance with WTO rulings has yet to materialise. 2. The U.S

Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 prohibiting the importation and sale of goods at a price substantially less than the actual market value inthe principal markets of the country of their production was judged to be in breach of WTO rules in September 2000. There are

currently three bills pending in Congress to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act, however two of these bills would leave on-going

litigation unaffected. The EC has made it clear that repealing this law without also terminating cases pending under it would not be an

acceptable solution to the dispute. 3. In October 1998, Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act was adopted. It prohibits

under certain conditions, the registration or renewal of a trademark previously owned by a confiscated Cuban entity and sets forth that

no U.S. Court shall recognise or enforce any assertion of such rights. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruled that this legislation

breached WTO rules. The EU agreed to extend the initial deadline for compliance (31 December 2002) to 30 June 2003. So far,

however, there is little sign that this deadline will be met. 4. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (or CDSOA

- also known as the Byrd Amendment - signed into law in October 2000) provides that proceeds from anti-dumping and countervailing

duties shall be paid to the U.S. companies responsible for bringing the cases. The payments redistributed to U.S. producers are

substantial and have tended to benefit a very limited number of recipients, mainly in the steel sector (cf. facts and figures below), thus

increasing their distorting effects on competition. This provision is incompatible with several WTO provisions. On 22 December

2000, the EC, together with eight other WTO partners (Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand)

requested formal WTO consultations with the U.S. The position defended by the EC and ten others (Canada and Mexico having joined

the consultations in May 2001) was upheld in the WTO reports adopted on 27 January 2003: namely that the CDSOA is an illegal

response to dumping or subsidisation and therefore WTO incompatible. A WTO arbitrator set the deadline by which the U.S. has to

comply with this ruling for 27 December 2003. 5. On 27 July 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body found that Section 110(5) of the U.S

Copyright Act was incompatible with WTO rules. So far, there have been no legislative initiatives to bring the Act into

compliance with this ruling. The U.S. and the EU are discussing on the implementation of a temporary arrangement, pending full

make it rain7
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/us/sum06_03/wto.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/us/sum06_03/wto.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/us/sum06_03/wto.pdf


8/55


U.S. compliance with the WTO ruling. 6. In the British Steel case the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Commerce on

countervailing duties on privatised exporters was considered as WTO incompatible. The U.S. consequently repealed the measure

However, due to a mis-interpretation of the WTOs original Page 3 - 3 - ruling, the "new" methodology which it was then replaced

with was just as WTO incompatible, remaining prejudiced against EC exporters. The EC, in order to defend its legitimate interest, was

therefore forced to open another case at the WTO (the so-called Privatisation Case), on the same issue, covering all 14 privatisation

cases affected by the U.S. methodology. In this "new" case, the WTO has again ruled in favour of the EC, and stipulated the 8

November 2003 as the date by which the U.S. should comply with this ruling.

make it rain8


9/55


Non Unique-No Compliance Now (International)

International Non-Compliance rampant.Gary HorlickSenior Partner in the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering, Hale and Dorr, specializing in matters of international tradein goods AND Judith Coleman Attorney in the Washington, DC of WilmerHale 2007Arizona Journal of International andComparative Law The Compliance Problems Of The WTOhttp://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/ajicl/AJICL2007/vol241/Horlick%20article.pdf[Zavell]

To judge just from the very limited sample offered by cases brought to WTO dispute settlement, virtually every major tradingMember of the WTO has taken action knowing it was inconsistent with the WTO, apparently on the basis that at worst it wouldbe challenged in the WTO dispute settlement process, and then dragged out in litigation for three to four years before having tocomply with the rules to which it had agreed. This is done not just by the big playersthe United States, the EU, Japan, CanadaBrazil, Indiabut also Argentina, Australia, Chile, China, Egypt, and so on (for the sake of politeness, individual cases are nonamed here, but a quick look at the list of requests for consultations will identify them for the reader). In effect, the WTO has beenre-written by those Members to claim that none of the obligations applies for a three- to four-year period. And these are only

the most blatant cases. The same phenomena are probably reflected in the very leisurely way in which WTO Members adapt to fairlydefinitive rulings by the Appellate Body in cases involving other Members. The most obvious example is the case of India againstthe EC on zeroing, decided in Indias favor by the Appellate Body in 2001. 1 The ruling was sufficiently clear to guide otherMembers. But very few complied (in the sense of adapting their own national systems) with any speed, and some have made itclear they will not comply until fully stretching out (for six years and counting) dispute resolution in additional cases brought directlyagainst them. It will be interesting to observe over time whether empirical data confirms the suspicion that this could becomediscriminatory, as countries better able to afford the internal or external cost of defending themselves in WTO dispute resolution casesare in a better position to undertake this behavior than poorer countries.

make it rain9
http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/ajicl/AJICL2007/vol241/Horlick%20article.pdfhttp://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/ajicl/AJICL2007/vol241/Horlick%20article.pdf


10/55


Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Cotton)

U.S. not complying with cotton measures.Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-28-06(WTO establishes panel to investigate U.S. compliance on illegal cotton subsidies, Associated Press Worldstream, p. Lexis) [Bozman]

The World Trade Organization opened a formal investigation into whether the United States has complied with a ruling to scrap a

series of illegal subsidies paid out to American cotton growers, trade officials said Thursday. Washington had blocked Brazil's requesearlier this month for the WTO to investigate U.S. compliance with a 2005 decision that said billions of dollars (euros) in U.Sgovernment handouts had unfairly distorted international cotton prices. If the WTO finds the U.S. has failed to remove all subsidiespreviously ruled illegal, Brazil could ask for permission to impose retaliatory sanctions against U.S. goods. "With respect to some ofthe ... recommendations and rulings, the United States has adopted no implementation measures at all," Brazilian AmbassadoClodoaldo Hugueney told the WTO's dispute settlement body. "The implementation measures it has adopted fall far short ofcompliance."

make it rain10


11/55


Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Antidumping)

U.S. isnt complying with antidumping rules.Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-25-07(WTO to investigate U.S. compliance with antidumping ruling, Associated Press Worldstream, p. Lexis) [Bozman]

But EU trade official Ann-Sofie Sjoberg-Kauppinen said Brussels' request for a panel "should not come as a surprise." "We haveexpressed our dissatisfaction with U.S. actions several times and in detail, but no corrective actions have been taken," she saidDumping occurs when foreign producers export products at below the market price usually because the exports have been subsidizedor in an attempt to corner the market. In certain circumstances, trade rules allow governments to impose additional duties on dumpedgoods to protect domestic producers. The WTO has chided the U.S. in disputes with the 27-nation EU, Canada and others for how itdetermines what antidumping fees to apply, known in trade jargon as "zeroing." Panels have consistently found that zeroing leads toartificial and inflated margins of dumping, and thus higher duties. "We are concerned that the U.S. is still collecting duties calculatedwith zeroing in many of the cases we challenged and that nothing has been done to eliminate zeroing," Sjoberg-Kauppinen said. InJune, the Geneva-based body authorized a new investigation of U.S. dumping rules on 52 additional products Brussels said were beingpenalized by the levies.

make it rain11


12/55


No Link-General

( ) Plan doesnt violate WTO rules-it doesnt favor any firms over othersLucas Assuno, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K(Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman]

In addition to the exception just mentioned, a close look into the Subsidies Agreement may allow for some additional flexibility

regarding its stern specificity rule. A subsidy is considered not specific, hence not actionable, if there are objective and legallyenforceable criteria governing eligibility for, and the amount of, the subsidy and if eligibility is automatic for any company meetingthe criteria 15 . These criteria or conditions will need to be neutral, meaning they would not favour certain firms over others, and beeconomic in nature and horizontal in application. It could be argued that if eligibility for, and the amount of, a subsidy were linkeddirectly to concrete criteria -- for example energy efficiency or intensity -- the subsidy might not be considered specific even if itonly applied to one firm and industry, and therefore be perfectly consistent with WTO rules and climate change policies.

( ) Plans allowed under WTO rules-its not more-trade restrictive than necessary.Lucas Assuno, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K(Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman]

In principle, WTO rules do not allow for unilateral measures which are trade restrictive. The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers toTrade (TBT) 21 , for example, requires that technical regulations affecting imported products not be "prepared, adopted, or applied

with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade". 22 If, however, regulations are "not moretrade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective they may be allowed under the WTO-TBT Agreement. Article 2.2 ofthe TBT Agreement offers some flexibility to regulations introduced pursuant to a few "legitimate objectives" including, nationasecurity requirements, prevention of deceptive practices, protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or theenvironment. The question then would be to prove that a specific regulation is the least- trade restrictive and necessary to combatclimate change. Such criteria could be established by a multilaterally-agreed energy efficiency standard. Additionally, Article 2.5 ofthe WTO-TBT Agreement states that a regulation is presumed not to contain any unnecessary obstacles to international trade if it isestablished in accordance with "relevant international standards".

make it rain12


13/55


No Link- Link Evidence Biased

Their link evidence is blatantly biased-its from a free trade lobbyist.Alina Syunkova,National Foreign Trade Council, December, 7(http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman]

The National Foreign Trade Council advocates an open, rules-based world economy. Founded in 1914 by a group of American

companies that supported an open world trading system, the NFTC now serves nearly 300 member companies through its offices inWashington and New York. The NFTC represents its member companies on trade and investment, export finance, economic sanctionsand international tax policies that affect the competitiveness of U.S. companies overseas. It supports open markets, opposes unilateralsanction restrictions on trade, and assures U.S. business access to needed risk insurance and export and project finance.

make it rain13
http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdfhttp://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf


14/55


No Link-Efficiency

Effiency mechanisms dont conflict with WTO rules.Lucas Assuno, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K(Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman]

The panel upheld the gas guzzler tax, but not the CAFE standards. In analysing the gas guzzler tax, the panel did not consider cars

which could run more than 22.5 miles per gallon as "like" cars to those which consume more and run under 22.5 miles per gallon,hence they could be treated differently under article III. Goldberg 24 states that this could suggest that, in the future, trade restrictionsthat discriminate between products based on their energy efficiency should not conflict with the WTO rules. However, he quicklyadds a note of caution: GATT and WTO panels are not bound by previous panel decisions and have been known to reachdiametrically opposite conclusions about identical matters.

make it rain14


15/55


No Link-Affs that Have USFG Buy Alt Energy

The USFG is allowed to buy alternative energies under WTO rules.Alina Syunkova,National Foreign Trade Council, December, 7(http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman]

Government procurement of climate-friendly goods, such as the program included in H.R. 3221, may be covered by the WTO

Agreement on Government Procurement, to which the U.S. is a party. This Agreement contains numerous flexibility measures thatseem to accommodate most climate-friendly government procurement programs. The measures in H.R. 3221 do not appear to be indirect violation of the treaty especially if the U.S. government employs transparent international product standards and participatesin international standardization efforts.

Joint research between industry and the fed is allowed under WTO rules.Lucas Assuno, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K(Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman]

Additionally, Annex I Parties may seek to support efforts by their industries to develop climate-friendly products and technologiesthrough joint research and development projects like the US Clean Car Initiative or incentive programs such as the US "golden carrot"awards. Within certain limits, such research assistance is permitted by the WTO subsidy rules , although typically such measures donot seem to be too effective in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved.

make it rain15


16/55


No Link-Cap and Trade

No WTO provisions prohibit a cap and trade system.Alina Syunkova,National Foreign Trade Council, December, 7(http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman]

Few, if any, WTO provisions explicitly prohibit a cap-and-trade system. The law on regulating cap-and-trade systems that impacts

international commerce in goods and services is still forming. If the United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade system, itwould be in its long-term interest to do it sooner rather than later so that it can more effectively participate in forming this body of lawEmissions permits have yet to be defined as a good subject to the GATT 1994, a service subject to the GATS, a financial contributionfrom government to industry subject to the SCM Agreement, or a non-tariff barrier to trade subject to the TBT. Emissions trading-related measures are excellent candidates for General Exceptions clauses under any WTO agreement they invoke, because they intendto protect the environment62. However, no WTO case law pertaining to emissions trading exists, and the first such case will likelyimpact the design of cap-and-trade programs for decades to come. The sooner the United States enacts some form of emissions tradingdomestically, the greater will be its contribution to the international law of emissions trading.

make it rain16


17/55


No Link-RPS

( ) An RPS mandate wouldnt violate WTO rules-it requires an increase in renewables but doesnt

subsidize specific industries so it doesnt exclude foreign competition.

( ) State RPS programs exist but havent triggered the link-dont let them spin their evidence, none of it

draws a distinction between federal and state policies.

make it rain17


18/55


Link Turn-Biofuels

Biofuels solve trade disputes-they resolve fights over ag.Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-25-06(Ted Turner says biofuels can rescue suspended global trade talks, Associated Press, p. Lexis) [Bozman]

Turner told a public forum at the World Trade Organization on Monday that biofuels liquid fuels made from plants and trees, including

biodiesel for trucks and generators and ethanol for cars and cooking can do more than fight global scourges like pollution and globawarming. They can also solve the bitter dispute that scuttled the commerce body's trade liberalization talks two months ago byproviding rich countries a means of keeping their farmers in business, instead of doggedly subsidizing products that can be farmedmore cheaply in poor nations, such as cotton, sugar beets or cane and rice. "If agriculture were always going to be the same, then thequestion of subsidies would be a problem without a solution," Turner said at the WTO's Geneva headquarters. "But agriculture ischanging." Turner suggested that farmers in rich countries could redirect food production to fuel production or change the crops theyproduce for ones that can make biofuels. Poor countries can also make biofuels to curb their needs for costly petroleum imports. "Thisis a huge opportunity for farmers who can grow fuel," Turner said. "Demand is so great that even though Brazil produces almost aquarter of the world's sugar, it still struggles to meet its own domestic demand for ethanol." The Doha round of trade talks waslaunched in Qatar's capital in 2001 with the aim of boosting the global economy by lowering trade barriers across all economicsectors, with a particular focus on helping developing countries by boosting their export growth. The talks came to a screeching halin July, largely over the unwillingness of rich countries like the United States, the 25-nation European Union and Japan to offer deepecuts in subsidies paid to farmers or ease access to their agricultural markets for foreign goods.

make it rain18


19/55


WTO Bad-Small Arms( ) Small Arms

A. The WTO spreads small weapons worldwide.Susan George, Associate Director of the Transnational Institute, 11-29-99(http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html#SG) [Bozman]

In this three-track society that globalization is creating, of course there are going to be protests. People are not going to take theirmarginalization and their status as outcasts lying down. It is clear that there are going to be more and more upheavals. The rich in theU.S. have shown that they have a consciousness of this. Wealthy Americans have already moved into 30,000 gated and guardedenclaves and demand for more is high. As well, government arms purchases also reveal an understanding of this threat of upheaval.Countries are not buying as much heavy equipment as they used to; what they're buying are light arms. They've switched from heavyexternal combat equipment like tanks and planes to less expensive infantry weapons, helicopters and riot control gear because it'sthose types of equipment that are important now to use against increasingly restive peoples. As well, the WTO is trying to organizewhat it calls trade facilitation and harmonization. Translated, that means there will be fewer controls at the border, which means that itwill be easier to ship arms and poison.

B. That outweighs nuclear war.CNN, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/09/small.arms.conference/

Most are in the hands of police forces, national armies and lawful private gun owners, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General LouiseFrechette told the conference. But that does not diminish the problem, he said. "Even in societies not torn by conflict, the proliferationof small arms has contributed to a culture of violence and crime," Frechette said. Small arms have been the weapon of choice in 46 of49 major conflicts since 1990, contributing to some 4 million deaths, with women and children accounting for 80 percent of those,Frechette added. Hundreds of diplomats, gun-control and gun-rights activists and representatives of other nongovernmentaorganizations are attending the two-week conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The meeting is scheduled toend July 20 with the adoption of a plan of action for fighting illicit arms trafficking. Although not legally binding, the plan is expectedto call on U.N. members to develop national systems to regulate arms brokers and exports and to ensure manufacturers mark smalweapons so their movements can be traced. Colombian Defense Minister Gustavo Bell Lemus, whose country's civil war is fueled bysmall arms, said Monday small arms kill more people than any other weapons. "Practically every year, there are more casualties thanthose produced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We can describe these small arms and weapons as arms of mass destruction," Lemus said

make it rain19
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html#SGhttp://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html#SG


20/55


WTO Bad-Environment( ) Biodiversity

A. The WTO destroys the environment-multiple reasons.Chris Keene, Coordinator of the Anti-Globalisation Network, 3-30-01(http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/wto10.htm) [Bozman]

# WTO rules regard environmental and health issues as barriers to trade: WTO rules conflict with many national laws and practicesintended to promote sustainability and protect the environment. Most WTO agreements are based on the premise of sound, scientificevidence which severely limits the application of the precautionary principle. WTO rules have already been used to rule in favor offree trade and against various measures, eg hormone-treated beef and shrimps that are caught using turtle-excluder devices. # WTOrules regard labels and certification systems as potential barriers to trade: The certification and labeling of environmental and sociallyacceptable goods (such as timber or paper from well-managed sources and fairly traded products) and products that concernconsumers (such as GM foods) could be undermined by WTO rules. # The WTO is eroding cultural diversity: The WTO TRIPAgreement allows companies to expropriate knowledge from local peoples in developing countries who, in many cases, have beencultivators, researchers and protectors of plants for thousands of years. The Agreement permits (primarily Northern) transnationacompanies to claim traditional plant varieties or plant uses as 'inventions' that must be respected the world over. Culture could also befurther eroded if issues surrounding the entertainment business - for example, films, broadcasting, music and publishing - are includedin a new Round of trade negotiations. # The WTO could undermine multilateral environmental agreements: Multilateral EnvironmentAgreements that have trade components - such as CITES, the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention on Trans-boundary

Movement of Hazardous Waste - could be challenged under WTO rules.

B. That causes extinction.Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology at UChicago and Hopi Hoekstra, Professor of Biology at Harvard, 9-24-07(http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agreethat we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlikeearlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens.We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying ito waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before.Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone . At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in thiscentury. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover , since the cause of the decimation us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one

of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature iseasy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on EarthEstimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible)components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of specieshave yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded,since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do knowsome things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. Andwe know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we'renot only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove thisgas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitatsof Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and soon, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests

Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitatshrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and onethat is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gottenaids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very realpossibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over providehidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are bestrendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turnbiodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels inNorth America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by singlespecies (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat.

[Next Page]

make it rain20
http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/wto10.htmhttp://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dyinghttp://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/wto10.htmhttp://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying


21/55


WTO Bad-Environment

[Continues]

Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminishagricultural yields. Meanwhile,with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be ableto purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. Aoverfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web couldcollapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does theability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with therest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more thanrecreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In factthe global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in themarketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countriescombined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystemscollapsed . Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact onmedicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer fromcardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlikeother anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of wormIts wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsinand ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The

bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breastcancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of theMadagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life ofone of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceuticaproperties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losingone valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion totheir economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is whyconservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper andequally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcendpecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than lookingaround us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process ofnatural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is aspiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by

such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in whichexotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; aworld of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immuneto extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet . Globawarming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not justanother Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

make it rain21


22/55


WTO Bad-Small Farms

( ) Small Farms

A. The WTO destroys small farms-recent agreements prove.Martin Khor, Member of the UN Tast Force on Environment and Human Settlements, Director of the Third World Forum, 1-28-2K(Rethinking Liberalisation and Reforming the WTO, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/davos2-cn.htm) [Bozman]

The Agriculture Agreement could have severe negative effects on many Third World countries. Most of them (excepting the leasdeveloped countries) will have to reduce domestic subsidies to farmers and remove non-tariff controls on agricultural productsconverting these to tariffs and then progressively reducing these tariffs. This will impose global competition on the domestic farmsector. Farmers unable to compete with cheaper imports may not survive. Hundreds of millions of small Third World farmerscould be affected. There is also a category of developing countries which are net food importers; as subsidies for food production areprogressively reduced in the developed countries, the prices of their exports may increase; the net food importers may thus face risingfood import bills. A recent FAO study of the experience of 16 developing countries in implementing the Uruguay Round agricultureagreement concluded that, "A common reported concern was with a general trend towards the concentration of farms. In the virtualabsence of safety nets, the process also marginalised small producers and added to unemployment and poverty. Similarly most studiepointed to continued problems of adjustment. As an example, the rice and sugar sectors in Senegal were facing difficulties in copingwith import competition despite the substantive devaluation in 1994." (FAO Paper, Experience with the implementation of theUruguay Round agreement on agriculture, synthesis of country case studies, Sept 1999, prepared by FAO's Commodities and Trade

Division).

B. Small farms are key to genetically diversified food--3 reasons.James KBoyce, Department of Economics & Political Economy Research and Environmental Research at UMass, July 4(A Future for Small Farms? Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture, p. Google) [Bozman]

Around the world, it is generally small farms especially those in the Vavilov centers that practice high-diversity agricultu re. Noonly do individual small farmers often choose to cultivate several varieties of the same crop, but also, and probably more importantlydifferent farmers in a given locality often cultivate different varieties. Large farms, in contrast, are more likely to sow a single varietyover a wide area. This inverse relationship between farm size and varietal diversity has several explanations. First, high-diversityfarming is generally more labor-intensive than low-diversity farming. It takes more time and effort to cultivate varieties with differensowing dates, harvest times, and other requirements than to practice varietal monoculture. Considerable labor also is needed tomaintain the physical infrastructure such as watercourses and terraces that often supports high-diversity agriculture. As we know

from the many studies of the relationship between farm size and labor use, smaller farms have a comparative advantage in laborintensive operations. This is because they rely more on family labor, the real cost of which is lower than the wage of hired labor, andbecause insofar as they do use hired laborers, small farmers have fewer supervision problems (not only is supervision easier on smallfarms, but also the need for supervision may be less by virtue of the narrower social distance between employer and employee).9Second, high-diversity agriculture depends on the farmers knowledge of different crop varieties and their relationships to microhabitatvariations. Small farmers are the repositories of this knowledge . Without them, it would be harder not only to sustain agriculturabiodiversity, but also to know the attributes of the varieties that are being sustained . Indigenous cultures often are particularly rich inthis knowledge. For example, the Mixe language, spoken by maize farmers in southern Oaxaca, Mexico, has words for a greater andricher number of stages of plant development (germination, flowering, leaf and whorl development, appearance of black color at baseof kernels, etc.) than those existing in conventional scientific literature.10 Third, small farmers often predominate in marginalagricultural environments where the spread of modern varieties has been held in check by unfavorable growing conditions . Hillyterrain, as in the highlands of southern Mexico and Guatemala, is less suitable for monoculture and mechanization; similarly, in deeplyflooded parts of the Bengal delta, the short-statured highyielding (that is, highly fertilizer-responsive) varieties cannot be grown

Such lands are relatively unattractive targets for appropriation and concentration by landowning elites. At the same time, they oftenhave exceptionally high degrees of microenvironmental variation, which favors varietal diversification. In a single village in Oaxaca,for example, researchers Ral and Luis Garca-Barrios (1990) found that the campesinos distinguished among 17 differenenvironments in which they grew 26 distinct varieties of maize. Similarly, Maori weavers in New Zealand recognize more than 80distinct varieties of flax (Shand, 1997, p. 11, citing Heywood, 1995).

make it rain22
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/davos2-cn.htmhttp://www.twnside.org.sg/title/davos2-cn.htm


23/55


WTO Bad-Small Farms

C. Genetically diversified food is key to prevent extinction.Cary Fowler, former Director of Research at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and Pat Mooney, Executive Director of theRural Advancement Foundation, 90(Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity, p. ix)

While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the biggest single environmental catastrophe in humanhistory is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the possibility of nuclear war, an equally devastating timebomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over the world . Loss of genetic diversity in agriculturesilent, rapid, inexorableis leading us to a rendezvous with extinctionto the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To simplify thenvironment as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world togetherReducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the future and render our own survival more precarious. It is life at the end ofthe limb. That is the subject of this book. Agronomists in the Philippines warned of what became known as southern corn leaf blight in1061.' The disease was reported in Mexico not long after. In the summer of 1968, the first faint hint that the blight was in the UnitedStates came from seed growers in the Midwest. The danger was ignored. By the spring of 1970 the disease had taken hold in theFlorida corn crop. But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade that the world took noticeby then it was Augustand too late. By the close of the year, Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important cropmorethan a billion bushels. Some southern states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocerystores, producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. And the disaster was not solely domestic. U.S. seed exports may have spreadthe blight to Africa, Latin America and Asia.

make it rain23


24/55


WTO Bad-Prolif

( ) Prolif

A. The WTO encourages massive prolif-military spending is exempt from trade rules.Stephen Staples, Chair of the International Network on Disarmament and Globalization, 11-28-99(http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html) [Bozman]

The WTO is based on the premise that the only legitimate role for governments is to provide for a military to protect the interests ofthe nation and a police force to ensure order within. And so while social and environmental policies are constantly under attack, thewar industry is protected through the "security exception" in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Article XXI of theGATT, the principal agreement of the WTO, allows governments free reign for actions taken for national security interests. It statesthat a country can't be stopped from taking any action "it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests ...relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directlyfor the purpose of supplying a military establishment (or) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations." Thisclause is the most powerful exception in the WTO. It actually allows a government to define its own "essential security interests," adefinition that can't be questioned by WTO dispute panels. Globalization Spurs Military Spending Because the securityexception shields the war industry from challenges by the WTO, it actually spurs government military spending since only militaryspending is free from challenges. Governments must use the military to promote jobs, new emerging industries, or high-techmanufacturing. Let's take a recent example. In 1999, a WTO dispute panel ruled against Canada and its Technology

Partnerships Canada (TPC) program -- a program which subsidizes the aerospace and defence industry. The program was being usedby Bombardier Aerospace to build and export regional passenger jets. The WTO ruled the non-military subsidies were unfair, andstruck them down earlier this year. To appreciate what this decision means, you need to understand that TPC used to be theDefence Industry Productivity Program. The program was Canada's flag-ship industrial program and handed out billions of dollars toCanadian arms manufacturers for years. In 1995 it was renamed TPC, and several non-military categories were added to the fund. It'sthose non-military programs that are vulnerable to challenges by the WTO. In this new global economy that favours the military peace activists are losing their ability to work for peace and human rights. The lesson from this is that if governments want toplay a role in the economy -- creating jobs, regional development or high-tech research -- the safe way to do it is through themilitary. This lesson has not been lost on some of the so-called emerging economies, such as South Africa. South Africa is currentlyundergoing a huge arms-buying spree. It is buying billions of dollars worth of helicopters, aircraft, ships and even submarines fromEuropean weapons corporations. The government has negotiated an agreement that the corporations will move some of their production for these contracts to South Africa, creating short-term jobs and investment. South Africa is about to make the sammistake North America did: it is creating new military projects that will become dependent on constant government spending, drawing

money away from essential social programs. When the current weapons orders have been filled and the government funding dries upjobs at the weapons corporations will then depend on corporations finding new customers for their weapons, driving the arms tradeand potentially causing a whole new arms race in the region. To a certain degree, I can understand what the South Africangovernment is trying to do. It needs jobs and the transfer of technology and knowledge. As a member of the WTO, the only safe wayto do this is through military programs. If these were not military programs, the deals would never be allowed, given WTO laws onperformance requirements and government procurement.

B. Prolif causes extinction.

Taylor, former nuclear weapons designer and chairman of NOVA, 1[Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]

Nuclear proliferation be it among nations or terrorists greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would beintolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or withno concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups may decide to use

nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole.Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars betweensuperpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of latent proliferation, finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, mighcomplete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as theMiddle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.

make it rain24
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.htmlhttp://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html


25/55


WTO Bad-Neoliberalism( ) Neoliberalism

A. The WTO spreads neoliberalism worldwide.Nicola Bullard, B.A. in IR from the Institute for Social Studies in the Hague, Deputy Director of Focus on the Global South, 4(Reforming or derailing the WTO: Why we must keep the WTO train off the tracks, p. Google) [Bozman]

It is assumed that trade liberalisation will generate wealth, jobs, prosperity and growth. In a perfect computer-generated model of theworld this may be true, but we Page 4 live in a far from perfect world. Power, economic weight, history, nature and geography allcontrive to create a very un-level playing field, to use the economists jargon, that aptly compares trade negotiations to a sport wherethere are winners and losers. The WTO rules are meant to level this playing field, so that impoverished, backward and landlockeddeveloping countries can all benefit from trade liberalisation alongside the post-industrial, high technology, service-orientedeconomies of the North. The drive for trade liberalisation is based on the assumption that countries will grow and develop throughexpansion of their exports, liberalisation of their financial markets, privatisation of large swathes of the economy (including power andwater) -- all with minimal intervention from the State. This is called neo-liberalism. This vision of development is shared by the IMFand the World Bank, the two international development finance institutions which have spent the past two decades imposing structuraadjustments programmes on developing countries to achieve this sort of economic re-structuring using the big stick of debt to forcethese countries to agree to the rules. But, after 20 years the evidence is in: structural adjustment does not work. It does not producegrowth, it does not create enough jobs, and it is far from being sustainable or just. It does not lead to growth and prosperity. (2)

B. That causes extinction.Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Professor of Sociology - University of Coimbra, 03(Bad Subjects, Issue #63, April, bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html)

According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific andsacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it issupposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period ofimperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and unde

Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism , with the co llective sacrifice of the p eriphery and even thesemiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal andsacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalizationand the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arisesfrom a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems anddifficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment

hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having beenfully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due , rather, to the fact that totaviolence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on thesupposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims toreproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions othis logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial

superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction ofdemocracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatizethe state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and sociafascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable ohalting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers. At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a loomingcollective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the

more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalizationneoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations", referring to citizens othe Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousandsof innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, inLondon, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will die during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war

will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years. Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear inmind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has alwaysbeen linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor forceto the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of fallingefficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though hegemonic powers, bothwhen they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the mosshameful violence in the name of futures where, by definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, theperiod of primitive accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The machineof democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.

make it rain25


26/55


AT: China Scenario

( ) WTO doesnt influence national trade policies-thats rose. Takes out their scenario because the reason

their evidence says WTO stops conflict is because it can stop conflicting trade policies.

( ) U.S. Chinese trade conflict now and empirically doesnt escalate to conflict.Deirdre Jurand, Staff Writer, 7-22-08(http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/china-plans-to-challenge-world-trade.php) [Bozman]

[JURIST] The China Ministry of Commerce [official website, English version] said Tuesday that Chinese officials disagreed with andcould challenge a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel report [materials; conclusions and recommendations, PDF] which statesthat the country illegally taxes and disfavors imported auto parts. The US, EU, and Canada [WTO dispute summaries] submittedcomplaints in March, alleging that China was taxing auto parts imported from those countries at the same rate that it taxed foreign-made finished cars in violation of promises made upon accession to the WTO and in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) [text]. The panel recommended Friday in its report that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body [officialwebsite] "request China to bring these inconsistent measures as listed above into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994and the WTO Agreement," but Chinese officials maintain that the country's policies are in line with its obligations. AP has more. Sinceits accession to the WTO in December 2001, China has been the subject of a number of complaints, most prominently disputes withthe US regarding the protection of US intellectual property from piracy in China. China has also initiated two disputes with the US inthe WTO over anti-dumping laws and US steel tariffs. In April 2007, China denounced a US decision to file a copyright enforcement

case against China in the WTO [JURIST reports]. In August 2007, the US requested WTO mediation [JURIST report] in the samecopyright dispute.

( ) Bilateral trade solves the impact.Aaron Friedberg, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Fall, 5(International Security, Vo. 30, No. 2, p. Project Muse) [Bozman]

Liberal optimists believe that bilateral economic exchange creates shared interests in good relations between states. The greater thevolume of trade and investment flowing between two countries, the more groups on both sides will have a strong interest in avoidingconflict and preserving peace. Liberal optimists note that economic exchange between the United States and China has increaseddramatically since the onset of market reforms in China in the late 1970s. From the start of reform in 1978 to the end of the twentiethcentury, the value of the trade moving between the two countries grew by more than two orders of magnitude, from $1 billion toalmost $120 billion annually. 11 By 2004 that figure had doubled to a reported total of $245 billion.12

( ) Congress pushing Chinese trade sanctions now.Forbes 7-17-08(http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADE-CONGRESS.html) [Bozman]

The Rangel-Levin bill locks in a recent change in Commerce Department policy to allow "countervailing" duties against imports ofsubsidized products from China and gives Congress a role in deciding whether to classify China as a "market economy" under U.Strade law. It limits the White House's discretion to refuse emergency curbs on imports from China in response to a surge. PresidentGeorge W. Bush has denied that relief in four cases where it was recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission,Democrats said. In response to concerns over the safety of many products from China, the bill sets new sanctions for repeatednoncompliance with U.S. health and safety laws. The legislation also prods the White House to challenge more unfair foreign trade

practices by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative's office to publish an annual list of the most significant barriers to U.S. exportsIt also creates an office of "congressional trade enforcer" to investigate complaints against foreign countries and call on the U.S. TradeRepresentative to file cases with the World Trade Organization. Other provisions create a director of intellectual property rightenforcement and require the U.S. Trade Representative to target countries that use nontariff barriers such as discriminatory taxes andregulations to keep out U.S. exports. (Editing by John O'Callaghan)

make it rain26
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/china-plans-to-challenge-world-trade.phphttp://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADE-CONGRESS.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADE-CONGRESS.htmlhttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/china-plans-to-challenge-world-trade.phphttp://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADE-CONGRESS.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADE-CONGRESS.html


27/55


AT: WTO Key to Free Trade

*Theres no correlation between the WTO and free trade-64 economic variables prove.Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02(Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman]

It seems there is little obvious connection between GATT/WTO membership and trade policy. Figure 1 contains corroborating

graphical evidence in the form of histograms for two standard measures of trade policy (the Barro-Lee measures of tariffs and NTBcoverage), each split by GATT membership. No dramatic differences between GATT members and outsiders pop out in either NTBcoverage or tariff rates. Outsiders typically have slightly less NTB coverage and slightly higher tariffs; neither of these effects issignificant at conventional levels.10 Insignificant differences can stem either from similar means or large variances (or both). Which isresponsible for these results? We can shed light on this by examining Figure 2, an analogue to the first figure that focuses on importduties as a percentage of imports. Histograms are provided for eight individual years between 1977 (when the sample of countrieswith data became large) and 1998, both for GATT/WTO members and non-members. While there are never significant differences inmean tariffs between members and non-members, the reason varies over time. In the early years non-members had higher averagetariffs (23%) than GATT members (10%), but the variation in tariffs across non-members was sufficiently high that the differences areinsignificant.11 After the early to mid 1980s, the differences in both average tariffs and their cross-country variation become small, sothe insignificant t-tests result from similar means. Further confirmation of the loose relationship between GATT/WTO membershipand trade policy is available in Figure 3. This presents a graphical event study for the effects of accession on nine measures of tradepolicy (those that can be quantified over time). For instance, the top-left graphic shows the mean level of openness (the ratio ofexports plus imports to GDP) at the time of entry for countries acceding between 1950 through 1998, along with a plus/minus twostandard deviation confidence interval. To the right of the vertical line (which marks accession) are data for the years after entry; theyears preceding accession are graphed to the left. The horizontal line marks the average level of openness for those inside theGATT/WTO. The event study graphics allow one to see what happens to trade policy measures for a typical country acceding to theGATT/WTO. And not much happens. For instance, a typical accession country has an openness ratio of 73.1% five years beforejoining (somewhat higher than the GATT/WTO average of 64.7%). But five years after accession, the joiners only have opennessratios of 70.4%. Similarly, tariffs rise (again, insignificantly) from 12.5% to 13.1% of imports. Indeed, none of the nine measures oftrade policy change significantly; most measures are insignificantly different from those inside the system for the five years beforeduring and after accession. Perhaps a simple example can make the case clearly. Mexico joined the GATT in 1986, at which time itstariffs averaged 6.4% of imports. Yet even five years after accession, the Mexican tariff rate was 7.1%; Mexican tariffs did not reallyfall until NAFTA began in the mid- 1990s. Nor is Mexico special; for instance, average tariffs were higher even five years afterColombia and Venezuela acceded in 1981 and 1990 respectively. It seems that none of the 64 measures of trade policy is stronglyand consistently tied to GATT/WTO membership, with the exception of the index of economic freedom. The majority of thecoefficients linking trade policy to membership are small; not many more coefficients are significantly different from zero than would

be expected if the true effect of membership on policy is nil .12 To summarize, any effect that the WTO has (and the GATT had) ontrade policy is either subtle or weak.13

Theres zero empirical evidence that the WTO has increased free trade.Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02(Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman]

In 1987, Indian tariff revenues reached 53% of import values. India had been a founding member of the GATT in 1948. Yet Indiantariffs revenues have never fallen below 20% of Indian imports, at least during the 25 years for which we have data. This from ameasure of tariffs known to be biased down since highly taxed goods tend not to be imported! Comparable tariff data exist for 91countries in 1987, at which time 89 countries had lower tariffs than India. 23 of these 89 countries were not members of the GATT;they had tariff rates averaging 15.7%. GATT members collected tariffs averaging 11.4% (a figure that is statistically indistinguishablefrom that of outsiders at even the 10% level). Nor is there something special about 1987; average tariff rates have beeninsignificantly different for members and non-members for all years since the mid 1970s at the standard 5% confidence levelSuccinctly, tariff rates dont seem to be significantly different for GATT members and outsiders. Nor do other measures of tradepolicy. In this short paper, I have used simple conventional statistical techniques to analyze the relationship between GATT/WTOmembership and international trade policy. Despite my use of over sixty measures of trade policy, I have been unable to findconvincing evidence that membership in the multilateral trade system is associated with more liberal trade policy . Theexception is that members of the system usually enjoy slightly more economic freedom using the Heritage Foundations index. Thereare almost no discernible differences between GATT/ WTO members and non-members for tariff rates, measures of non-tariff barriercoverage, price-based measures, measures of openness, and so forth . Are we really so sure that the WTO has actually liberalized trade... or is actually liberalizing it?

make it rain27


28/55


Prefer Our Evidence-Rose

Only our evidence is comprehensive and cites statistics.Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02(Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman]

Social scientists especially economists love to analyze international organizations and their policies. The International Monetary

Fund scrutinizes the effects of its own programs, as do its critics. There is enormous controversy over the effectiveness and sideeffects of World Bank programs, conducted both within the Bank and outside. It is thus curious that one of the currently mostcontroversial international organizations the World Trade Organization (WTO) has largely escaped this scrutiny. There is, to myknowledge, no rigorous empirical literature that examines whether the WTO , and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade (GATT), have actually succeeded in terms of their own mandate, namely trade policy. In this short paper, I begin to fill thavoid by providing a brief statistical analysis of the effects of GATT/WTO membership on trade policy.1 The WTO is not only ofinterest because of a gap in the literature. Much of the radical left thinks that the WTO is the source of much evil since, by liberalizingtrade, the WTO degrades the environment, perpetuates poverty, increases inequality, and much else. The right uses the same premiseto conclude that, in freeing trade, the WTO does just the opposite. In this paper I ask: is the antecedent itself correct? Is therecompelling evidence that the GATT/WTO has actually liberalized trade policy?2 To be more precise, the question I ask in this paper iswhether trade policy is systematically more liberal for members of the GATT/WTO than for non-members. This

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	affnegcom
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

129 SS Answers to Trade Disads

Documents