Endangered Species Affirmative—RKS Seniors 2016

Louis ShulmanIf you are looking for a highlighted file… you are in the right place.

NotesDear Reader, If you like understanding your arguments, and if you like getting speaker points, read these notes. Otherwise, continue just reading cards and hoping for the best. Feel free to change the 1AC, add cards/ remove cards, just make sure you tell a coherent story. These notes explain every advantage, all of the add-ons, and other assorted notes. Bio Diversity:The basic explanation is that the illegal wildlife trade causing species to go extinct, hence the aff is called “Endangered Species.” Those species extinctions cause other species extinctions and eventually you get an impact. Here is how to explain that so you look smart.The business standard evidence is the internal link that says the trade causes species to go to extinction. There is more evidence in the 2AC portion on this if you feel more cards are necessary. Good examples are Tigers, Pangolins, Rhinos, Sharks, Vultures and Elephants. There are stats embedded in a lot of cards if you feel that you need numbers. The Phys.org evidence is more of a uniqueness card saying what will happen in the status quo with no change. The Biological Diversity.org evidence talks about the scientific principles that back the affirmative. The planet is in the middle of the 6th mass extinction as a result of human activities. The extinction of one species due to complex connections in ecosystems and in the food web lead to the extinction of other species bound to that same species and as this process magnifies it essentially snowballs. Even if some keystone species aren’t hunted, the loss of non-keystone species potentially causes deaths of the keystone species. If you want a lot of specific examples google “CITES Appendix One Species”. This is a list of all wildlife that are nearest to extinction so they are all examples of species the aff solves for. The aff mainly solves because Chinese demand is the primary driver for this trade. Disrupting the trade means that endangered species are no longer hunted to extinction and hopefully not hunted at all. If endangered species aren’t hunted, they don’t die and then no loss of biodiversity is triggered. Obviously there is more nuance but that’s the basic story. The impact to loss of biodiversity is extinction but there are a few extra internal link chains to allow multiple scenarios to access this. Some of these could also be used to turn the negatives impacts. The WHO card lists a lot of these potential problems. When certain species go extinct or the abundance declines, we no longer have those species to perform their ecological services. This include things like facilitating availability of fresh water, food and fuel sources. The lack of these resources and other losses related to biological diversity declines can be direct effects on human health, causes of migration, and can cause conflict related to resource shortages. Other impacts include the inability to discover treatments for

diseases, lowered nutrition, famine (some species are key to agriculture by ensuring soil is arable, some species are key marine sources of protein for the world), and economic decline as a result of the shortages of basic raw goods. The raw goods are things like rubber, cotton, leather, food, paper, timber, water, and fiber—if we don’t have these, the economy will be in a bad place, then you can read your generic Royal 10 card about economic decline. The Earth Eclipse evidence makes the same general arguments but adds a few impacts and does actually make an extinction claim. It lists some of the crucial ecological services as air purification, replenishing and cleaning water systems, absorbing chemicals, stabilizing climate, recycling nutrients, and forming and protecting the soil. If none of these are done by the environment anymore we are probably out of luck as a human species. Also the evidence talks about biodiversity for oxygen production. Clearly if we don’t have sufficient oxygen, the earth becomes uninhabitable. Yay extinction. Social Unrest:The illegal wildlife trade is a primary source of revenue for the non-state actors in Africa. These actors include the Janjaweed, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and other militias. These organizations create social unrest in Africa in a few ways. First, they proliferate civil conflicts via military operations, and similarly are the very soldiers in the wars that ravage Africa. Second, the poaching these organizations commit harms development in struggling nations because of loss in foreign investment and tourism. This loss in investment comes from the general instability in the nations because of the danger, the loss in tourism not only comes from that same danger, but also a major part of tourism is seeing the very endangered species that are poached. The aff solves by essentially ending the trade entirely since most all demand is in the US and China. Also the increased enforcement mechanisms could potentially include harsher penalties for violators meaning there is an increased risk of the punishment of being caught. The impact is constant war in Africa. Specific areas/ countries affected are southern Sudan, the Central African Republic, The DRC, Congo, Uganda, Chad, and Tanzania. It is a common misperception that poachers are low time poorly equipped villagers, the truth is well phrased by the Vidal evidence: “…a state of armed conflict, low intensity war being fought over exploitation of natural resources…heavily armed militia target elephants and rhino and gun down anyone trying to protect them…” The terminal impact (although African instability, perpetual war, and social unrest in themselves are impacts) is a spillover claim to global war. The Mead evidence uses empirical examples of conflicts in Africa that cause larger security issues. Instability causes massive refugee crises and the card talks about examples today like the Syrian civil war and how that drastically complicates international politics because of its threat in Europe and other major African countries. For more impact cards on this issue, look at the Africa Diplomatic Capital DA.

This below is a link to an infographic that helps explain the story of the advantagehttps://issuu.com/ifaw/docs/criminal_nature?e=7016602/3656631Terrorism:This scenario is very similar to the social unrest, but focuses more on the global implications in the form of terrorism rather than how it undermines stability of African nations. The Thelemaque and Noel evidence establishes the main internal link of the advantage which is funding. The source of that card is a PDF titled “Wildlife Trafficking African Continent and Its Nexus to Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorist Funding” so it’s a good piece of evidence. What this specific section does is an analysis of all major studies that have noted the link between poaching and terrorism, and it concludes that yes indeed the link exists. The major organizations that do this are Boko Haram, Al Qaida, and Al Shabab. A lot of the other internal links to this advantage are predicated off of the social unrest scenarios. Terrorism breeds in poor conditions, and often times those in militias end up joining or cooperating with terrorists. Weak nations and poor economies that emerge as a result of poaching create the conditions for terrorism to flourish and it also creates safe spaces for terrorists to grab territory to be able to establish strongholds and only increase in power. There are a few main internal links to solvency of the advantage. First, the aff ends China’s ability to consume these goods via the ban which guts funding by ending the industry. Second, the aff creates stronger penalties for being caught which disrupts the low risk high reward stigma there currently is attached to poaching. Third, if you win resolution of African instability, that would hurt terrorisms ability to flourish.The next card is McCormick. McCormick analyses how Al Shabab is a threat and uses recent examples such as how they exceeded US expectations in a military confrontation. Al Shabab is an Al Qaida affiliate, is well armed, and has a sophisticated arsenal with a technological expertise in explosives. The BBC News evidence discusses Boko Harams individual threats as well as their larger threats due to their ties with ISIS. Boko Haram openly refers to themselves as IS’s Western Province, meaning its only expands the risk of ISIS. The terminal impact card is Patterson. This evidence is truly really good, and I recommend reading the whole card. The ev analyses the risk of a nuclear terror attack from ISIS or Al Qaida and addresses most all arguments people make as to why nuclear terrorism couldn’t happen. Terrorists could obtain a weapon in a number of ways. ISIS has already obtained low grade nuclear materials from Belgium and from Mosul University. Surveillance footage proves this to be true. Other methods of obtaining/ using weapons could be buying a weapon, building a dirty bomb, attacking a reactor, stealing materials, buying scientists, or smuggling (the aff increases border controls as an enforcement mechanism so that’s an I/L). Attack causes retaliation = full scale war. If you don’t win retaliation you still win the impacts of economic destruction, civil liberty nightmares, and destruction of democratic ideals.

Plan Text/ Solvency:“The United States federal government should substantially increase its diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China by offering cooperation over increased enforcement in combatting the illegal wildlife trade in exchange for China banning all domestic trade in endangered species.”The plan text is a quid pro quo (QPQ) with China where the United States offers enforcement mechanisms in exchange for china ending all endangered species trade within their borders which essentially closes loopholes that allowed the current increase in illegal wildlife trade. Increased enforcement includes things like law enforcement, border controls, stronger penalties (for being caught), increased information sharing, and stricter custom procedures which can stop smuggling. Closing all loopholes includes farms, antiques, and overrules the 2008 ruling that allowed the one off sale of Ivory to China because that caused a corruption issue where Ivory not sold in that stockpile was passed off to be. If there is an argument about trade for scientific purposes classify that as like not “trade”, it’s a special category of use and CITES Appendix 1 does make that exception. A good analytic answer to the other countries alt causes argument the negative will make is 1- CITES is working well in other countries, 2- Where CITES lacks legitimacy, it is due to the US and China failing to follow CITES, so post plan that solves. Think of the market cycle for endangered species like a positive feedback loop…X is an endangered species. X is highly desired. When X is highly desired, its prices are high. When its prices are high more people are incentivized to go poach. People poach faster than the rate of reproduction. Because now X species is harder to find and in smaller quantity... the price goes up again. AND SO ON UNTIL ITS GONE.Disease Add On:Basically, the illegal wildlife trade spreads zoonotic diseases, that’s bad because disease outbreak causes extinction. This 2AC block could be exchanged with other cards in the file, if you have the time I would read Goldman 16 instead of Xie 15, it is better but takes more time.The Xie evidence explains how it spreads diseases. Wildlife trafficking isn’t subject to sanitation protocols and thus disease is spread quickly. An examples is how primate meat helped to spread HIV. Goldman cites a long term study of an illegal wildlife market and notices that the products there were “capable of transmitting at least 36 pathogens, like Ebola, Lassa fever, Marburg virus, monkey pox, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, and others.” It also found that there wasn’t much if any

running water and hand washing was virtually non-existent. Moreover, the markets are just an intermediate point, so when these 36 diseases are in this one place, a whole variety of people from around the world go take these products and diseases back to their countries of origin. The impact is extinction. The Morens evidence talks about how common defensive arguments like technology and vaccines don’t stop diseases from happening. It says diseases are evolving faster than are our responses. If you feel you need more evidence, this is a generic policy impact that has tons of back files. Look at the Public Health aff this camp put out, for example, and I am sure you can find some impact cards. Poverty Add On:This is more of just an impact add on than a whole advantage, but nonetheless it has strategic advantages. If the debate comes down to structural violence impacts, or if there is a criticism of hyperbolic impacts, this could be useful. In a debate versus a K, this might be strategic to put on the K flow as a defense of your actions and as an impact to weigh against the K. Obviously this doesn’t claim to solve global poverty, but the evidence is good that a significant amount of poverty can be alleviated by fighting wildlife crime.The Aubry 14 evidence explains how when elephants are killed and other endangered species are hunted, the poor deal with the consequences. For example, many people in rural areas rely on their local ecosystems for their food, shelter, and livelihoods. When the species are killed, the ecosystems are disrupted as I explained in the biodiversity section. Besides poverty being its own impact, the human trafficking impact is a bigger impact by a traditional sense. Also, human trafficking could be used to turn some gender based impacts because human trafficking is a major facilitator of sexual exploitation. For example, you could argue that pragmatism and structural reforms are key to address things like poverty which helps you on framework. Drug Trafficking Add On:This add on is super simple. Wildlife trafficking sustains trafficking of drugs. Wildlife is often used as a cover for drug operations, often cartels will mix shipments and use animals to hide drugs. The aff increases border enforcement and customs protocols which means these animal covers wouldn’t work as well because of increased and strengthened enforcement. Also the same criminal/ transnational organization funding links apply.The impact is just a laundry list claim to things like instability in developing nations so this can piggy back on the social unrest impacts or be an internal link to things like terror, it has undermined economic growth so you can read your generic economic decline causes war impacts, and it is key to democracy so you can read those impacts about democracy being key to things. A basic card for that is Diamond 1995.

Rangers:This add on is not something I recommend reading. Its impact is about 100 park ranger deaths which is terrible, but unfortunately the assumed utilitarian calculus of debate means this argument is not the path to success. In no circumstance would I recommend reading this add on. I only included it in the file because I cut it for some reason and didn’t feel like trashing work I did. Off case:Based on what I put in the case negative, I would be prepared for the following off case positions. T: Engagement Can’t be a QPQ, Economic Engagement, IncreaseK: Anthropocentricism K, Kritiks of Terror DiscourseCP: The AFRICOM CP, The Pressure CPDA: Politics DA, Warming DA, Appeasement DA, Russia China RelationsOf course other positions will be read, but these are the ones I recommended in the other file, so be ready. Ideas to expand the affirmative/ What to update: Make a scenario that says biodiversity is key to the global economy—or an add on Could make an environmental leadership advantage like the US government would look good for doing the plan. Turn the disease add on into an entire advantage. Put some cards about resource wars, economic decline, ecological destruction, etc. to be extinction level terminal impacts to the laundry list impacts. Could make a version of this aff focused entirely on elephants. If interested research “Appendix I listing of all African elephants” as a good starting point for a solvency mechanism Supplement terrorism with other terror impacts like biological terrorism or cyber terrorism. On the turn to AFRICOM, find an impact to damaged US China relations—look in the appeasement DA or other files this camp put out for that. Make a version of the 1AC with one huge bio diversity advantage, and then make a contention of preempts; maybe read transnational crime as Add Ons. Update uniqueness that progress hasn’t been made to make sure the status quo doesn’t solve One plank of the AFRICOM counterplan is information sharing, maybe pull fusion centers back files and read it as a DA to the CP This aff could be used as an impact turn to Chinese Economic Growth—A lot of evidence says China’s growing middle class is the root cause of this

poaching crisis, so an aff that tries to boost Chinese economy could be impact turned by this.Other:A lot of cards don’t have dates, so just refer to the DOA (Date of Access) at the end of the tag. The cards labeled with No Date are generally from science or government websites so they are frequently updated. Thus, the date accessed means that data was relevant as of that date, aka the date accessed is basically the date. If you don’t like yellow highlighting, under the format menu click more and then standardize highlighting to your preferred color.If you want to read this aff I encourage you to change up the 1AC to your preferred impacts and what versions of internal links you like best. I hope you like the aff!Best of luck,Louis Shulman – Coronado High School

1AC

Advantage 1—BiodiversityWildlife trade pushes species to extinctionBusiness Standard 2016 (Ians – Business Standard, 6-3-2016, " 'Illegal wildlife trade pushing species to brink of extinction' ," No Publication, http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/illegal-wildlife-trade-pushing-species-to-brink-of-extinction-116060301113_1.html) – Coronado LSThe discovery of more than 40 dead tiger cubs in Thailand's Tiger Temple represents only a "tiny proportion" of the enormous extent of an illegal trade in wildlife that is "pushing species to the brink of extinction ", the UNEP-UNODC said on Friday. "While circumstances of their death remain unclear, sadly, those tiger cubs represent only a tiny proportion of the enormous extent of an illegal trade in wildlife that is pushing species to the brink of extinction. Indeed, only around 4,000 tigers are left in the wild," United Nations Environment Programme-United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said in a statement. "Until the illegal trade in wildlife is stopped , we are only likely to see more of these types of situations," the statement added. The theme for World Environment Day on June 5 this year is the illegal trade in wildlife to raise awareness of this severe problem. Tigers are one of the key species in the campaign. The illegal trade in wildlife , estimated to profit criminals to the tune of billions of dollars annually worldwide, comprises everything from the lucrative trade in Tiger parts in East Asia to ivory from African elephants, the organisations said. "It undermines our environment, economies, communities and security." "The commendable action by Thailanda's authorities, coordinated by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, highlights the need for constant vigilance by wildlife law enforcement authorities to the threat posed by traffickers." "Given the extent of the illegal wildlife market in Asia it is important for all countries to unite and eradicate these illegal practices," the statement said. Officials had recovered 40 dead tiger cubs, just one to two days old, from a freezer at Wat Pha Luang Ta Bua temple, known as the "Tiger Temple", on Wednesday, EFE news reported. The cubs were not recorded in the register for wild animals the temple has to maintain by law and that means the protection department will press charges for illegal possession, besides other possible offences.Without increased conservation efforts, key marine and terrestrial species will go extinctPhys.org 2016 (Phys.org, 6-9-2016, "On land and at sea, large animals are in 'double jeopardy'," No Publication, http://phys.org/news/2016-06-sea-large-animals-jeopardy.html) – Coronado LSLarge animals hunted for their parts—such as elephant ivory and shark fins— are in double jeopardy of extinction due to their large body size and high value, according to a new analysis reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on June 9. The study reveals underappreciated risk to marine species similar to that of iconic terrestrial species, but elevated by key differences in the sea. "We typically assume that if a species is reduced to low numbers, individuals will be hard to find, hunters will stop hunting, and populations will be given a chance to recover," says Loren McClenachan of Colby College in Waterville, Maine. "But the extreme values of these species mean that without significant conservation intervention, they will be hunted to extinction. " In the new study, McClenachan, along with Andrew Cooper and Nicholas Dulvy of Simon Fraser University in Canada, identified a taxonomically diverse group of more than 100 large marine and terrestrial species that are targeted for international luxury markets. They estimated the value of these species across three points of sale and explored the relationships among extinction risk, value, and body size. They also quantified the effects of two mitigating factors: poaching fines and geographic range size. The analysis showed a threshold above which economic value is the key driver of extinction risk. Although lower-value species are influenced primarily by their biology, the

most valuable species are at high risk of extinction no matter their size. Once mean product values are greater than US$12,557 per kilogram, body size no longer drives risk, the report shows. The researchers also uncovered important differences between marine and terrestrial species that point to elevated risk in the sea: although marine products are generally less valuable on a per kilogram basis, individual animals are still just as valuable as the most valuable terrestrial species. An individual whale shark, for example, is about as valuable as the most valuable terrestrial species: rhinoceroses and tigers. "Hunters don't kill kilograms, they kill individuals, so we need to pay attention to these high values of individual animals," McClenachan says. The risk to marine species isn't reduced for species with larger ranges as it is on land, either. "The assumption that large ranges protect species from extinction is based on conservation science done on land—where animals found in multiple countries have a higher chance of protection in at least one location—and appears not to apply to marine species, where widespread and little-policed hunting contrasts with tighter controls on land," McClenachan says. The study points to the importance of considering trade of marine animals and differences between terrestrial and marine animals when it comes to conservation. "For too long, we have been reading wildlife trade reports with scant recognition of the diversity and value of the marine wildlife trade," Dulvy says. "We need to pay attention to fundamental differences between marine and terrestrial species," McClenachan adds. "Conservation science began on land, so it is tempting to assume that underlying principles are the same in the ocean. However, as we found, this is far from the case. If we're not aware of these basic differences, it's impossible to design effective conservation." The researchers say that the next step will be to design effective conservation strategies for these high-value, large-bodied, far-ranging species. It's a challenging road ahead, but they say there are reasons for optimism, including signs that control of international trade via CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) is working in some cases and the increased use of new technologies like DNA forensics to detect wildlife crime.The extinction of one species spills over to other seemingly unrelated speciesBiologicalDiversity.org, No Date (BiologicalDiversity.org, No Date, "The Extinction Crisis," No Publication, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ DOA: 06/23/2016) - Coronado LSTHE EXTINCTION CRISIS It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half- billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate , with literally dozens going extinct every day [ 1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2]. Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel. Species diversity ensures ecosystem resilience, giving ecological communities the scope they need to withstand stress. Thus while conservationists often justifiably focus their efforts on species-rich ecosystems like rainforests and coral reefs — which have a lot to lose — a comprehensive strategy for saving biodiversity must also include habitat types with fewer species, like grasslands, tundra, and polar seas — for which any loss could be irreversibly devastating. And while much concern over extinction focuses on globally lost species, most of biodiversity’s benefits take place at a local level, and conserving local populations is the only way to ensure genetic diversity critical for a species’ long-term survival. In the past 500 years, we know of approximately 1,000 species that have gone extinct, from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper, passenger pigeon and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — but this doesn’t account for thousands of species that disappeared before scientists had a chance to describe them [4]. Nobody really knows how many species are in danger of becoming extinct. Noted conservation scientist David Wilcove estimates that there are 14,000 to 35,000 endangered species in the United States, which is 7 to 18 percent of U.S. flora and fauna. The IUCN has assessed roughly 3 percent of described species and identified 16,928 species worldwide as being threatened with extinction, or roughly 38 percent of those assessed. In its latest four-year endangered species assessment, the IUCN reports that the world won’t meet a goal of reversing the extinction trend toward species depletion by 2010 [5]. What’s clear is that many

thousands of species are at risk of disappearing forever in the coming decades. AMPHIBIANS No group of animals has a higher rate of endangerment than amphibians. Scientists estimate that a third or more of all the roughly 6,300 known species of amphibians are at risk of extinction [6]. The current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039 to 45,474 times the background extinction rate [7]. Frogs, toads, and salamanders are disappearing because of habitat loss, water and air pollution, climate change, ultraviolet light exposure, introduced exotic species, and disease. Because of their sensitivity to environmental changes, vanishing amphibians should be viewed as the canary in the global coal mine, signaling subtle yet radical ecosystem changes that could ultimately claim many other species, including humans. BIRDS Birds occur in nearly every habitat on the planet and are often the most visible and familiar wildlife to people across the globe. As such, they provide an important bellwether for tracking changes to the biosphere. Declining bird populations across most to all habitats confirm that profound changes are occurring on our planet in response to human activities. A 2009 report on the state of birds in the United States found that 251 (31 percent) of the 800 species in the country are of conservation concern [8]. Globally, BirdLife International estimates that 12 percent of known 9,865 bird species are now considered threatened, with 192 species, or 2 percent, facing an “extremely high risk” of extinction in the wild — two more species than in 2008. Habitat loss and degradation have caused most of the bird declines, but the impacts of invasive species and capture by collectors play a big role, too. FISH Increasing demand for water, the damming of rivers throughout the world, the dumping and accumulation of various pollutants, and invasive species make aquatic ecosystems some of the most threatened on the planet; thus, it’s not surprising that there are many fish species that are endangered in both freshwater and marine habitats. The American Fisheries Society identified 700 species of freshwater or anadromous fish in North America as being imperiled, amounting to 39 percent of all such fish on the continent [9]. In North American marine waters, at least 82 fish species are imperiled. Across the globe, 1,851 species of fish — 21 percent of all fish species evaluated — were deemed at risk of extinction by the IUCN in 2010, including more than a third of sharks and rays. INVERTEBRATES Invertebrates, from butterflies to mollusks to earthworms to corals, are vastly diverse — and though no one knows just how many invertebrate species exist, they’re estimated to account for about 97 percent of the total species of animals on Earth [10]. Of the 1.3 million known invertebrate species, the IUCN has evaluated about 9,526 species, with about 30 percent of the species evaluated at risk of extinction. Freshwater invertebrates are severely threatened by water pollution, groundwater withdrawal, and water projects, while a large number of invertebrates of notable scientific significance have become either endangered or extinct due to deforestation, especially because of the rapid destruction of tropical rainforests. In the ocean, reef-building corals are declining at an alarming rate: 2008’s first-ever comprehensive global assessment of these animals revealed that a third of reef-building corals are threatened. MAMMALS Perhaps one of the most striking elements of the present extinction crisis is the fact that the majority of our closest relatives — the primates — are severely endangered. About 90 percent of primates — the group that contains monkeys, lemurs, lorids, galagos, tarsiers, and apes (as well as humans) — live in tropical forests, which are fast disappearing. The IUCN estimates that almost 50 percent of the world’s primate species are at risk of extinction. Overall, the IUCN estimates that half the globe’s 5,491 known mammals are declining in population and a fifth are clearly at risk of disappearing forever with no less than 1,131 mammals across the globe classified as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. In addition to primates, marine mammals — including several species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises — are among those mammals slipping most quickly toward extinction. PLANTS Through photosynthesis, plants provide the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat and are thus the foundation of most life on Earth . They’re also the source of a majority of medicines in use today. Of the more than 300,000 known species of plants, the IUCN has evaluated only 12,914 species, finding that about 68 percent of evaluated plant species are threatened with extinction. Unlike animals, plants can’t readily move as their habitat is destroyed, making them particularly vulnerable to extinction. Indeed, one study found that habitat destruction leads to an “extinction debt,” whereby plants that appear dominant will disappear over time because they aren’t able to disperse to new habitat patches [11]. Global warming is likely to substantially exacerbate this problem. Already, scientists say, warming temperatures are causing quick and dramatic changes in the range and distribution of plants around the world. With plants making up the backbone of ecosystems and the base of the food chain, that’s very bad news for all species, which depend on plants for food, shelter, and survival. REPTILES Globally, 21 percent of the total evaluated reptiles in the world are deemed endangered or vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN — 594 species — while in the United States, 32 reptile species are at risk, about 9 percent of the total. Island reptile species have been dealt the hardest blow, with at least 28 island reptiles having died out since 1600. But scientists say that island-style extinctions are creeping onto the mainlands because human activities fragment continental habitats, creating “virtual islands” as they isolate species from one another, preventing interbreeding and hindering populations’ health. The main threats to reptiles are habitat destruction and the invasion of nonnative species, which prey on reptiles and compete with them for habitat and food.Laundry list of impacts to biodiversity loss—ecological destruction, diseases outbreak, famine, and inability to cure future diseasesWHO No Date (World Health Organization, No Date, "WHO," No Publication, http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/biodiversity/en/ DOA: 06/23/2016) - Coronado LSWhat is biodiversity? Biodiversity underpins life on Earth , and refers to the variety found in biota from genetic make up of plants an animals to cultural diversity. What does biodiversity mean for human health? People depend on biodiversity in their daily lives, in ways that are not always apparent or appreciated. Human health ultimately depends upon ecosystem products and services (such as availability of fresh water, food and fuel sources) which are requisite for good human health and productive livelihoods. B iodiversity loss can have significant direct human health impacts if ecosystem services are no longer adequate to meet social needs. Indirectly, c hanges in ecosystem services affect livelihoods, income, local migration and , on occasion, may even cause

political conflict . Additionally, biophysical diversity of microorganisms, flora and fauna provides extensive knowledge which carry important benefits for biological, health, and pharmacological sciences. Significant medical and pharmacological discoveries are made through greater understanding of the earth's biodiversity. Loss in biodiversity may limit discovery of potential treatments for many diseases and health problems. Threats to biodiversity and health There is growing concern about the health consequences of biodiversity loss and change. Biodiversity changes affect ecosystem functioning and significant disruptions of ecosystems can result in life sustaining ecosystem goods and services. Biodiversity loss also means that we are losing, before discovery, many of nature's chemicals and genes, of the kind that have already provided humankind with enormous health benefits. Specific pressures and linkages between health and biodiversity include: Nutritional impact of biodiversity Biodiversity plays a crucial role in human nutrition through its influence on world food production, as it ensures the sustainable productivity of soils and provides the genetic resources for all crops, livestock, and marine specie s harvested for food . Access to a sufficiency of a nutritious variety of food is a fundamental determinant of health. Nutrition and biodiversity are linked at many levels: the ecosystem, with food production as an ecosystem service; the species in the ecosystem and the genetic diversity within species. Nutritional composition between foods and among varieties/cultivars/breeds of the same food can differ dramatically, affecting micronutrient availability in the diet. Healthy local diets, with adequate average levels of nutrients intake, necessitates maintenance of high biodiversity levels. Intensified and enhanced food production through irrigation, use of fertilizer, plant protection (pesticides) or the introduction of crop varieties and cropping patterns affect biodiversity, and thus impact global nutritional status and human health. Habitat simplification, species loss and species succession often enhance communities vulnerabilities as a function of environmental receptivity to ill health. Importance of biodiversity for health research and traditional medicine Traditional medicine continue to play an essential role in health care, especially in primary health care. Traditional medicines are estimated to be used by 60% of the world’s population and in some countries are extensively incorporated into the public health system. Medicinal plant use is the most common medication tool in traditional medicine and complementary medicine worldwide. Medicinal plants are supplied through collection from wild populations and cultivation. Many communities rely on natural products collected from ecosystems for medicinal and cultural purposes, in addition to food. Although synthetic medicines are available for many purposes, the global need and demand for natural products persists for use as medicinal products and biomedical research that relies on plants, animals and microbes to understand human physiology and to understand and treat human diseases. Infectious diseases Human activities are disturbing both the structure and functions of ecosystems and altering native biodiversity. Such disturbances reduce the abundance of some organisms, cause population growth in others, modify the interactions among organisms, and alter the interactions between organisms and their physical and chemical environments . Patterns of infectious diseases are sensitive to these disturbances . Major processes affecting infectious disease reservoirs and transmission include, deforestation; land-use change; water management e.g. through dam construction, irrigation, uncontrolled urbanization or urban sprawl; resistance to pesticide chemicals used to control certain disease vectors; climate variability and change; migration and international travel and trade; and the accidental or intentional human introduction of pathogens. Climate change, biodiversity and health Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being at present and in the future. Climate is an integral part of ecosystem functioning and human health is impacted directly and indirectly by results of climatic conditions upon terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Marine biodiversity is affected by ocean acidification related to levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Terrestrial biodiversity is influenced by climate variability, such as extreme weather events (ie drought, flooding) that directly influence ecosystem health and the productivity and availability of ecosystem goods and services for human use. Longer term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems, influencing shifts in the distribution of plants, pathogens, animals, and even human settlements.Loss of biodiversity equals extinction—lack of oxygen, inability to treat diseases, and lack of basic commdoities that underpin the global economyEarth Eclipse No Date(Earth Eclipse, No Date, "Why is Biodiversity Important and Reasons For Loss of Biodiversity," http://www.eartheclipse.com/ecosystem/why-is-biodiversity-important-and-reasons-for-loss-of-biodiversity.html DOA: 06/23/2016) - Coronado LSBiodiversity is the variety within and between animal and plant life in a particular habitat or the entire planet. In any particular region on the planet, there are numerous different species. A small-scale example of biodiversity is the various life forms within the park in the neighborhood. Examples of diverse species locally include butterflies, trees, shrubs, grass, bacteria, fungi, flies, frogs, birds, worms, mammals, spiders, lizards, and the list goes on. The variations are even further witnessed within the genetic makeup of a particular species group which brings about the difference in color, shape, and size. These species form a unique community where they interact with each other and the soil, air and water. biodiversity-mounted-on-a-wall According to WWF, “Biological diversity – or biodiversity – is the term given to the variety of life on Earth. It is the variety within and between all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms and the ecosystems within which they live and interact. Biodiversity comprises all the millions of different species that live on our planet, as well as the genetic differences within species.” Importance Of Biodiversity There are numerous reasons deeming biodiversity significant. One overriding importance is that biodiversity is responsible for the continuity of the planet because it supports majority of the vital environmental life cycles such as the oxygen cycle, the water

cycle, and the nitrogen cycle j ust to mention a few . With between 3 and 30 million species on earth, here are the reasons why they are important. Provides Food and Allows Humans to Live a Happy Life. Because of the availability of different species, humans are able to obtain a range of materials and foods used to support their well-being and health. The various foods such as fish, meat, vegetables, fruits, and cereals are all available because of the planet’s biodiversity . Medical Breakthroughs and Cures. Through biological diversity, scientists have made significant advances in medical discoveries and have found cures to several diseases. All this has been possible because of research into the various animal and plant genetics as well as biology . 80% of vaccines and drugs used in prevention and treatment respectively are from the world’s biodiversity . Planet Continuity and Balance of the Ecosystem . Biodiversity makes life livable on Earth by playing an important role in offering ecological services. The ecological services include air purification, replenishing and cleaning water systems, absorbing chemicals, stabilizing climate, recycling nutrients, and forming and protecting the soil. Crucial life cycles such as the water cycle and the nitrogen cycle are all determined by biodiversity. Industrial Processing and Manufacturing. Biological resources supply the numerous industrial raw materials including rubber, cotton, leather, food, paper, timber, water, and fiber. These resources are then used by the industries to process and manufacture different products for human and other uses. Recreation, Culture, and Education. Biodiversity provides a “wonder” of how things are amazingly inspiring, beautiful, and diverse in nature. Simply because of this, biodiversity promotes recreational activities such as fishing, bird watching, mountain climbing, and game visits that lead to tourism. Biodiversity also influences cultural values as it inspires people in different ways and determines certain lifestyle orientations. Biological education and research are as a result of the existing biodiversity. Adjustment and Adaptation. It is because of diversity in genetic makeup that plants and animals are able to adapt and adjust to respective environmental changes. The genetic diversity, for instance, helps species to fight diseases.

Advantage 2—Transnational CrimeThe global illegal wildlife trade is at unprecedented levels—weak enforcement, low penalties, and demand in China cause this trendThelemaque and Noel 2015 (Ilioney Thelemaque and Fred Noel, “Wildlife Trafficking African Continent and Its Nexus to Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorist Funding”, April 2015, Capstone Project Master of Arts in Global Governance In Collaboration with: Florida International University https://maga.fiu.edu/academic-tracks/capstone-project/2015-capstone-working-papers/capstone-final-paper_fred_illioney-editedddt.pdf) – Coronado LSNumerous factors drive illegal trafficking of wildlife on the African continent. These factors include profit, globalization, the fall of communism, poor governance, income level and poverty, and supply and demand for wild animals and their parts. 1) Profit One of the main motivations that lies behind any transnational criminal activity is profit . According to Warchol (2007) and Lavorgna (2014), the underground market in wildlife trafficking is estimated to be worth between 6 and 10 billion dollars annually. According to Oldifiel (2003), the trade in wild plants and animals and their parts is a lucrative business. It is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and to involve hundreds of millions of plants and animals every year. He goes on to say that the trade is diverse ranging from live animals and ornamental plants to a vast collection of wildlife products and derivatives. Fish and other food products, exotic, leather goods, medicines, and other wildlife commodities can be found in markets around the globe. Ramy Srour (2014) reports that a rhino horn is worth as much as 50,000 dollars per pound on the black market, more than the value of gold or platinum. In addition, a kilogram of elephant ivory is worth between $121 and $900; a shahtoosh shawl of Tibetan antelopes is worth $1,200 to $20,000; big cats including tiger, snow leopard, or jaguar skin cost between $1,300 and $20,000 each. A set of tiger bones values from $3,300 to $7,000; a gallbladder of bears is worth $250 to $8,500; a kilogram of caviar of sturgeon costs between $4,450 and $6,000. Reptiles and insects (often live), such as an oenpelli python and a komodo dragon value $30,000 each, a plowshare of tortoise, from $ 5,000 to $30,000, a Chinese alligator, $15,000, a monitor lizard and shingleback skink, $20,000 each; a pair of birdwing butterflies is worth $8,500; exotic birds (often live) including a black palm cockatoo egg costs $10,000 (from $25,000 to $80,000 per mature breeding pair), an hyacinth macaw, from $5,000 to $12,000, a Lear’s macaw, from $60,000 to $90,000, and a Mongolian falcon, $20,000; great apes (often live), such as an orangutan, cost $50,000 (Figure 3). Animals or Their Parts Cost of the Animals or Their Parts Elephants $121-$900 per kilogram of ivory Rhinoceros $50,000 per kilogram of rhino horn Tibetan Antelopes $1,200-$20,000 per shahtoosh shawl Big Cats $1,3000-$20,000 per tiger, snow leopard, or jaguar skin; $3,300-$7,000 per set of tiger bones Bears $250-$8,500 per gallbladder Sturgeon $4,450-$6,000 per kilogram of caviar Reptiles and insects (often live) $30,000 per oenpelli python; $30,000 per komodo dragon; $5,000-$30,000 per plowshare tortoise; $15,000 per Chinese alligator; $20,000 per monitor lizard; $20,000 per shingleback skink; $8,500 per pair of birdwing butterflies Exotic Birds (often live) $10,000 per black palm cockatoo egg ($25,000- $80,000 per mature breeding pair); $5,000-$12,000 per hyacinth macaw; $60,000-$90,000 per Lear’s macaw; $20,000 per Mongolian falcon Great Apes (often live) $50,000 per Orangutan Sources: Ramy, 2014. Compiled from U.S. government agencies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and media. Michael McCarthy (2012) reports that the illegal trade in wildlife is now worth at least $19 billion annually and is the fourth lucrative illicit trade besides drug, human trafficking and money laundering. Earnings from wildlife trafficking can vary, but a poacher might receive just $600 for an ivory tusk or a rhino horn. Along the supply chain, others will reap additional profits

depending on the proximity of these products’ final destination, whereby illegal traders can receive, for example, “$3,000-per-kilogram price for ivory and $65,000-per-kilogram price for rhino horn in Asia.” That is more expensive than silver, gold and diamonds. It is even more expensive than cocaine . 2) Globalization The impacts of globalization intensified by both information and communication technology drive illegal trade of wildlife . Globalization and technology provide—and even facilitate— the networks required to move wildlife products from source to international markets. Conservationists are warning that the Internet is enabling exceptional levels of illicit wildlife trade and that, for many species, this is now a principal element in the threat to their survival. In 2008, the International Fund for Animal Welfare identified over 7,000 wildlife products from threatened species being offered for sale in online auctions, forums, and classified ads. The Environmental Investigation Agency is cited as publishing a statement on its Website in March 2013, arguing that it found 10, 000 ads for ivory products and another 1,400 for whale products on Google Shopping in Japan. Much of the wildlife trade is currently handled online by middlemen using varying degrees of secrecy. Organized criminal networks involved in wildlife are using “deep Web” online tools more commonly associated with serious financial crime, drug trafficking and child pornography. They even use the Internet to issue their own certificates enabling them to legally operate. Nellemann is cited by arguing that “the volume of organized crime in illegal logging in the Amazon is so advanced that they are hacking government websites in order to obtain permits to cut down forests (Oakford, 2014). The development of technology and communication decreases the costs of transaction and the cost of doing business, which allow the licit and the illicit trade to flourish simultaneously (Killebrew, 2011; Naim, 2005). It also allows criminal organizations to avoid detection, to control illicit activities, to navigate with pinpoint accuracy and to move money within global financial systems (Killebrew, 2011). The development of technology and communication also decreases the cost of shipping and weakens laws and regulations designed to counter the trade (International Fund for Animal Welfare, 2013). 3) The Fall of Communism The fall of Communism has increased instances of illegal trafficking of wildlife, especially in Eastern European countries. After the fall of Communism, wildlife trafficking, specifically, the trade in rhino horn created new links between notorious Asian and Eastern European organized crime networks and those in Africa (Anderson & Jooste, 2014). Ames Paul (1996) argues that world events have opened up new markets and sources for the illegal traders. He goes on to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union and rapid economic growth in China and Southeast Asia have allowed a boom in poaching and smuggling. Uhlig (2012) reports that organized crime groups, including the Colombian drug cartels and the Russian mafia , have moved to trafficking in illegal wildlife because the potential profit reaped in comparison to arms, drugs, and people smuggling. 4) Poor Governance 17 Weak law enforcement efforts and poor governance are believed to be the drivers of the illegal wildlife trafficking on the African continent (International Fund for Animal Welfare, 2013). Wildlife agents , customs officials and government leaders are being paid off by wellorganized mafia organizations that move animal parts from Africa to Asia. Weak laws, corruption , ineffective judicial systems and light punishments allow criminal networks to thrive on wildlife trade with little regard for risk or consequence (CITES et al, 2013; Walsh, 2013). A report to the African Elephant Summit says that high poaching levels are more prevalent in countries where governance is weaker. There is likely to be a causal relationship , with poor governance facilitating the illegal killing of elephants and movement of illegal ivory (CITES et al, 2013). According to Osmar G. Amir (2006), an uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources seems to be a common phenomenon in all regions of Somalia, and the prevailing lawlessness greatly facilitates the illicit trade of

wildlife. The trade appears to exert a great pressure on the fauna of the country, particularly on threatened species such as cheetah, lion, elephant, dibatag, hirola, beira, Speke’s gazelle, Pelzen’s gazelle, Haggard’s oribi and others. Since 1979, Somalia has lost 95% of its elephant population due to a lack of law enforcement and, therefore, augmented by illegal trade. Brooke Darby (2014), Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, argues that wildlife smugglers frequently bribe officials or rebel groups for permission to cross borders, or pay organized crime groups for the use of their established routes or methods. 5) Income Level and Poverty Another facilitating factor of wildlife trafficking is income level. According to a report to the African Summit, in most African countries, wildlife is seen as a means to meet short-term needs, and individuals will trade it for whatever they can obtain. Ultimately, as measured by household consumption in China , demand from consumers who are willing to pay for illegal ivory drives and sustains the illegal killing of elephants (we explore this driver in the next subsection). The report continues to say that the extreme poverty evidenced in several African communities induces their complicity in African-based, Asian-run poaching networks (CITES et al, 2013). In contrast, while poverty may stimulate people to participate in wildlife trafficking, in itself, it does not necessarily drive and initiate this criminal activity. People from underprivileged communities will not participate in the poaching of commercially valuable species unless there is a demand from wealthier communities. A recent International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) report on elephant meat trade in the Central African region concluded that demand from wealthier communities was a major stimulus for illegal hunting. The report adds that wealthy industrial economies remain key legal and illegal importers of wildlife (Duffy & St. John, 2013). In a 2008 report, Duffy and St. John (2013) examined the drivers of illegal wildlife trade, and they described the complexity of the networks involved in the wildlife trade. The report showed that this illicit activity connected local-level rural harvesters, professional hunters, traders, wholesalers and retailers with the final consumers of wildlife in locations distant from the source of the product. The illegal wildlife trade offers different levels of economic support to various communities, which is a source of regular income, a safety net or a profitable business. 6) Supply and Demand for Wild Animals, Their Parts and Derivatives Supply and demand for wild animals and their parts and derivatives are also the motivators of illegal trafficking of wildlife . According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia are the main supply regions for several of the largest illegal animal markets, such as elephant ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts. With respect to the demand, it is largely accepted that the leading consumers of illicit wildlife are China, the United States, and countries in the European Union. The most profitable animals and animal products include elephant ivory, tiger bones, Tibetan antelope, bear gallbladders, rhino horns, and exotic birds and reptiles. Commonly, demand for animal products falls into three groups: traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), commercial products, and exotic pets. TCM is responsible for a great deal of demand in China, where buyers will pay as much as $2,500 for a single rhino horn, believed to possess vast medicinal qualities. Tigers, pangolins, civets, and bears are also believed to have medicinal value (Haken, 2011). Growing affluence and economic growth in Asia have increased the demand for Africa's natural resources, including wildlife and wildlife products (UN Chronicle, 2014). Commercial products have long provided the demand for illegal ivory elephant tusks. Coveted clothing and accessories also account for some of the demand in other animals. Tibetan antelope are killed for their furs which are then turned into $15,000 shawls. Crocodiles and various large cats are hunted to produce clothing and accessories. Because of the rarity and nature of such products, the United States and the European countries are the primary sources of demand. The same is true of illegal exotic pets. Exotic birds, reptiles and primates are coveted by those looking for unique pets or prized collector items and illegal animal traffickers are able to supply them (Haken, 2011). The rising price of ivory and rhino horn on the black market combined with centuries old traditions of valuing these products as either status symbols (with respect to ivory) or traditional medicine (when it comes to

rhino horn) perpetuate the lucrative illegal trade of wildlife (UN Chronicle, 2014). According to McCarthy (2012), the unprecedented new level of illegal wildlife trafficking is being done to satisfy growing demand in Asia for rhino horn and elephant ivory. Rhino horn is being sought as a cancer treatment by a multitude of users of traditional Asian medicine, following a pervasive urban myth that its powdered form cured the cancer of a Vietnamese politician. In South-East Asia, some wildlife products, besides their curative nature, are also considered aphrodisiacs. Ivory is sought for luxury carvings for the teeming numbers of new millionaires in China and surrounding Asian countries. For both markets, prices have gone up, with both rhino horn and ivory in some cases ranging from $60,000 (£37,000) per kilogram, equivalent to the price of gold. Growing global prices for ivory and rhino horn are driving this poaching passion. In addition, demand for rhino and elephant products, in particular, has grown at an astonishing rate, ranging from 13 in 2007 to 83 in 2008, 122 in 2009 and 333 in 2010. Wyler and Sheikh (2008) state that, on the African continent, bush meat consumption in rural and urban areas motivates the demand for illegal wildlife on the African continent. After examining the drivers of the illegal trafficking of wildlife, it is critical to explore the different trade routes used by the traffickers to bring their products to the final destinations.

Scenario 1 is Social UnrestThe wildlife trade funds armed non state actors that perpetuate the civil conflict, and ongoing social unrest in Africa. Lawson and Vines 2014 (Katherine Lawson and Alex Vines, February 2014, Global Impacts of the Illegal Wildlife Trade The Costs of Crime, Insecurity and Institutional Erosion. Katherine Lawson is a Project Assistant in the Africa Programme at Chatham House. Alex Vines is Director of Area Studies and International Law and Head of the Africa Programme at Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Africa/0214Wildlife.pdf ) - Coronado LSThe illegal wildlife trade is worth at least $10 billion per year . These funds finance further illegal activity including linked transnational crimes, insurgency and political destabilization . This economic loss is exacerbated for countries in which endangered species cannot be easily protected, where the activities of armed non- state actors in poaching and transnational crime hinder development, investment and tourism . If the current rates of poaching continue, the populations of African elephants and rhinos in southern Africa will once again be pushed to the brink of extinction. The economic gains of perpetrators of the illegal wildlife trade could, if recovered, be used by governments to counter its global impacts , which include the erosion of state authority in countries supplying elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts; t he proliferation of civil conflict in these states; and national security threats across consumer, demand and transit countries involved in the trade. The activities of transnational organized crime syndicates which connect the trade, linking poachers in Central and East Africa to traders and sellers in East Asia, Europe and the United States, pose a threat to the stability of all states in a globalized world. The isolation of habitats and sanctuaries which are home to vulnerable species is sought out by armed non-state actors trying to avoid the reach of state influence during civil conflict in wildlifeproduct source countries. These states have found the fight against increasingly sophisticated methods of poaching too costly to bear alone. Poaching is driven by a demand for wildlife products that has risen dramatically in the last few years. Ineffective legislation is unable to prevent the flow of wildlife products from source countries to traders in consumer regions. More evidence-based research is required into the true role played by armed non-state actors participating in the illegal wildlife trade. In order to formulate effective policy responses to counter the illegal wildlife trade, the international community needs to understand why these actors have become entrenched in the wildlife trade, and what may happen if they are denied access to these resources . International collaboration on this issue must take place . Despite the signing of multilateral agreements such as CITES, renewed commitment to fight against the illegal wildlife trade is needed to implement and enforce legislation prohibiting the trade, to support wildlife source countries (such as the African elephant range states), to tackle the rising demand for these products a nd to break down the links to transnational organized crime . Failure to do so will

ensure that transnational organized crime operatives involved in the illegal wildlife trade will continue to cause billions of dollars of economic loss to governments, fuelling civil conflict in already unstable states and funding illegal activity across the world, threatening the stability and security of states involved in all aspects of this trade and beyond.That perpetuates a state of constant war spanning the African continent. It funds virtually all non-state actors and militia’sVidal 2016 (John Vidal, 5-7-2016, "On the frontline of Africa’s wildlife wars," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/07/africa-frontline-of-wildlife-wars) – Coronado LSBrigadier Venant Mumbere Muvesevese, a 35-year-old father of four, became the 150th ranger in the last 10 years to be killed protecting lowland gorillas, elephants and other wildlife in Virunga national park last month. He and his young Congolese colleague , Fidèle Mulonga Mulegalega, were surrounded by local militia , captured and then summarily executed . For Emmanuel de Mérode, the Belgian head of Virunga, himself shot and wounded by militia in 2014, the two killings in Africa’s oldest park, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, were yet another atrocity in the brutal wildlife wars raging through southern Sudan, the Central African Republic, Congo and parts of Uganda, Chad and Tanzania. “These two rangers were killed in situations that may amount to war crimes in any other conflict,” he said. “We cannot sustain these kind of losses in what is still the most dangerous conservation job in the world.” Virunga has lost five rangers so far this year. Speaking to the Observer from the park’s fortified HQ in Goma, De Mérode said security had got worse in recent months. “We lost people in January, too. We have a state of armed conflict, a low-intensity war being fought over the exploitation of natural resources in the park ,” he said. “For the rangers it is not impossible to work, but it is now very dangerous. We are training 100 new rangers now and there will be 120 more next year. We are still very committed and optimistic.” The battle for central Africa’s wildlife has exploded as heavily armed militia target elephants and rhino and gun down anyone trying to protect them. Three rangers were killed and two wounded in a shootout in the vast Garamba national park in DRC last week; others were killed in Kahuzi-Biéga park near the city of Bukavu in March; in northern Tanzania, poachers killed British helicopter pilot Roger Gower in January. Fidèle Mulonga Mulegalega, 25, killed by Mai-Mai rebels in March 2016 – biography from official website of Virunga national park. After growing up in Goma, he became a ranger in December 2014 and was highly motivated, according to his superiors. As a result of his skills and motivation, he went straight into Virunga’s most dangerous area on graduation. Photograph: Virunga National Park The five rangers shot in Garamba were working for African Parks, a Johannesburg-based nonprofit conservation group that sends South African and other military officials to train rangers in the 10 wildlife parks it manages on behalf of governments. According to Peter Fearnhead, African Parks director, Garamba is now the heart of the illegal African wildlife trade. Its 300-odd armed guards combat helicopters and drones and find poachers from as far afield as the Central African Republic, Uganda, Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. “We have lost probably 30 people in Garamba alone in seven years. Hundreds of elephants are killed every year. This is the last stronghold of elephant and giraffe in Congo, but probably the toughest park in Africa. Every elephant poached can turn into a firefight,” said Fearnhead. “Life for a wildlife ranger is now very dangerous in some countries, probably more risky than being in a national army .” He said that rangers often found themselves pitted against former combatants from the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, and former Janjaweed members from Sudan. “Last week we buried three people but morale is as strong as ever. When [the rangers] were told that their colleagues had been shot, they all wanted to respond. The poachers use automatic weapons, even grenades. Being a ranger is not about chasing people through the bush and arresting them . It’s war . The rangers put their lives on the line every day, and are under real siege in Garamba. We are not militia but it requires a militaristic response to defend wildlife. [Groups of militia] are now bidding for contracts to get tons of ivory. It’s big business with groups of armed people crossing multiple borders. These people have phenomenal bush skills, with AK-47s. They shoot for the head. They are a total law unto themselves.” Venant Mumbere Muvesevese, 35, killed by Mai-Mai rebels in March 2016 – biography from official website of Virunga national park. He came from the village of Mbingi in the Lubero territory of DRC and left behind a wife, Jeanne, and four children. He held the rank of brigadier and was the leader of his ranger unit. Known as a great storyteller, Mumbere Muvesevese was loved and respected by his colleagues. Photograph: Virunga National Park

There have been more than 30 shootouts, five deaths, several woundings and 43 elephants killed in the last four months in Garamba. Last weekend, as President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya was preparing to set fire to thousands of elephant tusks together worth $100m in Nairobi, Erik Mararv, the Swedish manager of the DRC park, was in hospital recovering from gunshot wounds. The masterminds of the poaching and human killings in these parks are powerful networks of criminals, militias, state armies and corrupt politicians from half a dozen fragile or failing central African countries . New players, say security analysts, have expanded into the lucrative, illegal wildlife trade in the last decade. Together, they have turned the savannahs of central Africa into killing fields and are using the estimated $20bn raised each year from the sale of tusks and rhino horn to fund war, terrorism and crime . The scale of the resulting slaughter has shocked conservationists, who until 10 years ago prided themselves on their rangers’ bushcraft and tracking skills. In some places now they find themselves thrust on to the frontline of an insurgency with next to no resources to resist professional soldiers. “Incidents of large-scale poaching on an industrial scale are now being reported,” revealed a recent study by the Chatham House thinktank in London. “In one week, poachers linked to the Janjaweed from Sudan and Chad allegedly killed more than 86 elephants, using automatic weapons. Poaching on such a scale is not driven by opportunism or subsistence imperatives, but by armed non-state actors and organised groups with wider links.” When dozens of heavily armed men on horseback rode into Bouba Njida park in Cameroon in 2012, the four rangers on bicycles armed with old guns did not stand a chance. More than 350 animals were killed in a few hours. No poachers were captured, but they cut pieces from the ears of the elephants they had killed – an indication that they came from Sudan, more than 600 miles away. A 2014 study for US conservation group Born Free, by US security analysts C4ADS, said ivory was now the preferred currency for militants and rebels to buy weapons and to bankroll conflict in central Africa. Sebinyenzi Bavukirahe Yacinthe, 40, Killed by poachers, 23 January 2016 – biography from official website of Virunga national park. He had worked in Virunga for more than 20 years. Having seen many of his fellow rangers fall, Sebinyenzi fully understood the risks associated with protecting Africa’s oldest park, but it was a risk that he was willing to take. For him, protecting Virunga was more than a job, it was about protecting his national heritage. He leaves behind a wife, Jeaninne, and eight children. Photograph: Virunga National Park According to C4ADS, state security forces in DRC now provide rebel groups across the continent with weapons in exchange for ivory. Groups including Boko Haram, the Janjaweed and al-Shabaab have all been linked to the illegal trade but the scale of their involvement is unknown. The threat of ivory-funded political destabilisation now extends beyond central Africa, said C4ADS: “In east Africa, al-Shabaab and Somali criminal networks are profiting from Kenyan elephants killed by poachers using weapons leaked from local security forces. Mozambican organised crime has militarised and consolidated to the extent it is willing to battle the South African army for rhino horn, and in Tanzania political elites have aided the industrial-scale depletion of east Africa’s largest elephant population. “A series of failed and fragile states across central Africa allows for swaths of ungoverned territory to be exploited by violent armed groups, including the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the various armed groups in the Central African Republic and South Sudan.” Much of the most serious poaching is believed to start in Sudan, where militias linked to the Darfur genocide in the 1990s have begun to fund their operations by killing wildlife in countries as far afield as Cameroon, the Central African Republic and the northern DRC. One reason for Sudanese involvement is said to be the militias’ access to Chinese entrepreneurs who have flooded into the region, in the wake of billions of dollars of international reconstruction money, and can export with impunity to insatiable markets in Asia. Equally, Somalian militia groups who are beyond the control of governments can easily ship ivory and rhino horn.African instability spills over into broader threats to global security—the impact is global warMead 2013 (Walter Russell Mead, 12-15-2013, "Peace In The Congo? Why The World Should Care," American Interest, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/15/peace-in-the-congo-why-the-world-should-care/) – Coronado LSOne of the biggest questions of the 21st century is whether the demand for ethnic, cultural and/or religious homogeneity will continue to convulse world politics,

drive new generations of conflict, and create millions more victims. Yet another peace agreement has been announced in the long running war in the eastern Congo. The Congo War has been responsible for more than five million deaths, created untold numbers of refugees, been responsible for countless atrocities and at various times has sucked in other neighboring countries. This war has many causes. Perhaps its root cause is the chaos that the execrable Belgians (whose colonization of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi was perhaps the ugliest episode in the history of European colonization) left behind. Ethnic hatred between Tutsis and Hutus, enormous mineral resources and a feeble Congolese state which has never been able to manage its huge territory effectively all played their part. The bitter Hutu-Tutsi struggle is in some ways the key to the current situation. After the genocide in Rwanda, many Hutus fled the Tutsi victory to refugee camps in neighboring Congo, and Hutu fighters continued the struggle. Rwanda had four good reasons for intervening: the Hutu forces in the eastern Congo posed a continuing threat to Rwanda’s Tutsi population, Rwanda’s government was concerned about the safety of Tutsis in the neighboring Congo (international boundaries don’t reflect tribal boundaries and Hutus and Tutsis live mingled together throughout the Great Lakes region), the mineral resources in the region were rich enough so that controlling their extraction could help fund the large military apparatus that Rwanda’s government felt that it needed in a dangerous neighborhood, and the hopeless inadequacy of the shambolic Congolese government both invited intervention through its weakness and demanded intervention because of the government’s inability to maintain order and security in its own territory. So will the new deal, signed between the Congolese government and rebels belonging to the M23, stick any better than the ones that have unraveled in the past? There are some reasons to hope. Basically, the conflict may be burning itself out. Rwanda’s government might be feeling more secure than in the past. The UN mission, with US backing, is doing more to address Rwanda’s security concerns. The M23 movement, which is largely Tutsi and which many observers feel has been Rwanda’s tool in the Congo, is weaker and less effective than formerly. Humanitarian groups, UN peacekeepers, NGOs and western aid agencies have provided something of the elements of a state in eastern Congo (security and basic services) that the government could never manage. So though real doubts remain, our fingers are crossed, and if the latest peace deal sticks, we’d suggest that the Nobel Prize committee should give some recognition to the people who have toiled for years to get to this place. The eastern Congo and the African Great Lakes are remote places, and many people might wonder why Americans or the world at large should care much about what goes on there. The short answer is that the people who live there are made in God’s image as much as anybody else and they are infinitely dear to him, and to remain indifferent to the suffering of people there is to fail in our clear duty to our Creator and to some degree to betray our own humanity. But beyond that basic moral point, there are a couple of political lessons that should be of practical interest to the rest of the world. The first should be a warning to us all . While the world’s intelligentsia today spends an endless amount of time “celebrating difference” and singing the praises of diversity (and we join in that chorus), diversity and difference constitute potentially catastrophic political challenges. One thing that seems to happen with modernization is that groups of people start feeling more need to have the state and the laws reflect the values and the priorities of their own ethnic or religious communities. Identity demands to be reflected in politicsIdentity demands to be reflected in politics. Pre-modern and “primitive” cultures don’t seem to feel this as strongly as more modern ones do, and democracies are sometimes even more chauvinistic than other forms of government as these pressures are felt. It is often populists who lead campaigns for ethnic cleansing or nationalist war. The history of Europe and the Middle East has been shaped by 150 years of sometimes genocidal wars of conquest, revenge, national liberation and religion. Tens of millions have been killed in these wars, multinational states have broken down into ethnic nation states, and millions of refugees have been forced into exile . These wars continue today ; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war in Syria , the Kurdish struggle for independence , the tensions in the Caucasus. So far, the only way of settling them for good has been to exterminate minorities or to kick hundreds of thousands or even millions of people (Germans from Poland and the Sudentenland after World War II) out to create homogeneity. One of the biggest questions of the 21st century is whether this destructive dynamic can be contained, or whether the demand for ethnic, cultural and/or religious homogeneity will continue to convulse world politics, drive new generations of conflict, and create millions more victims. The Congo conflict is a disturbing piece of evidence suggesting that, in Africa at least, there is potential for this kind of conflict. The Congo war (and the long Hutu-Tutsi conflict in neighboring countries) is not, unfortunately alone. The secession of South Sudan from Sudan proper, the wars in what remains of that unhappy country, the

secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia and the rise of Christian-Muslim tension right across Africa (where religious conflict often is fed by and intensifies “tribal”—in Europe we would say “ethnic” or “national”—conflicts) are strong indications that the potential for huge and destructive conflict across Africa is very real. But one must look beyond Africa. The Middle East of course is aflame in religious and ethnic conflict. The old British Raj including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka offers countless examples of ethnic and religious conflict that sometimes is contained, and sometimes boils to the surface in horrendous acts of violence. Beyond that, rival nationalisms in East and Southeast Asia are keeping the world awake at night. The Congo war should be a reminder to us all that the foundations of our world are dynamite, and that the potential for new conflicts on the scale of the horrific wars of the 20th century is very much with us today . The second lesson from this conflict stems from the realization of how much patience and commitment from the international community (which in this case included the Atlantic democracies and a coalition of African states working as individual countries and through various international institutions) it has taken to get this far towards peace. Particularly at a time when many Americans want the US to turn inwards, there are people who make the argument that it is really none of America’s business to invest time and energy in the often thankless task of solving these conflicts. That might be an ugly but defensible position if we didn’t live in such a tinderbox world. Someone could rationally say, yes, it’s terrible that a million plus people are being killed overseas in a horrific conflict, but the war is really very far away and America has urgent needs at home and we should husband the resources we have available for foreign policy on things that have more power to affect us directly. The problem is that these wars spread. They may start in places that we don’t care much about (most Americans didn’t give a rat’s patootie about whether Germany controlled the Sudetenland in 1938 or Danzig in 1939) but they tend to spread to places that we do care very much about. This can be because a revisionist great power like Germany in 1938-39 needs to overturn the balance of power in Europe to achieve its goals, or it can be because instability in a very remote place triggers problems in places that we care about very much. Out of Afghanistan in 2001 came both 9/11 and the waves of insurgency and instability that threaten to rip nuclear-armed Pakistan apart or trigger wider conflict with India. Out of the mess in Syria a witches’ brew of terrorism and religious conflict looks set to co mplicate the security of our allies in Europe and the Middle East and even the security of the oil supply on which the world economy so profoundly depends. Africa, and the potential for upheaval there, is of more importance to American security than many people may understand. The line between Africa and the Middle East is a soft one. The weak states that straddle the southern approaches of the Sahara are ideal petri dishes for Al Qaeda type groups to form and attract local support. There are networks of funding and religious contact that give groups in these countries potential access to funds, fighters, training and weapons from the Middle East. A war in the eastern Congo might not directly trigger these other conflicts, but it helps to create the swirling underworld of arms trading, money transfers, illegal commerce and the rise of a generation of young men who become experienced fighters—and know no other way to make a living. It destabilizes the environment for neighboring states (like Uganda and Kenya) that play much more direct role in potential crises of greater concern to us . This is why the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations (representing three very different kinds of American politics) have all been engaged in efforts like the peace keeping effort in the Congo. It is why, despite our budget problems at home and despite our often justifiable impatience with the complexities of dealing with international coalitions and the inadequacies of international institutions, we need to continue the slow and painstaking work that makes agreements like this one possible. The world we live in is an explosive one. There are all kinds of things that can go horribly wrong, and what happens in one corner of the world doesn’t necessarily stay there. Reducing the danger requires an active, global American foreign policy whether we like it or not. The potential for new communal and religious wars that kill millions of people and endanger American security and world peace is very real. The world seems safer than the world of the 1930s and 1940s in part because the United States and many of our friends and allies are working quietly around the world to contain outbreaks of violence, address the issues that exacerbate hatred and distrust, and in the last analysis are willing to provide the security guarantees and deterrents that prevent mass mayhem. Let us hope that the next generation of Americans will remember these important facts, and support the kind of diplomacy and engagement that offers our best hope of building a different and better world in the century ahead

Scenario 2 is TerrorismThe link between illegal wildlife trade and terrorism is supported by a consensus of experts—the evidence is overwhelming—Al Shabab, Al Qaida, Boko Haram proveThelemaque and Noel 2015 (Ilioney Thelemaque and Fred Noel, “Wildlife Trafficking African Continent and Its Nexus to Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorist Funding”, April 2015, Capstone Project Master of Arts in Global Governance In Collaboration with: Florida International University https://maga.fiu.edu/academic-tracks/capstone-project/2015-capstone-working-papers/capstone-final-paper_fred_illioney-editedddt.pdf) – Coronado LSIllegal trafficking of wildlife on the African continent is believed to be connected with terrorist funding. The nexus between wildlife trafficking and terrorist funding is receiving more and more attention because it appears that wildlife trafficking funds terrorist activities. Reporters, independent researchers, and various governments and non-government entities and officials have provided various perspectives on this connection. We review the evidence below. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has echoed concerns about the escalation of illegal international trafficking in wildlife specifically with increased demand for items like rhino horn and elephant ivory in Asia. It asserts that wildlife trafficking is a global crisis that needs a global response because it is a threat to global security and a motivation for criminal elements and terrorist groups (USTR, 2014). The foundation, Save the Rhino, states that criminal gangs are poaching the wildlife in Africa. Their activities are potentially linked to extremist groups with sophisticated multi-national networks (Save the Rhino, n.d.). The East African Journal (n.d.) reports that sophisticated criminal networks with broad international reach are reaping profits from poaching to support terrorist-related activities. Jenna Bardroff (2014), an advocate for animal rights, and environmental ethics, asserts that, based on the International Conservation Caucus Foundation (ICCF)’s findings, “Wildlife products have become a substantial source of income for terrorist organizations in Africa.” According to the (ICCF) (2014), wildlife trafficking is not only a conservation issue, but it is also a security issue. Wyler and Sheik (2008) report that various militia groups and criminal networks have been reaping and harvesting huge profit from the illegal wildlife trade profit to fund terrorist activities. Various sources reveal that profit generated from wildlife trafficking is used for recruiting young fighters, buying weapons, activating civil wars and financing rebel groups, including the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Janjaweed in Darfur, the Seleka group in Cameroon, Boko Haram, and Al-Shabaab. These sources also reveal that ivory and rhino horn are considered a key source of income for these notorious groups for funding terrorist activities (McCarthy, 2012; Bradley and Jooste, 2014; Pichon, 2014; Poe, 2014). For example, Onche Odeh (2014) finds that 23,000 African elephants were killed for their tusks in 2013. Like many terrorist organizations in Africa, Boko Haram is funded by sales of illegal ivory . Odeh (2014) continues to say that there is intimate close link between ivory poaching and Boko Haram funding. Writing for the Washington Times and using information based on a joint study done by the United Nations and Interpol, Ashish Kumar Sen (2013) states that global environmental crime is a source of financing for criminal, militias and terrorist groups, particularly in subSaharan Africa. He adds that wildlife and forest crime play a significant role in financing organized crime networks, non-state armed groups and terrorist organizations. Ivory, for example, provides income to militia groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR) as well as Boko Haram in Nigeria. According to Richard Ruggiero and Andrea Crosta (Interviews, 2015), the Janjaweed have been poaching for decades. However, while Ruggiero attests the Janjaweed and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) are poaching to fund terrorist activities, Crosta denies those claims with respect to these two groups (Appendix 1 and 2). According to Crosta, only Al-Shabaab is poaching to fund terrorist activities, though he recognized that most of Al-Shabaab funds come from charcoal, remittances from abroad and extorting money from NGOs, etc. He adds that AlShabaab does not poach elephants; they just buy ivory like many other buyers (See Appendix 1). With regard to Boko Haram, Costa indicates that there is no evidence yet to make such claims. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that a great deal of ivory is being smuggled out Africa from Nigeria. With regards to Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab, Ruggiero was uncertain as to their use of wildlife to finance terrorist activities. However, he did not reject their involvement in terrorist activities (Appendix 1 and 2). Sharon Begley (2008) points out that like the “blood diamonds conflict in Sierra Leone,” the Janjaweed is earning money from poaching to “kill rangers, hire criminals and do illegal activities. Earnings from the ivory trade is sustaining the Janjaweed," says Michael Wamithi, former head of the Kenya Wildlife Service. In addition, Sabahi (2013) notes in All Africa that Kenyan police believe that organized groups are involved in wildlife trafficking to fund terrorist operations.

Kenyan police’s assertions are based on arrest and testimonies of people caught doing criminal activities. In a Los Angeles Time article based on an 18 month investigation, Laurel Neme, Andrea Crosta and Nir Kalron (2013) find that the link between wildlife trafficking and terrorism funding is clear . In particular, they assert that there is an indisputable nexus between Al-Shabaab and the illicit trade in ivory and rhino horns. Oakford (2014), writing in the Vice News and, based on a joint study by Interpol and the United Nations’ Environmental Agency, confirms the above findings and attests that the depletion of illicit extraction of resources and poaching offers money to criminal groups, militia organizations and terrorist network. Carla Sterley (2014), a consultant at Consultancy Africa Intelligence, argues that the two Islamic forces, Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram which were responsible for terrorist activities in Kenya, Nigeria and Somalia, have become proficient actors in wildlife trafficking. AFP (2014) reports that the United Nations (UN) and the Interpol in Nairobi found that Al-Shabaab rebels were estimated to make between $38 and $56 million every year from the illegal trafficking in charcoal. According to research conducted at the Elephant Action League (AEL), Al-Shabaab makes up to £365,000 monthly from ivory alone (Doshi, 2014). EAL, which calls ivory the "white gold of jihad," argues that elephant poaching and the trafficking of ivory is fueling conflict on the African continent by the fact that it helps groups , such as Al-Shabaab, to es calate even more fatal attacks (Elliott, 2012). Reporting on the nexus between poaching and terror groups, Catrina Stewart (2013), writer of The Independent, and Lorraine Elliott (2012), a researcher on transnational environmental crime, assert that illegal ivory trade finances more than 40 percent of the cost of Al-Shabaab’s army which is composed of 5,000 people. According to International Fund for Animal Welfare (2013), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Government Criminal Reports note that the illegal wildlife trade involves militia groups and warlords, some of which have been linked to terrorist attacks and have alleged ties to al-Qaeda. In some cases, criminal Wildlife Trafficking on the African Continent and Its Nexus to Transnational Organized Crime and groups from multiple African countries traverse the continent and engage in large-scale poaching. Additional evidence suggests that money reaped from illegal trafficking of wildlife is financing extremists, terrorists and other transnational criminal groups (Srour, 2014; Bergenas & Medina, 2014). According to a 2012 report from the EAL, al-Qaeda associates as well as rebel groups such as the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda are said to run on profit from illegal wildlife trafficking (Scientific American, 2013). In an article written by Avi Jorisch (2014) in the USA Today Journal, transnational criminal syndicates , terrorist organizations and Islamic extremists are involving in poaching in order to fund their operations. Jorisch attests that money from poaching is also part of the funding that Somali militant groups and al-Qaeda associates use for their activities. United States Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) introduced a bill in 2015 to crack down on wildlife trafficking. Both senators confirm that the link between wildlife trafficking and terrorism funding is growing in evidence (Feinstein, 2015). Similarly, Peter DeFazio (2015), the U.S. Representative for Oregon's 4th congressional district, while introducing a bill to target poachers, also recognizes that wildlife trafficking funds extremely dangerous terrorist groups that threaten regional stability in Africa and the U.S. national security. Anna Mulrine (2014), staff writer at The Christian Science Monitor, based on a confirmation of General Carter Ham, the former commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), reports that there is evidence that terrorist groups are involved on the poaching industry to finance their operations. To emphasize the link between wildlife trafficking and terrorist funding, the Lion Aid Organization names important personalities who appear to agree that wildlife trafficking is fueling terrorist funding. According to the Lion Aid News (2013), here are some of their respective quotes about wildlife trafficking. “We are even seeing evidence that wildlife trafficking may be funding terrorism” (William Hague) “Poaching and its potential linkages to other criminal, even terrorist activities constitute a grave menace to sustainable peace and security in Central Africa.” Ban Ki Moon "Wildlife trafficking is increasingly associated with rebel and terrorist groups such as the Lord's Resistance Army , Al-Shabaab and Al Qaeda terrorist cell in East Africa." Tuvako N. Manongi “Al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist group that killed dozens of people last month in a bloody four-day siege of the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, is deriving funds for its terror campaigns from elephant poaching in Kenya and elsewhere, activists and conservationists claim.” Los Angeles Times “Three years ago, the Elephant Action League (EAL) conducted an 18-month undercover investigation into the link between Al-Shabaab and the illegal trafficking of ivory through Kenya. The organization published its findings, which suggested that Al-Shabaab has been actively buying and selling ivory to fund its militant operations and that ivory trafficking “could be supplying up to 40% of the funds needed to keep them in business.” Save the Rhino “The lethal combination of wildlife destruction and terrorism is the reason 50 world leaders have been invited to next week’s London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, hosted by Prime Minister David Cameron.” UK Daily Mirror Al Shabab poses a serious threat—they are well armed, well connected, and ready to attackMcCormick 16 (Ty Mccormick, 3-10-2016, "U.S. Attacks Reveal Al-Shabab’s Strength, Not Weakness," Ty McCormick is Africa Editor at Foreign Policy. Based in Nairobi, Kenya, he has reported from across much of Africa and the Middle East, including Egypt, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Burundi, Uganda, Malawi, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was a finalist for the 2015 Kurt Schork Memorial Award for International Journalism. In addition to FP, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and National Geographic. Ty received his bachelor’s degree from Stanford University, and a master’s from the University of Oxford, where he was a Clarendon Scholar. He received a second master's degree from the Queen's

University Belfast as a George J. Mitchell Scholar.Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/09/u-s-attacks-reveal-al-shababs-strength-not-weakness-somalia/) – Coronado LSNAIROBI — The U.S. Defense Department notched major tactical victories against the Somali militant group al-Shabab over the past week. It claims to have killed nearly as many insurgents in a single aerial assault last weekend than in the previous eight years of air- and drone strikes in the troubled East African nation; that attack was followed by a joint operation on Wednesday between Somali and U.S. special operations forces that killed 15 more extremists. But it would be a mistake to conclude that al-Shabab was on the ropes before these attacks or that it’s significantly more so now. More than anything, regional analysts and Somali diplomats say the airstrikes on a terrorist training facility roughly 120 miles north of the capital, Mogadishu, illustrates just how dramatically the group has rebounded in recent years. “The good news is that someone in the United States was keeping an eye on the ball,” J. Peter Pham, director of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council, said in an interview posted on the Washington-based think tank’s website. “The bad news is that the group could assemble 150 people in one spot and was not afraid to do so. These are not signs of a group that is supposedly on the run or defeated. The bad news is that the group could assemble 150 people in one spot and was not afraid to do so. These are not signs of a group that is supposedly on the run or defeated.” The U.S. operation on Saturday, March 5, involved both manned and unmanned aircraft, and left 150 al-Shabab militants dead, according to the Pentagon. The militants were “scheduled to depart the camp [and] posed an imminent threat” to U.S. and African Union forces in Somalia, Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook said in a statement on Monday. At a time when the United States has grown increasingly alarmed at the spread of Islamic extremism in Africa — from Boko Haram in Nigeria to al Qaeda in the Sahel region to the Islamic State in Libya — the resilience of al-Shabab has highlighted the limits of the Obama administration’s approach to counterterrorism on the continent. American drone strikes, coupled with financial and material assistance to a 22,000-strong African Union peace enforcement mission (AMISOM), have succeeded in driving al-Shabab from most urban areas. But those policies have not prevented the group from continuing to strike civilian, government, and AU targets as it seeks to expel AMISOM and establish an Islamic state in Somalia. Al-Shabab’s resurgence has grown increasingly hard to ignore in the last 12 months. In that time, the group has ramped up its terrorist operations in neighboring Kenya, where it killed 148 people at Garissa University last April, while at the same time it accelerated its attacks on AU forces in Somalia. In addition to ambushing and attacking AMISOM supply lines with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the group has begun direct strikes, with deadly effect, on the peacekeeping mission’s forward operating bases. Since June of last year, it has overrun three such bases — in Leego, Janaale, and El Adde — and killed more than 170 soldiers. Even more worryingly, the group has exhibited a new level of technological sophistication . In February, it nearly downed a commercial airliner with a bomb hidden in a laptop (the explosion punched a hole in the plane’s fuselage, but only killed the bomber). And on multiple recent occasions, it has targeted restaurants and hotels with massive car bombs that suggest increased know-how and ready access to explosives . “This is a new face of al-Shabab that has many things to do with the international jihadists that are springing up everywhere in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen,” Somali Foreign Minister Abdisalam Omer told Foreign Policy in an interview at the Somali Embassy in Nairobi on Tuesday. The group’s resurgence has been fueled, in part, by the tactical shifts it has made since being routed from its urban strongholds in Mogadishu, Kismayo, and elsewhere in Somalia between 2011 and 2012. At that time, the group stopped facing off conventionally against militarily superior AMISOM troops and began launching attacks against civilians in the urban areas they had been forced to leave, in order to erode support for the Somali federal government, which had assumed control of them. The group also began what Somalia expert Bronwyn Bruton has termed a “mosquito bite” strategy of ambushes, assassinations, and IED attacks against AMISOM. Whenever the peacekeepers launched an offensive, al-Shabab simply retreated. Then it pummeled the mission’s exposed supply lines. This not only enabled al-Shabab to regroup in between offensives, it also yielded a terrifying arsenal of captured weapons , ammunition, and vehicles that the insurgents now appear to be turning against AMISOM. There is also an international dimension to the story of the Somali militant group’s revival. The collapse of neighboring Yemen following the Saudi-led intervention last year has reinvigorated al-Shabab’s longtime ally, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and deepened their ties. Some argue that the transfer of weapons and training between the two groups has accelerated. “We have been flagging the danger that is coming from the collapse of Yemen for a

long time and the possibility that [AQAP] and even ISIS might get involved,” said Omer. “We honestly believe that there are new skilled people who come from outside Somalia. There are new weapons of destruction and new tactics and a new approach that al-Shabab is coming up with in the last six months. It is because of the collapse of Yemen.” Omer cited the use of laptop explosives as well as the “sophisticated engineering” of truck bombs that are now leveling buildings “four or five blocks” from the site of the blast as evidence of heightened collaboration between al-Shabab and AQAP. “This is not the usual al-Shabab. This is almost similar to what happened in Baghdad yesterday that has killed 60 people,” he said, referring to a March 6 attack in the Iraqi capital claimed by the Islamic State. “It created a crater.” Casual ties between al-Shabab and AQAP date back at least to 2008, when the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who later became a leading figure in AQAP, penned a glowing encomium to al-Shabab on his blog. Then in 2010, AQAP deputy leader Said al-Shihri released an audio message urging the two groups to “work together, each in our own arena, in our future battle with America.” The full extent of the two groups’ cooperation is not known, but U.S. intelligence agents reportedly believed that AQAP was training al-Shabab fighters and sending them weapons and ammunition as early as 2011. Al-Shabab, which emerged in 2006 as a nationalist force devoted to countering the U.S.-backed Ethiopian occupation of Somalia, became a formal al Qaeda affiliate in 2012 . “The collapse of Yemen certainly enabled the long-term ties between Shabab and AQAP to be strengthenedThe collapse of Yemen certainly enabled the long-term ties between Shabab and AQAP to be strengthened,” said Cedric Barnes, the Horn of Africa project director at the International Crisis Group. “One of the reasons we were so skeptical of the ISIS threat in Somalia is because AQAP is so strong in Yemen. Why would al-Shabab go and join the Islamic State when its affiliate [AQAP] is already doing so well?” After Nigeria’s Boko Haram pledged loyalty to the Islamic State last March, some predicted that al-Shabab would ditch al Qaeda for the newly ascendant jihadi brand. But so far the existing alliance has stayed intact; only a small number of al-Shabab fighters have reportedly broken with the group’s leadership and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. The gradual escalation of al-Shabab attacks over the last year could partly reflect the ease of procuring weapons from its al Qaeda affiliate in war-torn Yemen or from smugglers operating there. Just this week, the Australian navy seized a huge shipment of arms off the coast of Oman that was apparently headed to Somalia. It included $2 million worth of rocket-propelled grenades and nearly 2,000 assault rifles. (It is not yet clear if the weapons were ultimately intended for al-Shabab or for Houthi rebels in Yemen.) “That’s like a shipment going to the Somali national army,” said Omer, the Somali foreign minister, marveling at the quantity of weapons being smuggled. The U.S. assault on the al-Shabab training camp on March 5 seemed to reinforce an important shift in U.S. strategy that has taken place over the last six months. Whereas from 2007 until the middle of 2015, when the Pentagon used drone and airstrikes only to take out individual al-Shabab leaders, it has been using them in support of African Union operations on the ground since at least last July. But Saturday’s assault was the first time the United States has directed its firepower at rank-and-file insurgents on such a massive scale. According to data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, before the March 5 attack, between 78 and 267 people had been killed in U.S. drone and airstrikes in Somalia since 2007 — fewer or only slightly more than the number of militants the Pentagon claimed to have killed on Saturday. Al-Shabab spokesman Sheikh Abdiasis Abu Musab acknowledged that the “U.S. bombed an area controlled by al-Shabab” but denied that so many of the group’s fighters had been killed. “We never gather 100 fighters in one spot for security reasons,” he told the news agency Reuters on Tuesday. “We know the sky is full of planes.”Boko Haram is both independently threatening and has close administrative ties with ISIS BBC 2015 (BBC News, 10-2-2015, "Islamic State ties broaden Boko Haram threat," http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34412956) – Coronado LSNigeria predicts that Boko Haram will soon be defeated, but the militant group's ties with Islamic State mean that would probably push the fighters further into neighbouring countrie s, writes BBC Monitoring Africa security correspondent Tomi Oladipo. The Nigerian military has been in overdrive in trying to control the narrative of its war against Boko Haram in recent weeks. It says it has cornered the jihadists and the conflict will soon be over - in line with its mandate from President Muhammadu Buhari to end the crisis by mid-November. Boko Haram's eccentric frontman Abubakar Shekau has not appeared in a video since February, when he threatened to disrupt the elections. The following month he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group (IS) in an audio message and since IS also reached out to their Nigerian counterpart, Shekau has taken a back seat. Shekau has released similar audio clips to disprove reports about his death, although the fact that he is not visible leaves room for speculation among the army that they have killed him, as they have claimed on several occasions. His retreat from the forefront signifies that Boko Haram, also known as IS West Africa Province, now takes orders from the further up the IS hierarchy. Abubakar Shekau (24 March 2014)Image copyrightAFP Image caption The army has claimed to have killed Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau on several occasions Nonetheless, there was recently room for another message to once again defy the Nigerian government, which sparked the realisation in the military that this game of cat-and-mouse was going nowhere. Defence spokesman Colonel Rabe Abubakar described Shekau as "irrelevant" and urged Nigerians "not to lose sleep over the concocted audio rhetoric of the waning terrorist sect which is a usual antic of a drowning person struggling to hold on to anything to remain afloat". Overall, Boko Haram's propaganda campaign has waned since the beginning of the year, when it used social media to promote sleek videos showing speeches and attacks. The latest video, released to coincide with the Eid al-Adha festival in late September, is poorly produced and appears to show fighters praying but there is no indication of how recent all the footage is. It has been two

years since the US placed a $7m (£4.5m) bounty on Shekau's head but neither he nor his top commanders have been found. As long as that is not achieved, the group will be able to rethink its strategy, recruit, rearm and develop new methods of operating. The jihadists have shown that they can continue to inflict significant damage even with few but deadly explosions. In one recent triple attack, they killed more than 100 people in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state, where they were formed in 2002. Boko Haram at a glance Boko Haram fightersImage copyrightAFP Founded in 2002, initially focused on opposing Western-style education - Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden" in the Hausa language Launched military operations in 2009 Thousands killed, mostly in north-eastern Nigeria, hundreds abducted, including at least 200 schoolgirls Joined so-called Islamic State, now calls itself IS's "West African province" Seized large area in north-east, where it declared caliphate Regional force has retaken most territory this year Using football to tackle Boko Haram Who are Boko Haram? The global concern for the missing Chibok schoolgirls still gives Boko Haram a bargaining chip. The news of their abduction grabbed the world's attention in a way the deaths of thousands before were unable to. The resulting scrutiny, as well as criticism from human rights organisations, means that the Nigerian military has taken a more cautious approach to the conflict than it did in the early days, when there were frequent allegations that the military was involved in widespread human rights abuses. The new chain of command means that it is now more difficult than ever before for the insurgent group to agree to dialogue with the government As the conflict escalated, Nigeria needed cooperation from its neighbours to secure the borders but this would inevitably come at a cost for Cameroon, Chad and Niger. map showing Nigeria and its neighbours Each of these allies has now been attacked, as the IS militants look to extend their reach in West Africa. Nigeria remains a priority for the Islamist fighters but what was initially a local conflict is changing. If indeed Boko Haram is defeated in Nigeria, the fact that the group is now part of a wider international network means the campaign of violence could escalate in the neighbouring countries , particularly Chad and Niger, which have broader expanses of land, far more porous borders and are closer to Libya, where IS began its expansion in Africa. A picture taken on February 17, 2015 shows a Cameroonian soldier carrying a rocket launcher as he stands post in the Cameroonian town of Fotokol, on the border with Nigeria, after clashes occurred on February 4 between Cameroonian troops and Nigeria-based Boko Haram insurgents.Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image caption Boko Haram has staged several attacks in Cameroon since it intervened in Nigeria For now, the coalition of the African Union-backed Multinational Joint Task Force should be reminded that a wane in the intensity of Boko Haram attacks says little about the strength of the group as a whole. While aiming to end the conflict, President Buhari should learn from the mistakes of his predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan, who gave a series of failed deadlines to defeat the militants. Mr Buhari's government, like many Nigerians, will be hoping for a speedy resolution but by now they know better than to be naïve.The risk of nuclear terrorism is unprecedentedly high and escalates to an all-out nuclear war. Patterson 6-21-2016 (Richard North Patterson (Member of the Council On Foreign Relations), 6-21-2016, "," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/no-time-for-trump-part-tw_b_9625282.html) – Coronado LSTwelve days ago, Paul Ryan and the House Republicans introduced a report on national security harshly critical of President Obama. “America ,” they warned, “ faces the highest terror threat level since 9/11.” Let’s take them at their word. And so, a question. Of all the threats we face, what fear most haunts our national security community? It is not massacres like those in Orlando or San Bernardino, as monstrous as they are. It is a threat which, while more remote, would be infinitely more devastating : a nuclear attack — including by terrorists like ISIS and Al Qaeda . This existential danger drives America’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, and to keep our country safe from a nuclear holocaust. And here lies the irony in the Republicans’ warning. For it is yet another compelling reason that a man as ignorant, irresponsible, unstable and unprepared as Donald Trump should never become president. True, Trump’s nativist scapegoating of all

Muslims — including millions of loyal Americans, many of whom have served our military — increases the danger of more mass slaughters like Orlando, breeding alienation while attacking those whose vigilance could help prevent such horrors. But his xenophobia and lack of basic knowledge also enhances the most terrible prospect of all — nuclear terrorism. While the nuclear threat is horrifying to contemplate , its greatest dangers are little understood, or even discussed in public. In recent years, the public’s worry about nuclear proliferation has focused most particularly on Iran — a frequent subject of Trump’s crude and self-preening attacks on Obama’s supposed “weakness” in confronting threats to America. But it is unlikely that Iran would start a nuclear war: however aggressive, its regime has a return address, and a reprisal could annihilate Tehran. That is why nuclear terrorism by non-state actors is America’s ultimate nuclear nightmare . As debilitating as the mass slaughters we have suffered can be, only terrorism by nuclear means has the potential to destroy our economy , our security , our system of civil liberties , our commitment to democratic ideals , and our very trust in each other. In short those things which, at our best, make us who we are. This is why countries which could spawn nuclear terrorism are the greatest threats to our way of life. It is why Pakistan — not Iran — is the most dangerous place on earth. It is why our next president must have sound judgment, a stable temperament, and a sophisticated understanding of the of nuclear threat posed by Al Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS. It is why that president cannot — must not — be Donald Trump. The facts which make this so are as little-known as they are sobering. To start, Al Qaeda has long been obsessed with acquiring nuclear weapons , and Pakistan has always been its focus. Just before 9/11, bin Laden met in Afghanistan with a Pakistani nuclear scientist and an engineer, drawing up specifications for an Al Qaeda bomb. And after 9/11, bin Laden announced Al Qaeda’s intention to kill 4 million Americans in reprisal for the Muslim deaths he attributed to the United States and Israel, and issued a fatwa calling for the use of nuclear arms against the West . Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is not. And a new force has emerged with the same apocalyptic desires — ISIS . Granted, perpetuating nuclear terrorism would require a high degree of organizational and logistical sophistication. But intelligence officials believe that ISIS is scouring Iraq for nuclear and radioactive materials for use outside the country. Indeed, it is known that they have already seized lower-grade nuclear materials from Mosul University. And the tragic attacks in France and Belgium have a disturbing nuclear coda. The terrorist cell which executed these attacks previously monitored an official at Belgian nuclear research sites housing highly enriched uranium — HEU — which could be used to fabricate a nuclear weapon. How do we know? Because Belgian authorities captured a surveillance tape taken by members of the cell. Why track the official? One theory is that the terrorists intended to kidnap a member of his family, meaning to coerce him to transfer nuclear materials. Another is that ISIS meant to precipitate a Fukushima type disaster by attacking a Belgian nuclear facility — a strike which could spew large amounts of radiation, rendering the surroundings uninhabitable and causing thousands of early deaths from cancer . This last ambition did not originate with ISIS — the planners of the 9/11 attacks considered crashing a plane into a nuclear facility near New York City. As for the mass slaughter executed by ISIS in Brussels, experts believe that this may have been a fallback operation, chosen over a nuclear-based scheme only because authorities were closing in. Whatever the case, terrorists have several potential openings to carry out such a plan — acquiring or fabricating a nuclear weapon; building a dirty bomb; or attacking a nuclear reactor . To obtain a bomb, they can steal nuclear weapons or materials; buy them on the black market ; or recruit nuclear scientists to supply materials or expertise. There is, of course, precedent for nuclear trafficking on a massive scale — until 2004, A Q Khan, the director of Pakistan’s nuclear program, ran a black market

through which he sold nuclear materials and technology to such nations as Iran, Libya, and North Korea. As for theft, the International Atomic Energy Agency — IAEA — has documented 18 incidents where highly enriched uranium and plutonium were lost or stolen. The threat persists — nuclear materials are stored at hundreds of research facilities in over 30 countries where security may be grossly inadequate. Thus, in relative terms, nuclear materials are even less secure than nuclear weapons. Constructing a nuclear bomb does not require extraordinary expertise , or knowledge of classified information. As for smuggling nuclear materials, Matthew Bunn of Harvard puts the matter starkly: “The immense length of national borders, the huge scale of legitimate traffic, the myriad potential pathways across these borders, and the small size and weak radiation signal of the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb make nuclear smuggling extraordinarily difficult to stop .” Three countries are the most likely sources — North Korea, Russia and Pakistan. North Korea exists outside political and moral norms, even as it aggressively expands its nuclear capacity. One of our leading experts on nuclear terrorism, Graham Allison, gave me this sober assessment: based on its past history as a nuclear purveyor, “there is no reason to believe that North Korea would not sell bombs or material to another state — or to ISIS.” Moreover, Dr. Allison adds, the sole potential deterrent on its conduct is the fear of retaliation, and North Korea’s young leader is inexperienced and unpredictable. Russia, at least, is not a rogue state. But it has the world’s largest nuclear stockpile and is vulnerable to corrupt insiders. Between 2010 and 2015 the FBI stopped four attempts by criminal gangs in Russia to sell nuclear materials to ISIS. There are links between home-grown Russian terrorists and ISIS. And there is no end of smuggling routes and smugglers to facilitate the movement of nuclear materials from Russia through the Middle East. But perhaps the biggest threat is Pakistan. Its arsenal of roughly 130 nuclear warheads is growing without restraint, and its chief motivation — fear and hatred of India — has yet to abate. The Pakistani government has declined to increase compliance with international rules for stopping the spread of nuclear materials. Even its denial of knowledge regarding A Q Khan’s activities is open to considerable doubt. Moreover, its nuclear arsenal is subject to extraordinary threats — both from corrupt insiders and armed extremists, whether inside or outside the military. There is no country with more active terrorists than Pakistan — it is the epicenter of Al Qaeda and related groups, most with close ties to the Pakistani security apparatus. In some combination, these allies could well cooperate in acquiring a nuclear weapon or materials. This concern is far from academic. Experts believe that terrorists have attacked Pakistani nuclear facilities at least three times in the last 10 years. So serious is the risk that the U.S. Army has trained specialized units to grab back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that they are stolen. In turn, this has led to further lack of cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan. Add to all this the risk of a jihadist take over of the Pakistani government, or the total collapse of the state — dangers exacerbated by serious concerns about the security of its nuclear arsenal. We don’t know where all the weapons are stored. The people who do — the military and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, include highly-placed jihadist sympathizers. This is captured by a chilling remark from a former head of the ISI: “The same nuclear capacity that can destroy Madras, India can destroy Tel Aviv.” The scenario in which terrorists link with the ISI to steal a nuclear weapon is far from a Bondian fantasy. Indeed, the ISI itself is at the heart of Pakistani jihadism. It helped create the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, and introduced its leaders to bin Laden. It created the terrorist group LET to carry out attacks against India, such as the bloody massacre in Mumbai. The military, the ISI and LET all recruit from the Punjabi, Pakistan’s dominant ethnic group, creating familial ties among all three. With the ISI’s protection, LET trains hundreds of jihadists every year. As for Al Qaeda, it is highly implausible that the ISI did not know of bin Laden’s whereabouts before he died. Moreover, Al Qaeda helped fund LET, and after 9/11 some of its leaders took refuge in LET safe houses. And some Al Qaeda soldiers and strategists have transferred their allegiance to ISIS — which emanated directly from Al Qaeda in Iraq. All three groups are Sunni, and share an implacable hostility toward the United States. And so their affinity enhances the already grave concerns of our national defense community about the possibility of nuclear terrorism in America. Whatever the potential sources of such a threat, we are surely vulnerable. To start, nuclear weapons or materials can be smuggled through the ports in Long Beach or New York, where we inspect a fraction of all cargo containers. Dr. Allison notes that there is greater cooperation between the FBI, local police and federal counter-terrorism personnel, and that our screening at ports has become more sophisticated and rooted in better intelligence. But he admonishes that there are many other means of smuggling nuclear materials, such as fishing boats and private planes. The risk is exacerbated by 1100 miles of seacoast and lengthy and

unguarded borders, leaving us extremely vulnerable . Equally worrisome is that Americans fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq have been able to return with relative ease. And in the post-Snowden world, Dr. Allison observes, those bent on doing us harm know more about our counter-terrorism measures. A nuclear event in a major U.S. city could kill more than a half a million people, cost trillions of dollars, and trigger an exodus by residents of other major cities. Such an event would be economically, politically and psychologically devastating. It is all too easy to imagine Americans waiting for the next city to be destroyed, shattering our belief in our government, our system of civil liberties, or even our future as a democracy. We cannot let this happen. Enter Donald Trump. On the eve of the recent Nuclear Security Summit — initiated by President Obama to encourage nuclear countries to secure materials which can be used by terrorists — Trump unburdened himself on the subject of nuclear proliferation. Reversing decades of American foreign policy, he welcomed the idea of a nuclear-armed Japan and South Korea, arguing that it would save America the expense and trouble of defending Asian allies in an area shadowed by nuclear North Korea. He then topped this off by refusing to rule out using nuclear weapons in a European military conflict. To say the least, Trump displays a dangerous ignorance of the risks of nuclear proliferation, not to mention a shocking failure of imagination regarding the horrors of nuclear warfare. For 70 years, American presidents have worked to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Trump’s supposed hero, Ronald Reagan, said it well: “A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.” Since then, the bipolar world of the Cold War has evolved into something far more lethal: a multi- polar world in which the danger of nuclear warfare increases exponentially with the spread of nuclear weapons — including the risk that they will fall into the hands of terrorists . Only America’s influence and the assiduous work of its presidents has limited the number of nuclear-armed nations. That Trump seems not to know this, and even less to care, defines the dangers posed by his boundless ignorance, ego and instability. This required Obama to suggest that someone who failed to grasp the need for constraints on nuclear weapons should not be president. For Obama, cleaning up after this frightening ignoramus has become a cottage industry, starting with Trump’s counter-terrorism program — surveillance of Muslims at home, barring all Muslims from abroad, and labeling 1.6 billion Muslims around the world as incipient jihadists. His odious response to the tragedy in Orlando only increased the danger. He doubled down on his ban on Muslims, asserted that American Muslims at large “know what’s going on” with respect to terrorist threats” and congratulated himself on his foresight in scapegoating all Muslims at home and abroad. In doing so, he cemented his position as the single person in America who does the most to further the goals of ISIS. There is no better fuel for alienation than for our president to disparage loyal Americans — let alone those who could be indispensable in identifying potential terrorists. Nor could there be a greater gift to ISIS than to indiscriminately scorn every Muslim on the globe. Beyond the fact that it serves ISIS’s anti-Western narrative, as counter-terrorism Trump’s blanket ban on refugees from the terrible slaughter in Syria is misdirected. The best way to carry out terrorist operations in America is through home-grown terrorists or those who enter the country surreptitiously. No terrorist leader who wants to penetrate America would look to our slow, onerous and — despite Trump’s lies — extremely thorough process of vetting Syrian refugees as a promising pathway to success. Once again, Trump’s ignorance leads him — and any intelligent discussion of counter-terrorism — down a dangerous blind alley. All this enhances the terrorist threat to the United States — a self-inflicted wound reflective of a remarkable degree of thoughtlessness, irresponsibility, demagoguery and sheer stupidity by a candidate who has no business anywhere near the White House. Add to this Trump’s “program” for defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, combining torture with mass bombings which would decimate civilians — not to mention his musings about using nuclear weapons against ISIS or in a European ground war. The net effect is a mushroom cloud of radioactive ignorance from a man incapable of better. Given the gravity of nuclear proliferation and the menace of nuclear terrorism, this dangerous posturing underscores the seriousness of the job he seeks. In any area, but particularly this one, the presidency must be reserved for those who are knowledgeable and stable. This captures the fatal contradiction between the Republicans’ report on national security and their nominee. To introduce the report, Paul Ryan and Congressmen Mike McFaul and Rob Goodlatte appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations. Conveniently, they treated Trump like a dead mouse on their kitchen floor — if they did not mention it, perhaps no one else would notice it was there. But while there was also little mention of weapons of mass destruction, the congressmen allowed that America should combat terrorism by offering people in more volatile areas of the world- specifying the Middle East- an example of openness and freedom. Moderating, Andrea Mitchell asked the obvious question: does Trump’s proposal of a ban on Muslims further the national security interests of the United States? Congressmen McFaul and Goodlatte had the grace to look bemused. Eventually, they disowned the idea of a Muslim ban in favor of thorough vetting. But their comments on Trump himself were excruciating — and revealing. Their only recourse was to ask us to live with them in “hope.” They “hope” that Trump will reflect on his proposed ban. They “hope” that he will read their report and other relevant sources of knowledge. They “hope” that he would surround himself with good people. They” hope” that he would exercise “good leadership.” In such a dangerous area as this, America deserves more than hoping that a hopeless narcissist will awaken to the grave responsibilities Republicans have given him. However one feels about his foreign policy as a whole, Barack Obama has met his responsibilities to confront the nuclear threat with seriousness and resolve. His initiative in establishing regular Nuclear Security Summits has improved security and strengthened international cooperation. As a result, some states have given up weapons material altogether. For example, in 2010 the Ukraine had weapons for 8 to 10 bombs; by 2012, they had agreed to ship all nuclear materials back to Russia, lessening the danger of proliferation. At least in these terms, Obama has made the world safer. The next president must have the same qualities: a deep awareness of the nuanced problem of nuclear terrorism, a knowledge of the countries and circumstances which pose the greatest risk, and an absolute dedication to ensuring that we — and, to the extent possible, others — are never victimized by such a horror. This gritty work will require constant focus. We must fight the spread of nuclear weapons. We must build intelligence cooperation with other countries to identify and thwart terrorist groups with nuclear ambitions. We must work collectively to interdict nuclear theft and smuggling. We must strengthen law-enforcement units trained to frustrate nuclear terrorism — including in the United States. We must work around the globe to ensure, as best we can, that nuclear weapons and materials are secure. We must ensure ironclad security for nuclear materials in America, wherever they may be. We must make it clear that any country who provides nuclear material to terrorists will pay a prohibitive price. And, as has Obama, we must pursue the leadership of ISIS and Al Qaeda, limiting their operational capacity to carry out nuclear threats. This includes intelligent and measured actions against ISIS in Iraq and Syria — not “carpet bombing” or the mass slaughter of civilians, but a careful strategy on the ground to diminish the territory held by ISIS and, therefore, its aura of success. To advance a nuclear threat, ISIS requires leadership and logistical capacity. As we decimate their leadership and shrink their territory, we reduce that capacity. This requires us to work at building the military within those countries, including among Sunnis; embedding combat advisors instead of committing U.S. troops; and enhancing American influence to help promote conditions which frustrate ISIS by giving local citizens the hope of a better life. This is precisely what Obama has started doing, and what Hillary Clinton proposes to further. And it is yet another fundamental of counter-terrorism which Donald Trump fails to comprehend. These priorities rank high among the hardest work and toughest decisions demanded by the presidency. And, in the end, that work starts with us. Our vote must be more than an expression of what makes us feel good in the moment, without a thought to all the responsibilities the president must bear. It cannot license vapid posturing or phony toughness more dangerous to us than our enemies. Nor can we abet the election of a candidate incapable of giving the dangers of the world we live in the most serious and considered thought — most particularly, the existential dangers posed by nuclear weapons. For we are choosing, above all, a president who can help ensure that we stay safe while maintaining our national character. Without this, nothing else may matter very much. 2016 is, indeed, no time for Trump. Whatever one’s disagreements with her may be, Hillary Clinton is the only sane choice we have in a world where, all too often, insanity reigns. To quote a long-ago ad when another candidate, Barry Goldwater, spoke carelessly of using nuclear weapons: “The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”

Impact—Al QaidaAl Qaida is a credible world threat—they have the desire to get nuclear weapons and a complex network of terrorist organizations to wage war against the westPike 2015 (John Pike, 12/17/2015, "Al-Qaida / Al-Qaeda (The Base)," Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm) – Coronado LSMore than two and a half years after the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, by early 2014 American experts and counter-terrorism officials said his organization remains a major threat across the Middle East and North Africa. Violent jihad in the name of al- Qaida in particular is growing in adherence. It is not shrinking. It is actually gaining ground and exploiting new opportunities. While many of Bin Laden's top lieutenants may now be dead, killed by US Special Forces or in drone strikes, jihadist groups in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and West Africa were able to mount several major operorations during 2013. General Overview Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network founded by Usama bin Laden [the "Osama" spelling is deprecated, because there is no letter "O" in Arabic). Sustained counterterrorism pressure since 2008 - including the killing of al-Qaida leaders Usama bin Ladin, Atiyah Abel al Rahman, and lIyas Kashmiri in 2011 - reduced the Pakistan-based core al-Qaida's cohesion and capabilities, including its ability to mount sophisticated, complex attacks in the West similar to the 2006 Transatlantic Airliner plot. However, despite these setbacks, al-Qaida retains its intent , though perhaps not the robust capability, to plan and conduct terrorist attacks against the West, including the U.S. homelan d. Core al-Qaida almost certainly will also try to inspire regional nodes and allies, as well as unaffiliated but like-minded extremists, to engage in terrorism against the West. Established around 1988 by bin Laden, al-Qaeda helped finance, recruit, transport and train thousands of fighters from dozens of countries to be part of an Afghan resistance to defeat the Soviet Union. To continue the holy war beyond Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. In February 1998, al-Qaeda issued a statement under banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens-civilian or military-and their allies everywhere. Al-Qaeda would merge with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) of Ayman al-Zawahiri in June 2001. After al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on America, the United States launched a war in Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda's bases there and overthrow the Taliban, the country's Muslim fundamentalist rulers who harbored bin Laden and his followers. "Al-Qaeda" is Arabic for "the base." In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the "Goals and Objectives of Jihad": Establishing the rule of God on earth Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans-including civilians-as well as "those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan." Activities Tactics include assassination, bombing, hijacking, kidnapping, suicide attacks , et al. Numerous reports and public bin Laden proclamations indicate strong desire to obtain and utilize biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Targets tend to be prominent symbols (public buildings, embassy and military personnel, etc.) of the United States, its allies , and moderate Muslim governments . According to the former CIA Director George J. Tenet, "Usama Bin Ladin's organization and other terrorist groups are placing increased emphasis on developing surrogates to carry out attacks in an effort to avoid detection. For example, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) is linked closely to Bin Ladin's organization and has operatives located around the world-including in Europe, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. And, there is now an intricate web of alliances among Sunni extremists worldwide , including North Africans, radical Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Central Asians. Some of these terrorists are actively sponsored by national governments that harbor great antipathy toward the United States." The group has targeted American and other Western interests as well as Jewish targets and Muslim governments it saw as corrupt or impious - above all, the Saudi monarchy. Al-Qaeda linked attacks include: May 12, 2003 car bomb attacks on three residential compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia November 2002 car bomb attack and a failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli jetliner with shoulder-fired missiles, both in Mombasa, Kenya October 2002 attack on a French tanker off the coast of Yemen Several spring 2002 bombings in Pakistan April 2002 explosion of a fuel tanker outside a synagogue in Tunisia September 11, 2001, hijacking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon October 12, 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing in Aden, Yemen killing 17 crew members and wounding 39. August 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Al-Qaeda is suspected of carrying out

or directing sympathetic groups to carry out the May 2003 suicide attacks on Western interests in Casablanca, Morocco; the October 12, 2002 nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and a series of incidents in Saudi Arabia against U.S. targets from 1995 to 1996 Plots linked to al-Qaeda that were disrupted or prevented include: a 2001 attempt by Richard Reid to explode a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight; a 1999 plot to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport; a 1995 plan to blow up 12 transpacific flights of U.S. commercial airliners; a 1995 plan to kill President Bill Clinton on a visit to the Philippines; and a 1994 plot to kill Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila. Information about Al-Qaeda's U.S. operations has come from investigations following the September 11 attacks and the December 1999 foiled Los Angeles airport attack. Interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists are occurring at Guantanamo Bay and from additional undisclosed locations. The extent to which valuable intelligence or information about al-Qaeda's organization is being provided is not known. In the federal indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was apprehended in August 2001, prosecutors described how the hijackers lived in the United States for months before the attacks-renting apartments, taking flight classes, joining health clubs, and living off funds wired from overseas. On 29 October 2004, four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaida leader Usama bin Laden threatened new attacks on the United States. He appeared in a video broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera claiming responsibility for the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. Speaking in a calm but strong voice, the terrorist leader referred to the following week's U.S. election, telling Americans their security did not depend on President Bush or Democratic candidate John Kerry or al-Qaida, but would depend on government policies. Bin Laden said al-Qaida decided, in his words, to destroy New Yorks' World Trade towers in 2001 and listed several factors that motivated the attack, including frustration over what he called America's pro-Israeli Middle East policies. He said Israel's bombing attacks on Beirut in 1982 gave him the idea of targeting New York's skyscrapers. AQ likely played a role in the unsuccessful 2006 plot to destroy several commercial aircraft flying from the UK to the United States using liquid explosives. AQ claimed responsibility for a 2008 suicide car bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Pakistan that killed six, as retaliation for a Danish newspaper re-publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad and for Denmark’s involvement in Afghanistan. In January 2009, Bryant Neal Vinas – a U.S. citizen who traveled to Pakistan and allegedly trained in explosives at AQ camps, was captured in Pakistan, extradited to the United States, and charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization and conspiracy to commit murder. Vinas later admitted his role in helping AQ plan an attack against the Long Island Rail Road in New York and confessed to having fired missiles at a U.S. base in Afghanistan. In September 2009, Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant and U.S. lawful permanent resident, was charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, to commit murder in a foreign country, and with providing material support to a terrorist organization as part of an AQ plot to attack the New York subway system. Zazi later admitted to contacts with AQ senior leadership, suggesting they had knowledge of his plans. In February 2010, Zazi pled guilty to charges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In a December 2011 video, AQ leader al-Zawahiri claimed AQ was behind the August kidnapping of American aid worker Warren Weinstein in Pakistan. Weinstein remained in AQ custody throughout 2013. Al-Qaeda's Operations Manual In the early 1990s , al-Qaeda produced the Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad , a detailed how-to guide for using handguns, explosives, and biological and chemical weapons , in print and on CD-ROM. Materials belonging to a captured al-Qaeda operative in England detailed techniques for forgery, surveillance, and espionage. Location/Area of Operation Al-Qaida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Coalition attacks on Afghanistan since October 2001 have dismantled the Taliban-al-Qaida's protectors-and led to the capture, death, or dispersal of al-Qaida operatives. Some al-Qaeda members at large probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests . Other known areas of operation: United States, Yemen, Germany, Pakistan. Al-Qaida is a multi-national network possessing a global reach and has supported through financing, training and logistics, Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritrea, Kosovo, the Philippines, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Yemen, and now Kosovo. Additionally, al-Qaida has been linked to conflicts and attacks in Africa, Asia, Europe, the former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, as well as North and South America. The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore. Osama bin Laden moved between various locations in the North Western Frontier Province. Osama’s family spent the last six years of his life at a compound in Abbottabad, just minutes away from Pakistan’s elite military academy. Osama was shot dead by US Navy SEAL commandos in May 2011. Many AQ leaders have been killed in recent years, including then second-in-command Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, in May and August 2011, respectively. Al-Rahman’s replacement, Abu Yahya al-Libi, was killed in June 2012. Leader Ayman al-Zawahiri remained at-large.

Impact—Nuclear TerrorismThe threat of nuclear terrorism is high and the impact is extinctionDodge 15 (Robert Dodge, 11-27-2015, "Don’t ask, don’t tell – terrorism and the nuclear threat," TheHill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/261344-dont-ask-dont-tell-terrorism-and-the-nuclear-threat) – Coronado LSWith recent tragic events in Paris the world is once again reminded that there is no safe haven from the threat of terrorism . In a nuclear world one can only imagine what the outcome would be if the perpetrators had nuclear materials. In a world with over 15,000 nuclear weapons the potential for such a scenario is very real. Y et with the threat posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and materials, there has been no questioning of or statements by our presidential contenders on how to address and eliminate this threat to all of humanity. As though there was a conspiracy of silence and a fear that one would somehow appear weak if advocating for the abolition of nuclear weapons . Failing to address the existential threat posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons while failing to deal with the causation of terrorism is ultimately a recipe for disaster . This is particularly true now after the Paris attacks, when like after 9/11, all the world has a sense of being Parisian. As long as the ingredients for terrorism exist , no nation will be immune to the potential risk of terrorist attacks . Now is the time for nations to come together. The international leadership void that calls for a joining of efforts to address the causation allows the continued fermentation of the elements. As per the question of nuclear weapons and their very real and growing threat to human existence, no one is speaking to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. Probability theorists place the threat of nuclear war by design or accident conservatively at 1 percent per year with some as high as 2-3 percent. A child born today has an unlikely chance of reaching his or her 30th birthday without a nuclear war in their world. Studies have now confirmed that a limited regional nuclear exchange using less than of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals ½ would have global implications ultimately killing up to 2 billion people on the planet from the resulting climate change and devastating effects on agricultural production in the years to follow. This scenario is a very real possibility with the ongoing tensions between the nuclear armed nations of India and Pakistan. With growing tensions in Ukraine and Syria and with the U.S. and Russia on opposing sides, either side unleashing only their nuclear weapons on hair trigger WITHOUT RETALIATION would result in massive devastation beyond that of the limited regional scenario, possibly ending human life on this planet. With such a threat we must demand a response from our future leader to tell us what their administration will do to achieve nuclear disarmament, or under what circumstances would they propose such a suicide mission? Yet who among the candidates for commander-in-chief, who is sworn to protect and serve the United States, has the courage to speak about this greatest threat to our country and indeed to humanity itself? And who in the media is willing to pose the questions about this grave threat? Until we address this issue we will face the possibility in the words of Albert Einstein of “unparalleled catastrophe” continuing to rely on luck as a defense strategy.

Plan TextPlan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China by offering cooperation over increased enforcement in combatting the illegal wildlife trade in exchange for China banning all domestic trade in endangered species.

SolvencyChina says yes—they are committed to combatting the illegal wildlife trade public awareness campaigns prove, overwhelming public support in china. Gabriel 2014 (Grace Ge Gabriel, Asia Regional Director for the International Fund For Animal Welfare., 9-1-2014, "Will China Say No to Wildlife Trade?," UN Chronicle, http://unchronicle.un.org/article/will-china-say-no-wildlife-trade/) – Coronado LSWill China Say No to Wildlife Trade? Killing elephants for their ivory, slaughtering tigers for their pelts and bones, and fatally hacking the horns off rhinos have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. Unfortunately, the bloody trail leads to Asia, particularly China and Viet Nam, where the demand and price for products from endangered species have sky-rocketed, propelled by fast-growing economies, an increase in purchasing power, the rising demand for rare animal parts to be used as ingredients in tonics, as “status symbols,” or investments, and the availability and accessibility of these products in the marketplace. Although these endangered species are protected by international and domestic laws banning the trade in their parts and derivatives, loopholes and exceptions are actively created and exploited by those who benefit from commercial trade in wildlife. While the State Council of China banned the buying, sale and use of tiger bone more than twenty years ago, large industrial tiger farms have emerged in the country with the sole purpose of farming tigers for the trade in their parts and products. Under pressure from commercial interest in these “tiger farms,” wildlife authorities issued licenses for wineries and taxidermists, giving their tacit approval for the commercial trade in tiger bone tonic wine and tiger pelts used for home décor. Farming tigers for trade in their parts has revived a waning market interest in tiger products, thus further stimulating poaching. It costs as little as US $15 to kill a wild tiger compared to US $7,000 to farm an animal to maturity. This profit margin offers substantial incentives for poaching tigers in the wild. Since it is impossible to distinguish between farm-raised tigers and their wild counterparts from their bones and other parts, farming tigers for trade creates enormous difficulties for law enforcement, and provides opportunities to “launder” products made from wild tigers. South Africa, home to 73 per cent of all wild rhinos worldwide, has seen rhino poaching escalate from 13 killed in 2007 to 1,004 in 2013. While international commercial trade in rhino horn is prohibited by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), South Africa allows foreigners to hunt rhinos and ship the horns overseas as trophies. Taking advantage of this legal loophole, criminal gangs employ Thai and Vietnamese prostitutes to pose as big game hunters to obtain fake trophy hunting permits to smuggle horns from poached rhinos. The repeated “one-off ” sales of elephant ivory whetted market appetite and created opportunities for criminals to sell illegally-obtained ivory under the cover of the legal market. In China, purchase of legal ivory from southern Africa in 2008 stimulated demand and prompted increased production to meet market needs . Limit ed availability of legal ivory from the stockpile sale sent ivory prices soaring, attracting more consumers who value ivory as an investment and covet it as “white gold.” One ivory carving factory owner admitted: “The government-issued legal ivory can last me only one month of a year.” That means 91 per cent of the ivory that goes through the factory comes from illegal sources. To supply the illegal market with ivory from poached elephants was exactly what convicted smuggler Chen Zhong did. Under the guise of a government-approved license to carve legal ivory, Chen led a smuggling ring that trafficked 7.7 tonnes of ivory from Africa to China in 2011. The “grey markets ,” created by policies that fuel demand for wildlife products from “legal sources,” “limited trade” and “one-off sales,” have become the wildlife criminals’ dream come true. They allow for trade in wildlife products from all sources—legal and illegal—by mixing contraband with look-alike legal products. Grey markets remove the stigma attached to wildlife product consumption, providing criminals with many more consumers than the black market. The latter, in fact, relies upon a limited number of law-breakers, while grey markets draw from the remaining 99.9 per cent of law-abiding consumers. Most people assume that illegal products are

not easily obtained. They worry about the stigma attached to buying and using illegal items. On the “grey market,” where banned products are illegal in some cases and legal in others, consumers can easily become confused, mistaking availability for legality. From poaching to trafficking to demand for endangered wildlife products, every link in the trade chain is causing horrific suffering to individual animals and tragically driving these endangered species closer to extinction. A massive effort to reduce demand is underway to change consumer behaviour through culturally-appropriate and socially-motivating messages stigmatizing wildlife product consumption. Take, for instance, the compelling image of an elephant mother and calf walking into the sunset on the Africa savannah. The calf very excitedly declares: “Mom, I have teeth.” The mother does not reply. The calf persists: “Mom, I have teeth now! Aren’t you happy I have teeth?” Babies having teeth should bring joy to a mother. However, what does it mean to elephant families? Because of our unnecessary want of ivory, hundreds and thousands of elephants are killed. Buying equals Killing. Say “No” to Elephant Ivory. These messages are part of a demand reduction campaign undertaken by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to raise awareness about the origins of ivory. The word for ivory in Chinese is Xiang Ya, meaning “elephant teeth.” Unfortunately, this term gives people the impression that ivory, like human teeth, can fall out naturally. Based on a survey which found that 7 out of 10 Chinese did not know that ivory comes from dead elephants, and that 80 per cent would reject ivory if they knew it was linked to elephant death, IFAW has launched an advertising campaign, hoping that enlightened consumers would make an animal-friendly choice. Since 2009, the “Say NO to Ivory” public awareness campaign has reached hundreds of millions of people thanks to many Chinese corporations, such as outdoor advertising giant JCDecaux, which provided in-kind support to place the ads in airports, railway stations, subway lines, and department stores across China. The campaign has proved to not only raise awareness, but also has initiated changes in consumer behaviour. A young mother felt so ashamed for wearing an ivory bracelet that she rallied her friends and family on social media to reject ivory. One ivory carver pledged to replace elephant ivory with other materials. Educators touched by the ads incorporated the message into China’s National College Entrance Examination, which subsequently reached 9 million college applicants across the country. An ivory trader exposed the illegal ivory sales to the media, crediting the campaign for changing his heart and mind. In 2013, an independent assessment showed the campaign had penetrated 75 per cent of the urban market in China, reducing the consumer propensity to purchase ivory from 54 to 26 per cent. In 2013, giant billboards with an image of a mother elephant with her calf, depicted next to an ivory bracelet linked to a handcuff, appeared in urban centres across China. It has served as a visual metaphor for the moral and legal ramifications of the ivory trade. As seen in Figure 1, the Chinese character on the ivory bracelet questions: “Status?”, while the character on the handcuff declares: “Sentence!”, with both characters pronounced in the same way: “You Xing.” In a market where legally obtained ivory is supplemented with contraband, the advertising reminds people that the trade could lead to prosecution. To appeal to the conscience of the Chinese public, another ad shows mutilated Chinese characters, (see Figures 3-4) symbolizing the plight endangered species suffer at the hands of man. By removing one crucial stroke from the Chinese character representing an elephant, tiger, bear and human being respectively, the ad asks: “When we take the tusk out of elephants, the bone out of tigers, the gall bladder out of bears, what does that make of us? Are we merely beings with no humanity?” “When the buying stops, the killing can too,” says actor Jackie Chan in a WildAid video aimed at discouraging consumers to obtain products from elephants, rhinos and tigers. However, the buying will not stop amid confusion caused by murky policies, contradictory laws, inconsistent law enforcement, regulations that fuel demand and grey markets that give criminals incentives for mixing contraband with legal goods. Demand reduction efforts by non-governmental organizations can help eliminate ignorance, but cannot deter wildlife crimes driven by greed. Combating wildlife crime needs policy support. Only by combining clear and unambiguous laws, vigourous enforcement and meaningful penalties for violators can we change the high-profit, low-risk nature of wildlife crime . Making wildlife crime high-risk not only prevents illegal wildlife trade, but also stigmatizes it in the eyes of consumers. Government trade bans have reduced demand and damaged markets. The zero tolerance policy against online wildlife trade adopted by many Chinese e-commerce companies has made online marketplaces unavailable for wildlife trade. Monitoring data shows that sites with trade bans have far fewer infringing listings than those without them. A government notice banning the auction of rhino horn, elephant ivory and tiger bone cut mainland China auction sales volume by nearly half in 2012. The government anti-corruption campaign prohibiting lavish banquets has reduced shark fin consumption. The Premier of the P eople’s R epublic of C hina , Li Keqiang, vowed to combat elephant poaching and ivory smuggling during his visit to Kenya . As a key consumer country, the most significant contribution that China can make to prevent illegal trade is closing down ALL ivory markets. Polls indicate overwhelming public support for the government ban on ivory trade to help stop elephant poaching in Africa. The most compelling reasons given by former ivory consumers for no longer making

purchases include the universal ban on ivory trade and a strong commitment from a government leader to combat illegal ivory trade. The Chinese look to their leaders for guidance. Recent historic government stances demonstrate China’s commitment to wildlife conservation, including the destruction of confiscated ivory stockpiles and re-interpretation of laws to make consumption of endangered species a punishable crime . Proposals from prominent Chinese citizens such as artist Yuan Xikun and basketball player Yao Ming, calling upon lawmakers to save the image of the country by ending ivory trade, have drawn overwhelming support in social media. Two thousand years ago, Chinese philosopher Zhuang Zi may have been the first to advocate for ecological sustainability, adhering to a philosophical credo that pronounced the necessity for nature and humanity to exist in harmony. Today, we are facing the challenge once again. Will we say NO to the unsustainable commercial exploitation of wildlife? Will we be able to protect the many wild species and the ecosystems they support for this and future generations?The plan is key—US China cooperation is the only way—climate change provesMills 06/21/2016 (Posted By J. A. Mills On June 21st, 2016 In China, Farming, Geopolitics, U.S., "Presidents of China, U.S. hold fate of ‘Noah’ and the ‘ark’ in their hands," No Publication, http://jamillsauthor.com/2016/06/presidents-of-china-u-s-hold-fate-of-noah-and-the-ark-in-their-hands/) – Coronado LSSo, why is China’s State Forestry Administration in the business of promoting rather than stopping trade—legal and illegal—in parts and products from endangered species when that approach went so dramatically wrong with elephant ivory? It all goes back to China’s Wildlife Protection Law. When the law debuted the 1980s, it not only mandated the farming and consumption of wildlife, but deemed the endeavor virtuous and of great benefit to the People’s Republic of China. This mandate grew from Mao Zedong’s emphasis on animal husbandry as a cornerstone to the success of Communist China. Mao’s regime even ordered the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to help ensure the success of animal husbandry and also medicine manufacturing. Scholars have noted that China’s decision to join CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—in 1981 went against the priorities of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, the Ministry of Public Health, and the PLA. In fact, the PLA was “implicated in protecting the smugglers of tiger bone and rhino horn” after China banned their importation to comply with CITES. The PLA, several government ministries, pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as provincial and municipal governments invested money and manpower in establishing China’s bear and tiger farming industries, the country’s new rhino horn farming effort, and unsuccessful attempts to farm musk deer and pangolins. Another key player was China’s Northeast Forestry University, which, until recently, produced all of the country’s biologists—some of whom hold key leadership positions in today’s State Forestry Administration. This is why the only way to stop this growing drive for commodification of bears, tigers, rhinos, and dozens of other wild species is to take the matter out of the hands of those married to these mandates from the past, which, like the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels, are proving dangerous to Earth as the global community knows and loves it. Nothing short of Xi Jinping and Barack Obama forging a bilateral agreement like their climate and ivory agreements will stop the enduring and expanding effort to

commodify a long list of the world’s most beloved wild species. As the joint China-U.S. climate statement of November 2014 says: “The seriousness of the challenge calls upon the two sides to work constructively together for the common good.”Deeming all trade illegal is key to solve – ivory provesIFAW 06-13-2016 (IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare, 6-13-2016, "New study: 2008 ivory sale ignited current elephant poaching crisis," http://www.ifaw.org/australia/news/new-study) – Coronado LSA new study published today confirms what conservationists like the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) have long stated; the experimental one-off ivory stockpile sale in 2008 was the catalyst for the widespread elephant poaching epidemic that the world is facing now . “The study’s findings indicate our position that that these one-off sales are in fact death sentences for elephants, said IFAW President and CEO Azzedine Downes. “Approximately 20 ,000 elephant were killed for their tusks last year alone .” “The battle to save elephants is taking place on so many fronts—from front-line counter poaching operations, disrupting trafficking networks and demand reduction programs in consumer countries such as China . One-off ivory sales are completely counter-productive to these conservation efforts.” Zimbabwe and Namibia plan to put forward a proposal requesting another legal ivory sale at the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CoP17 (CITES) meeting in September in Johannesburg, South Africa. “I concur with the study; one-off ivory sales led us to the current elephant crisis,” said Grace Ge Gabriel IFAW’s Asia Regional Director. “The legal trade clearly removed the stigma attached to buying ivory thus fueling demand . This left confused customers, rich criminals and dead elephants.” “We must learn from the lessons of the past and not repeat the same mistakes. Ivory sales belong in the history books , and any proposals for one-off sales can and must be rejected. If not, we know that elephants will pay the ultimate price.” The findings were published in The National Bureau of Economic Research by Solomon Hsiang and Nitin Sekar. About IFAW Founded in 1969, IFAW rescues and protects animals around the world. With projects in more than 40 countries, IFAW rescues individual animals, works to prevent cruelty to animals, and advocates for the protection of wildlife and habitats. For more information, visit www.ifaw.org. Follow us on Facebook/IFAW and Twitter @action4ifawGlobal illegal wildlife trade continues to grow despite efforts—corruption and lack of enforcement drive this—only international cooperation over enforcement solvesApoorva Joshi, 6-18-2016, "The Scale of Global Wildlife Crime Is Massive, Reveals Shocking New Report," Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/environment/scale-global-wildlife-crime-massive-reveals-shocking-new-report - Coronado LSThe report was produced by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime using data on thousands of species and seizures from more than 120 countries. It found that trafficking is faciliated by widespread corruption at many levels of government and society, and that crimes are generally not restricted to certain countries. To better fight wildlife crime, officials urge a stepping-up of enforcement and monitoring, as well as increased transnational cooperation . Wildlife trafficking is a global problem, revealed the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their first-ever World Wildlife Crime Report. Released late last month, the report finds, among other things, that more ivory has been seized than cocaine, and that broad corruption is facilitating illegal trade in plants and animals. Developed by and part of UNODC’s ongoing Global Programme on Wildlife and Forest Crime, the

report uses data provided by partner organizations under the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime like the CITES Secretariat and the World Customs Organization, and included an analysis of 164,000 wildlife crime related seizures from 120 different countries. “Based on the latest and best available data, and building on UNODC’s established expertise in researching and analysing multifarious aspects of transnational organized crime, this report comes at a decisive time, when the international community has clearly recognized the urgency of saving our planet’s flora and fauna from the predations of organized criminals,” Yury Fedotov, Executive Director of UNODC said during his remarks at the report’s launch. Image courtesy of UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, 2016. Image courtesy of UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, 2016. Iconic species like tigers are now hanging on by a thread , he said, adding that populations of African elephants and rhinos, too, are under constant pressure from poaching. “But the threat of wildlife crime does not stop with these majestic animals….it also includes thousands and thousands of lesser-known animals, as well as marine and plant life, that are under serious pressure, and that cannot survive without our attention and help,” he said. A global issue Highlighting the sheer diversity and scale of this trade, nearly 7,000 species were included in the World WISE database of seizures analyzed by experts. Despite that, the report found not a single species represented more than 6 percent of the total seizures, neither is a single country the source of more than 15 percent of the seized shipments. In other words, these crimes are not restricted to certain countries, but are a global phenomenon. “One of the critical messages to emerge from this research is that wildlife and forest crime is not limited to certain countries or regions. It is not a trade involving exotic goods from foreign lands being shipped to faraway markets,” Fedotov said. “All countries play a role as either source, transit or destination countries, and we share a responsibility to act.” The report also showcases how gaps in legislation , law enforcement and the criminal justice system can cause serious problems . Traffickers and criminal syndicates, Fedotov said, will always look to exploit loopholes and the system wherever they can. The amount of illegal ivory seized worldwide in recent years was more than the amount of cocaine seized globally. According to the Elephant Trade Information System [ETIS], an average of about 30 metric tons of ivory was intercepted every year between 2009 and 2013. The report fortifies what conservationists have been worried about for a long time – the commodification of endangered species. An African elephant calf (Loxodonta africana) surveys visitors in Namibia. Photo by Rhett A. Butler Image courtesy of UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, 2016. Linking ivory to cocaine further signifies how vast and profitable this trade is — with one major caveat. “Unlike cocaine or heroin, there is an absolute limit on the amount of ivory that can be produced, so there is a danger of a vicious cycle ensuing where each elephant poached increases scarcity, and thus the incentives for poaching another,” the report reads. A massive enterprise Released this week by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and INTERPOL, another report titled Rise of Environmental Crime estimates global environmental crime to be worth as high as $258 billion –26 percent higher than previous estimations. Environmental crime encompasses illegal wildlife trade, forest crimes, exploitation of minerals, illegal fisheries, trafficking of hazardous waste and carbon credit fraud. The UNEP/INTERPOL report finds environmental crime is the world’s fourth largest criminal enterprise following drug smuggling, counterfeiting and human trafficking, but that international agencies spent only $20 to $30 million combatting it. For perspective, the report states that a single fishing vessel targeting Patagonian toothfish was estimated to have taken in $200 to $300 million in illegal harvests. “It’s not just an environmental problem, it’s a threat to our societies ,” Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP told Al Jazeera. “First, it’s stealing from nations; secondly the proceeds finance conflicts and divisions in society. It’s a way of undermining our economies, let alone killing vital biodiversity and pushing some species to the point of extinction . I t is something that the whole world has to work together on, it’s part of the phenomenon of globalisation,” he said. “We’re dealing with environmental crime, which is about much more than the poacher – it’s

about criminal syndicates that are one day smuggling people, the next day weapons, the next day drugs.” Compounding the problem, not all illegally-obtained wildlife products (e.g., through poaching) are sold illegally. The UNODC report finds that when illegally traded wildlife is introduced into legal commercial channels, criminals have access to a much larger source of demand than they would have had on the black market alone. And just as with other sensitive products like firearms or pharmaceuticals, protected species can be legally traded internationally if accompanied by the right paperwork. The report says permits for around 900,000 legal shipments of protected wildlife products are issued annually and studies show that forged or fraudulent permits, sometimes acquired through corruption, have been used to traffic wildlife. Pangolins – or scaly anteaters – are considered a sought-after delicacy in China. The report found more than 100,000 illegally trafficked pangolins were seized between 2007 and 2013. All species are threatened, and several are endangered. Photo of an endangered Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) by Sandip Kumar via Wikimedia Commons (CC 3.0). Image courtesy of UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, 2016. Corruption is one of the major drivers of the illegal wildlife trade , the report confirms. It uses the example of live apes, saying the illegal trade of such large, valuable animals would not be possible without fraudlent paperwork from corrupt officials. The report also asserts the rhino horn trade is facilitated by “pseudo-trophy hunters” operating via exploited hunting permits. “The World Wildlife Crime Report shows the extensive involvement of transnational organized criminal groups in these highly destructive crimes and the pervasive impact of corruption, demonstrating that combating wildlife crime warrants even greater attention and resources at all levels,” said John Scanlon, Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In fact, the report further substantiates the recent raid on a Buddhist monastery in Thailand and subsequent revelations of wildlife trafficking. “Case studies suggest that some wildlife farms, captive-breeding operations, or even zoos may play a role in laundering illegally acquired wildlife,” the report says. It references World WISE database numbers that list 380 tiger skin seizures occurred between 2005 and 2014. Given that there may be only 3,000 tigers left in the wild, the report estimates the ecological impact of those skins is far greater than their $4 million value . Closing the gaps Fedotov said the report’s findings help identify key policy implications that could help address gaps in current responses to wildlife crime. Outside the CITES system, he said, most national laws do not criminalize possession of wildlife that was illegally harvested or traded from abroad. One of the authors of the study, Theodore Leggett, told The Guardian, that laws could be proposed on national, international or regional levels to address this by, “effectively saying: ’If it is illegal in your country, it is illegal in my country’.” Rosewood is a catch-all term for multiple species of trees that are particularly sought-after for furniture production. Because of this demand, several species have been protected under CITES. Illegal logging is one of the most destructive environmental crimes since it can destroy habitat along with targeted trees. Photo of rosewood logs in Madagascar by Rhett A. Butler. Image courtesy of UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, 2016. In addition, Fedotov said, range countries must be supported in developing sustainable livelihoods for communities and to better protect their natural heritage. He also recommends strengthening customs security at ports and national borders, as data show most trafficking interceptions occurr there , as well as increasing the use of wildlife forensic science to ensure the proper identification of species. Fedotov urges the estalishment of new protected areas to overcome the ongoing problem of habiat loss, as well as addressing the major facilitators of wildlife crime and corruption must be addressed through the supply chain. He called on governments to use the UN Convention on Corruption and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime to fight these crimes, and for the global demand for illegal wildlife products to be reduced. “If we want to get serious about wildlife and forest crime, we must shore up our collective responses and close these gaps,” Fedotov said. “All these efforts must be coordinated for optimal strategic effect and maximum impact .” For many, wildlife trafficking isn’t just concerning the

plants and animals themselves, but is a larger issue that stands to affect the world as a whole. “Each year, thousands of wild animals are illegally killed, often by organized criminal networks motivated by profit and greed. I call on governments and people everywhere to support the new United Nations campaign, Wild for Life, which aims to mobilize the world to end this destructive trade. Preserving wildlife is crucial for the well-being of people and planet alike,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Apoorva Joshi is an independent journalist covering the environment, science and world news. She is also a correspondent at Mongabay. Follow her on Twitter @Apoorva_J.