Spending DAs – ENDI 2017

Helpful Thoughts

411Included are two kinds of spending disadvantages – a “spending bad for the economy” disadvantage and a “spending cause bad trade-offs” disadvantage.

The fiscal discipline disadvantage says that new spending proposals (like the aff) undermines the signal of fiscal discipline created by Trump, which hurts the value of the dollar, which undermines global cooperation (cooperation is good for a variety of reasons).

The special education trade-off disadvantage says that new education funding (like the aff) result in CUTS in existing programs like special education programs because current federal appropriations budgets are “zero-sum”. These cuts to special education cause the US to be in violation of its human rights obligations, which undermines our ability to push for human rights globally.

You should NOT read both at the same time – there is an obvious contradiction (spending can’t contribute to the deficit AND be zero-sum with existing spending efforts).

Pick the version you think is best – most strategic, easiest to understand/articulate, etc. – and go with it.

Aff answers to both are included at the END of each section (you’ll see them with the asterisks in the headers).

Good luck, read and highlight each file, and enjoy!

Fiscal Discipline DA

1nc ShellTrump’s budget SIGNALS our commitment to fiscal health – cuts to education are key Boccia et al 5/23/17 (Romina, Thomas Spoehr, Michael Sargent, Robert Moffitt, Lindsey Burke, Policy Analysts @ Heritage Foundation, "Heritage Experts Analyze Trump's Budget," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tsys7BhRhBMJ:www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/heritage-experts-analyze-trumps-budget+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Balancing the Budget "The president's budget seeks to balance in no more than 10 years. This is a laudable and important goal that fiscal conservatives should keep their eye on. The budget does this in part with sensible mandatory spending reforms to Medicaid, welfare and disability programs. This budget proposal also follows the right approach on discretionary spending, by prioritizing national defense in a fiscally responsible way, with offsetting cuts to domestic programs that are redundant, improper, or otherwise wasteful. As is so often the case, however, the devil is in the details. Long-term budget solvency must include reforms to the largest entitlement programs: Medicare and Social Security. These programs alone consume 4 of every 10 federal dollars, and they are expanding. Moreover, this budget would rely on $2 trillion in economic feedback effects for deficit reduction, a figure that is highly uncertain. Greater spending cuts would have lent more

fiscal credibility. Overall, this budget takes important strides toward cutting the federal government down to size ." —Romina Boccia, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs Defense “Though the White House is right to call for more, much-needed defense funding, $603 billion represents only a $16.8-billion increase from the Obama administration’s meager planned defense spending for 2018. A $603 billion budget for 2018 might be enough to stop the immediate deterioration and cuts in forces, but it will certainly not be enough to reverse the ravages already experienced. Perhaps the most heartening thing about this request is the administration’s follow-through on its expressed intent to repeal the defense budget caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which have been both disruptive and destructive to military readiness. The U.S. military—in both size and readiness—has shrunk to historically low levels, all while its budget has been held hostage to domestic policy whims. Naysayers downplay the poor state of the military. But those who deny the existence of readiness problems are contradicted by the repeated testimony of dozens of senior uniformed and civilian military leaders. Those leaders uniformly agree that today’s military is desperately overtaxed and under-resourced. As the Heritage Foundation’s Index of U.S. Military Strength reports, today our armed forces would be severely challenged to execute our defense strategy with the current force. The Heritage Foundation has proposed a 2018 funding level of $632 billion. It includes proposals for defense reform and savings to help restore our military’s strength and punch. Lawmakers finally need to demonstrate that they take the duty to provide for the common defense quite seriously. Lip service is not enough. We must begin to provide our men and women in uniform the equipment and resources they need to defend our country. Congress must hear and heed the Pentagon’s candid voice in the upcoming budget debates. And lawmakers must then act to begin rebuilding our depleted military now.” —Thomas Spoehr, Director of Heritage's Center for National Defense Transportation and Infrastructure “The administration’s budget contains a number of laudable transportation and infrastructure proposals that reform wasteful or improper programs while empowering states and the private sector to meet the nation’s burgeoning transportation needs. Many of the reforms were recommended by the Heritage Foundation in its roadmap for $1.1 trillion in infrastructure investment and Blueprint for Balance, including: structural reform of our outdated Air Traffic Control system; reforming the wasteful Essential Air Service program; and auctioning off valuable spectrum for private use. Also encouraging is the proposal to reform the financing of the nation’s inland waterways infrastructure, which has long required modernization. “However, many questions about the Administration’s signature infrastructure proposal remain. Worrisomely, the budget includes an additional $200 billion in spending as a placeholder for ‘private/public infrastructure investment’ with few details as to how the funds will be allocated. Details regarding the plan and whether they will be offset with meaningful cuts elsewhere will be crucial in evaluating the plan and ensuring a repeat of the 2009 stimulus boondoggle is avoided. In addition, the Budget includes a proposal to assume Highway Trust Fund spending levels fall to revenue levels—a savings of $15 billion to $20 billion per year. While limiting trust fund spending to revenues would be excellent policy, it is highly unlikely Congress will decide to rein in its overspending out of the Highway Trust Fund, which it has carried on for nearly 10 years. Simply assuming these savings will accrue without putting forward a substantive proposal to ensure that Congress stops its mismanagement of the trust fund would represent a nearly $100 billion budget gimmick and cannot be considered to have a real budgetary impact. “While the Budget contains many worthwhile reforms, more details regarding the administration’s infrastructure proposal are required in order to form a comprehensive evaluation of the administration’s infrastructure agenda.” —Michael Sargent, Policy Analyst in Heritage's Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity Education “The Trump administration’s full budget for education for FY 2018 would make some long-overdue cuts at the Department of Education, eyeing reductions in spending totaling $9.2 billion – a 13.6 percent cut in the agency’s current $68 billion annual budget. That type of reduction signals a serious commitment to reducing federal intervention in education – a necessary condition to make space for a restoration of state and local control.” —Lindsey Burke, Director of Heritage's Center for Education Policy

Insert specific link

Any further fiscal expansion sparks a dollar crisisMacleod 2/24/17 (Alasdair, financial analyst @ Gold Eagle, "Global (economic) warming," http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1487954873.php)

These are just some of the upcoming challenges facing America at the macro-level. If the economy was on its uppers, Trumpenomics could be reasonably compared with Reaganomics. But that is not the case. The economy is operating close to capacity, by which we mean that

any further fiscal and monetary expansion will begin to create supply bottlenecks and economic overheating .

Commodity prices are already rising, driven by Asia’s regeneration. An accelerating US budget deficit , at this stage of the credit cycle, seems certain to lead into a dollar crisis , not in the distant future, but brought forward to later this year, taking US

Treasury bond prices down with it. Bond yields will rise The potential for rising dollar nominal bond yields, being suppressed too low for this advanced stage of the credit cycle, is great and brings systemic dangers. American and international corporations rated at or close to junk will be threatened with bankruptcy. Investment-grade bonds will in turn become junk. Today’s level of private sector debt is simply unaffordable at much above zero interest rates. The effect of higher bond yields on government finances will be most unwelcome at a time of escalating US budget deficits. Worse still will be the effect on euro-denominated bond yields. A rise along the euro yield curve of not much more than one or two per cent could force the ECB into recapitalising itself at a most embarrassing juncture, and the survival of some major Eurozone banks, which have accumulated mountains of Eurozone sovereign debt on slender capital bases, will also be threatened. And this is before we consider the financial consequences of a European Union that’s threatening to split up, raising questions about the euro’s own future. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump’s tax and infrastructure plans will bring forward the end of the dollar’s current credit cycle, and those of the euro and sterling with it, into a new crisis phase. A falling dollar will drive the gold price Whether or not the dollar rises or falls against other currencies is not the point, the point is its purchasing power is already declining against a basket of industrial materials, and therefore gold. This remains true even if Trump wises up to the risks he is creating, because China’s demand for natural resources and energy is already driving commodity prices higher. Given the risks the dollar now faces in the coming months, it is hardly surprising the gold price is rising, after its weakness in the final quarter of last year. It has surprised many market observers that a higher interest rate outlook, accentuated by Trump’s plans, has failed to stop the gold price rising. And here we come across something else that most Western-centric market commentators fail to appreciate. At the margin, Asian governments and their peoples prefer physical gold to dollars. Dollars are for transactions, when you take them in payment and then pass them onto someone else in exchange for goods and services. Gold is for keeping, and saving for the financing of capital projects, the collateral of last resort for borrowing depreciating dollars. Looked at that way, it is understandable that Asia will continue to dump its excess dollars for gold. China has been expecting the switch out of dollars into gold for a considerable time. Indeed, it has contributed to it by setting up the Shanghai Gold Exchange, to give its own citizens the chance to protect themselves from declining fiat currencies by accumulating gold. More recently, it has introduced an international futures contract, pricing gold in yuan. It intends to do the same with oil futures but has deferred that part of the plan. China’s energy suppliers, receiving yuan, would be able to sell the yuan forward against oil, buy gold futures and take delivery of physical gold. This would badly undermine the dollar, and China is not yet ready for that eventuality, because she has too many dollars in her reserves. China still has about $1 trillion of US Treasuries and T-bills, which it is converting into commodity and energy stockpiles. Obviously, it will want to reduce its UST and T-bill holdings further, before it effectively pulls the plug on the dollar by launching the oil futures contract. Furthermore, China will probably wait to see what a meeting between Presidents Xi and Trump yields before launching the promised oil futures contract anyway. To summarise…. The global economy recovered during 2016, driven by China’s mercantilist plans. So massive has this stimulus been, that in the near future a danger is developing of supply bottlenecks in key commodities. The US economy has finally begun to perform reasonably well, despite what the doomsayers have been telling us. The Trump stimulus, if carried through, is not only too much too late, it is conflicting and downright dangerous. US interest rates should have already been raised by now to more normal levels, but the normalisation of rates risks triggering a crisis through a mass liquidation of malinvestments. This may be the reason for the Fed’s reluctance to raise them to the correct level. Furthermore, with a widening budget deficit in prospect, it is hard to see how US Treasuries will avoid tipping into a vicious bear market. The risk is of a perfect storm .

That sparks US-China nuclear war and destroys global cooperation Porter 6 (Dave , Director of Business Development–Structures at General Dynamics, “Oregon Steel”, Blue Oregon, 12–8, http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/12/ff_oregon_steel.html)

There could be a soft landing or a domestic and international disaster. As Clyde Prestowitz in "Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East" writes: "The nightmare scenario – an economic 9/11 – is a sudden, massive sell–off of dollars; a world financial panic whose trigger might be as minor, relatively speaking, as the assassination of a second–rate archduke in a third–rate European city. A collapse of the dollar and its consequent abandonment as the world's reserve currency would create a deep recession in the United States. Gas and fuel prices would soar, anything imported would suddenly become much more expensive, interest rates would jump, as would unemployment. The "stagflation" of the 1970's – slow growth and high unemployment combined with double–digit interest rates–would look like a walk in the park. And since the United States is at present the world's only major net importer, all of the exporters that depend on it for their economic stability would suffer severely as well. It's the thought of these consequences that make the big dollar holders so nervous, and makes them, for now, hold on to their excess dollars." Our economy has been

totally mismanged and it's scary. And beyond the worldwide economic ruin, international cooperation would break down and wars would erupt . Peoples around the world would be so vulnerable and angry that they would blame and envy their neighbors. I am particularly concerned about China–US relations during the rest of the 21st century. Both countries would be under severe stress in such a scenario. Nuclear exchanges would not be impossible . As I have argued in our proposal "Developing the China Connection through Educational Programs," we need to give our children the skills to get through such a crisis.

Uniqueness

Signal of Fiscal Responsibility Now – 2ncTrump budget signals US commitment to fiscal responsibility Crisp 3/16/17 (Elizabeth, Staff @ The Advocate, "Trump budget blueprint could have wide-ranging impact on Louisiana," http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_cb0be314-0a7a-11e7-8811-1b5b81f776da.html)

Trump's budget plan, which was outlined in a 53-page summary document, calls for deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and other federal agencies, while ramping up spending on Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. It also calls for the outright elimination of funding for dozens of smaller agencies and programs. The Delta Regional Authority, which recently has been aiding with the town of St. Joseph’s lead-contaminated water response, would get no federal funding, likely shuttering its efforts. The Trump administration's recommendation also eliminates funding for the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant program that has been repeatedly used as a vehicle for providing disaster recovery assistance to Louisiana, including $1.6 billion for victims of last year's catastrophic floods. Additionally, it makes several suggestions of shifting more responsibility of funding some services to states, as Louisiana faces its an estimated $500 million deficit in the budget that begins July 1. Gov. John Bel Edwards' spokesman Richard Carbo said the governors' biggest concern is the CDBG cut. He said it doesn't necessarily signal doom for the state as it seeks an additional $2 billion in flood recovery assistance, but it should be addressed. "We just don't know what the cut to the funding will mean to the administering of resources," he said. Aside from the disaster aid, towns and parishes across the state last year received more than $13 million in community development block grant funding that allowed those communities to repair sewer and waterlines. Additional funding came to cities and parishes for community-based programs. During a press briefing Thursday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said that the administration questions how effective the CDBG money has been. "To take the federal money and give it to the states and say, look, we want to give you money for programs that don't work -- I can't defend that anymore," he said. "We cannot defend that anymore. We're $20 trillion in debt." He didn't directly address the disaster assistance component of the program. Officials have long relied on the block grants to aid rebuilding because of the program's flexibility. The budget blueprint suggests states and cities to take on the CDBG responsibility without federal funding. It also doesn't directly address the disaster recovery component. The blueprint also would cut spending on the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Hazard Mapping, which ultimately affects insurance rates. Carbo said proposed cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers could also impact Louisiana priorities, including the long-awaited Comite River diversion project. He added that the governor's office has been in communication with the White House and is still seeking additional information. House Majority Whip Steve

Scalise, the third-ranking member in the Chamber, said he will be thoroughly reviewing Trump's request. " His emphasis on fiscal responsibility is a welcome change after eight years of President Obama’s big-spending, government-knows-best ways ," Scalise said in a statement. "Of course, spending is ultimately decided by Congress through the legislative process, and as we begin these discussions with the administration I will be looking closely at how this proposal could impact southeast Louisiana, including key priorities like the National Flood Insurance Program, storm protection and coastal restoration projects." Scalise, R-Jefferson, has emerged as a key ally of the president among House leadership. "Already, my Republican colleagues and I have begun working with the president to cut the size and cost of government, grow our economy, create jobs, and keep Americans safe by securing our border

and properly funding our troops—and the President’s budget request today represents an important step in that process, " he said.

Trump budget signals US fiscal responsibility now Cowan 5/23/17 (Richard, Staff @ Reuters, "Trump budget cuts may stir backlash in rural America," https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IChdI5WKDrUJ:https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-budget-pain-idUSL1N1IP1FT+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, the conservative group backed by billionaire Charles Koch, applauded Trump's call to balance the budget within 10 years, cut taxes and roll back regulations - moves he said would stimulate job growth. "It sends all of the right signals for the first time in nearly a decade - a budget that actually is focused on the best interests of the American taxpayer rather than what's popular in Washington," he said. (Reporting by Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by David Shepardson, Howard Schneider and Ginger Gibson; Editing by Caren Bohan and Peter Cooney)

Trump budget signals fiscal discipline now Raasch 5/24/17 (Chuck, Staff @ St Louis Post-Dispatch, "Trump's budget freshly ignites the guns-vs.-butter argument for the St. Louis region," http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/trump-s-budget-freshly-ignites-the-guns-vs--butter/article_a15dde41-6c27-581a-b21a-82850cbeba38.html)

Trump’s $4.1 trillion fiscal 2018 blueprint of increases in defense spending and cuts in the domestic safety net, research and environmental protection sets up a classic guns vs. butter argument. The potential impact locally in these and other programs is a microcosm of the spending and taxing fights that are likely to define the Trump years. Missouri’s congressional delegation

largely applauded greater spending on defense in the region, such as Trump’s budget proposals for $1.4 billion for 14 new FA/18 Super Hornet fighter jets made by Boeing in St. Louis and $874 million for 34,529 Boeing JDAM GPS-guided bomb tail kits made in St. Charles. But there is already pushback in his own party on Trump’s proposed cuts in other areas. Take the National Institutes of Health, which Trump proposes to trim by about $6 billion, from its current $32 billion spending level. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NIH funding. In so many words, Blunt on Tuesday declared Trump’s medical research funding cuts dead on arrival. Blunt has pushed the first increases in the NIH budget in over a decade, and he views increased federal spending in this area as not only a humane attack on disease, but a cost-saver to the health care system over the long run and a significant segment of the St. Louis-area economy. “I have serious concerns with some of the steep cuts that are included in the president’s budget for 2018,” Blunt said. Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Ballwin, expressed

similar concerns about medical research funding cuts. But, she said, Trump’s budget “ signals an important shift in priorities that is long overdue” and “addresses the unsustainable budget deficit and record debt that threatens our economic stability.”

Spending Cuts/Balanced Budget Now – 2nc Trump’s budget will balance the deficit and reduce the debt – spending cuts are key Andrade 5/24/17 (Juan Pablo, advisor on President Trump's Hispanic Advisory Council and National Diversity Coalition and a spokesman for America First Policies, "Trump's budget proposal truly puts America first," http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/334793-trumps-budget-proposal-truly-puts-america-first)

Unlike any budget proposal in the past, this budget will achieve balance within the 10 year budget window, and will also guarantee reduction in our national debt . Economic policies during President Obama's tenure, in contrast, resulted in a

near doubling of the national debt, from $10.6 trillion in 2009 to nearly $20 trillion in 2016. Trump's policies will not only drive down wasteful spending, but also grow the economy. The spending reductions in his budget are reflective of Trump's charge to reduce the size of the federal government workforce and create a leaner, more accountable, less intrusive, and more effective government. Government agencies and departments will experience cuts, but they are sensible and rational . It makes sense, because every agency and department will be driven to achieve greater efficiency and to eliminate wasteful to ease the tax burden. A large portion of the budget will be dedicated to border security and immigration enforcement, including over $2.6 billion in new infrastructure and technology investments to give the U.S. Customs and Border Protection front line law enforcement officers the tools they need to deter, deny, identify, track, and resolve illegal activity along the border. This portion of the budget includes new and replacement border wall in locations identified by Border Patrol, to impede the flow of illegal crossing. The southern border wall is of top importance in this budget. It's one of Trump's earliest proposals, and one of the big reasons voters elected him president. On top of the wall and adding CBP officers for boots-on-the-ground efforts, the budget will be investing in aircraft and other aviation assets to further help identify and track border crossings and other illegal activity to support enforcement actions on the ground. In addition to immigration enforcement spending, defense spending is vital. And quite frankly, has been neglected by previous administrations. Our military is at its smallest since before World War II, a fact that needs to change. Each year that passes, our enemies become more advanced, as should we. We need to be ready and prepared to take on any threats, both here and abroad. Trump's budget truly puts America First, with a focus on protecting our citizens while reducing the tax burden on all Americans. The media will continue to attack the administration, but as always, the president will continue to support the interests of the American people and the United States of America.

Trump's budget signals his commitment to fiscal discipline - largest spending cuts since Reagan Lucas 2/27/17 (Fred, the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal, "Trump Pledges Boost in Military and Infrastructure Spending, Cut in Foreign Aid," http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/27/trump-pledges-boost-in-military-and-infrastructure-spending-cut-in-foreign-aid/)

President Donald Trump’s first budget will boost military spending by $54 billion and pay for it by scaling back nondiscretionary spending—including cuts to foreign aid—the president and his budget director said. “This defense spending increase will be offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government,” Trump said Monday morning announcing his budget proposal. “We’re going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the American people,” Trump said. “We can do so much more with the money we spend.” The budget blueprint lays out administration priorities for each agency to follow. The full budget proposal will be presented in May, according to Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. “It is an America first budget,” Mulvaney told reporters during the White House press briefing. “It will show the president is keeping his budget and doing exactly what he said he was going to do when he ran for office.”

Mulvaney said the budget will also secure the border, take care of veterans, and increase school choice. “It does all of that without adding to the currently projected [fiscal year] 2018 deficit ,” Mulvaney said. Top-line defense discretionary spending will be $603 billion, a $54 billion increase for the military. Top-line nondefense discretionary spending will be $462 billion, which is a $54 billion savings, under the pending proposal. That’s the largest proposed budget reduction since

the Ronald Reagan administration, Mulvaney said.

Trump’s budget is balanced now – signals commitment to spending cutsVitali 2/27/17 (Ali, NBC News, "White House to Propose $54 Billion Defense Spending Increase," http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-propose-54-billion-defense-spending-increase-n726206)

President Trump will propose adding $54 billion in defense and security funding while cutting that amount from "lower-priority programs" across government agencies, White House officials said Monday. "We're going to do more with less," President Trump said Monday of his "historic increase in defense spending." White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney emphasized that the "budget blueprint" details are a framework with a full budget expected in May. Mulvaney said, however, that the budget blueprint is "the president's policies as reflected in top-line discretionary spending." "To that end, it is a true America-first budget. It will

show the president is keeping his promises and doing exactly what he said he was going to do when he ran for office," Mulvaney said during a news conference. In a call with reporters Monday morning, an Office of Management and Budget official previewed the budget reductions across agencies, saying that they included a "large reduction in foreign aid." The aid reduction, in tandem with the 10 percent increase in defense spending, echoes Trump's campaign promise. The "budget blueprint marks" the first step in what could be a lengthy negotiations process between the White House and Capitol Hill, with multiple rounds of discussions on the budget's specifics. The spending priorities come just before the president heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday evening to deliver a joint session speech to Congress. Play 'Budget Blueprint' Shows $54 Billion Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts To Foreign Aid Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed 'Budget Blueprint' Shows $54 Billion Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts To Foreign Aid 1:23 The president, both in office and on the campaign trail, has preached a "peace through strength" strategy that involves military build up with the goal of deterrence. In a meeting with America's governors Monday morning, Trump stressed the need to start winning wars again, bemoaning the fact that the United States' military prowess is no longer, in his mind, what it used to be. "We either have to win, or don't fight at all," he said. The OMB official said the reduction in aid spending — which is roughly 1 percent of the budget — is a signal to the rest of the world that the United States expects the rest of the world to "step up" its fiscal commitment.

A2 Deficits NowTrump's budget avoids an impending fiscal nightmare - spending cuts are key Boccia 5/23/17 (Romina, deputy director of Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at The Heritage Foundation, "A Fiscal Storm Is Brewing: US Public Debt to Grow to 150% of GDP By 2047 If No Changes," http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/romina-boccia/fiscal-storm-brewing-us-public-debt-grow-150-gdp-2047-if-no-changes)

To address the problem, Congress and the president must work together to enact a responsible, pro-growth budget that puts

spending and taxes on a sustainable path to balance. Budget cuts in President Donald Trump’s proposal to Congress this week are a key step on that path . Our Fiscal Condition America’s annual deficit—the difference between what the government spends and

collects in taxes each year—is projected to rise steeply over the coming decade and to continue growing from there. The deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in nominal terms before the 10-year mark, and then to keep rising. In terms of the size of the economy, deficits are projected to rise from 2.9 percent of gross domestic product this year to 9.8 percent 30 years from now. Deficits reached this level at the height of the Great Recession, but current projections assume the deficit will rise to such levels even without another severe economic crisis. Instead, a combination of demographic changes and health care costs, combined with projected growth in interest on the debt, is driving this

fiscal explosion. Absent a course correction , the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show the debt will rise from 77

percent of gross domestic product today to a staggering 150 percent of GDP by 2047—almost double the current level. Such high and growing debt is unsustainable and carries several risks for American prosperity. Research shows that high and growing debt is associated with lower economic growth, which translates into lower business and individual income growth, and fewer opportunities for all Americans. Ad Feedback Action Is Required Trump has put economic growth at the top of his presidential agenda, and this goal is directly reflected in the president’s proposed budget. According to White House sources, “the policies in [Trump’s] Budget would drive down spending and grow the economy. By 2027, when the budget reaches balance, publicly held debt will be reduced to 60 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 2010, when the economic policies of the last administration took effect.” Congress and the president should work together to realize a fiscally responsible, pro-growth budget agenda. This includes immediate cuts to unnecessary and improper spending; reforms to bring health care, welfare, and other entitlement spending under control; and tax reform that reduces harmful distortions

to saving, investing, and producing in the United States. It’s not too late for the U.S. to avert a full fiscal nightmare , and

Trump’s presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress present a unique opportunity for long-needed reforms.

A2 Dollar Collapsing Now US dollar strong now - Trump and controversies don’t undermine Financial Times 5/22/17 (Jamie Chisholm, "Global stocks recover poise, dollar strengthens on receding Trump scares," https://www.ft.com/content/7c85cd9c-e2d5-3f63-b3f4-66081f7856c2)

Stock markets firm after Wall Street rebound Easing US political fears support the dollar Treasury yields nudge higher ahead of

Fed minutes Brent crude rallies as Opec meeting looms Gold pressured by firmer dollar, dipping $1 to $1,254 an ounce. Hot topic Global financial markets are continuing their recovery from a patch of turbulence in the middle of last week when political turmoil in Washington cast doubt over the prospects for president Donald Trump’s pro-growth policies, such as tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but the pace of the markets’ mood swings is rapid. As Kit Juckes, an analyst at Société Générale puts it: In early March, [reports of] a record net speculative short US 10-year Note futures position was a warning that the bond market sell-off was losing momentum. Less than three months later, the net 10-year Note position is the longest since 2007. That’s quite some turn around and captures the market’s mood shift. Hope of a significant fiscal boost have melted away and been replaced by fear of both domestic and international turmoil. US futures suggest the S&P 500 later in New York will gain 4 points to 2,386 — leaving the Wall Street benchmark just 0.6 per cent shy of the record closing high hit a few weeks ago. The S&P dropped 1.8 per cent last Wednesday, its worst one-day fall in eight months, when the controversy surrounding Mr Trump caused growth-focused assets and the dollar to be dumped and encouraged investors to move into supposed havens like Treasuries, gold and the Japanese yen. What to watch Market sentiment is being helped by a bounce in the energy sector. Oil prices rallied some 5.5 per cent last week, their best showing since early December, after Russia and Saudi Arabia said they favoured extending their production cuts beyond the initial deadline of March next year. The rebound came ahead of this week’s Opec meeting in Vienna on Thursday, when the cartel will consider that extension. Brent crude, the international benchmark, is up another 0.7 per cent to $53.97 a barrel on Monday, having earlier traded above $54 for the first time in a month. West Texas Intermediate, the main US contract, is gaining 0.8 per cent to $50.74. Equities Bourses are welcoming the gains for S&P futures, with the pan-European Stoxx 600 up 0.2 per cent. London’s FTSE 100 is adding 0.3 per cent as miners gain after iron ore rose 4.7 per cent on China’s Dalian Commodity Exchange to its highest level in a little over a fortnight. Oil producers are also underpinned by the rallying crude price. Japan’s Topix gained 0.5 per cent, with Takata shares up by 17 per cent, their daily limit, as the troubled airbag maker continued to rally after reaching a $553m settlement with carmakers relating to flawed airbags. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng advanced 0.9 per cent, pushed up by market heavyweight Tencent as the Chinese tech giant rose 2.8 per cent to a record high. However, mainland China’s Shanghai

Composite was down 0.8 per cent as brokerages and the real estate sector were pressured by increased government regulations. Forex Major currencies are mostly weaker against the US dollar . The dollar index, a measure of the US currency against a basket of global peers, is up 0.1 per cent to 97.28. It fell to a five-and-a-half-month low of 97.08 on Friday as James Bullard of the St

Louis Federal Reserve said the central bank’s projected path for lifting interest rates might be “overly aggressive”. The Japanese yen is down 0.1 per cent to ¥111.35 per dollar after trade data showed exports and imports grew in April but at a slower pace than economists had forecast. The euro is off 0.1 per cent to $1.1188 and the UK pound is down 0.3 per cent to $1.3002 after polls over the weekend showed the governing Conservative party holding a narrower lead against Labour ahead of the election in June.

Links

School Lunch LinksFederal school nutrition regulations are costly – take huge bites out of education fundingWolfgang 11 (Ben, Staff @ Wash Times, "‘Healthier’ school lunch at what cost?," 5/16, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:71upB-TAB50J:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/healthier-school-lunch-at-what-cost/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

If the federal government gets its way, critics are warning, school lunches will be more expensive and less appetizing and ultimately will leave school districts footing the bill for costly food going down the garbage disposal. Under regulations proposed this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would have the final say on what students eat. Educators fear the guidelines,

trumpeted by first lady Michelle Obama and others as a key to curbing childhood obesity, will take a huge bite out of school budgets while resulting in “healthier” meals that make youngsters turn up their noses. “Under the proposed rule, school meals would become so restrictive they would be unpalatable to many students,” said Karen Castaneda, director of food service at Pennridge School District in Perkasie, Pa. For example, Ms. Castaneda said, the proposed sodium restrictions for student lunches resemble diets previously reserved for those battling serious illnesses such as kidney disease. The rules also would require students to eat more fruits and vegetables, forcing schools to serve extra apples and broccoli even if experience shows that children can’t - or won’t - eat them. Breakfast programs are especially worrisome. “The proposal will double the fruit serving … [and] would add a required meat serving daily,” said Sally Spero, food planning supervisor for the San Diego Unified School District. “Nothing is achieved when money is spent on food that children won’t even be able to consume and nothing is more disheartening … than to see perfectly good and perfectly untouched food thrown into the trash.” The regulations would also require schools to spend more money for fresh fruits and vegetables. Many districts now serve cheaper canned fruits or frozen vegetables.

School nutrition regs are massive unfunded mandates – substantially raise educational costs Wolfgang 11 (Ben, Staff @ Wash Times, "‘Healthier’ school lunch at what cost?," 5/16, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:71upB-TAB50J:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/healthier-school-lunch-at-what-cost/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

What the government sees as a drive for more nutritious meals, some in the states see as an unfunded mandate from Washington . Ms. Castaneda said her district’s food budget, including breakfast and lunch programs, would increase by

$111,234 under the guidelines taking shape. Federal school lunch program reimbursements would cover $32,460, leaving the Pennridge district little choice but to raise lunch prices to come up with the remaining $78,774. “ Our concern is that the proposed regulation may result in having the opposite effect to that which it desires, driving up costs and driving

children … out of the program,” said Barry Sackin, owner of B. Sackin and Associates, a consulting firm specializing in school nutrition. Many of those issues received an airing at a House subcommittee hearing last week at which Mr. Sackin, Ms. Castaneda and Ms. Spero all testified. Some House Republicans have raised questions over whether the Obama administration has overstepped its authority in trying to dictate nutritional and other values for local school lunch programs. After President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act last year, Agriculture Department officials began crafting the new dietary rules, which remain under internal review. While supporting healthy food for students, Mr. Sackin said, the proposed rule strives for perfection by sacrificing the “very good.” “Unfortunately, there is a perception that if we fix school meals we can fix childhood obesity. But the reality is that school meals are already the healthiest meals that many children eat,” he told lawmakers. “The fact that too many children start school already overweight certainly suggests that schools aren’t the cause.” The American Association of School Administrators has called the plan a “direct unfunded mandate” imposed on school districts . The National School Boards Association on Friday

released a statement saying it is “ gravely concerned about the financial impact the law could have on school districts at a time when many are in dire economic straits.” “Two years after implementation, the cost of a school breakfast may increase by more than 25 cents. The cost of a school lunch will have increased by more than 7 cents,” said Rep.

Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who chairs the House subcommittee focusing on primary and secondary education issues. “ The total compliance costs will reach $6.8 billion by 2016 , costs that will fall heavily on states and schools.” Mr. Hunter obtained his figures from the Agriculture Department’s analysis of the proposed rules. “Let me be clear: We all want to combat child hunger and improve the health and well-being of low-income families,” Mr. Hunter said. “However, we should reject the false choice between our support of child nutrition and the critical need to rein in the size and cost of the federal government.”

Education Spending LinksIncreases in federal education spending crush US fiscal restraint Burke 12 (Lindsey, Education Policy Analyst @ Heritage Foundation, "FACT CHECK: Secretary Arne Duncan on Education Cuts," 9/10, http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/10/fact-check-secretary-arne-duncan-on-education-cuts/)

There is ample room to trim bureaucracy at the Department of Education. And it would be bad policy to continue blindly increasing federal education spending . The Obama Administration has been on an education spending binge for the past three and a half years: a nearly $100 billion bonus to the department in 2009 through the “stimulus,” a $10 billion public education bailout the year after that, and now a proposed $70 billion education budget (up from $68 billion) with $60 billion in supplemental spending. Taxpayers cannot afford to continue financing the federal government’s failed experiment in education intervention . Like most

federal policy areas, some fiscal restraint is needed in education spending. A better approach would be to give states more control of their share of federal education funding and allow for flexibility. Schools would get far more bang for their bucks with flexibility than by continuing to filter money through 150 bureaucratic federal education programs.

Massive new spending on education undermines fiscal restraint Burke and Sheffield 12 (Lindsey and Rachel, Education Policy Analysts @ Heritage Foundation, "Obama’s 2013 Education Budget and Blueprint: A Costly Expansion of Federal Control," 4/12, http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/obamas-2013-education-budget-and-blueprint-costly-expansion-federal)

Abstract: President Obama’s FY 2013 budget request includes another major spending increase for the Department of Education—2.5 percent more than last year—to nearly $70 billion. American taxpayers are calling for spending restraint in Washington, yet President Obama’s proposals would exacerbate the existing bureaucratic maze of federal programs

and further remove educational decision-making authority from state and local policymakers. Decades of increased federal spending have done little to benefit American students . Continuing to pour more taxpayer dollars into failed programs is unlikely to improve educational outcomes. Rather, it will lead to more federal involvement in state and local education systems. Reforms that roll back spending and reduce the federal role will help restore educational authority to state and local leaders where it rightly belongs. “Budgets are about choices.” Such was President Barack Obama’s message during a recent speech to the National Governors Association. President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget request and supplemental education spending proposals make the Administration’s own choice perfectly clear: Continue to increase federal education spending and federal control over education. The Department of Education, a 4,200-person agency, has enjoyed dramatic funding increases year after year since its creation over three decades ago. The President’s FY 2013 budget request includes a 2.5 percent increase (over 2012 levels) for the Department of Education—the largest increase for any domestic agency in the proposed budget. But nearly a half century of ever-increasing federal education spending and control has failed to improve academic outcomes. The bloated bureaucracy has added layer upon layer of red tape on states and school districts, requiring school leaders to demonstrate compliance with more than 150 federal education programs. In addition to the proposed spending increases in President Obama’s 2013 budget request for the Department of Education, the Administration is also proposing to spend another $60 billion on new programs—spending that would be supplemental to the FY 2012 enacted budget and FY 2013 budget request. These staggering new spending increases are in addition to the one-time $98 billion provided to the Department of Education in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—the “stimulus”—and on top of the $10 billion “EduJobs” bill passed in the summer of 2010. At a time when American taxpayers are calling for fiscal restraint in Washington, including restraint at the Department of Education, the budget and blueprint create a path to continued federal profligacy . These are proposals that exacerbate the existing bureaucratic maze of federal programs and further remove educational decision-making authority from state and local policymakers.

Spending Perception LinksSequestration forced the U.S. to detox from bloated budgets— the plan is a relapse that short-circuits fiscal disciplineAblow 2/28/13 (Keith, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts Medical School, 2013 (“Detox America with sequestration,” Fox News, February 28th, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/27/why-sequestration-aka-national-detox-program-is-just-what-america-needs/#ixzz2MK7qnbJr)

The $1.2 trillion in across the board budget cuts called "sequestration" -- beginning with $85 billion that is expected to kick in on March 1 -- is just what the doctor ordered: a detox protocol for a nation addicted to entitlement spending and bloated budgets in every facet of government.¶ No addict likes the idea of going into a detox unit. Why? Because it hurts. He knows that, while Librium or methadone will be used to make getting off drugs easier, the final result will be to leave his system without alcohol or heroin, and without the detox meds that mimic them. In the end, he will be left to face reality and deal with it, without false, chemical courage.¶ The way that detox works is to reduce addictive medication slowly, but surely—to taper off. With every reduction in Librium or methadone doses, the mind may react with anxiety, and the body may react with a rising pulse rate. While seizures are to be avoided (but are almost never fatal), the patient has to be made to understand that it won’t be painless to reverse the dependency on intoxicants for which he is responsible. ¶ No pain, no gain.¶ The American drug of choice is wild partying with entitlement spending and bloated budgets in many government agencies and departments. ¶ This drug has allowed our people to feel better than they should about their economic circumstances, their educational system, our ability to defend our nation and our own abilities to sustain our lifestyles—whether those lifestyles are propped up by free cell phones, or funny money Medicare insurance, or programs to bail out bankrupt companies and forgive home mortgages that people legally contracted to pay, or manic spending sprees on roads, bridges and federal buildings built with money printed by the Federal Reserve (which is an oxymoron).¶ The only reason detox is any good, by the way, is that it can set the stage for a period of sobriety, making amends and coming up

with strategies for living the truth, instead of living a lie. ¶ This amounts to coming up with real solutions to problems , rather than dodging them by deluging them with more drugs. Genuine creativity is kindled by heartfelt desire, necessity and, often, some amount of suffering. It is short-circuited by slight of hand, laxity of mind and anything that artificially makes one believe things are better than they really are— like alcohol or marijuana or heroin or government handouts paid for with borrowed funds or fake currency.¶

New, permanent spending undermines perception of fiscal discipline and contributes to structural budget deficits that undermine the US economyZuckerman 1 (Mortimer, Editor-in-Chief, US News and World Report, 10/15, lexis)

The overall economic package--including what has already been approved for defense, reconstruction, and the airline bailout--will probably total between $ 100 billion and $ 150 billion, adding at most 1 1/2 percent to GDP growth in a $ 10 trillion economy. But we must beware of the crosscurrent. Increased spending by the government means smaller surpluses--indeed, the surplus has disappeared before our very eyes--higher interest rates, and less private investment. Long-term rates are sensitive to the increased uncertainty about the durability of future fiscal surpluses at the federal level. That's why it is so important that tax relief or funding programs should be one-offs . That way they can be shut off before they threaten future surpluses--and before they panic financial markets with the fear of a structural, or continuing, budget deficit , like the one we endured in the 1980s and 1990s. For this reason, Congress should also suspend the tax cuts scheduled for the years 2005 to 2010. We need to make this money

available as a backup now, especially if the first kick start only turns the engine. The financial markets would applaud the reduced risk of a continuing federal deficit. And that, in turn, would increase our chances to lower interest and mortgage rates in the near term to accelerate capital spending.

Internals

Deficits Kill the Dollar – 2ncPerception of rising deficits destroys the dollar – signals of fiscal discipline are uniquely importantBergsten 4 (C. Fred, director of the Institute for International Economics, "The Risks Ahead for the World Economy," Economist, 9/9, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3172404)

Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations concerning the American budget position . If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack . The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 1985-87 and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

Fiscal discipline vital in averting investor flight and dollar collapse Bull 10 (Alister, Reuters, "Experts say curb US debt or suffer a dollar crisis," http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-budget-options-idUSN1311550220100113)

WASHINGTON, Jan 13 The United States must soon raise taxes or cut government spending to curb its debt, and failure to act will risk a crippling dollar crisis as investor confidence ebbs , a panel of experts said on Wednesday. "It has got to be done. It will be done some day. It may be done with enormous pain. Or it may be done more rationally," said Rudolph Penner, a former head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget office who co-chaired the 24-strong Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States. President Barack Obama's administration will present his budget for fiscal 2011 early next month amid intense pressure to live up to election campaign promises not to raise taxes on middle class Americans, while confronting a record deficit. As a result, Obama is expected to focus on long-term fiscal discipline, while maintaining policy support for an economic recovery in the near-term as the country rebuilds after its worst recession since the Great Depression. The two-year study by the panel, assembled by the highly respected National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration, said that the White House had some time on its side to restore growth, but must then act. "In the next year or two, large deficits and more borrowing are unavoidable given the severity of the economic downturn. However, action ought to begin soon thereafter," they said. The national debt has risen above 50 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) from 40 percent two years ago, and within 20 years will blow past a previous record above 100 percent of GDP set after World War Two without stern official steps. Mounting debt could sap investor confidence in the economy, and the nation's ability to honor its obligations, pushing up interest rates and causing a steep fall in the value of the dollar as international creditors seek safer returns elsewhere.

Big budget deficits crowd out investment and risk financial volatility – threatens a dollar crisisEconomist 11/8/03 (lexis)

The economic consequences are indisputably negative. Big budget deficits reduce America's already abysmally low

saving rate. As the economy's slack is worked off, Uncle Sam's demand for dollars is likely to crowd out private investment and reduce long-term economic growth . Even if the global capital market helps out, America is already enormously reliant on foreigners to fund its spending: the current-account deficit, the measure of annual borrowing from foreigners, is at an historic high of 5.1% of GDP. Big budget deficits will aggravate these external imbalances and so raise the risk of financial volatility, even a dollar crisis . Over the next few years, that is perhaps the biggest risk that Mr Bush's fiscal policies pose for the world economy. No Ronald Reagan

A2 Plan Doesn’t Cost MuchEvery dollar increase in federal spending makes the imposition of fiscal responsibility more difficultHouston Chronicle 5/9/06 (lexis)

History shows that while tax hikes in the 1990s were followed by spending restraints, tax cuts over the last two decades led to spending sprees. At no time in the modern era has the convergence of spending hikes and revenue cuts been so pronounced. The tragedy is that for every dollar borrowed, the imposition of fiscal responsibility becomes more difficult for future presidents and Congresses.

A2 New Spending Good for EconNew spending hurts the economy - the greatest risk is fiscal OVERHEATINGReuters 5/12/17 ("Fed's Evans sees upside risks from Trump fiscal policy," http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-evans-idUSKBN18820Y?il=0)

The chief of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago said Friday that risks to the U.S. economic outlook from fiscal policy are positive as long as it is not overly stimulative , and said he believes that global risks to U.S. growth have receded.

"The U.S. economy has sound fundamentals right now so, I mean, it's difficult to come up with very many downside risks there," Evans told Bloomberg TV in an interview after a talk in Dublin. "If anything the fiscal policy would be upside risks, in terms of growth and pushing unemployment even further down, which could have its benefits as I said before, but you can overdo that."

A2 Deficits Don’t Hurt the DollarDeficit spending undermines the dollar - investor concerns about our ability to pay off debt Gilroy 14 (Annie, Financial Analyst @ Yahoo Finance, 10/7, "Does the budget surplus or deficit impact the US dollar?," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R3OHNVZiQCoJ:finance.yahoo.com/news/does-budget-surplus-deficit-impact-210007804.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

The budget balance is the difference between what a country’s government earns from taxes and other sources and what it spends. A budget deficit occurs when spending exceeds earnings. When spending exceeds earnings, the government borrows money from its citizens. It also borrows money from foreign entities. As this debt keeps on accumulating, it’s possible that the value of its currency will decrease . The currency decreases because of fears within the international community. Other countries question its ability to repay the debt.

Impacts

2nc Overview – DA OutweighsTimeframe – SIGNALs of fiscal responsibility from Trump are vital – the plan IMMEDIATELY reverses – risks dollar crisis that sparks war and destroys global cooperation

Probability – dollar collapse is the MOST probable threat facing the USBrenner and Goldman 9 (Reuven and David, Reuven Brenner holds the Repap Chair at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management and is author of The Force of Finance and A World of Chance. David P. Goldman is senior editor of First Things, "The Needle's Eye," https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/12/the-needles-eye)

The greatest crisis the present administration faces is the collapse of the dollar and its role as the world’s main reserve currency. Paradoxically, preventing the dollar’s collapse also represents a once-in-a-century opportunity for American leadership. Our present fiscal and monetary policies degrade the dollar’s value and force part of the burden of financing a misguided fiscal stimulus onto America’s trading partners. They have no alternative for the moment but to shoulder this burden, however reluctantly. But they will not do so -forever.

Turns case - Global cooperation key to resolving EVERY existential threat Granoff 14 (Jonathan, President of the Global Security Institute and a 2014 nominee of the Nobel Peace Prize. He is also Adjunct Professor of Law at the Widener University Law School and Co-Chair of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association’s Taskforce on Nuclear Nonproliferation, "An Open Letter to the President: A Legacy the World Needs," http://gsinstitute.org/blogs/op-eds/an-open-letter-to-the-president-a-legacy-the-world-needs)

The most critical–and in some instances, existential–threats to civilization can only be met through global cooperation at levels far greater than today . Ensuring the health of the oceans and rainforests, successfully addressing climate change, stopping the destruction of species at rates far above normal evolution, preventing the spread of pandemic diseases, ensuring the stability of financial markets, strengthening cybersecurity, and ending threats posed by weapons of mass destruction are examples of global challenges that cannot be met on a national level. They are global threats that require global solutions. Current approaches are inadequate. What is needed is clarity of purpose and visionary leadership to define a twenty-first century approach toward achievable, holistic, and sustainable security. You alone have the vision and the communicative prowess to inspire and enable world leaders to define and address the most urgent challenges to our shared security, and to commit to pursuing effective, cooperative means to deal with them. You could call it “The Project for the Common Good.” It should begin with a two-day summit, convened once every two years, to constitute a process that identifies the common good, asserts the primacy of our commonalities over our differences, and shapes a new dynamic of cooperation to protect them. The culmination of the summit will be a communiqué to the world, identifying the common good of working together, cooperatively, to meet universal challenges. Furthermore, leaders will be challenged and hopefully commit to cooperating even though on many other issues substantial differences remain. This communiqué will help galvanize public and political support to work together despite our numerous legitimate and normal differences of perspective and interest. Moreover, this endeavor to achieve the common good will serve to invigorate many of the existing institutional arrangements — national, multilateral and universal, such as the United Nations system — that are already doing their best. Bringing the concept of the common good into the public debate itself will be of enormous benefit. The ongoing, cyclical nature of this process provides for its empirical verification, which in turn serves to validate, and, therefore, strengthen the process and its goals. Leadership in this trailblazing initiative is appropriate for the United States of America, the first nation on Earth founded on the rule of law and universal values, and which is populated by peoples whose origin are everywhere; for we are a universal nation. Your administration has proven the value of such a summit through the series of Nuclear Security Summits. It is time to identify and commence maturely and responsibly achieving Our Common Good, a secure sustainable future. The institution of such a process could repurpose and define a twenty-first century legacy for the United States, just as the Marshall Plan helped ensure an American twentieth century. Identifying a clear compass point toward the common good will have a galvanizing impact unlike any other, short of total,

global war. It may be that such a process actually prevents any current or future crisis du jour from escalating into such a total war . It will certainly make clear that our differences must not overshadow requirements for cooperation. Despite today’s headlines, commencing this process soon is important. Who, after all, can possibly predict the next series of disastrous coincidences such as those that brought us the First World War or Fukushima? In an age of increasing automation, underscored by the horrifically huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of such rapid escalation are too acute, and we cannot entrust our current institutions and international relationships with preventing them. We must do better. Make no mistake: cooperation in the twenty-first century is no longer a choice. It is an imperative. The nation that takes the reigns in this new endeavor will be at the forefront of the new era. Those that cling onto archaic paradigms based on zero-sum theories of security will lag, to the detriment–and very survival–of all. More than simply enhancing efforts to address current crises–be it Ebola in West Africa, Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria, or nuclear proliferation

in the Middle East or South Asia–The Project for the Common Good could mitigate or even eliminate some of tomorrow’s unforeseen crises. After all, nobody can predict the next perfect storm. But, we can be certain that a world where cooperation to achieve common goals will be far better prepared to respond.

Dollar Collapse = China War – 2nc Dollar collapse emboldens Chinese aggression – escalates Zoffer 12 (Josh, Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Company + former research analyst @ Greenmantle LLC + BA @ Harvard, "Future of Dollar Hegemony," 7/7, http://hir.harvard.edu/crafting-the-cityfuture-of-dollar-hegemony/)

Despite the dollar’s long history as the international reserve currency, the past few years have seen a growing number of calls for the end of dollar hegemony. Countries as diverse as France, Russia, and China have decried the dollar’s monopoly in foreign exchange markets, while in 2009 reports of a shift away from dollar-based oil trading surfaced in the Middle East. Reported plans to move away from the dollar reflected international frustration at a system fueling the United States’ “exorbitant privilege,” as the French have called it, one that rests its stability on the financial conditions of a country mired in debt and facing a financial meltdown. The implications of a true end to dollar hegemony, a shift away from the dollar as a reserve currency and pricing standard for oil transactions, could be catastrophic for the United States. In the worst case scenario, a drastic drop in demand for dollar-denominated assets would cause the interest rates on Treasury Securities to skyrocket, sending ripples through the US economy as the value of the dollar plummets.

What is certain, however, is that whatever decrease in demand for US debt occurs will constrain the federal government’s ability to spend and the ability of the United States to defend itself. The United States has built its foreign policy around its vast military capability; a sudden budgetary shock and drop in military spending would leave the United States vulnerable as it scrambles to regroup in a new security environment. The ability of the United States to respond to threats across the globe would be diminished, and enemies would be incentivized to take aggressive action to take advantage of this new weakness . In particular, a rapidly militarizing China might be emboldened by its partial decoupling from US economic fortunes to adopt a bolder stance in the South China Sea, threatening US allies and heightening tensions with the United States. While war with China is all but off the table in the status quo, an international system devoid of both US military might and Chinese dependence on US debt as a place to park excess liquidity might lead to the conflict feared on both sides of the Pacific.

Impact is extinctionWittner 11 (Lawrence S., Emeritus Professor of History @ State University of New York - Albany, 11/28/2011, "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power." But need this lead to nuclear war? Not

necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could . After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else." Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300. Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war with China. But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving

many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands . Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear

explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted

doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations . If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world , they should be working to encourage these policies.

Dollar Collapse Causes War – 2nc Dollar collapse triggers nuclear war with Russia and China – US elites will lashout Jorgustin 14 (Ken, Contributor @ Modern Survival, "The Coming Collapse Of The Dollar, And A Time For War," 12/26, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y_Y7AH5J37UJ:modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/the-coming-collapse-of-the-dollar-and-a-time-for-war/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

You’ve heard that desperate people do desperate things, but will we (the pawns) be led to major war while the protected elite call the shots? There is a looming collapse of the dollar and it will be caused by losing it’s reserve currency status. When the

‘currency war’ fails, the elites in desperation will lead us to the next major world war – which might even go nuclear . Why? Because the U.S. is not ‘playing’ with an Iraq this time. This time it’s playing with Russia, a major nuclear power with a strong military, in alliance with China. This time it’s different… While the dollar is in a temporary rally, don’t be fooled. While the chess game may even take one to three years to play out till checkmate, once the ‘king’ is tipped over, once the dollar goes, the United States ’empire’ status is finished. Believe me – I do NOT wish for American hardship, as I am an American – but it’s just how I see the unfolding right now – and while I hope we do not suffer because of it, I do prepare for the uncertainty. In case you didn’t know, the reason we (the United States) are able to sustain astronomical deficits, mind-boggling national debt, seemingly limitless spending on government and it’s programs, is because the dollar is the world’s currency reserve. For those who have not been paying attention, this notion has been slowly slipping, and is being challenged and seen for what it really is – and is facing serious challenges ahead. In fact serious is not strong enough a word – more like desperate.

Dollar collapse undermines US-led global order and eviscerates support for global cooperationEveringham and Anderson 11 (Neil and David, Major in US Army/MA in Arts and Sciences @ Command and General Staff College + Professor @ professor of Strategic Studies and Odom Chair of Joint, Interagency, and Multinational Operations at the US Army Command and General Staff College, The Dollar’s Vulnerability and the Threat to National Security," https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=792631)

Even modest reductions in government spending would affect funding support for the National Security Strategy. The 2010 National Security Strategy outlines four enduring national interests – security of the United States, its citizens, allies and partners; prosperity through a growing United States economy in an open international system; respect for universal values throughout the world; and an international order advanced by United States leadership and international cooperation.59 Each of these national interests

would be adversely affected by a dollar crisis . A key component of the national interest in security is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorism around the world.60 The frontline of this effort is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the United States is fighting an insurgency, working to build an effective Afghan government, and looking to increase trust and respect with the Pakistani government while supporting their capacity to target extremists.61 It is likely that these would be among the first casualties of budget cuts, as the American public would demand the government prioritize a severe domestic crisis over the enduring war effort. Even absent calls from the public, it is unlikely the United States could find a way to continue funding the $165 billion required for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of a dollar crisis.62 Beyond the immediate crisis, the higher interest rates that would be required on new debt following a crisis would also constrain the nation’s ability to conduct future overseas military operations as it did for the British in the 1950s. Further undermining US security interests are the debt problems of our allies, who increasingly find themselves having to pit their domestic needs against the need for global security. The remaining national interests of prosperity, values and international order would be undermined by the inability of the United States to continue funding international development institutions at current, and less than ideal levels. One policy nested within the prosperity interest is to increase investments in development in order to help developing countries grow into prosperous, democratic, and accountable states.63 The United States’ support to international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank are critical ways that the nation works toward an open international economic system while simultaneously promoting universal values and international cooperation. The United States may not be able to maintain its leadership role in these organizations following a dollar crisis , as

it will become harder to maintain a higher level of financing relative to the other members. The United States could find itself reliant on the policy interests of another nation that may not weigh universal values, democracy, and international cooperation as highly as it does.

Dollar Collapse Turns Econ/HegDollar hegemony key to US economic prosperity and global leadership – it’s the backbone of primacyZoffer 12 (Josh, Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Company + former research analyst @ Greenmantle LLC + BA @ Harvard, "Future of Dollar Hegemony," 7/7, http://hir.harvard.edu/crafting-the-cityfuture-of-dollar-hegemony/)

As the issuer of the international reserve currency, the United States has garnered two unique economic benefits from dollar hegemony. First, for other countries to be able to continually accumulate dollar reserves by purchasing dollar-denominated assets, capital has to flow out of the United States and goods have to flow in. Effectively, the international economy must allow the United States to purchase a growing quantity of goods in order to facilitate the flow of capital into the coffers of other nations. As a result, the value of the dollar has to be kept higher than the value of other currencies in order to cheapen the price of imported goods. While this arrangement has come at the cost of an ever-growing current account deficit, it has also subsidized US consumption and fueled the growth of the US economy . Effectively, when a US citizen buys a cheap imported good priced in dollars, the exporter of that good must use those dollars to purchase dollar-denominated assets or invest that dollar in the United States, compounding the exchange effects of the system and aiding US economic growth. The second benefit of this system is its effect on the market for US government debt. The largest market in the world for a single financial asset is the multi-trillion dollar market for American bonds. This market, considered by many to be the most liquid in the world, allows any nation or large investor to park massive amounts of cash into a stable asset with a relatively desirable rate of return. While the depth and stability of US financial markets as a whole were part of the original reason nations gravitated toward the dollar as a reserve currency, the explosive growth of US government debt has made US Treasury bonds the center of the foreign exchange market and the most widely held form of dollar reserves. The use of the US Treasury securities in currency reserves has created an almost unlimited demand for US debt; if the federal government wishes to issue debt, someone will buy it if only as a way to acquire dollar holdings. This artificially high demand means that the United States can issue debt at extremely low interest rates, especially relative to its national debt and overall economic profile. And while the United States has had to pay off its existing debt by issuing new securities, no nation wants to call in its debt for fear that it would devalue the rest of its dollar holdings. While precarious and arguably dangerous in the long term, the reality is that as long as the dollar is the international reserve currency, the United States will have a blank check that no one wants to cash. Whether or not you agree with US fiscal policy, it is indisputable that the ability to finance its debt has allowed the United States to provide its citizens with a high standard of living and fund its enormous military programs. Essentially, dollar hegemony has served as the backbone of US primacy . Domestically, the ability to run effectively unlimited budget deficits has allowed the United States to fund its massive entitlement programs and, more recently, afford sweeping bailouts at the height of the recession. The United States has used its unlimited allowance, afforded by dollar hegemony, to finance its high standard of living and maintain the prosperity required of a hegemon. More importantly, the United States has used the demand for American debt to fund its military apparatus. Each year, the United States spends over US $600 billion on its military, excluding spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, constituting over forty percent of global military spending. Since the establishment of the post-World War II international order, the United States and its allies have relied on US military might to enforce their wishes upon the world and maintain the Western-dominated order. The ability to intervene militarily in any conflict that threatens US interests and maintain US geopolitical influence and hegemony is a direct result of dollar hegemony . For the past sixty-five years, the United States has relied on its excessive spending to fund its position of privilege and relied on the dollar’s position as the international reserve currency to fund this spending.

Trade Deficit Impact – 2ncBudget deficit reduction KEY to reducing the trade deficit NYT 5/31/06 (lexis)

Instead, Mr. Paulson will be free to focus on America's huge imbalances in trade and international transactions. He may not have much operating

room, because the best way to reduce the United States' trade deficit would be to reduce the federal budget deficit , a goal the administration and Congress are not genuinely pursuing. But in the absence of concrete progress on the budget deficit , the government must try to convince America's trading partners and international lenders that it will fix its fiscal house before the global economy forces a fix, in the form of a falling dollar, higher prices and higher interest rates.

Unchecked trade deficit ends US dollar supremacy and risks global war Elliot 6 (Larry, Economics Editor @ The Guardian, "America is living beyond its means," 10/5, http://syncwithjayaram.blogspot.com/2006/10/america-is-living-beyond-its-means.html)

Consumers have been using their homes like ATMs - borrowing against rising prices - but this cannot go on forever. The US economy needs quite a prolonged period in which consumer spending grows more slowly than the economy: that is the only way that the trade deficit is going to be reduced. There are those who say that the trade deficit is not a problem for the US. They argue that it is perfectly sustainable to run sizeable deficits in perpetuity because the dollar's status as a reserve currency means that there will always be demand for US assets. But there are two points here. First, running a permanent trade deficit affects the structure of your economy . It means fewer manufacturing jobs where productivity tends to be higher and more jobs in the service sector,

where productivity tends to be lower. The US has struck a Faustian bargain with its trading partners, particularly China, responsible for about one third of the $700bn-plus trade total last year. As the American economist Tom Palley puts it: "US consumers get lots of cheap goods in return for which they give over paper IOUs that cost less to print. Meanwhile, China creates millions of jobs and builds modern factories that are transforming it into an industrial superpower, and it also accumulates billions of dollars in financial claims against the US. From this perspective, trade deficits don't matter because there are no limits to either government or private borrowing, and because manufacturing doesn't matter either." The logic of this, Palley notes drily, is that the US would benefit even further if China devalued its exchange rate and ran a larger trade surplus. The second point is potentially much more explosive: it is the one sketched out in the crystal ball gazing at the top of this piece. What would happen if, as a result of global developments over the coming decades, the dollar ceased to be the reserve currency of choice. This was a point raised by Avinash Persaud, one of the financial sector's more original thinkers, in a recent lecture in New York. Persaud's argument is as follows. Throughout history, there has always tended to be one dominant reserve currency along with a host of lesser rivals. In the 19th century Britain was the pre-eminent economy and sterling was the main reserve currency. Yet currencies don't retain their dominance forever; part of Britain's problem at the time of Suez was that it was struggling to adjust to a world in which it was no longer the top-dog currency but the creditors came knocking at the door asking for their cheques to be cashed. The US is living beyond its means, hoping that nobody cashes the cheques it has been merrily writing as the current account has gone deeper into the red. That's the advantage of being a reserve currency, even though, as Persaud notes, there is no rule which says that you have to run current account deficits simply because you are a reserve currency. Britain didn't a century ago. In the decade or so up to the first world war it had a trade surplus of 5% of GDP. "That is a mirror image of the US today. The UK was in surplus by as much as the US is in deficit." That deficit has enabled the Chinese to build up their industrial strength at a rapid rate, so much so that it is probable that China - and perhaps India - will have overtaken the US as the world's largest economy (on a purchasing power parity basis, at least) by 2050. Persaud thinks that the upshot of this will be that in the next few decades the dollar will start to lose its reserve status just as sterling did in the last century. "In the case of sterling's loss of reserve status, world war one and two accelerated a process that had begun more slowly before and ended abruptly with debt and inflation." Today the process is also being accelerated - by wars where the end is as elusive as the enemy and by a consumerism built on a property bubble. Perhaps we will not have to wait until 2050. In my lifetime, the dollar will start to lose

its reserve currency status, not to the euro but to the renminbi or the rupee. This would clearly have massive economic and geopolitical consequences . As Persaud rightly says: "If it was economically and politically painful for the UK, even though its

international financial position did not begin from a position of heavy deficit, what will it be like for the US which has become the world's largest debtor. There will be an avalanche of cheques coming home to be paid when the dollar begins to lose its status." And this "avalanche of cheques" is likely to make for the most horrendous geo-political tension . The idea that the US will give up global financial hegemony without a fight seems fanciful in the extreme.

Wealth Saves Lives Linear Impact – 2ncAnd our net-benefit is linear—each percentage increase of national income saves tens of thousands of lives annuallyPritchett and Summers 93 (Lant and Lawrence, Lead Socio-Economist @ World Bank + Fmr vice president of development economics and chief economist of the World Bank/fmr Secretary of Treasury/current president @ Harvard, “Wealthier is Healthier,” Policy Research, Working Papers, World Development Report—World Bank, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1993/06/01/000009265_3961004215604/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf)

Wealthier nations are healthier nations. Figure 1 displays the association between per capita income' and two measures of a country's health, infant mortality and life expectancy. Both improve sharply with rising income, especially at low income levels. If rising income causes improved health through increased spending on goods that directly or indirectly improve health, raising per capita incomes will be an important component of a country's health strategy. There are, however, two other plausible explanations for the existence of a health-wealth relationship: (1) healthier workers are more productive and hence wealthier (reverse causation) or (2) some other factor may cause both better health and higher wealth (incidental association). Using instrumental variables estimation techniques and data across countries and over time, we find strong evidence that the relationship between income and health is not merely associative but causal and structural . The income elasticity of infant and child mortality is between .2 and .4 and differences in income growth rates over the last three decades explain roughly 40% of the cross country differences in mortality improvements. If income were one percent higher in the developing countries, up to 33,000 infant and 53,000 child deaths would be averted annually .

Global Coop Solves – 2ncGlobal coop essential in preventing environmental and great power crises that escalate to nuclear use Dyer 4 (Gwynne, Ph.D. in War Studies @ University of London + Board of Governors @ Canada’s Royal Military College, “The End of War”, Toronto Star, 12/30, lexis)

The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the

proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the

huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years

and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population . We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to

provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that we have been building since the end of World

War II. The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat

itself and everybody loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative international system .

Loss of diplomatic cooperation risks multiple existential threatsIkenberry 11 (G. John Ikenberry – Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University , Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order, 2011)

Rather than a single overriding threat, the United States and other countries face a host of diffuse and evolving threats. Global warming, nuclear proliferation,

jihadist terrorism, energy security, health pandemics— these and other dangers loom on the horizon. Any of these threats could endanger Americans' lives and way of life either directly or indirectly by destabilizing the global system upon which American security and prosperity

depends. Pandemics and global warming are not threats wielded by human hands, but their consequences could be equally devastating. Highly infectious disease

has the potential to kill millions of people. Global warming threatens to trigger waves of environmental migration and food shortages and may further destabilize weak and poor states around the world. The world is also on the cusp of a new round of nuclear proliferation, putting mankinds deadliest weapons in the hands of unstable and hostile states . Terrorist networks offer a new specter of nonstate transnational violence. Yet none of these threats is, in itself, so singularly preeminent that it deserves to be the centerpiece of American grand strategy in the

way that antifascism and anticommunism did in an earlier era.15 What is more, these various threats are interconnected —and it is their

interactive effects that represent the most acute danger. This point is stressed by Thomas Homer-Dixon: "Its the convergence of stresses that's especially treacherous and makes synchronous failure a possibility as never before. In coming years, our societies won't face one or two major challenges at once, as usually happened in the past. Instead, they will face an alarming variety of problems—likely including oil shortages , climate change , economic instability , and mega-terrorism —all at the same time." The danger is that several of these threats will materialize at the same time and interact to generate greater violence and instability "What happens, for example, if together or in quick succession the world has to deal with a sudden shift in climate that sharply cuts food production in Europe and Asia, a severe oil price increase that sends economies tumbling around the world, and a string of major terrorist attacks on several Western capital cities?"16 The global order itself would be put at risk, as well as the foundations of American national security. What unites these threats and challenges, as I noted in chapter 7, is that they are all manifestations of rising security interdependence. More and more of what goes on in other countries matters for the health and safety of the United States and the rest of the world. Many of the new dangers—such as health pandemics and transnational terrorist violence— stem from the weakness of states rather than their strength. At the same time, technologies of violence are evolving, providing opportunities for weak states or nonstate

groups to threaten others at a greater distance. When states are in a situation of security interdependence, they cannot go it alone . They must negotiate and cooperate with other states and seek mutual restraints and protections. The United States

cannot hide or protect itself from threats under conditions of rising security interdependence. It must get out in the world and work with other states to build frameworks of cooperation and leverage capacities for action . If the world of the twenty-first century were a town, the security threats faced by its leading citizens would not be organized crime or a violent assault by a radical mob on city hall. It would be a breakdown of law enforcement and social services in the face of constantly changing and ultimately uncertain vagaries of criminality, nature, and circumstance. The neighborhoods where the leading citizens live can only be made safe if the security and well-being of the beaten-down and troubled neighborhoods were also improved. No neighborhood can be left: behind. At the same time, the town will need to build new capacities for social and economic protection. People and groups will need to cooperate in new and far-reaching ways. But the larger point is that today the United States confronts an unusually diverse and diffuse array of threats and challenges. When we try to imagine what the premier threat to the United States will be in 2020 or 2025, it is impossible to say with any confidence that it

will be X, Y, or Z. Moreover, even if we could identify X, Y, or Z as the premier threat around which all others turn, it is likely to be complex and interlinked with lots of other international moving parts. Global pandemics are connected to failed states, homeland security, international public health capacities, et cetera. Terrorism is related to the Middle East peace process, economic and political development, nonproliferation, intelligence cooperation, European social and immigration policy, et cetera. The rise of China is related to alliance cooperation, energy security,

democracy promotion, the WTO, management of the world economy, et cetera. So again, we are back to renewing and rebuilding the architecture of global governance and frameworks of cooperation to allow the United States to marshal resources and tackle problems along a wide and shifting spectrum of possibilities. Pg. 350-353

Global cooperation solves great power war Herd 10 (Graeme, Head of the International Security Programme, Co-Director of the International Training Course in Security Policy, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2010, “Great Powers: Towards a “cooperative competitive” future world order paradigm?,” in Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the 21st Century, p. 197-198)

Given the absence of immediate hegemonic challengers to the US (or a global strategic catastrophe that could trigger US precipitous

decline), and the need to cooperate to address pressing strategic threats - the real question is what will be the nature of relations between these Great Powers? Will global order be characterized as a predictable interdependent one-world system , in which shared strategic threats create interest-based incentives and functional benefits which drive cooperation

between Great Powers? This pathway would be evidenced by the emergence of a global security agenda based on nascent similarity across national policy agendas . In addition. Great Powers would seek to cooperate by strengthening multilateral partnerships in institutions (such as

the UN, G20 and regional variants), regimes (e.g., arms control, climate and trade), and shared global norms, including international law . Alternatively, Great Powers may rely less on institutions, regimes and shared norms, and more on increasing their order-producing

managerial role through geopolitical-bloc formation within their near neighborhoods. Under such circumstances, a re-division of the world into a competing mercantilist nineteenth-century regional order emerges 17 World order would be characterized more by hierarchy and balance of power and zero-sum principles than by interdependence. Relative power shifts that allow a return to multipolarity - with three or more evenly matched powers - occur gradually. The transition from a bipolar in the Cold War to a unipolar moment in the post-Cold War has been crowned, according to Haass, by an era of non-polarity, where power is diffuse — "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power"18 Multilateralism is on the rise, characterized by a combination of stales and international organizations, both influential and talking shops, formal and informal ("multilateralism light"). A dual system of global governance has evolved. An embryonic division of labor emerges, as groups with no formal rules or permanent structures coordinate policies and immediate reactions to crises, while formal

treaty-based institutions then legitimize the results.'9 As powerfully advocated by Wolfgang Schauble: Global cooperation is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own, nor can the entire international community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work together to find appropriate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.20 Highlighting the emergence of what he terms an "interpolar" world - defined as "multipolarity in an age of interdependence" —

Grevi suggests that managing existential interdependence in an unstable multipolar world is the key.21 Such complex interdependence generates shared interest in cooperative solutions, meanwhile driving convergence, consensus and accommodation between Great Powers.22 As a result, the multilateral system is being adjusted to reflect the realities of a global age - the rise of emerging powers and relative decline of the West: "The new priority is to maintain a complex balance between multiple states."23 The G20 meeting in London in April 2009 suggested that great and rising powers will reform global financial architecture so that it regulates and supervises global markets in a more participative, transparent and responsive manner: all countries have contributed to the crisis; all will be involved in the solution.24

***Fiscal Discipline DA Aff Answers***

Budget Deficits High Now – 2acTrump’s budget destroys US fiscal health and national security MacGuiness 5/12/17 (Maya, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan organization committed to educating the public about issues that have significant fiscal-policy impact, "Declaring War on Fiscal Responsibility," http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/05/12/declaring_war_on_fiscal_responsibility_110243.html)

The United States faces both security and fiscal threats. However, lawmakers continue to deploy a budget gimmick to increase military spending without paying for it. Increasing the national debt and blasting a hole through the federal budget is not a defensible strategy. In March, the Trump administration requested defense funding above the limits set in law for the rest of this fiscal year. Congress agreed on about $14 billion in additional funding by exploiting a budget loophole in the new omnibus spending package to circumvent the spending cap by designating the extra funds as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) spending. Unfortunately, this is not a new tactic. Congress did the same thing when President Obama requested defense spending above the cap in the fiscal year 2016 budget. OCO is intended for war-related spending. But in both 2016 and 2017 Congress included items from the regular defense budget not directly related to war costs. This budgetary sleight of hand threatens both our national security and our fiscal integrity. Instead of directly supporting troops in harm’s way, it provides cover for spending that would not pass muster under the normal rules. Moreover,

this gimmick is threatening to become the new normal. Going forward, policymakers must stand their ground and repulse these attacks on fiscal responsibility . There are no criteria for or limits on what can be designated as OCO funding, nor is this process subject to the budget caps both parties agreed to under the Budget Control Act. As a result, it is tempting for Congress to include activities not related to war operations under this banner in order to circumvent the spending limits. But using a war spending account as a slush fund creates a dangerous precedent that could unravel the defense budget caps going forward. While designating spending as OCO effectively puts it off budget for purposes of budget rules, the resulting increased spending still adds to the deficit. As Congress gears up to battle over fiscal year 2018 spending, lawmakers must guard against relying on the OCO slush fund again. There will be much temptation to do so since President Trump is asking for a $54 billion increase in military spending above the limit. There is already talk of designating this increase as OCO instead of passing legislation to increase the cap and pay for it. Lawmakers should not sound a retreat on fiscal discipline, but, instead, pursue a more responsible way forward. If they feel that the cuts imposed by sequestration do not allow enough spending to meet our national security needs, they should acknowledge the cost of reversing the caps. Congress should be transparent about the costs of the increased spending and find a way to offset them, rather than adding to the deficit. The 2013 Ryan-Murray budget deal offers a template. That package combined short-term sequester relief with savings that improved longer-term sustainability. This is how budgeting is supposed to work — making tradeoffs in order to fund priorities — instead of using gimmicks. In addition to agreeing on — and paying for — an acceptable level of funding for the defense budget, Congress and the president should agree on limits for war spending. They should also limit what can be designated under OCO to spending directly related to combat operations or in support of activities in theaters of combat. Budget trickery is no way to fund our military. Not only does the war spending gimmick increase the debt, it also fails to provide a predictable path for long-term defense planning. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen (Ret.) has said that the national debt

is the biggest security threat facing the country. Escalating the already unsustainable long-term debt in the name of national security is counterproductive.

Budget Deficits High Now – 1arDeficits inevitable - Trump's budget doesn't solve Lockwood 5/24/17 (Frank, Columnist @ Arkansas Online, "Budget cuts alarm advocates for poor," http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/may/24/budget-cuts-alarm-advocates-for-poor-20/?f=news-arkansas)

U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Rogers, said changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are necessary, but aren't enough to fix Washington's budget woes. "The budget signals a desire to make needed reforms to major programs like SNAP and Medicaid, but ignores the primary drivers of the deficit and debt -- runaway entitlement programs," Womack said. "Any attempt to balance the books of the Federal Government without addressing entitlement reform is unrealistic ."

US deficit and debt situation getting worse now – historically high Boccia 5/23/17 (Romina, deputy director of Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at The Heritage Foundation, "A Fiscal Storm Is Brewing: US Public Debt to Grow to 150% of GDP By 2047 If No Changes," http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/romina-boccia/fiscal-storm-brewing-us-public-debt-grow-150-gdp-2047-if-no-changes)

A fiscal storm has been brewing over America for years, and things are only getting worse . Publicly held debt—the debt the U.S. is borrowing from credit markets (as opposed to debt owed to federal trust funds like Social Security)—is at its highest level as a percentage of gross domestic product since World War II.

Spending Helps the Dollar – 2acFiscal stimulus and spending BOOSTS the dollar Domm 5/22/17 (Patti, Columnist @ CNBC, "Trump has officially become a negative for the US dollar," http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/trump-has-officially-become-a-negative-for-the-us-dollar.html)

"Something constructive on the U.S. fiscal front would be a much more powerful tonic for [dollar] support .

However, domestic politics has seriously curtailed, although by no means completely extinguished expectations of a U.S. fiscal stimulus," Ruskin wrote in a note. He added that the dollar will have a hard time recovering ahead of Comey's testimony. Sinche

also said a fiscal boost , like the sudden effort to push tax cuts, would be a big positive for the dollar .

Spending Helps the Dollar – 1arIncreased federal spending STRENGTHENS the dollar Jolly 5/24/17 (Jasper, Economics Reporter @ City AM, "The rise and fall of Trump's dollar: Six months on and political chaos has put the greenback back where it started," http://www.cityam.com/265323/rise-and-fall-trumps-dollar-six-months-and-political-chaos)

The dollar’s surge came because of Trump’s promises to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure while cutting taxes at the same time. A week after the election result the dollar broke through to 13-year highs. While the Republican party has made the classic supply side argument that tax cuts for the wealthy will pay for themselves by boosting growth (and therefore tax receipts) most economists and investors guessed the combination would result in a big fiscal expansion and inflation: "Trumpflation" was born. Higher government spending would also boost the private sector in classic Keynesian style. American indices have duly hit fresh record highs with almost tiring regularity.

Dollar Collapsing Now – 2acDollar collapse coming now Bruno 5/7/17 (Alessandro, Financial Analyst @ Lombardi Letter, "U.S. Dollar Collapse Is Coming Despite Widespread Optimism," https://www.lombardiletter.com/u-s-dollar-collapse-is-coming-despite-widespread-optimism/11140/)

A U.S. Dollar Collapse Timeline The U.S. dollar started 2017 by making some bullish moves against its main rival currency, the euro. But, given the European political and economic risks at stake, the Greenback should have shown far greater strength. Instead, it has never managed to reach the parity that so many had expected, because of the Federal Reserve’s nominal interest-rate increases. A U.S. dollar collapse has started to become a real possibility. Any dollar collapse predictions naturally raise two questions: 1) When will the dollar collapse happen? and 2) What will make it happen? Indeed, you would be right to worry about a dollar collapse in 2017. In January, anyone suggesting that the dollar would crash in 2017 would have faced skepticism, if not outright derision. The weakness of the euro and the mountain of existential risks that it faces simply in staying afloat acted as an injection of confidence in the dollar. Brexit is proving to be complicated. The United Kingdom, which is not even part of the eurozone, will have to pay a huge bill to divorce the European Union (EU). The U.K. also faces an uncertain future. That’s regardless of how confidently British Prime Minister Theresa May presents herself in meetings with her European counterparts. The U.K. will have to pay anywhere from $65.0 billion to $88.0 billion, said European Commission (EC) President Jean-Claude Juncker. (Source: “Brexit’s Costs and Whether Britain Will Pay Up: QuickTake Q&A,” Bloomberg, May 4, 2017.) You might be wondering what the U.K. and the eurozone have to do with the dollar. It turns out they have quite a bit to do with it. Surely, the two countries that have the highest reserves of U.S. dollars, Japan and China could make a U.S. dollar collapse happen tomorrow, even today. They can simply sell large chunks of their holdings of U.S. treasury bonds. China owns over a trillion dollars’ worth of U.S. treasury bonds, but Japan owns even more: $1.2 trillion. China does not want the U.S. dollar to go too high, because it would exacerbate the country’s capital outflow problem. China’s yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar, and its central bank is trying to keep the yuan from going too high, in order to encourage exports. China has long ago stopped being the most advantageous place to do business. It has to contend with competition from other emerging Asian economies that offer even lower production costs. Japan, on the other hand, does want a high dollar, to make its high-quality products as competitive as they are attractive to American consumers. Japan has become far less dependent on a weaker yen than in the 1980s or 1990s. Japanese companies make a number of products in the United States, thus reducing the dollar’s impact. As a U.S. ally that is at a heightened level of security—given the situation in North Korea—Japan might be less inclined to prop up the dollar. This puts it in a rare situation of agreement with China. Therefore, the two largest holders of U.S. debt have few incentives to see the dollar go higher. A U.S. dollar collapse scenario would benefit neither China or Japan. For starters, a dollar collapse would represent the symptom of a wider financial crisis or outright economic collapse. The trouble is, that’s just what could happen.

USDollarWeakerthanExpected_Chart (002) Will the U.S. Dollar Collapse Despite Widespread Optimism? A dollar collapse is starting to look likely, if not inevitable . Considering the political turmoil in Europe, including the difficult Brexit proceedings in the

U.K. and the various elections on the continent, the Greenback should be propped up. At the time of writing, however, the dollar was trading at about 1.09 to the euro. The dollar had a chance at parity, but it’s slipping away.

Dollar Collapsing Now – 1arTrump and political scandals killing the dollar now Domm 5/22/17 (Patti, Columnist @ CNBC, "Trump has officially become a negative for the US dollar," http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/trump-has-officially-become-a-negative-for-the-us-dollar.html)

If the president is the standard bearer for the currency, Donald Trump himself will have to stop being a negative in order to get the dollar back on its feet. Boosted by the Trump trade, the dollar had soared after his election on the prospect that lower taxes, fiscal stimulus, and deregulation would boost the U.S. economy. But that trade has reversed, and the dollar index is now down 6.6 percent from its post-election high and down 0.9 percent since the election. "The Trump premium in the dollar has become a Trump discount. Global capital just doesn't feel safe coming to the U.S .," said Robert Sinche, chief global strategist at Amherst Pierpont. Besides the worries about the U.S., the dollar has been falling particularly hard against the euro, which is rallying on an improved outlook for the euro zone economy as well as expectation the European Central Bank will pull away from easy policies. The Trump trade in the greenback has evaporated, as Washington became engulfed in the investigation into whether the Trump campaign had ties to Russia. The concern is Congress and the White House are too distracted to push through a new health care bill and then get to work on tax reform, which had been a positive catalyst for stocks. J.P. Morgan global strategists studied investor positioning in a range of asset classes and stock sectors. "We conclude that there is little unwinding left to be done from here from the previous post-election build-up of Trump policy related positions," the analysts wrote in a note. In fact, they say the trades reversed even before the latest wave of negative news for Trump emerged last week, when there was a daily barrage of negative headlines. There was the naming of an independent counsel to investigate his campaign's ties to Russia. News reports also said the investigation had found a person of interest among the president's top aides in the White House. Even before that, there were reports that when Trump met with Russian diplomats in the White House, he reportedly revealed classified information to them, as well as told them that former FBI director James Comey was a "nut job." Sinche said the dollar's decline could be reversed, in part by central banks if the European Central Bank does not move away from its easy policies June 8 and the Fed raises interest rates, as expected June 15. "I think it's been the whole issue of what is his policy. Are we moving anywhere on tax reform? The whole monetary, fiscal policy mix? People thought it was going to be a very expansionary fiscal policy and a tightening monetary policy, and it's all up in the air," said Sinche. Trump is currently on his first overseas trip as president, so the news focus has been more on that and less on the investigation this week. "He's having a good trip so far. He stayed on script. These things could correct themselves, but once you get skepticism,

once you lose confidence, it's awfully hard to get it back ," he said. Some analysts say the dollar will be stuck until Comey testifies before Congress after the Memorial Day holiday. Comey reportedly said that Trump asked him to end his investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser at the center of the investigation. "It's a turning point if they think it will lead to worse things for Trump. If it's better, you get a little bit of a relief rally," he said.

Global Cooperation Low Now – 2acTrump kills global cooperation - Korea, Syria, NATO, UN, climate policyKhor 5/24/17 (Martin, Columnist @ The Wire, "Why Trump’s First 100 Days Are a Serious Cause for Concern," https://thewire.in/127990/trumps-first-100-days-a-serious-cause-for-concern/)

This week, Donald Trump will mark his first 100 days as US President. It’s time to assess his impact on the world, especially the developing countries. It’s too early to form firm conclusions. But much of what we have seen so far is of serious concern. Recently there have been many U-turns from Trump. He had indicated that the US should not be dragged into foreign wars but on April 6 he attacked Syria with missiles, even though there was no clear evidence to back the charge that the Assad regime was responsible for using chemical weapons. Then his military dropped what is described as the biggest ever non-nuclear bomb in a quite highly-populated district in Afghanistan. Critics explain that this flexing of military might be aimed at the domestic constituency, as nothing is more guaranteed to boost a president’s popularity and prove his muscular credentials than bombing an enemy. Perhaps the actions were also meant to create fear in the leaders of North Korea. But North Korea threatens to counter-attack with conventional or nuclear bombs if it is attacked by the US, and it could mean what it says. Martin Khor. Credit: IPS Martin Khor. Credit: IPS Trump himself threatens to bomb North Korea’s nuclear facilities. With two leaders being so unpredictable, we might unbelievably be on a verge of a nuclear war. As the Financial Times’ commentator Gideon Rachman remarked, there is the danger that Trump has concluded that military action is the key to the “winning” image he promised his voters. “There are members of the president’s inner circle who do indeed believe that the Trump administration is seriously contemplating a ‘first strike’ on North Korea. But if Kim Jong Un has drawn the same conclusion, he may reach for the nuclear trigger first.” The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says that the most frightening nightmare is Trump blundering into a new Korean war. It could happen when Trump destroys a test missile that North Korea is about to launch, and the country might respond by firing artillery at Seoul with a population of 25 million. He cites General Gary Luck, a former commander of American forces in South Korea, as estimating that a new Korean war could cause one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage. Let us all hope and pray that this nightmare scenario does not become reality. This may be the most unfortunate trend of the Trump presidency. Far from the expectation that he would retreat from being the world policeman and turn inward to work for “America First”, the new president may find that fighting wars or at least unleashing missiles and bombs on third world countries may “make America great again”. This may be easier than winning domestic battles like replacing former president Obama’s health care policy or banning visitors or refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, an order that has been countered by the courts. But the message that people from certain groups or countries are not welcome in the US is having an effect: recent reports indicate a decline in tourism and foreign student applications to the US. Another flip-flop was on NATO. Trump condemned it for being obsolete, but recently hailed it for being “no longer obsolete,” to his Western allies’ great relief. Another note-worthy but welcome about-turn was when the US president conceded that China is after all not a currency manipulator. On the campaign trail, he had vowed to name China such a manipulator on day one of his presidency, to be followed up with imposing a 45% tariff on Chinese products. Trump continues to be obsessed by the US trade deficit, and to him China is the main culprit, with a $347 billion trade surplus versus the US. The US-China summit in Florida on April 7-8 cooled relations between the two big powers. “I believe lots of very potentially bad problems will be going away,” Trump said at the summit’s end. The two countries agreed to a proposal by Chinese President Xi Jinping to have a 100-day plan to increase US exports to China and reduce the US trade deficit. For the time being the much anticipated US-China trade war is off the radar. But it is by no means off altogether. Trump has asked his commerce secretary Wilbur Ross to prepare a report within 90 days on the US’s bilateral trade deficits with its trading partners, and whether any of them is caused by dumping, cheating, subsidies, free trade agreements, currency misalignment and even unfair WTO rules. Once Trump has the analysis, he will be able to take action to correct any anomalies, said Ross. We can thus expect the Trump administration to have a blueprint on how to deal with each country with a significant trade surplus with the US. If carried out, this would be an unprecedented exercise by an economic super-power to pressurise and intimidate its trade partners to curb their exports to and expand their imports from the US, or else face action. During the 100-day period, Trump did not carry out his threats to impose extra tariffs on Mexico and China. He did fulfil his promise to pull the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) but he has yet to show seriousness about revamping the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A threat to the trade system could come from a tax reform bill being prepared by Republican congress leaders. The original paper contains a “trade adjustment” system with the effect of taxing US imports by 20% while exempting US exports from corporate tax. If such a bill is passed, we can expect a torrent of criticism from the rest of the world, many cases against the US at the WTO and retaliatory action by several countries. Due to opposition from several business sectors in the US, it is possible that this trade-adjustment aspect could eventually be dropped or at least modified considerably. In any case, as the new US trade policy finds its shape, the first 100 days of Trump has spread a cold protectionist wind around the world. On another issue, the icy winds have quickly turned into action, and caused international consternation. Trump has moved to shred Obama’s climate change policy. He proposed to cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 31% and eliminate climate change research and prevention programmes throughout the federal government. The EPA, now led by a climate change skeptic, was ordered to revise its standards on tailpipe pollution from vehicles and review the Clean Power Plan, which was the centre-piece of Obama’s policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The plan would have shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants, stop new coal plants and replace them with wind and solar farms. “The policy reversals also signal that Mr Trump has no intention of following through on Mr Obama’s formal pledges under the Paris accord,” said Coral Davenport in the New York Times. Under the Paris agreement, the US pledged to reduce its greenhouse gases by about 26% from 2005 levels by 2025. “That can be achieved only if the US not only implements the Clean Power Plan and tailpipe pollution rules but also tightens them or adds more policies in future years,” says Davenport. She quotes Mario Molina, a Nobel prize-winning scientist from Mexico, as saying: “The message clearly is, we won’t do what the US has promised to do…They don’t believe climate change is serious. It is shocking to see such a degree of ignorance from the US.” Will the US pull out of the Paris Agreement? An internal debate is reportedly taking place within the administration. If the country cannot meet and has no intention of meeting its Paris pledge, then it may find a convenient excuse to leave. Even if it stays on, the new US delegation can be expected to discourage or stop other countries from moving ahead with new measures and actions. There is widespread dismay about Trump’s intention to stop honouring the US pledge to

contribute $3 billion initially to the Green Climate Fund, which assists developing countries take climate actions. Obama had transferred the first billion, but there will be no more forthcoming from the Trump administration unless congress over-rules the president (which is very unlikely). Another adverse development, especially for developing countries, is Trump’s intention to downgrade the importance of international and development cooperation. In March Trump announced his proposed budget with a big cut of 28% or $10.9 billion for the UN and other international organisations, the state department and the US agency for international development, while by contrast the proposed military budget was increased by $54 billion. At about the same time, the UN humanitarian chief Stephen O’Brien urgently requested a big injection of donor funds to address the worst global humanitarian crisis since the end of the Second World War, with drought affecting 38 million people in 17 African countries. The US has for long been a leading contributor to humanitarian programmes such as the World Food program. In future, other countries will have to provide a greater share of disaster assistance, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. “The US is turning inward at a time when we are facing these unprecedented crises that require increasing US assistance,” according to Bernice Romero of Save the Children, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. “In 2016 the US contributed $6.4 billion in humanitarian assistance, the largest in the world. Cutting its funding at a time of looming famine and the world’s largest displacement crisis since the Second World War is really unconscionable and could really have devastating consequences.” Trump also proposed to cut the US contribution to the UN budget by an as yet unknown amount and pay at most 25% of UN peacekeeping costs. The US has been paying 22% of the UN’s core budget of $5.4 billion and 28.5% of the UN peacekeeping budget of $7.9 billion. Trump also proposed a cut of $650 million over three years to the World Bank and other multilateral development banks. The foreign affairs community in the US itself is shocked by the shortsightedness of the Trump measures and 121 retired US generals and admirals urged congress to fully fund diplomacy and foreign aid as these were critical to preventing conflict. The proposed Trump budget will likely be challenged at the congress which has many supporters for both diplomacy and humanitarian concerns. We will have to wait to see the final outcome. Nevertheless the intention of the president and his administration is clear and depressing. And instead of other countries stepping in to make up for the US’s decrease in aid, some may be tempted to likewise reduce their contributions. For example, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May in answer to journalists’ questions refused to confirm that the UK would continue its tradition of providing 0.7% of GNP as foreign aid. This has led the billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates to warn that a cut in UK aid, which currently is at 12 billion pounds, would mean more lives lost in Africa. Besides the

reduction in funding, the Trump foreign policy approach is also dampening the spirit and substance of international cooperation . For example, the President’s sceptical attitude towards global cooperation on climate change will adversely affect the overall global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to global warming.

Global Cooperation Low Now – 1arTrump kills human rights and global coop Murabit 5/10/17 (Alaa, physician, UN SDG global advocate, UN high-level commissioner, MIT Media Lab Director’s Fellow and the founder of The Voice of Libyan Women and The Omnis Institute, The Guardian, "Even in the age of Trump, I believe we can meet the global goals," https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/may/10/even-in-the-age-of-trump-i-believe-we-can-meet-the-global-goals)

The presidency of Trump, in the short-term, is proving to be awful for civil liberties, human rights and global cooperation . But in the long-term this crisis has created the opportunity for new coalitions. We are seeing completely new groups of people working together because they realise what we have to lose is much greater than our differences.

Special Ed Funding Trade-off DA

1nc ShellNo cuts to special education funding now, but it remains vulnerable to new spending proposals Samuels 3/16/17 (Christina, Staff @ Ed Week, "Special Education Funding Maintained in Trump Administration Budget Blueprint," http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2017/03/special_education_funding_maintained_in_trump_budget.html)

The "skinny" budget blueprint released by the Trump administration Thursday would maintain current spending levels for special education—about $13 billion, most of which is money sent directly to states. The budget blueprint is just the beginning of a long process. While this document shows the administration's priorities, it is Congress that ultimately passes spending legislation. And lawmakers have their own ideas about what programs should be cut, and which should be kept. But, if these funding amounts were to stay in place, the federal contribution for special education and related services would be about 16 percent of the excess costs of educating a student with a disability, compared to a general education student. In 1975, when the federal government passed the law that was to become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress authorized paying states up to 40 percent of the excess costs of educating a student with disabilities, based on national per-pupil expenditures. But in the 40-plus years of the law's existence, the federal government has never gotten close to meeting that goal. The Trump administration is not different from other administrations in that regard. The budget blueprint shows that the Education Department, at least right now , is not planning to cut special education in order to fund its other goals, which include a $1.4 billion increase in school choice, which would include $250 million for a new private school choice program, and $168 million increase for a program aimed at supporting charter school expansion.

Plan costs money/insert specific link

Education funding is zero-sum – plan causes trade-offs McCann 14 (Clare, senior policy analyst with New America's Education Policy program, "‘Unaccompanied Children’ Crisis Has Implications for Education Budget," 7/22, https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/unaccompanied-children-crisis-implications-education-budget/)

That’s where the trouble starts for education spending. In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA), implementing a series of spending caps to limit federal appropriations funding over the next decade. Under the BCA regime, funding is zero-sum , because absent congressional action (like lifting or removing the caps), the limits hold for all appropriations. So once the HHS funding for unaccompanied children is wrapped into the regular appropriations--rather than counted as emergency funding, which isn’t subject to the spending caps--every dollar directed to that cause will be counted against the overall appropriations limit. And since the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education are all funded in one package by Congress, the trade-offs in funding will likely come from within those agencies . If the problem continues to grow, funding for the immigration crisis could eat into the federal budget for education programs.

Undercutting special education decks US human rights obligations Porter 16 (Joseph, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, "How is special education an equity and human rights issue?," 4/20, https://www.quora.com/How-is-special-education-an-equity-and-human-rights-issue)

This depends on the society in which one lives. In our society it is believed that all individuals are entitled to a "free public education." This means that our government is obligated to provide each citizen access to at least a minimal level of education, usually taken to mean through grade 12. The idea is to empower each person to be able to seek the livelihood of their choice and to be a productive member of society. Children with mental (and physical) disabilities may not be able to function at a level compatible with the general educational system. In the past, these people were shunted aside and provided for - usually in a substandard way, and frequently without realizing that even the disabled can be productive if given the opportunity. It is thus felt that society owes it to these people to give them access to the best education they are capable of achieving, and doing this outside the standard educational system where they would possibly be subjected to derision by their "normal" peers. In the Special Education system, these students are nurtured so that they can become at least partly self sufficient, allowing them to develop a sense of dignity . In its most general sense, this obligation society assumes is based on the recognition that a disabled human being is still a human being, and is entitled to be treated as one with respect to efforts to integrate them into the society as a whole.

US human rights protections solves global WMD conflictBurke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis)

This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250]  indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990,

a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of

aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights . A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections . Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Uniqueness

Special Ed Being Funded NowSpecial education funding now - recent budget proposals prove Washington Times-Reporter 5/17/17 ("Trump’s first education budget: Deep cuts to public school programs," http://www.washingtontimesreporter.com/news/20170517/trumps-first-education-budget-deep-cuts-to-public-school-programs)

Under the administration’s budget, two of the department’s largest expenditures in K-12 education, special education and Title I funds to help poor children, would remain unchanged compared to federal funding levels in the first half of fiscal 2017. However, high-poverty schools are likely to receive fewer dollars than in the past because of a new law that allows states to use up to 7 percent of Title I money for school improvement before distributing it to districts.

Special ed funding protected now Washington Post 5/17/17 ("Trump’s first full education budget: Deep cuts to public school programs in pursuit of school choice," https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trumps-first-full-education-budget-deep-cuts-to-public-school-programs-in-pursuit-of-school-choice/2017/05/17/2a25a2cc-3a41-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.5c583e363174)

Liz Hill, an Education Department spokeswoman, emphasized that all figures are preliminary until officially released next week. Hill said that the proposed budget protects special-education funding , ensures careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars and demonstrates the administration’s “strong commitment to ensuring the Department of Education provides more educational options for low-income students.”

Trump hasn't cut special education funding yet Diament 3/17/17 (Michelle, Staff @ Disability Scoop, "Trump’s ‘Skinny Budget’ Sows Uncertainty For Disability Programs," https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2017/03/17/trumps-uncertainty-disability/23460/)

One area that’s not on Trump’s chopping block, however, is special education. The budget blueprint “maintains approximately $13 billion in funding” for programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Nonetheless, advocates say, it’s too early to tell what that might mean given the limited information in the skinny budget. “Is the funding flat in total for (IDEA) Part C, 619, Part B and Part D, or is the funding flat for just Part B and are the other elements of the law cut? We won’t know until the more formal budget comes out in May,” said Katy Beh Neas, executive vice president for public affairs at Easterseals.

A2 Special Ed Fails NowEducation funding is zero- sum – existing special ed programs are working, but remain under constant threat due to budgetary constraintsMcKenna 1/24/17 (Laura, Contributing Writer @ The Atlantic, "Is the Bar Too Low for Special Education?," https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/is-the-bar-too-low-for-special-education/514241/)

But a number of education groups maintain that, despite decreasing state and federal support, the public-school system is serving this population well. The Council of the Great City Schools, the School Superintendents Association (AASA), and the National School Boards Association supported the Douglas County School District in this case. Sasha Pudelski, a lobbyist for the AASA, denied the need

to increase the standards for special education, reasoning that “ the current system is working . Educators are aiming high. They are already doing plenty.” Citing the increased rates of inclusion of special-education kids in typical classrooms, as well as increasing graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates among such children, she said that educators “are devoting their lives to improving the lives of kids with disabilities”—even though they don’t always have all the best resources or know the best methods.” And when things aren’t working well, she added, the courts have stepped in appropriately. A higher standard of special education, Pudelski said, would only create chaos and increase litigation costs, diverting money from students to lawyers; school districts already spend $90 million a year on conflict resolution—most of which goes to special-education cases. The courts would be forced to evaluate educational quality, determine if kids are receiving equal services, and monitor student progress—decisions, she said, that are better left up to educators. Wealthy parents with the resources to hire lawyers are the ones who would benefit most. Moreover, according to Pudelski, a higher standard would weigh down on an “underfunded, overburdened system.” She said expenses for special education are already encroaching on general-education budgets, estimating the costs at roughly a quarter of those funds—though few states require districts to provide concrete data on these expenditures. Other populations in schools, including ESL students and students in poverty, also have high needs, she added, but don’t have the same protections as students with disabilities. “How will they fare if there is a heightened standards? We have to examine how all kids are being served.” Special-education students are red marks on the ledger. All this is happening in the context of decreasing funds for special education and education in general. The federal government never provided the 40 percent of special-education funding that it promised when it passed IDEA; right now, it’s only paying 16 percent of special-education costs. Meanwhile, school budgets keep getting tighter. Thirty-five states decreased per-pupil funding between 2008 and 2014. “School districts are in a world of pain. If we raise the standards of special education, it will mean less money for the general population. Superintendents have to

create a budget that benefits all kids. Funding for special-ed kids comes on the back of typical kids .” And there is little indication that funding for public schools or for special education in particular will increase with DeVos at the helm of the Department of

Education. “If we want to see better results for special-ed kids, better outcomes, better IEPs, greater adherence to the law,” Pudelski said, “ we need the dollars .”

Links and Internals

School Lunch LinksFederal school nutrition regulations are costly – take huge bites out of education fundingWolfgang 11 (Ben, Staff @ Wash Times, "‘Healthier’ school lunch at what cost?," 5/16, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:71upB-TAB50J:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/healthier-school-lunch-at-what-cost/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

If the federal government gets its way, critics are warning, school lunches will be more expensive and less appetizing and ultimately will leave school districts footing the bill for costly food going down the garbage disposal. Under regulations proposed this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would have the final say on what students eat. Educators fear the guidelines,

trumpeted by first lady Michelle Obama and others as a key to curbing childhood obesity, will take a huge bite out of school budgets while resulting in “healthier” meals that make youngsters turn up their noses. “Under the proposed rule, school meals would become so restrictive they would be unpalatable to many students,” said Karen Castaneda, director of food service at Pennridge School District in Perkasie, Pa. For example, Ms. Castaneda said, the proposed sodium restrictions for student lunches resemble diets previously reserved for those battling serious illnesses such as kidney disease. The rules also would require students to eat more fruits and vegetables, forcing schools to serve extra apples and broccoli even if experience shows that children can’t - or won’t - eat them. Breakfast programs are especially worrisome. “The proposal will double the fruit serving … [and] would add a required meat serving daily,” said Sally Spero, food planning supervisor for the San Diego Unified School District. “Nothing is achieved when money is spent on food that children won’t even be able to consume and nothing is more disheartening … than to see perfectly good and perfectly untouched food thrown into the trash.” The regulations would also require schools to spend more money for fresh fruits and vegetables. Many districts now serve cheaper canned fruits or frozen vegetables.

School nutrition regs are massive unfunded mandates – substantially raise educational costs Wolfgang 11 (Ben, Staff @ Wash Times, "‘Healthier’ school lunch at what cost?," 5/16, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:71upB-TAB50J:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/healthier-school-lunch-at-what-cost/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

What the government sees as a drive for more nutritious meals, some in the states see as an unfunded mandate from Washington . Ms. Castaneda said her district’s food budget, including breakfast and lunch programs, would increase by

$111,234 under the guidelines taking shape. Federal school lunch program reimbursements would cover $32,460, leaving the Pennridge district little choice but to raise lunch prices to come up with the remaining $78,774. “ Our concern is that the proposed regulation may result in having the opposite effect to that which it desires, driving up costs and driving

children … out of the program,” said Barry Sackin, owner of B. Sackin and Associates, a consulting firm specializing in school nutrition. Many of those issues received an airing at a House subcommittee hearing last week at which Mr. Sackin, Ms. Castaneda and Ms. Spero all testified. Some House Republicans have raised questions over whether the Obama administration has overstepped its authority in trying to dictate nutritional and other values for local school lunch programs. After President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act last year, Agriculture Department officials began crafting the new dietary rules, which remain under internal review. While supporting healthy food for students, Mr. Sackin said, the proposed rule strives for perfection by sacrificing the “very good.” “Unfortunately, there is a perception that if we fix school meals we can fix childhood obesity. But the reality is that school meals are already the healthiest meals that many children eat,” he told lawmakers. “The fact that too many children start school already overweight certainly suggests that schools aren’t the cause.” The American Association of School Administrators has called the plan a “direct unfunded mandate” imposed on school districts . The National School Boards Association on Friday

released a statement saying it is “ gravely concerned about the financial impact the law could have on school districts at a time when many are in dire economic straits.” “Two years after implementation, the cost of a school breakfast may increase by more than 25 cents. The cost of a school lunch will have increased by more than 7 cents,” said Rep.

Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who chairs the House subcommittee focusing on primary and secondary education issues. “ The total compliance costs will reach $6.8 billion by 2016 , costs that will fall heavily on states and schools.” Mr. Hunter obtained his figures from the Agriculture Department’s analysis of the proposed rules. “Let me be clear: We all want to combat child hunger and improve the health and well-being of low-income families,” Mr. Hunter said. “However, we should reject the false choice between our support of child nutrition and the critical need to rein in the size and cost of the federal government.”

Education Spending = Zero-SumEducation funding is a zero-sum game - spending caps ensure trade-offs Miller 15 (Ben, Education Policy Analyst @ Center for American Progress, "Capped Out," 9/22, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2015/09/22/121671/capped-out/)

When it comes time to produce appropriations bills, congressional committee members must figure out how to divide up their overall allocation among their 12 subcommittees. The dollar amount they pick for each subcommittee, which is known more formally as a 302(b) allocation, dictates the maximum amount of money that group can spend for the next fiscal year. Due to the small number of subcommittees, each of these 302(b) allocations sets the maximum spending amount for several federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of Education shares the same 302(b) allocation with the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with some other smaller agencies. The federal budget process thus creates a series of cascading zero-sum games once the overall spending level is set. Different 302(b)

allocations compete amongst each other for money ; within the same spending cap, multiple agencies have to fight with each other for funding. This competition is further exacerbated because Congress tends to treat all discretionary spending as either defense or nondefense related. This automatically pits every nondefense program against the others for funds from the same pot .

New spending under Trump will be zero-sumBerke and Nudelman 3/16/17 (Jeremy and Mike, Columnists @ Business Insider, "Here are the biggest winners and losers in Trump's first budget," http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-winners-losers-2017-3)

Trump promised during the 2016 campaign to make the government smaller — and, as with any budget, it's a zero- sum game . Though Trump's own secretary of defense warned that cutting the State Department's budget would force him to "buy more

ammunition," the money ultimately has to come from somewhere for Trump to avoid increasing federal debt.

A2 Special Ed Funding Won’t Be CutSpecial education funding would be a likely target – it’s on the chopping block under Trump Samuels 3/7/17 (Christina, Staff @ Ed Week, "When Will We Have a New Federal Special Education Chief? (And Why It Matters)," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c_HHdztUEz0J:blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2017/03/when_will_we_have_a_new_federa.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Representatives of special education and disability advocacy groups that I interviewed aren't worried about the competence of the career staff who are managing the department. But they are worried about what they're hearing from the Trump administration and from department leadership. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos faced sharp questioning about special education during her confirmation hearing and seemed unfamiliar with policy, raising the ire of many parents of children with disabilities. In recent days, the president has said he wants to make billions of dollars in domestic spending cuts. Without a political supporter in the Education Department, advocates fear special education funding could be on the chopping block , along with other programs.

Spending fights put federal special education funding at risk McKenna 3/18/17 (Laura, Contributing Writer @ The Atlantic, 3/18, "The Worst Victims of the Education Sequester: Special-Needs Students and Poor Kids," https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-worst-victims-of-the-education-sequester-special-needs-students-and-poor-kids/274087/)

Localities are obligated by law to provide services to special education students, however the law is vague about the quality and amount of services. Special needs kids may receive less speech therapy or be crammed into crowded, unsafe classrooms, as a result of these cuts. These cuts could also have more subtle consequences: School districts could be reluctant to classify kids with less severe disabilities if they foresee cuts for these programs. Also, local districts may be forced to reduce services for non-special needs kids in areas like art and music to make up for the budget gap. School districts are already straining under the high cost of educating special-needs kids, and even without the cuts, Washington has never funded special education at levels that were originally promised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. School districts are in for some ugly fights as they plan for the 2013-1014 budget year.

Parents of special-needs and disadvantaged kids hold their breath and hope that their children's education isn't a casualty of Washington's absurd budget wars .

Other Impacts

Public Health Impact – 2ncDenying special education access and opportunities constitutes an egregious violation of international human rights and undermines global public health HRW 15 (Human Rights Watch, "HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH SHARES INFO ON RIGHTS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES TO EDUCATION WITH UN COMMITTEE," 4/20, http://www.usicd.org/index.cfm/news_human-rights-watch-shares-info-on-rights-of-children-with-disabilities-to-education-with-un-committee)

Girls and boys with disabilities continue to be discriminated against and “disproportionately” denied their right to education , compared with children without disabilities.[8] This is in spite of existing human rights obligations that protect the right to free and compulsory primary education , as well as global development efforts to enroll all girls and boys in primary school, spurred by the United Nations Millennium Development Goal to ensure that “by 2015, children everywhere, girls and boys alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.”[9] Globally, it is difficult to estimate how many children with disabilities of primary and lower-secondary school-going age are out of school,[10] though they are considered “among the most disadvantaged” in terms of missing out on education, are often “invisible” in the data, and are often overlooked even in programs targeting out-of-school children.[11] According to UNESCO and UNICEF, many countries that report achieving “universal primary enrollment,” have left out children with disabilities,[12] particularly children with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, children with autism spectrum disorders and children with multiple disabilities who often face discrimination and complex barriers to enrolling in any type of school. The recent global focus on primary education has also left a significant gap in reporting on the implementation of the right to secondary education of children with disabilities. The rate of transition to secondary and higher education for children with disabilities is significantly lower than for their non-disabled peers.[13] Many children with disabilities have not been able to access secondary education on an equal basis with other children, often because of a lack of inclusive secondary schools; the lack of reasonable accommodations in both primary and secondary education[14]; and where schools and teachers hold negative attitudes of what older children with disabilities can or cannot do beyond compulsory education,[15] including through limitations on the choice of subjects or skills programs available to people with disabilities.

[16] Discrimination in access to education for children with disabilities, particularly for older children, has profound individual and public health effects . In Zambia, for example, Human Rights Watch found that children with disabilities are

significantly more likely to have never attended school,[17] and even when they are able to attend, they lack effective access to HIV prevention information disseminated in schools. Special education teachers and children with disabilities are also typically not involved in extra-curricular HIV prevention initiatives. More broadly, HIV materials are not produced in simplified formats, braille, large print, or sign language symbols. 18] Human Rights Watch has also documented the particular impact that lack of menstrual hygiene management has on adolescent girls with disabilities and their access to secondary education.[19] In Nepal, for example, girls with disabilities often drop out of school once they reach puberty because there are no support services in schools to help them during their period.[20] The lack of a safe space to manage menstrual hygiene impacts all girls, but the difficulty that girls with disabilities have in moving, dressing, and using the bathroom independently increases their vulnerability to intrusive personal care or abuse, thereby discouraging them from going to school.[21] Access to education in humanitarian emergencies Globally, it is estimated that over 28.5 million primary-school-age children are out of school in conflict-affected countries.[22] Given the absence of reliable data in humanitarian crises, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many children with disabilities remain out of school in these contexts. In the Central African Republic, Human Rights Watch found that, prior to the conflict, children with sensory, psychosocial or intellectual disabilities rarely attended school, due in part, to limited educational options and inaccessible infrastructure. [23] For example, we found only one primary school for blind or deaf children in the capital, Bangui, which was vandalized during the conflict and was no longer functional. Currently, children with disabilities do not have access to education services provided through the internationally-led humanitarian response. For example, in one temporary school set up in a displacement camp, Human Rights Watch found that out of nearly 3,800 children enrolled, only 14 had mild physical or sensory disabilities. The director of the school told Human Rights Watch that the school was unable to accommodate children with sensory, psychosocial, or intellectual disabilities because teachers are not appropriately trained. Even children with physical disabilities are often unable to attend school due to lack of adequate seating and accommodations or because of parental concerns that they will be left behind in the case of an attack. Access to education for children living in institutions Human Rights Watch has recently documented cases of excessive institutionalization of persons with disabilities, a practice that continues to affect many children with disabilities and significantly limits their right to education. In India, for example, Human Rights Watch documented the involuntary admission and arbitrary detention of girls and women with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities in mental hospitals and residential care institutions across the country. Human Rights Watch found that once girls with disabilities are inside these institutions, they are not allowed to leave the premises and are often denied their legal right to education, in violation of India’s right to education law, which guarantees free and compulsory education for all 6 to 14 year olds in the country. In one case, Human Rights Watch found that in a residential care facility, housing 212 girls with and without disabilities, most girls with disabilities were not sent to school.[24] Although we also found a handful of cases where girls with mild intellectual disabilities living in institutions did go to school, a staff member still maintained, “It is no use sending girls with disabilities to school” because they do not learn much, as the curriculum is not adapted and special educators are not present.[25] In residential institutions, there is a notable lack of education and skills-based programs that result in girls not learning even basic life skills. In Russia, approximately 30 percent of children with disabilities live separately from their families in closed state institutions. Many are relinquished by their parents in orphanages as young children after state doctors pressure parents to give up custody, claiming that children will not develop or

that parents will be unable to care for them. Russian law guarantees equal access to education for all students, “given a diversity of special educational needs and individual capabilities.” Yet Human Rights Watch found that children with disabilities living in state orphanages often receive little or no education at all. Once in institutions, some children, particularly children with disabilities deemed to be especially severe by orphanage staff, are confined to separate rooms or wards known as “lying-down rooms” where they typically receive no education at all, based on institution staff’s convictions that children are not capable of developing or learning, or that leaving their cribs to engage in activity would endanger children’s health.[26] Other children receive some limited, usually individualized, education within the institution. 2. Failures to implement inclusive education in policy and practice Human Rights Watch has found that the meaning of “inclusive education” continues to be ill-defined or vaguely referenced in law, national policy, or national education plans. Inclusion focuses on promoting accessibility, identifying and removing barriers to learning, and changing practices and attitudes in mainstream schools to accommodate the diverse learning needs of individual students. However, the concept is often interpreted narrowly to refer to “special needs education” only. Even where governments may have inclusive education laws or policies, these often do not translate into widespread implementation. In a number of countries, Human Rights Watch has found that governments implement inclusive education plans in ad-hoc ways, seeing inclusive education as a way to integrate children with disabilities into the system rather than an opportunity to ensure all education institutions are able to adapt to and provide quality education to any student with diverse needs and abilities.[27] The Convention promotes the “goal of full inclusion”[28] while at the same time considering the “best interests of the child.”[29] Human Rights Watch research indicates that many governments continue to have a strong focus on specialized, separate education for children with disabilities, with limited meaningful inclusion in mainstream schools. This has often led to significant tension on what type of education is best for children with very different types of disabilities. In some cases, Human Rights Watch has found separate budgets intended for “inclusive education” are often used instead to finance special or segregated schools,[30]or that schools have used limited funds for inclusion only to waive miscellaneous fees, provide children with a small cash subsidy, or offer a cash incentive to motivate teachers to teach children with disabilities.[31] It is important that schools and education officials work with parents to consider the long-term consequences and benefits of placing a child in a specialized or a mainstream environment. Human Rights Watch has found cases where children who study in special schools catering to particular types of disabilities do not have equal opportunities to study core subjects, such as mathematics or sciences, which would allow them to proceed on to higher levels of education.[32] This constitutes an additional barrier for many children with disabilities who have the capacity[33] to pursue higher levels of education beyond vocational or technical training traditionally offered as an exit from special schools.[34] Human Rights Watch has found that the poorest families often have very limited or no access to information essential to making an informed decision on what school is best for their children.[35] Parents have told Human Rights Watch that they simply chose schools where they believed their children would be safe from discrimination or abuse by teachers and peers, or where they would have a marginally better experience with teachers who have some skills or knowledge of how to work with their children.[36] Human Rights Watch believes that the lack of meaningful choice faced by children with disabilities and parents constitutes a harmful barrier that limits the selection of the most appropriate educational setting for children. [37] 3. Failure to provide quality education Human Rights Watch has found that even when children with disabilities are in school, they often receive an inferior quality education that does not enable “the development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents, and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential,” as required by the Convention .[38 ] Often the degree to which children with disabilities benefit from quality education greatly depends on the type of school they enroll in, the size of their classroom, the student to teacher ratio, the resources available for schools that cater to children with disabilities, and the attitudes and skills of teachers, school staff, and other students.[39] Teachers are key stakeholders in any inclusive education system, but many are not provided with basic knowledge or understanding of disabilities and how to teach children with diverse abilities. Inclusive education plans have not always been accompanied by improvements and increase in resources dedicated to quality teaching to ensure teachers are provided with adequate training and skills to put inclusive education into practice. [40] Throughout our investigations, Human Rights Watch has found that teachers in mainstream schools often teach children with disabilities alongside 30-60 students, with no additional classroom support.[41] In large classrooms, teachers may focus only on students who can adapt to the classroom and follow the curriculum.[42] In some cases, rather than adapting school exams, teachers who are not adequately trained pass children even when they have difficulty taking oral or written exams because they cannot write or speak.[43] Such practices may result in failing performance and declining confidence, which only reinforces the effects of existing discrimination on students with disabilities. In China, for example, Human Rights Watch found that a large percentage of students with disabilities eventually drop out of school or move to special education schools because of these factors.[44] In India, the few girls with intellectual disabilities who Human Rights Watch found enrolled in government school often sat in classrooms with no specialized attention, support, or materials.[45] Good practices When parents and family members are fully informed about their children’s right to education and involved in decisions on the most appropriate education and setting for their children, Human Rights Watch has found that children with disabilities are able to overcome the multiple barriers that otherwise would prevent them from attending school and getting a quality education. [46] This is often the case where resources have been invested in creating greater awareness of the importance of sending children with disabilities to school , and where children and family members are fully involved in determining the type of school that is best for the child; and where parents regularly meet with teachers and other school staff to discuss children’s progress and any special measures adapted to support a child academically and socially.[47] To build an inclusive setting, it is important to establish formal mechanisms in schools at all levels for the active involvement of parents and children and young people with disabilities to secure their participation in decision-making and in monitoring the implementation of inclusive education. Ensuring children and parents of children with disabilities form part of school governing or equivalent decision-making bodies may present a key opportunity to promote inclusion at the school level. Community-based and national parent networks can serve as mutual support groups, act as advocates with schools and authorities, and provide greater visibility to issues affecting children with disabilities and their education.[48] 4. Reasonable accommodation in education Human Rights Watch has found that governments do not always implement “reasonable accommodation”[49] in ways that facilitate children’s accessibility or inclusion. Contrary to the obligations in the Convention, the burden is often on children and families to adapt to whatever service or type of education is available.[50] Physical barriers represent a significant barrier for many children with disabilities enrolled in mainstream or special schools, despite some relatively cost-effective ways to accommodate

children with physical or sensory disabilities and retro-fit buildings to make them accessible. In Russia, for example, Human Rights Watch found that children could not access mainstream schools due to a range of physical obstacles, including lack of ramps, elevators, or lifts. In some cases, parents are compelled to quit working in order to spend the school day with their children and carry them up and down stairs to attend classes. Many children and parents also reported a lack of accessible transportation and housing that prevented children from leaving home and attending school in their communities.[51] For children with disabilities, lack of sanitation at school can be a barrier to quality education. Human Rights Watch found in Nepal that schools do not have accessible toilets. Some children with disabilities who spoke with Human Rights Watch reported having to wait to go home to be able to use the bathroom or even to get their mothers from home every time they need to use the restroom, so their mothers could assist them. [52] Human Rights Watch found similar accessibility challenges in China, where some schools required parents to care for their children at school as a pre-condition of admitting the children particularly where children need to be accompanied to the bathroom.[53] Furthermore, children with sensory disabilities are significantly affected by the lack of provision of “most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication,”[54] which often reduces their opportunities to access higher education. Students who are hard of hearing told Human Rights Watch that they could not follow along because the teachers walked around while teaching and did not to provide written notes, and there was no sign language interpretation in most schools. Students who are blind or who have limited vision were not provided with magnified printed materials or tests.[55] In addition, with respect to university entrance exams, education authorities in China often fail to make accommodations or provide alternative evaluation methods for students with disabilities. Students who are hard-of-hearing were exempted from the listening portion of university entrance exams, but they were not exempted from the mandatory listening exams for the national College English Test administered by the Ministry of Education.[56] In contrast, in a positive move in 2014, the Chinese Education Ministry’s decided to provide Braille or electronic exams for national university entrance, though blind candidates who took part of the exams that year reported that they were still not given the appropriate type of exams to accommodate their specific needs.[57] Good practices In assessing “available resources” to guarantee “reasonable accommodation,” governments should recognize that inclusive education does not have to be costly or involve extensive infrastructural change and is a necessary investment in education systems . In some cases where resources are limited, schools can simply put classes attended by children with disabilities on the ground floor, so that those children have access both to the classrooms and the toilets. Even where structural modifications are necessary to ensure that buildings are physically accessible to people with disabilities, making the necessary adjustments usually costs only 1 percent of the overall building cost.[58]

Failing global public health risks extinction West-Oram and Buyx 16 (Peter and Alena, Division of Biomedical Ethics, Institute of Experimental Medicine @ Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, "Global Health Solidarity," https://academic.oup.com/phe/article/doi/10.1093/phe/phw021/2907908/Global-Health-Solidarity)

The costs of adequate, cooperative and solidaristic, responses to the emerging global health threats mentioned will be huge. However, the costs of failing to act will almost certainly be far greater . Further, these costs of failure no longer affect distant strangers, with rich donors having only abstract worries over potential risks. Instead, they pose an existential threat to all persons . In addition, the high costs and direct dangers of failure highlight the inadequacies of historical global health policy, and the need to acknowledge the role of global public goods in promoting individual and regional health.

Economy Impact – 2nc Special education vital to US and global economic strengthKerry 13 (John, former US Secretary of State, "Secretary Kerry on Disability and Development," https://www.humanrights.gov/dyn/secretary-kerry-on-disability-and-development.html)

Through our development agenda, we have a very important opportunity to show the world that we value everyone’s contributions, and that we leave no one behind, including those with disabilities. It is clear, and we have seen here in the United States over the last years, that we can make an enormous number of lives better in that process. The principle behind this is really very,

very simple: Our societies, all of our societies, are stronger when every single one of our citizens, able bodied and disabled alike, all get to live up to their full potential. And that’s why here in our country, many states have established standards, and they steadfastly enforce them – laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, which we passed in 1990 and we believe is really a gold standard with respect to how we treat people and how we open up the world for opportunities. We encourage the international community to look at, study, and, hopefully, emulate this law. Thanks to laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, nearly one in five Americans are now protected from disability-based discrimination, and all Americans benefit from the contributions of our fellow citizens with disabilities. We see this every day in everyday life in the workplace, in schools, in education all across our nation. Thanks to other groundbreaking non-discrimination laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, nearly 60 percent of students with disabilities are in general education classrooms for 80 percent or more of their school day. Nearly 350,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families now receive early intervention services. And more than 6.6 million children and youth receive special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs. This year the Federal Communications Commission issued the first-ever National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program in order to help meet the needs of deaf-blind individuals. And since then, hundreds of deaf-blind individuals have gained access to communication technologies through this program, allowing them to lead independent lives and stay connected with their family members and their friends. In too many countries, however, we still see the rights and the dignity that we have been blessed to be able to now almost take for granted, that it is not existent in many of those places. So as we work to ensure equal access to public spaces, communications technology, education, and more, and though we’ve seen progress internationally, everybody here knows that we still have a lot to do. Though disabled persons comprise 15 percent of the world, 8 in 10 live in developing countries. And there’s obvious reasons for that. And in those developing countries, 9 out of 10 children with disabilities don’t go to school. Compared with 5 or 10 years ago, many more countries now have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, and many more countries require buildings to be accessible. But all countries, we believe, can work harder to enforce these laws, and to ensure that disabled people have as much right and ability to access their

local supermarket or their school or even election booths. Frankly, this is as much an economic issue as it is a human rights issue . But it is also profoundly a family issue, a personal issue, and a moral issue. None of the change that is needed is possible without the partnerships that we’re building at the international level, including meetings like this, where the world can come together to learn from each other’s experience of how we can make rights a reality for disabled people. No one can forget, however, that the most important partnerships we build are, in the end, those that we build with persons with disabilities themselves. We cannot afford to forget that disabled individuals are not only the beneficiaries of development efforts and investments, but they are also leaders, and they are the agents of progress. And they do so on an equal basis with others.

Economic decline sparks nuclear war AND complicate every global impactLieberthal and O'Hanlon 12 (Kenneth and Michael, Senior Fellows in Foreign Policy @ Brookings, "The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt," http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)

Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely . When running for president last

time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished .

Poverty Impact – 2ncCuts to special education exacerbate poverty Peters (Susan, Associate Prof of Special Education @ Michigan State, "Inequalities in Education for People with Disabilities," Inequality in Education, p. 149-171)

Disabled people's exclusion from education sectors—both formal and informal— is a global phenomenon. Disabled people face injustice and discrimination in every country in the world, regardless of national boundaries, national wealth or national poverty.

Increasingly, the global agenda encompassed in Education for All (EFA) initiatives, recognizes that the twin goals of poverty reduction and effective access to education cannot be achieved without addressing the rights of 600 million disabled people worldwide , 70% of whom reside in countries of the South,1 and particularly in the Asia/Pacific and African regions (Helander 1992). Recent UNESCO studies indicate that 1–2% of disabled people in countries of the South receive an education (IDDC 1999). Recent World Bank estimates indicate that people with disabilities may account for as many as one in five of the world's poorest people (Elwan 1999). Poverty and lack of education go hand in hand, and lock disabled people into a chronic cycle. Exclusion from education and employment means limited social contacts, poor health, and low self-esteem. As a result, income-generating opportunities become further reduced, leading to chronic poverty , further exclusion, and higher risks of illness, injury, and impairment (Yeo 2001, p.11).

Poverty is a form of structural violence that outweighs global nuclear warGilligan 2k (James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2000 edition, Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196

The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war

(possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence , which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the

Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world .

Moral Obligation Impact – 2nc Special ed funding is vital in empowering students with disabilities – we have a moral obligation to provide them the means to become equal, productive members of societyRothstein 13 (Steven, president of Perkins School for the Blind in Watertown, 6/21, "Lawmakers should fully fund special education," https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/06/21/podium/NWaedeqUwR1MGDpBAwd2jJ/story.html)

Massachusetts is known for its commitment to education, and that’s something to be proud of. Nothing of value comes cheap, however, and continuing to fund our educational system is an ever-increasing challenge during these turbulent economic times. With that in mind, now take a moment to consider our students with disabilities. They have added struggles in their lives and in school, but with access to highly skilled teachers and educational technologies, they have a real opportunity for hope and achievement. As our leaders on Beacon Hill continue their work on the FY’14 budget, we urge them to consider the students at special education schools in Massachusetts. After years of inequality between state spending on regular education versus special education, it is time to restore funds for special education schools that prepare students with complex needs for adult life. Whether studying science, math, reading and writing, or social skills, children with special needs learn best from highly trained professional educators. Many times, those specially trained teachers are not available in the regular school systems. Providing expert education and learning tools is, indeed, costly. For that reason, the budget line item called the “special education circuit breaker account” was established in 2004. This line item provides tuition reimbursements from the state to school districts to help pay for the cost of sending public students with complex learning needs to specialized private schools. (State funds cover only a portion of the cost. At Perkins, private donations make up the rest.) These schools deliver not only high-quality, but also cost-effective special education services to the Commonwealth. A recent cost comparison shows that Massachusetts special education school costs are actually 35 percent lower than that of public schools and collaboratives, after differences in staff compensation, length of the school year and hidden costs to taxpayers are considered. We thank the Senate Ways and Means Committee for increasing the special education circuit breaker account. This brings us one step closer to providing the highly trained teachers and cutting edge technologies necessary to meet the ever-changing needs of children enrolled in specialized schools. The Senate Ways and Means Committee proposed budget released in mid-May increases the special education circuit breaker account by $22.4 million to $252.8 million or 10.7 percent over the FY’13 appropriation. That is still below the $261 million recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in order for school districts to receive full reimbursement. All those whose lives are touched by a child who requires the special education services the circuit breaker fund provides anxiously wait and hope for that account

to be fully funded during the Conference Committee deliberations currently underway. These children can thrive with the kind of education specialized schools offer. Beyond a moral obligation, the state has a legal obligation outlined in the Education Reform Act of 1993. Now, we look to the Budget Conferees to work together to equalize the funding for special education with general education, or Chapter 70, by advocating to increase the funding for the special education circuit breaker account to the Senate allocation of $252.8 million. This will ensure that the account is adequately funded to provide the financial support to cities and towns so vital to students who attend specialized schools, such as Perkins. Fully funding the circuit breaker provides the opportunity that fuels the dreams of these students who are striving to become productive members of society, to live as independently as possible and to contribute to our economy with meaningful jobs.

Dehumanization Impact – 2nc Special education cuts dehumanize individuals with disabilities ASEC 3 (Area Special Education Cooperative, "Special Education Paraprofessional Handbook," August, http://www.asec.net/archives/asecparahandbook8-03.pdf)

Historically individuals with disabilities were not valued members of the community. Sometimes, special asylums were built for

people who were disabled. Often conditions in these institutions were dehumanizing , filthy and crowded. There is little evidence that people in these institutions were given skills or education that would enable them to cope with the world and become members of the greater community. Much of the lack of education occurred because it was believed that these individuals were not able to learn like other people and that it would be a waste of time and money to help them learn. In recent times as early as the 1970's, prior to Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act), children with special needs often continued to be excluded from the public education system or if included, they were often segregated from their peers in separate classrooms or schools. This practice is no longer acceptable. Today, with the reauthorization of P.L. 94-142, now called IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), students with disabilities are now an integral part of the regular school environment. This legislation emphasized the inclusion of children with disabilities into the regular classroom and community environments, and increased the need for and use of paraprofessionals. When that is not possible, children are to be educated in the "least restrictive environment" appropriate for the child. Federal law, as well as State mandated practices, have established procedures to assure that to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with non-disabled students. Special classes, separate schools, or other removal of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Research supports that children with disabilities benefit from inclusive instruction within the regular classroom environment. For children with

moderate to severe handicaps, inclusion can increase social interaction between disabled and non-disabled children. Inclusion can increase social acceptance by peers and provide disabled students with appropriate behavior models .

Such dehumanization makes violence, genocide, and nuclear war inevitable Berube 97 (David, Prof of Communications @ University of South Carolina, “Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side,” Nanotechnology Magazine, http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm)

Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science.  This would involve valuing people as means .  Moreover, there would always be a superhuman more super than

the current ones, humans would never be able to escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity.  They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation .   For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be

called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse....  Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought ; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii).  While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone.  When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a

nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide .  When people become things, they become dispensable.   When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified .  Once justified, they seem to be

inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

Human Rights Impact Extensions

Special Ed Key to Human Rights – 2nc US human rights leadership modeled globally – special education is a SALIENT issue Cox 17 (Jessica, Contributor @ Handicap International, "FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES," http://www.handicap-international.us/fighting_for_the_rights_of_people_with_disabilities)

I have benefited greatly from U.S. disability laws, and people with disabilities in the rest of the world deserve these protections too. Whether we acknowledge our role as the world leader in disability rights or not, other countries still look to U.S. for leadership on human rights issues . The U.S. must ratify the CRPD. U.S. laws enabled me to access my fundamental rights, especially in terms of having access to quality education . I’m advocating for similar laws to be implemented everywhere.

Disability rights in EDUCATION are key to US human rights obligations Farmer and Stinson 10 (Alice and Kate, Aryeh Neier Fellow with Human Rights Watch + J.D. candidate at Columbia Law School and the Managing Editor of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, "Failing the Grade: How the Use of Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools Demonstrates the Need for U.S. Ratification of the Children's Rights Convention and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities," 54 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 1035, lexis)

The U.S. has, for decades, played a role in developing international law that guarantees special measures of protection for children. For instance, in November 1959, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth . . . ." n46 The U.S., along with the other seventy-seven members of the U.N. General Assembly at the time, voted unanimously to adopt the declaration. n47 Since that time, the U.S., along with nearly all other governments, [*1044] have further elaborated on the specific rights of children, including rights in educational settings . Children with disabilities are doubly vulnerable--by virtue of age and of disability--and human rights law has developed to reflect that extra need for protection. International instruments provide this special protection by embracing two distinct yet interrelated principles: special protection of all minor children under international law and a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.

Now Key Time for Human Rights Protection – 2ncTrump’s election means now is the key time to promote human rights leadershipSanchez-Nigolian 2/14/17 (Natalia, Staff @ The Daily Pennsylvanian, "Amnesty International USA director stresses importance of human rights under Trump," http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/02/amnesty-international-speaks-on-human-rights)

Executive Director of Amnesty International USA Margaret Huang visited Perry World House to speak about the importance of political activism and freedom of expression at an event organized by the International Affairs Association and the Penn chapter of Amnesty

International. She stressed the importance of increasing support for human rights advocacy , particularly following the inauguration of President Donald Trump . “Over the weekend, following the announcement of President Trump’s executive order

banning Muslims from the country, our Twitter following went up by 3 million,” Huang said. “That is critical because the kind of information we are putting out there is how to take action and make a difference.” College junior Madeleine Jacobs, president of the Penn chapter of Amnesty International and International Affairs Association vice director of academic affairs, also

referenced controversy about Trump’s human rights policies. “We started planning this event before the election, and it became even more relevant after Trump was elected ,” she said.

Now is key – lack of leadership undercuts US promotion globallyLagon and Kaminski 2/14/17 (Mark and Ryan, Centennial Fellow at Georgetown University, and served as Ambassador-At-Large and as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the State Department during the Bush administration + Senior Program Manager for Human Rights at the United Nations Foundation, "Winning In the UN Human Rights Council arena," http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/319509-winning-in-the-un-human-rights-council-arena)

Prior to his inauguration, President Trump tweeted about the United Nations, “things will be different after Jan. 20.” To help make that happen, as president, Mr. Trump should intensify U.S. leadership at the primary UN human rights organ, the Human Rights Council, not pull back.

In doing so , the Trump administration would signal that human rights are inextricably connected to U.S. values,

fulfill campaign promises to achieve more wins for U.S. interests globally , and acknowledge the chorus of voices on Capitol Hill

calling to actively combat anti-Israel bias at the UN. President Trump’s public commitments to human rights have been limited, but there have been a few brighter spots. As the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Trump forcefully advocated for the expansion of political and religious freedoms in Cuba. And at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump’s pledge to protect the LGBTQ community against threats from ISIS received raucous applause. During her Senate hearing to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley unequivocally declared, “I have a clear understanding that it is not acceptable to stay silent when our values are challenged.” A newly released Council on Foreign Relations report shows U.S. engagement on the Council has had conclusive impact. For instance, the U.S. has worked with partners to steadily chip away at the structural bias against Israel at the UN. Despite the regrettable continuation of a dedicated Council agenda item on Israel, both special sessions and country-specific resolutions on Israel are down as a direct result of U.S. leadership; in fact, the proportion of country-specific resolutions on Israel has dropped to around one-fifth. Dogged U.S. engagement at the Council has also boosted the organ’s appetite for deserved scrutiny of other countries. New UN investigatory mechanisms have been established on Iran, Syria, and Belarus among others. North Korean leaders were left scrambling following the release of findings from a Commission of Inquiry established by the Council, with U.S. support. Cuba has endured the second-highest level of scrutiny under the Council’s Universal Periodic Review. In 2016, the U.S. also huddled with key allies to sound a common voice on China’s human rights record for the first time in a dozen years. The U.S. has also deftly used a diversity of diplomatic tools to assist in elevating the human rights of LGBTQ people through the Council; It is no secret that the Islamic State would prefer a world with fewer norms against extrajudicial killings based on sexual orientation or gender identity than more. Further, the U.S. has skillfully engaged a cross-regional coalition at the Council to establish an international watchdog on the rights to the freedom of assembly and association, the first such fundamental freedoms-focused mandate in seventeen years. Retreating from the Council means backsliding. Various U.S. and non-U.S. scholars, diplomats, non-governmental organizations, and international public servants interviewed for the CFR study reported that when the U.S. benched itself at the Council during the George W. Bush administration, a small group of rights-violators dominated the body. During that time, upwards of 60 percent of country-specific resolutions focused on Israel. UN mandates to monitor rights abuses in Cuba and Belarus were cancelled. In other words, Washington has already seen what happens when it cedes its seat at the table: it loses. It would be a mistake to assume that the U.S. should carry these loads alone. Rather, multilateral partnerships and burden sharing remain crucial. The Trump administration should urge the Senate to move swiftly to confirm a new Council ambassador who can exercise catalytic leadership. Capitol Hill should also avoid measures attempting to legislatively restrict Council participation or defund the UN. Doing so would merely weaken the U.S.’ hand against those regimes that favor strengthening structural bias against Israel and dilute Council actions on rights-violating countries. Finally, the U.S. delegation at the Council should doubly emphasize the need for resolutions that effectuate change on the ground. This would help elevate prevention in U.S. foreign policy over more costly reactiveness, lest rights crises metastasize. Newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was right to criticize a UN human rights organ that currently includes egregious rights violators as members. But in disengaging from the Council, the U.S. would lose credibility to urge freer countries to seek seats that would eventually realize a stronger composition. This may not be as difficult as it seems given that Russia

lost its seat on the Council last October – its first absence from a top UN human rights organ in seventy years. Further, the U.S. just began a new three-year term on the Council in January 2017. Now is the time to jump in with both feet , and commit to winning in the Human Rights Council.

Now Key Time for Disability Rights – 2nc Disability rights threatened now – now is key for US policy signals Leadership Conference 3/30/17 ("There’s a Disability Rights Treaty. The United States Still Hasn’t Ratified it," https://medium.com/@civilrightsorg/theres-a-disability-rights-treaty-the-united-states-still-hasn-t-ratified-it-370750457d72)

At a time when the United States has a president who mocked (while campaigning) a reporter with a disability, when the U.S. Secretary of Education is a threat to children with disabilities, and when the current U.S. Supreme Court nominee has repeatedly ruled against students with disabilities and who’s demonstrated a troubling approach to the rights of people with disabilities, it’s easy to feel discouraged about the state (and future) of disability rights.

Human Rights Solve War – 2ncHuman rights promotion and protection PREVENT armed conflictAl Hussein 15 (Zeid Ra'ad, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, former president of the UN Security Council, PhD - Cambridge University, international justice and peace expert, "Opening Statement to the 29th Session of the Human Rights Council by the High Commissioner for Human Rights," 6/15, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16074&LangID=E#sthash.faQ1pzBF.dpuf)

Much of the Middle East is now engulfed in violence, and this ferocity is spreading. Several governments in the region are fearful of extremist threats. Widening outwards, to Somalia, Nigeria and Mali, we also see horrific abuse of human rights by

Takfiri groups. But repressing human rights is not a solution to these conflicts: it is a contributing cause .

Crackdowns and repression are counterproductive. I remind you that in March 2011, my predecessor warned that the use of firearms against peaceful protestors in Syria "risks creating a downward spiral of anger, violence, killings and chaos." The authorities chose to ignore that

advice, and the results are painful to behold. When governments attack civil society, they undermine the foundations of stability and prosperity. A tight grip on freedom of expression, crackdowns on peaceful protest, massive detention and even torture, denial of economic and social rights – these are the soil on which extremist groups flourish. They create opportunities for extremist or sectarian movements to step in and fan the flames of rage. In particular, policing and security forces must embody the rule of law – or fail. It is they who are often seen as the face of the State. When security forces act with contempt for people’s rights, treating them as enemies, then enemies are what they may become. Every act of torture contributes to extremism; and every arbitrary arrest and abusive crackdown –

every act that represses civil society and legitimate dissent – is a step towards further violence. Respect for human rights offers States a path towards greater stability, not less . Dialogue and respect for human rights, including the rights of

minorities, build confidence and loyalty as well as thriving political and economic institutions.

The denial of human rights is a direct cause of armed conflict – empirical research confirmsPBI 9 (Peacebuilding Initiative, "Human Rights Promotion & Protection: Human Rights & Peacebuilding Processes," http://www.peacebuildinginitiative.org/indexd280.html?fuseaction=cmc_printall.print&pageId=1848&printview=true)

Human rights violations as causes of violent conflict Structural violence and denial of human rights also contribute to the emergence of most violent conflicts . "Numerous conflicts have been caused by human rights issues such as limited political participation, the quest for self-determination, limited access to resources, exploitation, forced acculturation, and discrimination."5 It is important to note here that denial of human rights occurs not only as a result of "active violations" (which can be defined as explicit, direct and intentional actions by the State and its agents), but also as a result of "passive violations" (which can be defined as those violations resulting of the negligence or inability of the State to protect the rights of its citizens, especially in the socio-economic domain; passive violations can contribute to the deepening of societal cleavages and conflicts, and thus can lead to the emergence or escalation of violent conflict).6 It is important to note that causal links are difficult to pin down. Empirical scholarship, including many statistical studies, suggests that civil war often entails increased levels of human rights abuse. But the reverse is much less documented by research. Conflict is typically investigated by social scientists, while human rights violations are more frequently analyzed by lawyers and activists. The two groups use different theoretical and methodological tools, and engage in very little cross-disciplinary dialogue. A recent study surveyed prominent social scientific studies of internal conflict and civil wars and translated their findings into human rights language, asking, "Do human rights violations contribute to conflict?" More specifically, the authors tried to assess if the risk factors identified by social scientists could also be recognized as human rights abuses. They conclude that "violations of civil and political rights appear more obviously associated with conflict than abuses of economic and social rights, but the latter seem to play a facilitating role. Discrimination and violations of social and economic rights function as underlying causes, creating the grievances and group identities that may,

under some circumstances, motivate civil violence. Violations of civil and political rights are more clearly identifiable as direct conflict triggers ."7 Recent studies by those developing early warning indicators for the prevention of genocide have also highlighted important factors to that respect. 8

Human Rights Solve Extinction – 2ncHuman rights promotion independently solves extinctionCopelon 99 (Rhonda, Professor of Law and Director of the International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic (IWHR) at the City University of New York School of Law, 3 N.Y. City L. Rev. 59, lexis)

The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority of the U.S. version of rights, to rebuild popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. n38 Given the poverty and inequality in

the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy .

Human rights violations cause extinctionHR Web 94 (Human Rights Web, “An Introduction to the Human Rights Movement”, 7-20, http://www.hrweb.org/intro.html)

The United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN Human Rights convenants were written and implemented in the aftermath of the Holocaust, revelations coming from the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the Bataan Death March, the atomic bomb, and other horrors smaller in magnitude but not in impact on the individuals they affected. A whole lot of people in a number of countries had a crisis of conscience and found they could no longer look the other way while tyrants jailed, tortured, and killed their neighbors. Many also realized that advances in technology and changes in social structures had rendered war a threat to the continued existence of the human race. Large numbers of people in many countries lived under the control of tyrants, having no recourse but war to relieve often intolerable living conditions. Unless some way was found to relieve the lot of these people, they could revolt and become the catalyst for another wide-scale and possibly nuclear war. For perhaps the first time,

representatives from the majority of governments in the world came to the conclusion that basic human rights must be protected, not only for the sake of the individuals and countries involved, but to preserve the human race .

Absence of human rights spurs conflict and environmental destructionShattuck 94 (John, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Federal News Service, 4-19, Lexis)

I would like to start my testimony, Mr. Chairman, which I will summarize -- obviously, you have an extended statement, and I do apologize for the fact that it arrived perhaps later than it should have -- I'd like to start by offering some brief observations about what it means to advocate human rights and democracy in the post-Cold- War world, which is where we are today, of course. We are confronted by extraordinary changes all around us that are at once profoundly inspiring and deeply disturbing. Alongside a worldwide movement for human rights and democratization, which I think has transformed in many ways the political shape of the globe, we see stirrings of deep cultural and ethnic tensions. The principle of self-determination is being pursued and yet is itself a source of very deep human rights questions. These are not academic questions. Around the world we are witnessing ugly and violent racial, ethnic and religious conflict in Bosnia, Central Asia, Africa, most vividly, perhaps, right now in Rwanda, in the Sudan, but elsewhere, too, away from the cameras. The international community clearly has not developed an adequate response to these problems. Why, then, if they are so daunting, has this administration made protecting human rights and promoting democracy a major part of our foreign policy agenda? I think the answer lies not only in our American values but in also the strategic benefits to the United States. We know from historical experience that democracies are more likely than other forms of government to respect human rights, to settle conflict peacefully, to observe international law and honor agreements, to go to war with great reluctance, and rarely against other democracies, to respect the rights of ethnic, racial and religious minorities living within their borders, and to provide the social and political basis for free market economics. By contrast, Mr. Chairman, the costs to the world of repression and authoritarianism are painfully clear. In the 20th century, the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century's wars combined . Repression pushes refugees across borders and triggers

wars; unaccountable governments are heedless of environmental destruction, and the agenda for repression goes on in a very negative way. These, then, are the reasons why promoting democracy and human rights are at the forefront of our foreign policy agenda. What are our strategic objectives? In a word, Mr. Chairman, we aim, perhaps not yet successfully, to incorporate human rights and democracy into the mainstream of our foreign policy-making.

Turns Warming US human rights leadership sparks global protections and fosters cooperative solutions to global problems like climate change and the environmentWexler 8 (Leslie, Prof of Law @ Univ. of Illinois + former Copeland Award winner, "HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT STATEMENTS: AN IMMIGRATION CASE STUDY," 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 285, lexis)

The development of a human rights strategy to protect migrants yields several benefits that a purely constitutional framework lacks. First, the use of human rights treaties and discourse creates links to the international movement to protect human rights. These links can strengthen protections at home in two ways: by drawing international attention and pressure to bear on domestic efforts n46 and providing a shared language and understanding for domestic advocates to interact with, and learn from, international experiences. n47 As many countries face similar immigration issues, the shared wisdom of an international

approach may be particularly useful in this area. Such international interactions might also facilitate the transmission of human rights assessments and impact statements throughout the world . Human rights review might complement U.N. efforts to mainstream human rights and integrate them at an operational level . n48 The visibility and leadership capabilities of the United States make it particularly able to promote the use of human rights assessments. n49 Just as the United States' development and implementation of environmental impact statements has shaped environmental

policy in a significant number of countries, n50 the United States could also reinvigorate its human rights policy through its leadership and assist other countries in developing a stronger commitment to human rights. n51 Impact assessment provides other countries with an opportunity [*292] to embrace the importance of human rights without making a strong commitment to a treaty regime they might be unwilling to or be incapable of enforcing. Human rights impact statements and other review mechanisms might also be used as evidence of good faith domestic treaty compliance. To the extent that the United States already implicitly complies with reporting requirements under the human rights treaties it has ratified and implemented, foreign countries find America's disinclination to use human rights language problematic. n52 Thus, instead of using a constitutional metric to determine violations when collecting information on police brutality, for example, U.S. states could do so instead by documenting the issue in terms of human rights. By adding treaty language to the assessment process, transmitting our efforts at compliance across the globe becomes easier.

Enhancing our reputation for human rights compliance is especially important given current political realities. Many countries hold a declining opinion of the United States. n53 The international community would welcome America's affirmation of the continuing importance of human rights in the wake of many post-September 11th actions such as torture, extraordinary rendition, increased domestic surveillance, and harsher and more frequent detention of immigrants. Moreover, the international community would benefit from the assurance that the concept of "human rights" means more than a justification for regime change. n54 American exceptionalism to human rights law angers our allies and complicates efforts to secure their cooperation. n55 Not surprisingly, many countries view the United States' silence about its own human rights failings as hypocritical. n56 In particular, the international community strongly criticizes the State Department's annual human rights reports for omitting an assessment of domestic performance as well as omitting "actions by governments taken at the request of the United States or with the expressed support of the United States . . . ." n57 Human rights advocates suggest that U.S. leadership on human rights faces a severe [*293] credibility gap--for instance, other countries perceive the United States as a laggard on human rights treaty compliance in regards to migrants n58 --but that repudiation of past abuses and momentum for policy changes could restore its leadership . n59 As many have suggested, good international relations are vital to winning the War on Terror. n60 Moreover, international cooperation is essential to address immigration related issues such as human trafficking. A visible commitment to migrants' human rights might bolster the United States' credibility when it

seeks better treatment for the approximately 2 million American emigres. n61 Other international problems, such as climate change and related environmental issues, also require cooperation and leadership . An increased willingness to participate in global human rights discourse and demonstrate adherence to human rights treaties might enhance our ability to lead and participate in other arenas. Another potential benefit of using a human rights approach is that international human rights law may be more expansive than domestic protections. First, international human rights law tends to be broader than even robustly interpreted domestic protections. As human rights are based in an individual's inherent dignity rather than her status under the law, they tend to provide more protections to immigrants than a domestic system. For instance, statutory anti-discrimination provisions often fail to protect immigrants as they prohibit national origin discrimination but permit discrimination based on alienage. n62 Moreover, the executive and the courts continue to narrow their interpretation of constitutional rights in the wake of September 11th. n63 For example, human rights law as enshrined by international treaties probably dictates more protections regarding conditions and length of detention than the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution. n64 Even if the Constitution could have provided adequate protection, undoing existing [*294] narrow jurisprudence can prove quite difficult. Human rights law, on the other hand, provides a less developed canvas for domestic actors to flesh out.

Turns EnvironmentHuman rights protections are vital in EFFECTIVE environmental protectionsUNHR 12 ("“Human Rights at the Center of Sustainable Development - Honoring Rio Principle 1”, 6/19, http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/JointReportOHCHRandUNEPonHumanRightsandtheEnvironment.pdf)

The protection of the environment and the promotion of human rights are increasingly seen as intertwined, complementary goals, and part of the fundamental pillars of sustainable development. The two fields share a core of common interests and objectives indispensible for sustainable development. Each human being depends on ecosystems and the services they provide, such as food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfilment, and aesthetic enjoyment. At the same time, all human activities have an impact on the environment. Human activities have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the past half-century than in any comparable period of time in history. While this transformation has contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development in many regions of the world, not all people or regions have benefited equally; indeed conditions for many have deteriorated. Sustainability must be incorporated into an accounting system that measures the currently unaccounted for economic losses that are experienced by using renewable and non-renewable resources in the environment. By incorporating these losses into all levels of economic accounting, all parts of the economic sectors can make informed decisions that support long-term sustainable development and help strengthen human rights

affected. If the enjoyment of human rights depends on environmental protection, in turn, environmental protection depends on the exercise of certain human rights , such as the rights to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice. Effective compliance with environmental laws and standards necessitates knowledge of them as well as of environmental conditions. In addition, local communities play a vital role in preserving the resources upon which they depend. Allowing those potentially affected to participate in decision-making processes concerning harmful activities may prevent or mitigate the threatened harm and contribute to public support for environmental action, as well as lead to better decisions consistent with sustainable development.

Turns Russia/China/IranUS human rights credibility key to global promotion – that prevents violations that threaten the global economy, Chinese stability, and Middle East peaceLagon 11 (Mark, Centennial Fellow and Distinguished Senior Scholar, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, "Promoting Human Rights: Is U.S. Consistency Desirable or Possible?," October, http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-desirable-possible/p26228)

What kind of consistency would be desirable and achievable? Four precepts would help. First, despite how a human rights emphasis at times clashes with important priorities in bilateral relationships (e.g., trade, counterterrorism, and military bases), it is important not to assume that human rights always intrinsically contradict U.S. interests. For instance, repression of expression and real-time information may only retard economic growth and turn regimes into pressure cookers ready to blow . Second, it

is false to suggest that the greater a country's relative power, the less the U.S. can afford to confront its human rights failings. Addressing liberties in Russia and China is all the more important due to their geopolitical weight. Indeed, if it is too inflexible in

absorbing societal demands, China's autocracy could face a rupture threatening global stability . Third, governments that regularly deny a large category of their citizens equal access to justice are not only violating universal rights, but also squandering assets. For example, the United States could advance a quiet, sustained dialogue with India about the national government's role in transcending cultural practices of discrimination against broad social groups that relegate valuable human capital to squalid lives. Persistent bonded labor of disadvantaged castes despite a 1976 ban and remedy law in India is not unlike segregation persisting in the American South until U.S. national authorities—in another federal system—pushed states to implement laws. Most of all, countries that deny women and girls property and inheritance rights, free expression, and political participation are forsaking enormous assets for civic conciliation and economic dynamism—which is neither in their interests nor those of the United States. Fourth, the Middle East should not be seen as an exception. It is a bigotry of low expectations to think Muslims and Arabs are incapable of exercising universal rights. That said, there are those who would use newly won tools of freedom to institutionalize repression (as some elected Islamists might). Without covertly handpicking winners, the United States should offer a range of actors who appear authentically committed to pluralism and peaceful contestation help to develop their capacity to compete for power and to govern. So where does this leave the United States in specific cases? Take Iran. Its pursuit of a nuclear capability; its regional influence, particularly with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan; and its role in global terrorism are all issues of critical importance to the United States, but they do not call for downplaying human rights. Precisely because Iran is such a heavyweight regional power, human rights are important. The Iranian government's treatment of women and religious minorities limits them as societal and economic assets. The Green Movement and the teeming vitality of civil society show that Iranians long for fundamental freedoms. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is right to have joined the United Kingdom and Canada in imposing visa restrictions on Iranian officials implicated in rights violations. Bahrain is a striking case of the appearance of inconsistency by the United States compared to the ultimate U.S. embrace of dissent and change in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia. A Human Rights Watch report documented Bahrain's “punitive and vindictive campaign of violent repression” via arbitrary arrests, hidden detention, torture, biased military court trials, and the sacking of protest sympathizers from jobs. The United States stood largely silent as Saudi Arabia supplied forces to help Bahrain put down dissent. The United States ought to view its important naval base in Bahrain as a reason to discourage repression, which could make that nation less stable. Bahrain limits the freedom of women, foreign workers, and political opposition. The United States is capable of deftly asserting more pressure on this small power to avoid counterproductive suppression of dissent (helped by the Saudis no

less), without losing access to a strategic base. While it is neither wise nor feasible to have identical policies for all nations, more consistency based on these precepts will better serve U.S. and global interests .

Turns Prolif

Human rights credibility key to solve proliferationConnect 10 (Connect U.S. Fund, “Current Priority Issues”, http://www.connectusfund.org/issues)

In today’s interdependent world, the United States confronts extraordinary international political, security and humanitarian challenges, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to poverty and instability in regions confronting poverty and state failure. To exercise effective leadership and make progress on these issues, the United States must advance a vision for responsible U.S. global engagement that emphasizes international cooperation, affirms the strong connections between today’s most pressing global issues, and recognizes that progress on compelling global problems will require the active support of friends, allies and other major stakeholders in the international community. The United States will only gain such cooperation and support if it exercises power and influence in a manner that is widely perceived as legitimate, and that clearly demonstrates foresight and responsibility to future generations. This approach embodies principles that have marked U.S. foreign policy at its most effective. The Connect U.S. Fund has identified four areas of focus for our grant making and for much of our operational work in 2008-2009.  We have focused on those issues in which significant progress demands a far greater degree of international cooperation, including U.S. engagement with and support of international institutions.  In developing our grant making program, in particular, we have considered the comparative advantages of the Connect U.S. community.  The areas of program focus offer unique opportunities for NGO collaborations (both formal and informal) and, as a result, unusual potential for progress on key policy issues affecting the role of the United States in the world. Human Rights:  Reestablishing U.S. Credibility and Leadership This issue is critical to effective U.S. re-engagement with friends, allies and other major stakeholders in the international community.  In our program of grant-making for 2007 and 2008, advocacy goals have been focused primarily on U.S. human rights practices related to counterterrorism, including respect for international human rights and humanitarian law by U.S. officials.  Our grantee partners have engaged in advocacy on issues such as habeas corpus, strengthening of protections against mistreatment in interrogation, and revision of the Military Commissions Act, among other issues.

Global nuclear warUtgoff 2 (Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions” Survival, 44(2), p. 87-90)

In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations .

Turns TerrorismWeak human rights credibility is collapsing the war on terror. Vital cooperation can’t be sustained.Ramji-Nogales 8 (Jaya, Professor of Law – Temple University and JD – Yale Law School, “A Global Approach to Secret Evidence: How Human Rights Law Can Reform our Immigration System”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Spring, 39 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 287, Lexis)

The misuse of secret evidence is one of many violations of individual rights perpetrated in the name of combating terror that will damage the United States on a global level. While the misuse of secret evidence in immigration court is not the sole cause of these harms, this practice contributes to a deteriorating global reputation that injures our international relationships in several ways. By  [*318]  pursing tactics that breach fundamental notions of fairness, we alienate crucial allies in the global struggle against terrorism - not only friends in Arab, Muslim, and South Asian nations, but states around the world. We also lend legitimacy to terrorist groups, who can recruit new members by pointing to the government's unfair treatment of non-citizens. By acting unilaterally, rather than in accordance with international agreements, the United States sends a message that we are not interested in playing by the rules of the international community. As the U nited S tates' moral authority declines, we are losing leadership abilities on the world stage in areas including terrorism and human rights. The United States cannot successfully fight terrorism alone; it requires the financial, military, and investigatory support of other nations. 126 Combating terrorist groups is an exceptionally complex effort that by necessity requires the support of our allies in agreements ranging from multilateral antiterrorism treaties to passport verification agreements. 127 This vital assistance will not come at the end of a stick, but will be successful only if other nations trust the United States enough to work with us voluntarily. 128 Practices such as the misuse of secret evidence in immigration proceedings that signal disrespect for individual rights will only destroy this spirit of cooperation, severely hampering our ability to dismantle terrorist organizations . 129 Moreover, violations of  [*319]  fundamental rights serve "only to confer a sense and appearance of legitimacy on those who attack institutions." 130 In other words, by pursuing security interests in disregard of due process rights, we are not only weakening our own ability to fight terror, but we are also providing fodder to terrorist groups. By breaching international agreements that protect individual rights, the United States is seriously tarnishing its reputation. World opinion of the United States has dropped dramatically over the past five years. A poll conducted earlier this year shows that since 2002, the image of the U.S. has become less favorable in 26 of 33 countries surveyed. 131 While this precipitous decline is not due solely to the misuse of secret evidence in immigration court, it is largely the result of policies that emphasize national security at the expense of individual rights and international agreements. Indeed, since 2002, support for America's anti-terrorism efforts has dropped in 30 of 34 countries surveyed - including sharp drops in Canada, Europe, and several countries that have suffered terrorist attacks in recent years. 132 As the grass-roots movement against the war in Iraq has shown, citizens of our traditional allies can become angry when the United States does not follow the international procedures to which it has bound itself to comply, and can elect a government that is less cooperative with the United States. 133 The decline in American moral authority hampers  [*320]  foreign policy efforts even more severely in Arab, Muslim, and South Asian countries. 134 As the United States loses standing in the international community, we lose our influence in shaping human rights norms and in positively influencing the behavior of other nations. 135 The loss of America's image as a beacon of freedom and fairness is to be mourned regardless of the consequences for our power and influence.

Human rights credibility is key --- recruiting and cooperationWexler 8 (Lesley, Professor of Law – Florida State University and Former Debater – University of Michigan, “Human Rights Impact Assessments: An Immigration Case Study”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 285, Winter, Lexis)

n60 NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT 375, 376 (2004); David Cole, The Idea of Humanity: Human Rights and Immigrants' Rights, 37 COLUM. Hum. RTS. L. REV. 627, 637-38 (2006). In addition to the cooperation argument, human

rights leadership might also weaken terrorists' recruitment efforts if they use U.S. human rights violations to increase their support.

Perception of the U.S. is the vital internal link to stop global terrorismCole 6 (David, Professor – Georgetown University Law Center, “The Idea of Humanity: Human Rights and Immigrant Rights”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Spring, 37 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 627, Lexis)

Once the photos from Abu Ghraib were released worldwide, politicians in and out of the Administration almost immediately realized that this instance of pushing the bounds of international law had backfired. Reactions in and around Washington sometimes expressed concern for the injuries suffered by the Iraqi detainees, but nearly always reserved their deepest concern for the disastrous impact these pictures would have on American foreign policy. 35 That expression of concern illustrated what the 9/11 Commission later noted in its report - that success in fighting terrorism turns in large measure on perceptions of the United States held around the world. 36 If we are seen as pursuing illegitimate means in the effort to keep ourselves secure, we will suffer serious consequences, as we will find it more difficult to obtain the cooperation we need in order to find and incapacitate terrorist threats, and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will find it easier to find willing recruits to the fight against us .

Turns EconomyHuman rights cred is key to the global economyPowell 8 (Catherine, Professor of Law – Fordham Law School, “Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Blueprint for the New Administration”, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, October, http://www.acslaw.org/files/ C%20Powell%20Blueprint.pdf)

As a new Administration takes office in January 2009, it will have an opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen the longstanding commitment of the United States to human rights at home and abroad. This commitment is one that has been expressed throughout U.S. history, by leaders from both parties. In reality, however, when the idea of human rights is discussed in the United States today, more often than not the focus is on the promotion of human rights abroad and not at home. Indeed, human rights has come to be seen as a purely international concern, even though it is fundamentally the responsibility of each nation to guarantee basic rights for its own people, as a matter of domestic policy. Reaffirming and implementing the U.S. commitment to human rights is critical for two reasons. First, human rights principles are at the core of America’s founding values, and Americans (as well as others within our borders or in U.S. custody), no less than others around the world, are entitled to the full benefit of these basic guarantees. That can hardly be open to debate. The second reason is perhaps less obvious, but equally compelling. When the United States fails to practice at home what it preaches to others, it loses credibility and undermines its ability to play an effective leadership role in the world. Leading through the power of our example rather than through the example of our power3 is particularly critical now, at a juncture when the United States needs to cultivate international cooperation to address pressing issues – such as the current economic downturn – that have global dimensions . Perhaps not surprisingly, then, an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly embrace the notion of human rights: that is, the idea that every person has basic rights regardless of whether or not the government recognizes those rights.4 This Blueprint therefore suggests ways in which the new Administration can take concrete steps to ensure that human rights principles are considered and implemented within the process of U.S. domestic policymaking. It does not address in any detail the substance of particular policies in areas such as equality, health care, or the prohibition on torture;5 rather, it identifies and evaluates mechanisms by which human rights principles can be integrated into policymaking in all areas of U.S. domestic policy where they are relevant.

ExtinctionAustin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries . Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in

the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world

leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .

Turns Modeling/Soft PowerHuman rights violations undermine global modeling and deck US soft powerAka 6 (Philip, Prof of Poli Sci @ Chicago State, "ARTICLE: Analyzing U.S. Commitment to Socioeconomic Human Rights," 39 Akron L. Rev. 417, lexis)

From a foreign policy standpoint, President Bush's war on terrorism evokes, as Professor Ignatieff thoughtfully points out, the atmosphere of the Cold War. "Then the imperative of countering Soviet and Chinese imperial advances trumped concern for the abuses of authoritarian governments in the Western camp. The new elements in determining American foreign policy is what assets, in terms of bases, intelligence[,] and diplomatic leverage" an ally brings to the table in the war against terrorism. n75 Whereas, under President Ronald Reagan, the international human rights movement "merely risked being unpopular," "in the Bush era, it risks irrelevance." n76 If the Cold War taught any lesson, Ignatieff said, it is that "cozying up to friendly authoritarians is a poor bet in the long term." n77 Therefore, to promote the building of secure states that do not sponsor terrorism, the U.S. "will have to do more than secure base agreements. It will have to pressure these countries to provide basic political rights and due process." n78 Ignatieff advised the international human rights movement "to challenge directly the [U.S. government's] claim that national security trumps human rights. The argument to make is that human rights is the best guarantee of national security." n79 One more danger of the continuing self-insulation of the U.S. from international human rights standards, complicated now by

the war on terror, is a possible risk of a reduction in the attractiveness of the U.S. model of development to foreign countries . n80 [*430] Human rights are a critical source of legitimacy and soft power (power not based on display of

sheer military strength). n81 Informed assessments affirm that "the only legitimate state in the modern world is the liberal democratic state that" along with being "properly elected," also "protects a wide range of internationally-recognized human rights." n82 In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001, the U.S. needs the "moral authority" that comes with obedience to internationally-recognized human rights to preserve its hegemony. n83 As Professor Henkin reminds us, international human rights laws and institutions became necessary because national laws and institutions are never fully effective. n84 As he explains, The purpose of international concern with human rights is to make national rights effective under national laws and through national institutions. The purpose of international law relating to human rights and of international human rights institutions is to make national human rights law and institutions effective instruments for securing and ensuring human rights. In an ideal world - if national laws and institutions were fully effective - there would be no need for international human rights laws and institutions. n85

Turns HegemonyHuman rights credibility key to hegSen 5 (Sankar, Former Director, Indian National Police Academy, The Statesman, 4-5, Lexis)

There are other sources of strength. The US today is the third most populous country. Unlike other developed countries it has a birth rate which is near the replacement rate. It has a stable political system and in the realm of knowledge and ideas, it has, as Joseph Nye of Harvard University calls it, "a clear lead over others". American universities dominate in the field of higher education and American culture, both high-brow or low-brow, music, food, work styles and manners. The values of democracy, personal freedom, upward mobility and openness that find expression in American education and culture contribute to American power. It has been aptly said that American soft power looms larger than its economy and military assets and radiates with an intensity last seen in the days of the Roman empire. Globalisation wears a "made in USA" model. There are some scholars and thinkers who feel that this American predominance will be ephemeral and this unipolar moment will be brief. In international relations, if one nation becomes too strong, others will join hands to balance its power. There is also an opposite school holding the view that the present American pre-eminence will last well into the 21st century, only if the US is able to display strategic restraint and uses its power wisely. Predicting the rise and fall of nations is a hazardous guess. When Britain lost its American colonies in the 18th century, Horace Walpole visualised Britain's reduction to a little island as insignificant as Denmark or Sardinia. He failed to foresee the coming industrial revolution that would give Britain another century with greater power. Similarly, there were others who after the Vietnam war prophesied that American power will gradually contract and its hegemony will not last. But they did not foresee the third industrial revolution, which would give US new power and strength and a "second century". Today the US has assumed leadership of the global information revolution. Hegemonists and globalists Now the question is how America as a global superpower is going to use its vast resources. Geopolitical considerations that guided American policy for more than 100 years are no longer in existence. There are analysts who feel that soon America, which has over-extended itself, will retreat from further engagements and withdraw military forces from Europe and Asia. This viewpoint is erroneous because of the profound changes that have taken place in global politics. In this age of globalisation American foreign policy no longer revolves around geography. Today al Qaeda offers great threats to American security whether they operate from Afghanistan, Philippines or Western Europe. So in the coming years America has to remain engaged abroad, but the question is regarding the manner and way of expanding an international order that suits American interests. On this there are two schools of thought among the American foreign policy-makers. There are hegemonists who are of the view that American power and influence is threatened by a combination of terrorism, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction as well as ambitions of other powers. They feel that to safeguard American safety as well as that of its allies there should be confident exercise of American power with few constraints on its freedom of action. Hegemonists see American primacy as the key to achieving its foreign policy goals. The other viewpoint is represented by globalists who feel that, instead of dictating, America should work in cooperation with other countries and international institutions. Unilateral American action will be counter-productive. This is because economic globalisation has been accompanied in recent days by military globalisation. Previously, distance neutralised military advantages and provided a buffer. Modern technology has now changed the situation. With widespread diffusion of technology, many states have acquired the capability of producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Not only states but terrorist organisations are likely to be in possession of sophisticated and lethal weapons, which they can use with deadly effect against the most powerful states. To deal with catastrophic terrorism there is need for both the shield and the sword. The shield of preventive measures has to be strengthened, but defence measures at home alone will not help. Effective counter terrorism measures by Washington will be successful only if it obtains the support of other countries. The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy correctly points out that America today is threatened less by "conquering states than by the failed and failing ones". It is these states which offer opportunities to terrorists to exploit grievances and places to operate. The rebuilding of these states will require joint working with America's major allies. American military success in Afghanistan and precision bombing destroyed only a fraction of al Qaeda's cells. It retains cells in 60 other countries. Mere bombing cannot wipe them out from different parts of the world. The best response to transnational terrorism networks is the network of cooperating government agencies. Spreading disenchantment American hegemonic power is of course generating animosity. The imperial power always looks like a bully. The claim of a superpower to act in the interest of others is always taken with a grain of salt. It always creates fears and anxieties among other powers. The First World War had its genesis in Germany's rise to power and the fear it caused in Great Britain. Similarly in this century China's growth will create fear in the US

and may generate conflict. Indeed anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, anti-Americanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon . Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and may gradually affect American pre-eminence .

Global nuclear warKhalilzad 95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Losing The Moment? Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and

all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Turns RussiaHuman rights cred is key to Russian democracyMendelson 9 (Sarah, Senior Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program – Center for Strategic and International Studies, “U.S.-Russia Relations and the Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit”, 6-19, http://www.tcf.org/publicat ions/internationalaffairs/US-RussianRelationsandtheDemocracyandRuleofLawDeficit.pdf)

In fact, coping with authoritarian trends in Russia (and elsewhere) will involve changes in U.S. policies that have, on the surface, nothing to do with Russia. Bush administration counterterrorism policies that authorized torture, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, and the rendering of detainees to secret prisons and Guantánamo have had numerous negative unintended consequences for U.S. national

security, including serving as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda and insurgents in Iraq.4 Less often recognized, these policies also have undercut whatever leverage the United States had, as well as limited the effectiveness of American decision-makers, to push back on authoritarian poli cies adopted by, among others, the Putin administration. At its worst, American departures from the rule of law may have enabled abuse inside Russia . These departures certainly left human rights defenders isolated.5 Repairing the damage to U.S. soft power and

reversing the departure from human rights norms that characterized the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies will provide

the Obama administration strategic and moral authority and improve the ability of the United States to work with allies.

It also can have positive consequences for Obama’s Russia policy. The changes that need to be made in U.S. counterterrorism policies, however politically sensitive, are somewhat more straightforward than the adjustments that must be made to respond to the complex issues concerning Russia. The Obama administration must determine how best to engage Russian leaders and the population on issues of importance to the United States, given Russia’s poor governance structures, the stark drop in oil prices, Russia’s continued aspirations for great power status, and the rather serious resentment by Russians concerning American dominance and prior policies. The policy puzzle, therefore, is how to do all this without, at the same time, sacrificing our values and undercutting (yet again) U.S. soft power. This report assesses the political dynamics that have shaped Russia’s authoritarian drift, briefly addresses a few of the ways in which they matter for U.S. policy, and suggests several organizing principles to help the Obama administration manage this critical relationship. Possible approaches include working closely with Europe on a joint approach to Russia, accurately anticipating the unintended consequences of U.S. policy in one realm (such as Kosovo) for Russia policy, and embracing the rights of states to choose their Sarah E. Mendelson 5 own security alliances. A final important principle relates to U.S. engagement with Russians beyond the Kremlin. President Obama should speak directly to the Russian people, engaging in a manner that respects their interests and desires, but also reflects the core values of the Obama administration; that is, “reject[s] as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”6 The Obama administration also should endorse a platform and a process for a renewed dialogue between U.S. and Russian civil society. The View from the Kremlin Two interactive dynamics over the past several years have shaped the dominant approach by the Russian government to the outside world: the United States declined as a world power, and at the same time, the Russian state accumulated massive wealth from high gas and oil prices. Following what many in the Russian elite view as the “humiliation” of the 1990s, by 2008, Russia was no longer a status quo power. Instead, revisionist in nature, Russian authorities focused on the restoration of great power status.7 Fueled by petrodollars, the government tackled this project in numerous ways, including military exercises around the globe, soft power projects such as a twenty-four-hour-a-day English language cable news station, “think tanks” in New York and Paris, and perhaps most important, gas and oil distribution systems meant to make Russia a central player in energy security for decades to come.8 This restoration project undoubtedly will be slowed by the current financial crisis and drop in oil revenues, but the building blocks remain in place. As the restoration project evolved, the Putin administration increasingly challenged aspects of the post–World War II and post–cold war legal, security, and economic architecture, and suggested the need for new arrangements. Many in the Russian elite seemed to view the changes that have occurred in Europe over the past twenty years, such as the enlargement of the North 6 U.S.-Russian Relations and the Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), as illegitimate, driven not by the choices of local governments or populations, but by the will of Washington. Nostalgia for the Soviet era, a related sentiment, is widely shared, and is an important source of former president and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s popularity.9 Some experts even suggest that many in Russia’s governing structures believe that Europe whole and free—that is, post–cold war Europe—is not in the security interest of Russia. The Carnegie Moscow Center’s Lilya Shevtsova has labeled this view “great power nationalism” and observes that the “Putin-Medvedev-Lavrov doctrine” derives from the premise that Russia seeks to contain the West—while the West is busy trying not to offend Russia.10 Some other studies suggest that Russian policymakers have attempted, in fact, to divide the United States from Europe, and generally have preferred bilateral to multilateral engagement.11 At the United Nations, Russia, together with China, repeatedly has challenged international responses to gross human rights violations in Burma, Darfur, and Zimbabwe, and it has engaged in systematic efforts to undermine the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) election monitoring efforts and the Council of Europe’s human rights monitoring.12 Meanwhile, Russian leaders seem to believe the current European security arrangements are soft commitments, ripe for renegotiation and restructuring. President Dmitri Medvedev has, in fact, called for a new “collective security arrangement,” at the same time reintroducing the concept of spheres of influence.13 All of these actions taken together, along with the decline in U.S. soft power, have looked at times as if some in the Russian government were trying to reset the table on human rights and international law, exporting its democracy and rule of law deficit abroad. How best can the United States, together with Europe, respond to this situation? Two additional dynamics are relevant: Russian internal weaknesses, both political and economic, but also the degree to which the Russian authorities’ assessment of the condition of the international system is correct. For Sarah E. Mendelson 7 example, in August 2008, Russian government officials fecklessly deployed human rights and international law rhetoric to justify the Russian use of force in South Ossetia—was that just a murky reflection of the current deeply inconsistent international order?14 Will that calculation be challenged by the Obama administration? How can it do so effectively? Will we see a new era of more robust international organizations, underpinned by respect for human rights and international law? If not, will we be in for a period of serious instability in Europe, along Russia’s borders? Russia’s Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit What makes these questions so pressing is the reality that American and European political strategy dating back to the early 1990s of

integrating Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community and thus encouraging democratic develop ment has largely failed . By

2009, Vladimir Putin’s policies have systemati cally closed off nearly all legitimate structures for voicing opposition . Many nongovernmental organizations are under daily pressure from the authorities.15 The parliament is dominated by a government-run party, United Russia, and outcomes of local and national elections are controlled by the authorities. The government controls national television. The few critically minded journalists that exist routinely are threatened or are under constant surveillance by the authorities, and twenty murders of journalists since 2000 have gone unsolved.16 One small newspaper known for its criticism of Kremlin policies has seen four of its journalists killed in recent years. At a minimum, the authorities have presided over an era of impunity, and at worst, some fear government authorities may have been directly involved in these deaths.17 Meanwhile, the democratic political opposition is extremely marginal and dysfunctional—irrespective of whatever government pressures are brought to bear on it. Russia has no leading liberal figures that might emerge as national leaders at present. In years past, the fighting among liberal parties was legendary, and led to multiple fratricidal losses in single-mandate districts, as liberal parties ran against one another—back when there were competitive elections for parliamentary seats.18 Today, it is unclear when or how the democratic opposition will repair itself. Yet, as political space has shrunk steadily in the past ten years, the majority of Russians do not appear to mind. In terms of the younger generation, the conventional wisdom that wealth would lead to a demand for democracy has not been borne out; only about 10 percent of survey respondents could be considered strongly supportive of democracy, while most are ambivalent. In the early 1990s, many in the West assumed that the older Soviet generation would be replaced eventually by a younger, pro-Western, pro-democratic generation. Experts and policymakers alike assumed this succession would be a natural course of events, like gravity. A similar conventional wisdom about the younger generation in Russia continues. It holds that iPods, lattes, skateboards, and other artifacts of Western consumer culture will translate into a desire for independent media, justice, and human rights. In 2005 and 2007, in an environment of steadily shrinking political space, a study based at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) explored how young Russians viewed Soviet history and Stalin. Our nationally representative surveys of 16-to-29-year-old Russians suggested that, despite economic prosperity, most young people gravitated enthusiastically to Vladimir Putin’s ideological platform of revisionist history and nostalgia. The narrative advanced by the government concerning recent history quite simply resonated with this younger generation. In both surveys, a majority believed that Stalin did more good than bad and that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century. These findings undoubtedly reflected coordinated strategic communications efforts by government authorities, including support of a teacher’s guide rewriting Soviet history, downplaying the deaths of millions of citizens, and effacing historical memory. These actions facilitated Russia’s authoritarian trend.19 In sum, the Russian middle class and support for authoritarian governance coexist. The tacit bargain of the past decade, however, in which dissenters were punished but Russians’ pocketbooks grew, may now be threatened by the international economic crisis. Oil prices plunged from a high of $147 a barrel in July 2008 to about $40 a barrel in December 2008. If the price of oil stays low, the lubricating effect of oil and gas revenues may well dry up, laying bare Russia’s dysfunctional state institutions and challenging the authorities’ ability to govern. Economic hardship and poor governance seem, at least anecdotally, to correlate with an increase in public protest and nervousness on the part of the ruling authorities.20 Perhaps, in the long run, the mix of economic hard times and poor governance will stimulate a greater demand for democracy and the rule of law in Russia, as citizens grow unhappy with state institutions that do not function and link that dysfunction to poor governance. In the near term, we can expect growth in nationalism and xenophobia. 21 To be sure, the democracy and rule of law deficit and the growth in

nationalism pose problems primarily for Russians. In the twenty-first century, independent investigative journalism and the legitimate use of courts for prosecution are necessary to fight corruption. Today, Russia is plagued by corruption, and the Russian authorities dominate both television and court decisions.22 Independent newspapers and Internet sites exist, but journalists who have engaged in investigative journalism have been killed or live under threat.23 In a state where the rule of man predominates, the population experiences the police as predatory rather than protective. Torture in police stations is said to be common and police officers who have been rotated through Chechnya are said to be especially abusive.24 In a 2004 CSIS survey of 2,400 Russians ages 16 to 65, 41 percent of respondents feared arbitrary arrest by the police.25 In a 2007 CSIS survey of 2,000 Russians ages 16 to 29, 62 percent of respondents fully or partially distrusted the police.26 While one cannot make direct comparisons for methodological reasons, it is worth bearing in mind a recent study of attitudes toward police in China, where only 25 percent reported distrust.27 Undoubtedly, the democracy and rule of law deficit varies regionally, but it is particularly worrisome in the southern regions of Russia. The government’s approach to what it perceives as widespread radical Islamic sentiment in the North Caucasus has increased violence rather than contained it. Between May 1 and August 31, 2008, there were at least 282 incidents, and between September 1 and December 31, 2008 there were at least 333.28 When the situation is at its most dire, the Russian government appears not to control this part of its territory. Many experts worry that there will be war in the North Caucasus in 2009, or possibly that, south of the border, a Russian-Georgia war will break out again.29 That prognosis may be overly gloomy, but violence is clearly on the rise and the socioeconomic conditions in the region are dire. Why It Matters What does any of this have to do with the Obama administration?

The democ racy and rule of law deficit in Russia has a range of security and human rights implications for the United States

and our allies in Europe. For example, the Obama administration comes to office with a number of arms control goals. These plans may be complicated by the absence of Russian military reform that, in turn, correlates with abuse inside the army. (They are also complicated by continued government reliance on nonconventional forces: in September 2008, President Medvedev committed to modernizing the nuclear

arsenal.30) Serious, joint counterterrorism efforts with the United States, Europe, and Russia are likely to remain illusive as long as the police and security ser vices are corrupt and abusive, and the media , a potential source to expose that corruption,

is largely controlled by the government. Even at the nongovernmental, track-two level, it is now difficult to have the sort of transatlantic Sarah E. Mendelson 11 policy dialogue on terrorism that has been common among other nations and societies since 2001.31 The most dire evidence suggests that security service personnel or contractors have been deployed abroad, in European cities, to eliminate Kremlin enemies. In the most famous example, British authorities have sought the extradition from Moscow of former KGB bodyguard and cur-rent Duma member Andrew Lugovoi for the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in November 2006.32 Kremlin proxies, such as Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov, may have agents doing the same on his behalf on the streets of Austria, also with apparent impunity.33 At a minimum, the Russian authorities seem to have drawn a red line at additional enlargement of Euro-Atlantic organizations. Instead of allowing states and societies to decide for themselves what alliances and security or economic arrangements they want, Russian officials speak of “zones of interest” and “neutral” spaces—presumably such as Ukraine. In the worst case scenario, the Kremlin might decide to probe the resolve of existing NATO and EU security commitments. Presumably, this realization led General James Craddock to request that NATO begin defense planning for the Baltic states.34 Some believe, although the evidence is not clear, that the May 2007 cyber attack on Estonian government agencies, banks, newspapers, and other organizations was a first probe by the Russian government.35 In the August 2008 war in Georgia, for which all sides deserve some blame, experts saw evidence of additional Russian government cyber attacks and a prime example of blatant disregard for international law as the Russian government sought to change an internationally recognized border by force.36 Meanwhile, existing Euro-Atlantic organizations are negatively and directly affected by Russia’s democracy and rule of law deficit. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has heard far more cases from Russia than any other country, effectively substituting for Russia’s domestic judiciary. Some European human rights lawyers argue that this situation is severely undermining the court’s efficacy and ability to handle cases from a broad range of countries. Moreover, the Russian government increasingly has failed to compensate victims or their families, apparently now risking its expulsion from the Council of Europe.37 According to numerous OSCE officials, the Kremlin has waged a systematic campaign to undercut the organization’s various monitoring efforts.38 The emergent norm of international election observation has been undermined by the Kremlin’s attempts to legitimize fraudulent elections at home and in neighboring states, supporting a wave of authoritarian governments in this region.39

Global nuclear warGoodby 2 (James E., Former Fellow – US Institute of Peace, and Piet Buwalda and Dmitriĭ Trenin, A Strategy for Stable Peace: Toward a Euroatlantic Security Community, p. 27-29)

A decade after the Cold War was solemnly buried, there is still no stable peace between Russia and the Western countries. Moreover, from the late 1990s the dynamic of the relationship has taken a negative direction. NATO's expansion to the east, the Kosovo crisis, and the second Chechen war stand out as milestones of the gradual slide toward something alternately described as a "cold peace" and a "new cold war." Frustration is steadily building on both sides. Mutual expectations have been drastically lowered. In the Western world, and in North America in particular, public expectations for Russia and its affairs have plummeted. "Russia fatigue" is widespread in Europe as well. In Russia itself, Western, especially U.S., policies are often described as being aimed at keeping Russia weak and fragmented, with a purpose of subjugating it. It would appear, then, that today is anything but a propitious starting point for an effort to chart the road toward a security community centered on Europe that would include Russia. But such an effort is necessary and should not be delayed. At worst, a Russia that is not properly anchored in a common institutional framework with the West can turn into a loose nuclear cannon . If conflicts arise between Russia and its smaller neighbors, the West will not be able to sit them out. And a progressive alienation between Russia and the Western world would have a very negative impact on domestic developments in Russia. Now that the German problem has been solved, the Russian problem looms as potentially Europe's largest. The United States will not be able to ignore Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, and the European Union can hardly envisage a modi cum of stability along its eastern periphery unless it finds a formula to co-opt Russia as Europe's reliable associate. RUSSIAN DEMOCRATIZATION In the decade since the demise of the Soviet Union and the communist system, Russia has evolved into a genuinely pluralist society, although it is still a very incomplete democracy. To its credit, Russia has a constitution that proclaims separation of powers; it has a working parliament, an executive president, and a nominally independent judiciary. Between 1993 and 2000, three parliamentary and two presi-dential elections were held; for the first time in Russia's long history, transfer of power at the very top occurred peacefully and in accordance with a democratic constitution. This is already becoming a pattern. Power has been decentralized vertically as well as horizontally. Power monopoly is a thing of the past. Russia's regions have started to form distinct identities. The regional governors, or presidents of republics, within Russia are popularly elected, as are city mayors and regional legislatures. The national economy has been largely privatized. The media, though not genuinely independent either of the authorities or of the various vested interests, are free in principle. There is a large degree of religious freedom, and ideological oppression is nonexistent. Finally, Russians are free to travel abroad. These achievements are significant, and most of them are irreversible. Yet, Russia's development is handicapped by major hurdles to speedier societal transformation, as is occurring in Poland or Estonia. One hurdle is poor governance, stemming from the irresponsibility of the elites as

much as from sheer incompetence. Toward the end of the Yeltsin era, the state itself appeared privatized, with parts of it serving the interests of various groups or strongmen. Corruption and crime are pervasive. Accustomed to living in an authoritarian state, many Russians began to associate democracy with chaos and thuggery. Another major problem is widespread poverty and the collapse of the social infrastructure, including health care. Too many Russians believe they have gained little or nothing from the economic and social changes of the past decade. Taken together, these factors work toward the restoration of some form of authoritarian and paternalistic rule.

Turns Central Asia

Human rights cred stops Central Asian warHill 1 (Fiona, Fellow – Brookings Institution, “The Caucasus and Central Asia: How The United States and its Allies Can Stave Off A Crisis”, Policy Brief #80, http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb80.htm)

In the next two years, the Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Economic and political crises, or the intensification of war in Chechnya or Afghanistan, might lead to the "Balkanization" of the regions. This, in turn, could result in military intervention by any of the major powers. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992-1993, this risk should be taken seriously. U nfortunately, the Caucasus and Central Asian states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. Economic collapse has produced social dislocation and extreme poverty. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. The internal weakness of the Caucasus and Central Asian states, combined with brutal regional wars, makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressure—especially from Russia. Although Russia itself is weak, it is far stronger than all the states combined, and while its direct influence over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remains the dominant economic, political, and military force. The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them. American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage , the potential threats to its own security, and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. In spite of a few glitches, the Caucasus and Central Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so amenable to U.S. activity. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain independence in the face of increasing pressures, and its guidance in dealing with presidential transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. Even with limited political and financial resources, U.S. leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems . However, this will only be possible if a policy is defined early and communicated clearly, if there is a particular focus on partnership with European allies in addressing regional challenges, and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability in the regions.

Global nuclear warBlank 99 (Steven, Professor of Research – Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Region)

Past experience suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish intervention in the Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance and the 1994 Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility. Conceivably, the two larger states could then be dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The Russo-Armenian treaty is a virtual bilateral military alliance against Baku, in that it reaffirms Russia’s lasting military presence in Armenia, commits Armenia not to join NATO, and could justify further fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh or further military pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration and marketing. It also reconfirms Russia’s determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence and remain the exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have great potential for unintended escalation . Big powers often fear obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés. One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence, commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening in the Karabakh War on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This confirms the observations of Jim Hoagland, the international correspondent of the Washington Post, that “future wars involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia.” Unfortunately, many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia,

or if it could conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here than almost anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.

Turns Food SecurityHuman rights promotion turns food security - violations correlate with famineCohen 7 (Marc, directs the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) research program on policy processes in food security and nutrition, and is a Research Fellow in the Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, "Food Security: Vulnerability Despite Abundance," July, http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00438/Food_security_Cohen_Jul2007.pdf)

Rights or Needs? There is serious disagreement as to whether national governments and the international community should seek to achieve food security as a matter of human rights or on purely pragmatic grounds. International human rights law explicitly includes the right to adequate food and the right to be free from hunger (i.e., the minimal right not to starve). High-level government representatives have repeatedly reaffirmed their support for these rights, e.g., at the 1996 World Food Summit and its five-year follow-up. In 2004, FAO’s intergovernmental council unanimously endorsed a set of voluntary guidelines for states to use to progressively realize the right to food.14 Citizens and public prosecutors in Brazil and India have successfully used courts to advance food security based on legal recognition of this right. Yet some aid donors—notably the US government—insist that adopting food security policies is more important than legal instruments. In

contrast, there is broad consensus that protection and promotion of human rights more generally can advance food security , as the World Food Summit Plan of Action notes (language included at the behest of the United States). Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has repeatedly emphasized the role of freedom of expression and democratic rule in preventing famines, as opposition parties, the media, and civil society press governments to act.

Turns Arctic Human rights promotion is key to making Arctic restrictions MORE EFFECTIVESjafjell and Halvorssen 16 (Beate and Anita, Professors of Law @ Univ. of Oslo and Univ. of Denver, "The Legal Status of Oil and Gas Exploitation in the Arctic: The Case of Norway," https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2636542)

Assessing the question of new and large-scale oil and gas exploitation in the Arctic in light of Norway’s international law obligations, its EU law obligations (through the EEA agreement) and notably the enhanced provision of its Constitution, leads to the conclusion that exploiting oil and gas on a large scale in the Arctic is unlawful. This is based on the knowledge that the majority of known fossil fuel reserves need to remain in the ground if we are to have any chance of staying below the two-degree limit. Logical and obvious consequences are that we must refrain from exploiting fossil fuels with the most polluting exploitation methods and in the most vulnerable areas, where exploitation will have the worst environmental and human rights impacts and in areas where exploitation contributes most to climate change. Continuing with the Norwegian fossil fuel industry on a large scale will make it impossible for Norway to fulfil its obligation to ensure a liveable environment. Not exploiting oil and gas in the Arctic is an obvious first place to draw the line (along with unconventional methods of exploitation, such as the tar sands in Canada). Norway therefore, as a matter of law, cannot lawfully award any additional licenses for fossil fuel exploitation in the area of the Arctic where it has jurisdiction. Norway is also obligated to prevent Statoil, where Norway is the majority shareholder, from applying for or using licenses in other areas of the Arctic. On a general note, the authors argue that rather than allowing a new fossil fuel boom, the nations surrounding the Arctic must be incentivised to move to renewable energy through more effective legal regulation of environmental protection and the promotion of human rights . The authors briefly discuss the limitations of the Arctic Council’s role in achieving an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development of the Arctic, with the implications this has for the responsibility of the Arctic states. The article concludes with a forward-looking perspective on the potential that lies in achieving the transition towards sustainable low-carbon societies.

Turns Tribal Self-DeterminationGlobal human rights enforcement key to self-determination rightsHodgkins 4 (Allison Beth, doctoral candidate in International Law, Negotiations and Conflict Resolution, and Security Studies at The Fletcher School @ Tufts Univ., "NEW TRENDS AND SOLUTIONS IN AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST?: Beyond Two-States: Alternative Visions of Self-Determination for the People of Palestine," 28 Fletcher F. World Aff. 109, lexis)

Further attempts to expand the right of self-determination to peoples oppressed by means other than colonialism have come about in UN resolutions invoking the right of self-determination for the majority in apartheid South Africa and the people of Palestine. n18 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) sets forth the most explicit and expansive definition of self-determination to date, stating: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development." n19 But while the ICCPR and subsequent General Assembly resolutions, including those specific to Palestine, clearly affirmed the right of peoples suffering from alien subjugation to self-determination, the remedy was not set forth as secession and national independence .¶ Article I specifies that state parties to the ICCPR assist in the realization of self-determination for non-self-governing and trust territories -- an exercise that, in accordance with previous UN resolutions, entails independence. Article II, however, takes a different approach, in which "each State Party to the present ICCPR undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present ICCPR." n20 What this language suggests is that if a state is violating the rights of a national minority within its territories to self-determination as defined by Article I, it can bring itself into compliance with the ICCPR by enacting legislation or constitutional amendments that "give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant." Under this treatment of self-determination, the "self" is defined in terms of individuals entitled to basic human rights and effective participation in their government. From this standpoint, if people wish to exercise their rights through expressions of linguistic, cultural, or religious affiliation, they may do so only as far as they do not impinge on the same rights of others. Once again, the international community endorsed the principle that while peoples have an unrestricted right to self-determination, its [*114] exercise can be achieved through reform and the institution of mechanisms ensuring equal rights and equal protections.

Global human rights enforcement is key to the global protection of internal self-determination Fromherz 8 (Christopher, J.D. Candidate, 2008, University of Pennsylvania Law School, "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' COURTS: EGALITARIAN JURIDICAL PLURALISM, SELF-DETERMINATION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES," 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1341, lexis)

In 1966, the ICCPR and ICESCR were opened for signature. Included among their conferred rights, as discussed earlier, was the Article 1 collective "right of self-determination" for "all peoples." n74 During drafting, Western countries fought the inclusion of the collective right to self-determination in both the ICCPR and the ICESCR, arguing that these foundational human rights treaties were focused on individual and not collective rights. n75 Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, along with many developing countries, strongly supported including the right on anticolonialist principles. n76 The right contained in Common Article 1 has been interpreted as containing rights to both "internal" and "external" self- determination , though the focus of the UN Human Rights Committee, which is charged with monitoring states' compliance with international human rights norms, n77 has historically been on the latter. n78¶ [*1359] The concept of external self-determination has always been tied to the movement for colonial independence. Heavily influenced by the 1960 UN Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (the Colonial Peoples' Declaration), which, like the DRIP, reproduced Common Article 1(1) verbatim, n79 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) authoritatively laid down the rule of external self-determination for colonial peoples in two opinions: the Advisory Opinion on Namibia n80 and the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara. n81¶ The Namibia and Western Sahara cases clearly affirmed the right of colonial peoples to self-determination, as declared in the Colonial Peoples' Declaration. n82 More interesting for our purposes, however, is what these cases (and international practice) confirm about the scope of the right to self-determination as it is applied to colonies. Despite using language identical to that of Common Article 1(1) of the ICCPR and ICESCR, the right declared in the Colonial Peoples' Declaration concerns only "external self-determination" and expires once it has been exercised, either by the choice to form a new state or to associate or integrate with an existing state. n83¶ [*1360] The contours of the Article 1 right to internal self-determination - the right to self-government rooted in the Wilsonian conception - have been defined with reference to the specific political rights conferred by other substantive provisions of the ICCPR . n84 In other words, internal self-determination has generally been interpreted as the right to have the essential political rights conferred by the ICCPR protected, as a

proxy for the existence of genuine self-government. In sharp contrast to the right to external self-determination for colonial peoples, the right to internal self-determination is a continuous right. n85 The right can be conceptualized as applying to three demographics within a state: (1) the whole population; (2) racial or religious minorities suffering gross discrimination; and (3) ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, and other minorities. n86

Turns Sustainable Development/Envtl RightsHRIS is key to sustainable development and environmental rights protectionsAbate 7 (Randall, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, "Climate Change, the United States, and the Impacts of Arctic Melting: A Case Study in the Need for Enforceable International Environmental Human Rights," http://commons.law.famu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=faculty-research)

A second approach involves the integration and enhancement of existing domestic and international legal mechanisms to develop a system of remedies and forums for recognition and protection of environmental human rights. This approach has both substantive and procedural dimensions. On the substantive side, enhancing the integration between the U.S. environmental justice theory and sustainable development may give the rhetorical policy underpinnings of sustainable development in international environmental law more meaningful practical effect in protecting environmental human rights. At a procedural level, human rights impacts assessments can help ensure that environmental human rights impacts are always recognized when evaluating proposed development projects, similar to the success of the "look before you leap" rationale underlying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 323 Like substantive and procedural due process protections under U.S. law, these evolving substantive and procedural dimensions work together to effectively protect environmental human rights.

US Special Ed Policies Modeled – 2nc US disability rights leadership is modeled globally – access to education is vital CEC 14 (Concil for Exceptional Children, "Issue Brief - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities," http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/CAN%20Documents/CAN%202014/Issue%20Brief%20Collection.pdf)

• CEC Supports the U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). • This population has been discriminated against for centuries, lives in poverty and is the most disadvantaged among all minorities, experiencing the most extreme lack of access to education , independent living, and employment. • A broad coalition of more than 600 U.S. disability, civil

rights, faith, business, and veteran organizations support the U.S. ratification of the CRPD, holding that American leadership in this arena is critical to the ultimate success of the treaty. • Ratification is critical to maintaining our leadership role and to eliminating

disability discrimination throughout the world and gives the U.S. legitimacy to export the model of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) to other countries . • The absence of U.S. leadership in the CRPD and its Committee of experts

matters. Ratification provides the United States an opportunity to play an important and expansive role in the development of disability rights around the world without having to change any U.S. laws or add additional costs to its budget.

US disability leadership emulated globally – we are the standard bearer USICD 16 ("CRPD POSITION OF CANDIDATES COMPETING FOR ELECTION TO U.S. SENATE IN 2016," http://usicd.org/index.cfm/crpdupdates)

By ratifying the CRPD, the United States can share the American experience of protecting and promoting disability rights with the world. Our influence is sorely needed . The world’s people with disabilities look to the United States on this issue . Hear these voices calling for U.S. ratification: From Mongolia: “Many countries see US action in human rights as an example. We, persons with disabilities, always take examples from the United States. If the US ratifies the CRPD that will have a huge impact in other countries and will facilitate our advocacy.” Ya.Avirmed, Aivuun NGO for Persons with Disabilities,

Ulaanbaatar city, Mongolia From Trinidad: “ US disability rights laws are the standard bearer and the fact that the United States Senate is taking steps to ratify the CRPD is further evidence of the importance of this treaty.” Debbie McKell, Trinidad and Tobago Paralympic Committee

US Key to Human Rights Promotion – 2ncUS credibility is key to the global enforcement of human rights Wexler 8 (Leslie, Prof of Law @ Univ. of Illinois + former Copeland Award winner, "HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT STATEMENTS: AN IMMIGRATION CASE STUDY," 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 285, lexis)

Enhancing our reputation for human rights compliance is especially important given current political realities. Many

countries hold a declining opinion of the United States. n53 The international community would welcome America's affirmation of the continuing importance of human rights in the wake of many post-September 11th actions such as

torture, extraordinary rendition, increased domestic surveillance, and harsher and more frequent detention of immigrants. Moreover, the international community would benefit from the assurance that the concept of "human rights" means more than a justification for regime change. n54 American exceptionalism to human rights law angers our allies and complicates efforts to secure their cooperation. n55 Not surprisingly, many countries view the United States' silence about its own human rights failings as hypocritical . n56 In particular, the international community strongly criticizes the State Department's annual human rights reports for omitting an assessment of domestic performance as well as omitting "actions by governments taken at the request of the United States or with the expressed support of the United States . . . ." n57 Human rights advocates suggest that U.S. leadership on human rights faces a severe [*293] credibility gap--for instance, other countries perceive the United States as a laggard on human

rights treaty compliance in regards to migrants n58 -- but that repudiation of past abuses and momentum for policy changes could restore its leadership . n59

US leadership in complying and enforcing international human rights is essential to their global protection – credibility is key Ignatieff 5 (Michael, Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Practice of Politics and the Press @ Kennedy School of Government - Harvard, "American Exceptionalism and Human Rights," http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8080.html)

Since 1945 America has displayed exceptional leadership in promoting international human rights. At the same time , however,

it has also resisted complying with human rights standards at home or aligning its foreign policy with these standards abroad. Under some administrations, it has promoted

human rights as if they were synonymous with American values, while under others, it has emphasized the superiority of American values over international standards. This combination of leadership and resistance is what defines American human rights behavior as exceptional, and it is this complex and ambivalent pattern that the book seeks to explain. Thanks to Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, the United States took a leading role in the creation of the United Nations and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.1 Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world. Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world. These promote religious freedom, gender equality, democratic rights, and the abolition of slavery; they monitor human rights performance by governments, including--and especially--the U.S. government. U.S. government action, together with global activism by U.S. NGOs, has put Americans in the forefront of attempts to improve women's rights, defend religious liberty, improve access to AIDS drugs, spread democracy and freedom through the Arab and Muslim worlds, and oppose tyrants from Slobodan Milos evic ´ to Saddam Hussein. The same U.S. government, however, has also supported rights-abusing regimes from Pinochet's Chile to Suharto's Indonesia; sought to scuttle the International Criminal Court, the capstone of an enforceable global human rights regime; maintained practices--like capital punishment--at variance with the human rights standards of other democracies; engaged in unilateral preemptive military actions that other states believe violate the UN Charter; failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; and ignored UN bodies when they criticized U.S. domestic rights practices. What is exceptional here is not that the United States is inconsistent, hypocritical, or arrogant. Many other nations, including leading democracies, could be accused of the same

things. What is exceptional, and worth explaining, is why America has both been guilty of these failings and also been a driving force behind the promotion and enforcement of global human rights. What needs explaining is the paradox of being simultaneously a leader and an outlier. While the focus of this book will be on human rights, exceptionalism is also a feature of U.S. attitudes toward environmental treaties like the Kyoto Protocol as well as the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. Since the attack of September 11, it has been accused of violating the Conventions as well as the Torture Convention in its handling of prisoners

at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other detention facilities. This pattern of behavior raises a fundamental question about the very place of the world's most powerful nation inside the network of international laws and conventions that regulate a globalizing world. To what extent does the United States accept constraints on its sovereignty through the international human rights regime, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter rules on the use of force? To what degree does America play by the rules it itself has helped to create? In this book, we do not revisit wider historical and sociological debates about why Americans have seen their society as exceptional at least since the Pilgrim Fathers, or why America has been exceptional in its absence of a socialist movement.2 Nor is this another discussion of American unilateralism in foreign policy, since unilateralism and exceptionalism are different phenomena, requiring

different explanations. Instead the volume is closely focused on U.S. human rights performance in comparative perspective, since this approach highlights new questions about the relation between U.S. rights traditions and political culture and their influence on U.S. projection of power, influence, and moral example overseas. The book is the result of an academic collaboration by

the scholars in this volume, initiated at a seminar series held at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and generously funded by the Winston Foundation. What began as a scholarly exercise has been given topical urgency by the war in Iraq and the war on terror. While the volume's contributors engage with both, the aim of the book is wider: to situate and explain current administration conduct within a historical account of America's long-standing ambivalence toward the constraining role of international law in general. In this introduction, I will set out a three-part typology of American exceptionalism; identify and examine four

central explanations offered by the contributors; and finally raise two questions about policy: What price does the United States pay for exceptionalism in human rights ? What can be done to exercise human rights leadership in a less exceptional way ? Distinguishing Types of

American Exceptionalism American exceptionalism has at least three separate elements. First, the United States signs on to international human rights and humanitarian law conventions and treaties and then exempts itself from their provisions by explicit reservation, nonratification, or noncompliance. Second, the United States maintains double standards: judging itself and its friends by more permissive criteria than it does its enemies. Third, the United States denies jurisdiction to human rights law within its own domestic law, insisting on the self-contained authority of its own domestic rights tradition. No other democratic state engages in all three of these practices to the same extent, and none combines these practices with claims to global leadership in the field of human rights. The first variant of exceptionalism is exemptionalism. America supports multilateral agreements and regimes, but only if they permit exemptions for American citizens or U.S. practices. In 1998, the United States took part in the negotiations for the International Criminal Court but secured guarantees that its military, diplomats, and politicians would never come before that court. The Clinton administration signed the treaty before leaving office, only to have the incoming Bush administration unsign it.3 The Bush administration then went on to negotiate agreements with allied countries requiring them to guarantee that they would not hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC.4 Over the Land Mines Treaty, America took part in negotiations but sought exemption for American military production and deployment of land

mines in the Korean Peninsula.5 Exemptionalism, of course, is not confined to the domains of human rights-related treaties. U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change fits into the same pattern.6 Exemptionalism has also been on display in the war on terror in the U.S. insistence that while conditions of detention at Guanta ´ namo and elsewhere will comply with Geneva Convention standards, interrogation procedures and determination of status will be determined by executive order of the president.7 Exemptionalism is not the same as isolationism. The same administration that will have nothing to do with the ICC is heavily engaged in the defense and promotion of religious freedom abroad, the abolition of slavery, the funding of HIV/AIDS relief, and the protection of victims of ethnic and religious intolerance in Sudan.8 Nor is exceptionalism a synonym for unilateralism. An administration that will not engage on the ICC is insistently engaged with the UN and other allies on the issue of HIV/AIDS. While some of the U.S. human rights agenda, like the promotion of religious freedom abroad, is exceptional in the sense that other democratic states place less emphasis upon it, much U.S. human rights policy is aligned with those of other European countries and is advanced through multilateral fora like UN Human Rights Committees. Exemptionalism also involves the practice of negotiating and signing human rights conventions but with reservations. Thus the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1991 while exempting itself from the provisions banning the infliction of the death penalty on juveniles.9 America is not the only country to insist on this type of exemption. Saudi Arabia, for example, insists that international human rights convention language relating to free marriage choice and freedom of belief remain without effect in their domestic law.10 These exemptions are simply the price that any universal rights regime has to pay for country-by-country ratification. Indeed, it is doubtful that the framework would exist at all if it did not allow latitude for countries to protect the specificity of their legal and national traditions. While European states also ratify with reservations and exceptions, they question whether a U.S. exemption on the right to life--a core human rights principle--can be justified.11 Allowing a state to pick and choose how it adheres to such a central principle threatens to empty international conventions of their universal status. Moreover, exemptionalism turns the United States into an outlier. The United States now stands outside an abolitionist consensus vis-à-vis capital punishment that applies to all democratic states and most nondemocratic ones, with the exception of China.12 Even when the United States ratifies international rights conventions, it usually does so with a stipulation that the provisions cannot supersede U.S. domestic law. 13 Thus, with a few exceptions, American ratification renders U.S. participation in international human rights symbolic, since adopting treaties does not actually improve the statutory rights protections of U.S. citizens in domestic law. Exemptionalism also takes the form of signing on to international rights conventions and then failing to abide by their requirements. The U.S. record of treaty compliance is no worse than that of other democracies, but because of the superpower's exceptional political importance, U.S. forms of noncompliance have more impact than those of less powerful states. Examples of noncompliance include failing to inform UN human rights bodies when derogating from treaty standards; failing to cooperate with UN human rights rapporteurs seeking access to U.S. facilities; and refusing to order stays of execution in compliance with the Vienna Treaty on Consular Obligations.14 Both the Canadian and German governments have sought stays of execution for their nationals in U.S. courts, on the grounds that these nationals were convicted without prior access to their consular officials. Neither Virginia nor Texas paid any attention to these foreign requests, and these states allowed the executions to proceed.15 A third element of exemptionalism is the practice of negotiating treaties and then refusing to ratify them altogether or ratifying them only after extended delays. For example, the Senate refused to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, leaving the United States the only nation besides Somalia not to do so. The United States took nearly forty years to ratify the Genocide Convention.16 Failure to ratify doesn't mean that the United States fails to comply: no one has complained that the United States is currently guilty of genocide. Nor does failure to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child mean that standards of child protection in the United States are as poor as those of the other nonratifier, Somalia.17 Nonratification simply means that U.S. child advocates cannot use international standards in domestic U.S. litigation. Likewise, U.S. refusal to ratify the Convention on Eliminating Discrimination against Women does not leave American women without protections and remedies. Nonratification means that UN instruments and standards have no legal standing in U.S. courts. How serious this is depends on the extent of the gap between current U.S. federal and state standards and international norms. Where this gap is large, Americans may lack rights and remedies available in other democratic states. The second feature of American exceptionalism is double standards. The United States judges itself by standards different from those it uses to judge other countries, and judges its friends by standards different from those it uses for its enemies. This is the feature that Harold Koh identifies as the most costly and problematic aspect of American exceptionalism. The United States criticizes other states for ignoring the reports of UN rights bodies, while refusing to accept criticism of its own domestic rights performance from the same UN bodies. This is especially the case in relation to capital punishment in general and the execution of juveniles in particular, as well as conditions of detention in U.S. prisons.18 Overseas, the United States condemns abuses by hostile regimes--Iran and North Korea, for example--while excusing abuses by such allies as Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Uzbekistan. It has been condemned for arming, training, and funding death squads in Latin America in the 1980s, while condemning the guerrillas as terrorists. Hence when the United States called for a global war on all forms of terrorism after September 11, it faced accusations that its own policies toward attacks on civilians had been guilty of double standards. 19 The third form of exceptionalism--legal isolationism--characterizes the attitude of the U.S. courts toward the rights jurisprudence of other liberal democratic countries. The claim here is that American judges are exceptionally resistant to using foreign human rights precedents to guide them in their domestic opinions. As Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, when rejecting a colleague's references to foreign jurisprudence in deciding Printz v. US, "We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution."20 This judicial attitude is anchored in a broad popular sentiment that the land of Jefferson and Lincoln has nothing to learn about rights from any other country. As Anne-Marie Slaughter points out in her contribution, this American judicial self-sufficiency is exceptional when compared to other judiciaries, with judges in Israel inspecting Canadian precedents on minority rights cases, and judges in the South African Constitutional Court studying German cases to interpret social and economic rights claims.21 Historically, the American judiciary has stood apart from the trend toward comparative legal problem solving, although as Slaughter also points out, law is being globalized, like commerce and communications, and in the process American lawyers and judges are being drawn into the global conversation. The American legal profession in general has not ignored global human rights developments, and American academic experts like Thomas Franck, Louis Henkin, and Thomas Buergenthal have played key roles in international rights institutions.22 American constitutional scholars assisted their Eastern European and South African counterparts in drafting constitutions, and U.S. programs of democracy development abroad have an increasingly important rule-of-law component.23 But the trade in legal understanding continues to be mostly one-way, with the U.S. legal tradition teaching others but not learning much itself. As Frank Michelman points out in his contribution, American judicial interpretation is marked by what he calls "integrity-anxiety," a concern to maintain rules of judicial interpretation that are stable, continuous, and legitimate. These stable canons can appear threatened by indiscriminate or undisciplined recourse to foreign precedents and sources. In addition to concerns about the stability of the interpretive canon, there is the belief of some American judges that foreign judicial attitudes are too liberal--on issues like the death penalty, abortion, sentencing, and so on--and should be resisted as alien to the American mainstream.24 American mainstream values are more than just the artifact of American conservatism since the 1960s. These values are structured legally by a rights tradition that has always been different from those of other democratic states and increasingly diverges from international human rights norms. As Frederick Schauer shows in his essay, in its free speech and defamation doctrine the United States has always been more protective of speakers' rights than any other liberal democratic state. Canada, France, and Germany permit the punishment of Holocaust deniers. New Zealand criminalizes incitement to racial hatred. UK libel laws provide more remedies against UK newspapers than would be conceivable in the United States. U.S. law and international human rights standards also diverge markedly. International human rights laws allow more infringements of private liberty, in the name of public order, than do U.S. laws. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates specific overrides of free speech if the free speech involves a threat to public order, the defamation of a religious or ethnic group, or the promotion of war propaganda. When the United States ratified the ICCPR, it specifically exempted itself from these provisions, just as it exempted itself from the ICCPR prohibition on juvenile execution.25 The European Human Rights Convention permits states to suspend political and civil rights in times of national emergency, while the U.S. Constitution has no provision for the declaration of national emergencies and only a single reference to presidential power to suspend habeas corpus.26 The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to socioeconomic and welfare rights--entitlements to food, shelter, health care, and unemployment insurance--that are standard features of both international rights regimes and the constitutions of European states. As Cass Sunstein points out in his contribution, U.S. rights, moreover, are defined in negative terms ("Congress shall make no law"), while modern democratic constitutions enunciate rights as positive entitlements to welfare and assistance at the hand of the state. Certain U.S. constitutional rights like the right to bear arms do not feature in other democratic systems.27 Hence no American ally approaches the problem of regulating the international trade in small arms with this constitutional restraint in mind. While the West presents an appearance of a common rights identity to the non-Western world, its leader--the United States--increasingly stands apart. As international rights conventions proliferate, as newer states like South Africa adopt new rights regimes and older states like Canada constitutionalize rights in new charters of rights and freedoms, the American Bill of Rights stands out in ever sharper relief, as a late eighteenth-century constitution surrounded by twenty-first-century ones, a grandfather clock in a shop window full of digital timepieces. There is more to the distinctiveness of American rights culture than the fact that the U.S. Constitution is one of the oldest in existence. As various contributions to this book make clear, U.S. rights guarantees have been employed in the service of a political tradition that has been consistently more critical of government, more insistent on individual responsibility, and more concerned to defend individual freedom than the European socialist, social democratic, or Christian democratic traditions. Changes in European law have widened the legal gulf that now divides the North Atlantic states. The U.S. legal tradition once shared a great deal with British common law. Thanks to the UK's recent incorporation of the European Human Rights Convention into its domestic law, the British rights system now shares more with the Europeans than with the Americans. The British have accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights; whenever that court hands down a ruling requiring legislative or administrative change, Parliament obliges.28 Such deference to a transnational legal authority would be unthinkable in the United States. All of this helps to reduce the commonality of the common law tradition and to increase the degree to which American rights culture has become an outlier among the other liberal democracies. Explaining American Exceptionalism Four types of explanation for American exceptionalism have been offered by the scholars in this volume: a realist one, based in America's exceptional power; a cultural one, related to an American sense of Providential destiny; an institutional one, based in America's specific institutional organization; and finally a political one, related to the supposedly distinctive conservatism and individualism of American political culture. Realism A realist explanation of American exceptionalism would begin with America's exceptional global power since 1945. Exceptionally powerful countries get away with exemptions in their multilateral commitments simply because they can. Human rights and humanitarian law instruments are weakly enforced in any event. The United States can exempt itself from the ICC--and try to block its operation--because no other country or group of countries has the power to stop it. No other state has the capacity to sanction the United States if it ducks compliance with the Vienna Law of Treaties, ignores the derogation procedures of human rights conventions, and delays ratification of other treaties for decades. On a realist account, support for international law and willingness to submit to its constraints would be in inverse relation to a state's power. The less powerful a state, the more reason it would have to support international norms that would constrain its more powerful neighbors. The more powerful a state, the more reluctant it would be to submit to multilateral constraint. Support for international law is bound to be strongest among middling powers like France, Germany, and Canada, democratic states that already comply with multilateral rights norms in their own domestic rights regimes, and that want to use international law to constrain the United States. As Joseph Nye, Jr., has put it, "multilateralism can be used as a strategy by smaller states to tie the United States down like Gulliver among the Lilliputians."29 Thus for middling powers the cost of their own compliance with human rights and humanitarian law instruments is offset by the advantages they believe they will derive from international law regimes that constrain larger powers. For the United States the calculus is reversed. Moreover, as a country with a substantive commitment to the rule of law, not to mention vigilant human rights NGOs, the United States has to take treaty obligations seriously. Faced with strong domestic NGO lobbies seeking actual compliance with human rights treaties, administrations of both parties have rational reasons to endeavor to minimize the sovereignty constraints introduced by international human rights agreements.30 Realist explanations of this sort do help to explain why the United States would want to minimize the constraints imposed on it by a multilateral human rights and humanitarian law regime. A realist would argue that the United States seeks to maintain its power in a global order of states at the lowest possible cost to its sovereignty. In this, it behaves just like other states. The problem with realist explanations is that the United States has wanted to do much more than this. It has promoted the very system of multilateral engagements--human rights treaties, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter rules on the use of force and the resolution of disputes--that abridge and constrain its sovereignty. Realism alone cannot account for the paradox of American investment in a system that constrains its power. Strident unilateralism or strict isolationism are easier to explain on realist grounds than is the actual pattern of exceptionalist multilateralism. Culture What realism fails to explain is why multilateral engagements that do constrain American power have appealed to American leaders as different as Roosevelt and Reagan. It seems impossible to explain this paradox without some analysis of culture--specifically, of the way in which American leaders have understood the relation between American constitutional values and human rights. Across the political spectrum since 1945, American presidents have articulated a strongly messianic vision of the American role in promoting rights abroad. This messianic cultural tradition has a long history, from the vision of the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a "City upon a Hill" in the sermons of the Puritan John Winthrop, through the rhetoric of Manifest Destiny that accompanied westward expansion in the nineteenth century, the Wilsonian vision of U.S. power making the world safe for democracy after World War I, and Roosevelt's crusade for the "four freedoms" in World War II.31 The global spread of human rights has coincided with the American ascendancy in global politics and has been driven by the missionary conviction that American values have universal significance and application. What is important here is the conflict between national interest and messianic mission. Messianism has propelled America into multilateral engagements that a more realist calculation of interest might have led the nation to avoid. In American domestic politics, this sense of mission has refigured the ideal of a multilateral order of international law, not as a system of constraints on U.S. power, but as a forum in which U.S. leadership can be exercised and American intuitions about freedom and government can be spread across the world. This desire for moral leadership is something more than the ordinary narcissism and nationalism that all powerful states display. It is rooted in theparticular achievements of a successful history of liberty that U.S. leaders have believed is of universal significance, even the work of Providential design. For most Americans human rights are American values writ large, the export version of its own Bill of Rights. But if human rights are American values writ large, then, paradoxically, Americans have nothing to learn from international human rights. In the messianic American moral project, America teaches the meaning of liberty to the world; it does not learn from others.32 Messianism does help to explain the paradox of exceptional multilateralism. Indeed, it suggests that American exceptionalism is not so paradoxical after all: since 1945 the United States has explicitly sought to fulfill its messianic mission at the lowest possible cost to its national interest and with the lowest possible impingement upon its own domestic rights system. U.S. policy, across administrations both Republican and Democratic, has been designed both to promote American values abroad and to safeguard them from foreign interference at home. As Paul Kahn observes in his chapter, this concern to ward off foreign influence is more than just a powerful state's attempt to make the rules and exempt itself from them. The United States defends these exemptions in terms of the democratic legitimacy of its distinctive rights culture. The rights that Americans accept as binding are the ones written down in their own sacred texts and elaborated by their own courts and legislatures. These rights, authored in the name of "we the people," are anchored in the historical project of the American Revolution: a free people establishing a republic based in popular sovereignty. A realist account would explain exceptionalism as an attempt to defend U.S. sovereignty and power. The messianic account adds to this the idea that the United States is defending a mission, an identity, and a distinctive destiny as a free people. Despite the fact that ratification of international conventions through the Senate is supposed to vest them with full domestic political authority, international human rights law, Kahn argues, continues to lack the full imprimatur of American democratic legitimacy. Only domestic law, authored in American institutions, meets the test of legitimacy as an authentic expression of national sovereignty. This point can be illustrated by the most controversial issue at stake, discussed by Carol Steiker in her contribution, the death penalty statutes enforced in twenty-eight American states. If the people of the state of Texas conscientiously believe that the death penalty deters crime, eliminates dangerous offenders, and gives public expression to the values that ought to hold Texas society together--as repeated polls indicate that they do--it is hardly surprising that such majoritarian political preferences should trump international human rights. The contrast between American and European practice on the death penalty may depend on the institutional power that American voters possess in defining the balance between individual rights and collective moral preferences. Capital punishment has been abolished in most European societies not because electoral majorities support abolition--most polls across Europe indicate continuing support--but because political elites, especially ministers of the interior or home affairs, do not want the moral burden of ordering executions. These moral scruples are in direct contradiction to the expressed preferences of their own citizens. If this is true, then the European human rights conventions that sustain the abolition of capital punishment are playing an antimajoritarian role in counterbalancing electoral preferences. It seems unlikely that international rights conventions or instruments could ever play such a role in the United States. Rights in America are the rules that a democratic polity constructs to define the scope of public authority. American exceptionalism may be anchored in a fundamental difference with other democratic states about the appropriate relation between rights and majority interests, and in turn the relation between rights and national identity. From an American perspective, rights cannot be separated from the democratic community they serve; they are enforced by that community, and their interpretation must therefore depend solely on the institutions of that community.33 America is not the only powerful state that has articulated its identity in terms of its rights and believed in a special mission to export its vision of government. From Napoleon onward, France sought to export its legal culture to neighbors and colonies as part of a civilizing mission.34 The British Empire was sustained by the

conceit that the British had a special talent for government that entitled them to spread the rule of law to Kipling's "lesser breeds."35 In the twentieth century, the Soviet Union advanced missionary claims about the superiority of Soviet rule, backed by Marxist pseudoscience. Indeed the United States and the Soviet Union each battled for the allegiance of developing nations by advancing messianic claims about the universal validity of their own rights systems. The Soviets sought to convince newly independent countries in Africa and Asia of the superiority of Soviet social and economic guarantees, while the Americans insisted that civil and political rights, guaranteeing property and political participation, were the sine qua non of development. It was not until a faltering Soviet regime signed the Helsinki Final Accord in 1976, allowing the formation of human rights NGOs in the Eastern Bloc, that the Soviets effectively admitted that there were not two human rights cultures in the world but one, in which social and economic rights enjoyed equality of status with civil and political ones.36 Viewed against this historical perspective, what is exceptional about American messianism is that it is the last imperial ideology left standing in the world, the sole survivor of imperial claims to universal significance. All the others--the Soviet, the French, and the British--have been consigned to the dustbin of history. This may help to explain why a messianic ideology, which many Americans take to be no more than a sincere desire to share the benefits of their own freedom, should be seen by so many other nations as a hegemonic claim to interference in their internal affairs. The realist account, when combined with the emphasis on American messianic destiny, helps to explain the power dynamics and the distinctive ideology that shaped American participation in the postwar human rights order. But neither the realist account nor the messianic account is sufficiently fine-grained to account for the fact that American policy has changed in the past and may change in the future. American exceptionalism is not set in stone. Neither national interest nor messianic ideology dictates that it will persist forever. Institutions A third explanation would get at these fine-grained and contingent features of American exceptionalism by stressing the distinctiveness of American institutions. Frank Michelman points out that judicial review is more strongly entrenched in the American system of government than in any other liberal democracy. With this entrenchment of judicial power goes a strong institutional imperative to safeguard prerogatives of judicial interpretation and keep them immune to foreign influence. Andrew Moravcsik also focuses on institutional factors, stressing the decisive importance of U.S. federalism and the ratification process for treaties in the U.S. Senate.37 The U.S. system devolves significant powers to the states, meaning that key dimensions of human rights behavior--like punishment--remain beyond the legislative purview of the central state, as they are in many European countries. Even if it wanted to do so, the United States lacks a central instrument to harmonize U.S. domestic law in the light of international standards. Next, the U.S. Senate requires two-thirds majorities for ratification of international treaties, thus imposing a significantly higher bar to incorporation of international law than do other liberal democracies. These institutional features, created by the founders to protect citizens from big government or from foreign treaties threatening their liberties, impose exceptional institutional barriers to statutory and nationwide compliance with international human rights. In addition to different institutions, the United States has had a distinctive history of political stability, which increases its sense of political self-sufficiency and reduces incentives to stabilize its own institutions with foreign treaties. Moravcsik argues that the United States has never faced fascism or occupation at home or a credible threat of foreign invasion or subversion. What drove the Western Europeans to create the European Convention on Human Rights was the catastrophe of two world wars, followed by the vulnerability of their postwar democracies. A common human rights framework, enforced by a supranational court, was accepted by sovereign states because it was held to "lock in" the stability of the new democratic regimes in Italy, Germany, and France, against both communist subversion and the resurgence of fascism. Thus sovereign European states reluctantly accepted an enforceable transnational human rights regime limiting their sovereignty because it appeared to protect their democratic experiment. The United States had no such incentive to surrender its sovereign prerogatives as a state and has continued to regard transnational international law regimes as potential violations of its democratic sovereignty. Politics Beyond these institutional factors, Moravcsik argues that in comparison to post-1945 Europe, American political culture is significantly more conservative and more influenced by evangelical religious minorities on certain key rights issues relating to abortion, family law, women's rights, and gay marriage. This makes it unlikely that American opinion will ever align with the more liberal international consensus articulated in human rights conventions. The historical strength of American conservatism might qualify as a fourth factor explaining American exceptionalism. It is worth adding, however, that conservatism is not a synonym for isolationism. Evangelical conservatism has been a driving force behind the cause of religious freedom in China and Sudan. Evangelical conservatism also helped to inspire the intervention in Iraq, configuring it for American domestic consumption as a campaign to bring democracy to the oppressed and unfree. If America has been more conservative on key human rights issues than Europe, and more inclined toward engagement in issues of religious freedom than more secular Europeans, the next question is whether this conservative orientation is a permanent or a passing difference. Cass Sunstein remarks that the conservative ascendancy in American politics since the late 1960s makes it easy to forget just how strong its ideological competitor--social liberalism and liberal internationalism--used to be. Beginning with Roosevelt's speech to the 1944 Democratic Convention, calling for a second bill of rights, guaranteeing rights to work, food, housing, and medical care, a liberal political consensus in Congress and in the courts drove toward statutory creation of social and economic entitlements, culminating in the social reform legislation of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the momentous decisions of the Warren Court.38 At the high-water mark of American liberalism in the mid-1960s, America would not have looked exceptional. The attitudes of its courts and legislatures toward welfare rights and entitlements would have seemed consistent with the European social democratic consensus of the period. Likewise, in that decade, as Steiker points out, America seemed poised to join the abolitionist consensus emerging in the North Atlantic countries. In the international sphere, at least until the Vietnam debacle, there were relatively few criticisms of American exceptionalism among its allies. The United States exercised global leadership through multilateral alliances and treaties. This period of North Atlantic convergence, however, was brief. Sunstein argues that the social revolution of the 1960s produced a conservative counterreaction, beginning with the Nixon administration and the Burger Court, that endures to this day. In international politics, the conservative ascendancy in American politics has been marked, since Ronald Reagan, by a reassertion of nationalist and exceptionalist rhetoric and policy. The conservative counterrevolution in American politics does help to explain why America's human rights performance, at home and abroad, has diverged from those of its democratic allies since the 1960s. But there remains a question of whether this is a permanent or a passing phenomenon. If Sunstein is correct, American exceptionalism may wax and wane according to the political fortunes of conservatism and liberalism, evangelicalism and secularism, in American domestic opinion. Already, one key explanatory factor driving American exceptionalism in human rights--America's particular experience of slavery and racism--may be passing into history. Slavery and segregation made America exceptional among liberal democratic states, and southern politicians led the opposition to American adoption of international rights regimes from the late 1940s to the 1960s.39 Eisenhower withdrew the United States from participation in the drafting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the 1950s largely to appease southern conservative senators. The same politicians who wielded states' rights arguments against the use of federal power to desegregate the South invoked national sovereignty arguments to resist adoption or implementation of international rights regimes. Conservative southern hostility to the use of federal power to promote civil rights at home extended to the use of international human rights to promote racial equality.40 This dire historical experience may now be over. In the wake of the success of U.S. federal civil rights legislation, U.S. and international human rights norms on racial equality largely coincide. The United States is rarely in the dock of international opinion on matters of domestic race relations, and the rejectionist stance of southern Democrats and Republicans to international human rights standards on race is losing its political influence. Southern conservatives, however, are still bastions of opposition to international law. Jesse Helms and other southern senators have fought measures like the ICC while they also oppose conventions on the rights of the child and the elimination of discrimination against women because these appear to impose secular and liberal doctrines about family discipline.41 The United States is thus alone among liberal democracies in having a strong domestic political constituency opposed to international human rights law on issues of family and sexual morality. The same constituency has succeeded in turning the ICC into an issue of patriotism--that is, a question of how to preserve U.S. service personnel from vexatious international prosecutions by anti-American foreign prosecutors.42 For the moment at least, the domestic conservative forces that have made America exceptional remain in the ascendant. Evaluating American Exceptionalism If the previous analysis is correct, then current American exceptionalism, therefore, is fundamentally explained by the weakness of American liberalism. American commitment to international human rights has always depended on the political fortunes of a liberal political constituency, and as these fortunes have waxed and waned, so has American policy toward international law. The first question in evaluating American exceptionalism is whether it is likely to be an enduring or a passing feature of American involvement in the international order. The contributors to this volume disagree on this matter. Sunstein emphasizes contingency, the unique combination of factors that produced the conservative counterrevolution of the sixties. If exceptionalism in social and economic rights is tied to this alone, then there is good reason to think that the tide of political opinion will turn. Such a view might draw further confirmation from Carol Steiker's essay on the death penalty: she notes that far from always having been in favor of capital punishment, the United States had joined in the abolitionist tide moving through other liberal democracies, like Canada, the UK, Germany, and France, and reversed itself only in the 1970s. This suggests that death penalty exceptionalism may not be as enduring as America's current outlier position might imply. Other contributors also think American exceptionalism may be a passing phenomenon, but they do so for different reasons. Anne-Marie Slaughter, John Ruggie, and Frank Michelman focus on the rapid growth of transnational networks that have emerged to address problems that can't be resolved solely within national jurisdictions. These networks--anchored within the UN, the WTO, the European Union, and other international frameworks--are drawing American lawyers, NGOs, and policy makers into an ever tighter web of negotiations and deal making on issues ranging from human rights, to climate change, to corporate social responsibility, international trade, company law, and market regulation. Slaughter argues that the United States cannot remain disengaged from these developments. It will have ever stronger incentives to become less exceptional, to align its laws, markets, trade practices, and even its domestic rights with those of other states. Some of its most urgent national security problems, like terrorism, cannot be solved unilaterally and require ever closer multilateral cooperation with other states. Exceptionalism, in other words, may be out of step with globalization and with the convergence of state interests and practices in an interdependent world. Other contributors, especially those who stress the historical distinctiveness of American institutions and rights, are skeptical that globalization equals convergence. Frederick Schauer sees no evidence that as America interacts with the free speech doctrines of other democratic states, its First Amendment doctrine will begin to change. Nor does he see any evidence that other nations are converging toward American norms in free speech and defamation law. Andrew Moravcsik, likewise, sees no evidence that the differences of institutional history and political culture between the United States and Europe are diminishing. Increasing integration of economic and security policy across the North Atlantic does not necessarily produce convergence in political vision or rights policy. Finally, Paul Kahn is probably the most intransigent believer in the unchanging nature of American exceptionalism. In his analysis, exceptionalism will endure because it is so deeply tied to the American commitment to sovereignty as an ideal of republican self-rule born of a revolutionary act of national self-creation. Whether exceptionalism is an enduring or a passing phenomenon, it remains to determine whether it is a good or a bad thing. Here too the contributors divide sharply and so has academic debate. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the liberal academic consensus held American exceptionalism to be a very bad thing indeed. The liberal international lawyers, like Thomas Franck and Louis Henkin, who believed passionately in America's role as a creator of international law, regarded American withdrawal from the international human rights drafting table from 1953 onward with unqualified dismay.43 They believed that international law could not develop without American leadership, and they believed that the international order should reflect American values. Yet this liberal consensus never went unchallenged. It always faced opposition from an influential strand of conservative and nationalist legal thinking, represented in the American Bar Association, some of whose chief members, suspicious of international law and of international organizations, led the opposition to the Genocide Convention and other international agreements.44 Beginning in the 1980s, a conservative legal counterattack gained ground, taking a strongly Americanist or nationalist view of international law. Academic lawyers like John Bolton, Jeremy Rabkin, and Jack Goldsmith questioned the liberal assumption that American rights conduct needed to measure up to international standards.45 By 2000, the conservative nationalist consensus had influential support inside the George W. Bush administration, and their influence helped to drive the administration's fierce opposition to the ICC, its withdrawal from Kyoto, and even its insistence that the United States had the right to interpret the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention as it pleased. For conservative nationalists, the most powerful state cannot be tied down, like Gulliver, by international human rights norms. Its effectiveness as a world leader depends on being free of such constraints. Besides, its rights performance at home does not stand in need of lessons from abroad. The conservatives did more than defend American national pride and national interest. They raised a key argument of principle: why should a republic, based in the rule of law, be constrained by international agreements that do not have the same element of democratic legitimacy? In addition to a "nationalist" justification for exceptionalism, conservatives offer a "realist" argument as well. Far from being a problem, exceptionalism might be a solution. By signing on to international human rights, with reservations and exemptions, by refusing to be bound by agreements that would constrain its sovereignty, the United States manages to maintain leadership in global human rights at the lowest possible cost to its own margin of maneuver as the world's sole superpower.46 Exceptionalism, therefore, achieves a balance: the United States remains within the framework of international human rights law, but on its own terms. Given its preponderant power--and therefore its exceptional influence in the global order--it can dictate these terms. The rest of the world can choose to concede these exceptional terms, or to see the United States stand aside and take either a unilateralist or an isolationist turn. Exceptionalism is the functional compromise,

therefore, that enables America to be a multilateral partner in the human rights enterprise. A liberal internationalist would reply that if America wants to be a human rights leader, it must be consistent. It must obey the rules it seeks to champion. Leadership depends on legitimacy and legitimacy requires consistency . Certainly double standards increase resistance to American leadership, whether the issue is Palestine or Iraq. Double standards

also diminish the lure of American example. But the argument that American exceptionalism is a costly mistake cannot be pushed too far. The fact that the United States exempts itself from some international norms does not diminish its capacity to enforce others. U.S. resistance to a permanent criminal court did not preclude its supporting the Hague tribunal or using its influence with Serbia to bring Slobodan Milos evic ´ to justice. In Iraq, the United States behaved in an exceptional and unilateralist manner, but the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime was a substantively just outcome. If it had bowed to world opinion on the use of force, a rights-violating regime would still be in power. Multilateralism is a good thing, therefore, only if it produces substantively just results. Nor has American exceptionalism prevented the development of international human rights and humanitarian law. Other states have taken the lead in developing the ICC statute, and the Land Mines Treaty is in existence despite U.S. opposition. The European Convention on Human Rights did not wait for American inspiration. Of course, there are limits to what other states can achieve when the world's most powerful state opposes or refuses to engage. But equally, American leadership has not proven as crucial, nor its opposition as damaging, to international law as either American internationalists or their

European allies are prone to believe. As John Ruggie points out, American opposition cannot stop multilateral transnational institutions and problem-solving networks from emerging. America may be exceptional in its illusion that it can exempt itself from these processes, but this, Ruggie argues, would be to swim against the tide of increasing international cooperation to master the problems that national governments cannot master on their own . So whether

exceptionalism is a good or a bad thing, it may impose increasing costs on the United States in a globalizing world.

Exceptionalism can also directly damage U.S. national security interests. Stanley Hoffmann argues that America's unilateral arrogance in Iraq has alienated friends, made needless enemies, forced the United States to go it alone, and increased the cost of its projection of power overseas. To this might be added the evidence from Abu Ghraib prison. A country that thinks it is too virtuous, too exceptional, to pay respect to the Geneva Conventions and begins to write its own rules about detention, interrogation, and special status can end up violating every value it holds dear. In other words, what Jefferson called "decent

respect for the opinions of mankind"-- voluntary compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law--may be essential for the maintenance of American honor and its own values overseas . Human rights exceptionalism,

especially double standards, may also end up endangering U.S. security. America's Iraq policy over the past twenty years demonstrates that when the United States supports authoritarian regimes, ignoring their human rights performance, these authoritarian rulers can metamorphose into a national security threat. Ignoring the rights behavior of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s turned out to be a disaster for U.S. interests in the Gulf region, as did turning a blind eye to the abuses of Sukarno of Indonesia. Pressuring them, before it was too late, to make changes, or quarantining them as a future danger, would have paid better dividends to U.S. security than

keeping quiet about their abuses. Reducing double standards requires rethinking the supposed conflict between human rights and security interests. If U.S. policy consistently used human rights standards as a predictor of internal stability and external dangerousness, it would make better national security judgments about whom to trust and whom it can rely on. If it used its security relationships to pressure regimes toward better human rights performance, it would contribute something to stabilizing the regions where U.S. security interests are at stake .

A2 Alt Caus to Human Rights LeadershipSpecial education access is a vitally important human right - recent treaties prove HRW 13 (Human Rights Watch, "Barriers to Education for Persons with Disabilities in China," 7/15, https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/07/15/long-they-let-us-stay-class/barriers-education-persons-disabilities-china)

Internationally, there is a growing recognition that “inclusion” — making mainstream education accessible for children with disabilities — is a key element in realizing the right to education. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the most recent international human rights treaty , mandates that state parties “ensure an inclusive education system at all levels.”

A2 Can’t Restore Human Rights CredEngaging in human rights impact assessments on substantive policies that implicate public health signal US commitment and restore cred – that’s Wexler

Demonstrating the application of human rights principles to policy restores cred

Roth 10 (Kenneth, Executive Director – Human Rights Watch, “Empty Promises? Obama’s Hesitant Embrace of Human Rights”, Foreign Affairs, January/February, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/24/empty-promises)

From a human rights perspective, there is no doubt that the Obama White House has done better than the Bush administration. As one would expect from so eloquent a president, Obama has gotten the rhetoric largely right. The challenge remains to translate poetic speeches into prosaic policy -- and live up to the principles he has so impressively articulated. Making

that shift will not be easy, but the consistent application of human rights principles is essential if Washington is to redeem its reputation and succeed in promoting the global values that Obama rightly believes are the key to prosperity and stability throughout the world .

Human rights credibility is low --- but can be restoredShattuck 8 (John, Chief Executive Officer – John F. Kennedy Library Foundation “Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights”, Human Rights Magazine, 35(4), http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall08/shattuck_fall08.html)

Among the many challenges facing you from the time you take office will be how to restore U.S. credibility in the world. One way to do this will be to change the global perception that the United States is a human rights violator.

International public opinion of the recent U.S. record on human rights has been devastating . A poll conducted last year in eighteen countries on all continents by the British Broadcasting Corporation revealed that 67 percent disapproved of U.S. detention practices in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another poll in Germany, Great Britain, Poland, and India found that majorities or pluralities condemned the United States for torture and other violations of international law. A third poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations showed that majorities in thirteen countries, including many traditional allies, believe “the U.S. cannot be trusted to act responsibly in the world.” Less than a decade ago, the situation was quite different. A 1999 survey published by the U.S. State Department’s Office of Research showed that the United States was viewed favorably by large majorities in France, 62 percent; Germany, 78 percent; Indonesia, 75 percent; and Turkey, 52 percent; among others. This positive climate of opinion helped produce the outpouring of international support immedi-ately following the 9/11 attacks that made it possible for this country to quickly assemble a broad coalition with United Nations (UN) approval to respond to the terrorist attacks by striking al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. Seven years later, global support for U.S. leadership has evaporated . In nearly all the countries that registered strong support for the United States in 1999, a big downward shift of opinion had occurred by 2006. In France it was down to 39 percent; in Germany, 37 percent; and in Indonesia, 30 percent. A separate survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed extremely hostile attitudes toward the United States throughout the Arab and Muslim world: In Egypt, the United States polled 70 percent negative; in Pakistan, 73 percent negative; in Jordan, 85 percent negative; and in Turkey, 88 percent negative. The gap between America’s values and actions revealed by this polling data has severely eroded U.S. global influence. How can you and your administration gain it back? First, you should make it clear that one of our country’s bedrock principles is the international rule of law. Human rights are de-fined and protected by the Constitution and international treaties ratified and incorporated into our domestic law. In flaunting basic rules—such as habeas corpus, the Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions—the previous administration created a series of “law-free zones.” Within these zones, detainees were abused, thousands were held indefinitely without charges, and human rights were trampled. Second, you should bring U.S. values and practices back into alignment. The United States in recent years has lost credibility by charging others with the types of human rights violations that it has committed itself. In recent annual country reports on human rights practices, the State Department has criticized other countries for engaging in torture, detention without trial, warrantless electronic surveillance, and other abuses, even though the U.S. record in these areas also has been abysmal. Fortunately, history shows that U.S. credibility on human rights can be restored when our government’s policies reflect our nation’s values . A series of bipartisan initiatives during five recent presidencies––three Republican and two Democratic––illustrates the point.

Domestic human rights policy is the vital internal link – CP restoresPowell 8 (Catherine, Professor of Law – Fordham Law School, “Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Blueprint for the New Administration”, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, October, http://www.acslaw.org/files/ C%20Powell%20Blueprint.pdf)

While the promise of human rights is at the core of what binds us together as Americans8 and as an international community,9 this promise has not been fully realized in this country. We embrace human rights principles as central to our national identity and interests, but our actual practice falls short of our founding ideals. Each time our nation has taken steps to close this gap, the nation has grown stronger – formed a more perfect union. As every schoolchild knows, while the American Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal,” the tragedy of slavery, disenfranchisement of women, and exclusion of others from the social contract created an enormous credibility gap, paving the way for the U.S. civil war and eventual constitutional amendments to enfranchise these groups. Additionally, America’s waging war against Nazi racism while permitting segregation and lynchings at home created a double standard that fueled civil rights advocates in the fight for comprehensive national civil rights legislation. Even today, this nation, which launched the ongoing experiment with democratic self-governance and constitutionally-entrenched rights, is too often unwilling to apply at home the set of universal standards it promotes abroad (and even abroad, only selectively), resulting in a steady devaluation of human rights and loss of U.S. credibility. For example, while the Administration of President George W. Bush criticized ousted Iraqi President Saddam

Hussein’s use of torture, it has also condoned torture by its own officials.10 Too often, “in the cathedral of human rights, the United States is more like a flying buttress than a pillar—choosing to stand outside the international structure supporting the international human rights system, but without being willing to subject its own conduct to the scrutiny of that system.”11

A2 Human Rights Cred Doesn’t SpilloverUS human rights leadership solves claims of hypocrisy and empowers global protections – that’s Wexler

And US human rights cred spills overCulpepper 10 (Brenton, J.D. @ Vanderbilt University Law School + NDT Copeland winner @ UGA, "Missed Opportunity: Congress's Attempted Response to the World's Demand for the Violence Against Women Act," 43 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 733, lexis)

The international human rights regime continues to evolve - in both its scope and legal apparatus - at an unprecedented rate. n66 However, as many will concede - particularly nations other than the United States and the United Kingdom - the U.S. war on terror significantly damaged the moral leadership necessary for the United States to remain a powerful advocate for the human rights regime. n67 Unfortunately,

other nations did not fill the human rights vacuum left by the United States. Rather, the United States' lack of human rights credibility threatens to truncate the much-needed development of a uniform international regime . n68 The U.S. failure to ratify treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the lack of legislative remedies such as § 13,981 undermine U.S. credibility on human rights issues - particularly on those issues related to gender equality and gender-motivated violence. n69 Part III of this Note attempts to describe the current status of U.S. human rights credibility on gender issues and the potential problems the failure to rebuild that credibility presents to the international human rights regime's continued evolution. A. The Changing International Perception Traditionally, human rights treaties are the most difficult and arduous treaties to enforce. n70 Given their typical status as non-self-executing devices, enforcement mechanisms in treaties are often impotent to initiate proceedings that carry the force of international [*744] law against a non-complying member state. n71 Even when violations by a member state are irrefutable, the international human rights regime is often powerless to pressure a sovereign nation into compliance. This difficulty is magnified when the need for compliance is particularly time-sensitive. n72 In these circumstances the international human rights regime often relies on an environment of transnational compliance among influential nations to essentially exert "peer pressure" on other member states to comply with treaty obligations and CIL. n73 The United States is a crucial part of creating a human rights regime that exerts the necessary pressure to force nations to comply with fundamental human rights standards . n74 To put it slightly differently, the United States' participation in the development of international human rights laws is fundamental to the evolving human rights regime's credibility and legitimacy in a globalized community. n75 The United States cannot avail itself of its significant bully pulpit as long as the international community continues to question U.S. decisions to limit its participation in broadly recognized human rights norms, including a strong commitment to gender equality. n76 To the average international observer, the United States has lost much of its credibility over the last decade to speak on human rights issues. n77 The U.S. desire for foreign sovereigns to accede to and enforce a variety of human rights principles is limited by this lack of authority . n78 In particular interest to this Note, U.S. support of global gender equality is undermined by the U.S. failure to ratify CEDAW, n79 the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on § 13,981, and the general perceived lack of interest in combating gender-motivated violence domestically.

And credibility spills over between UNRELATED human rights issuesCulpepper 10 (Brenton, J.D. Candidate 2010, Vanderbilt University Law School + NDT Copeland winner @ UGA, "Missed Opportunity: Congress's Attempted Response to the World's Demand for the Violence Against Women Act," 43 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 733, lexis)

Congressional activism on gender policy provides an avenue for shifting the image of the U.S. from one of military hard power to a moral and diplomatic leader. n113 This shift increases U.S. diplomatic capital, which can - in much the same way a President spends political capital to achieve policy objectives on Capitol Hill - translate into success for U.S. foreign policy goals. n114 Credibility in one human [*749] rights arena (e.g. gender equality) often serves to enhance credibility in an unrelated human rights arena (e.g. child labor). n115 Professor Joseph Nye describes the above phenomenon as "soft power": "Soft power is the ability to

get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments." n116 Nye argues that "when American policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce our leverage." n117 "Problems arise for our soft power when we do not live up to our own standards," including international standards to which the United States committed. n118 Areas of legal and moral contradiction, such as those present in gender policy, create the loss of the legitimacy and credibility necessary to build soft power. n119

A2 HR Cred Bad – China PressureNo link --- pressure is inevitable --- the U.S. will constantly try to push other countries on human rights --- the only question is whether its credible or not --- the CP solves the perception of exceptionalism --- stops backlash and prevents a collapse of relations --- that’s Wexler and their evidence concedes

Empirically denied --- post-Tiananmen sanctions, Olympic boycotts, and Dali Lama visit disprove

Human rights pressure won’t collapse relationsArmitage 4 (Catherine, China Correspondent, “China Signals Timely Shift Against Proliferation”, The Weekend Australian, 2-21, Lexis)

Even as recently as last year, the Bush administration imposed sanctions on Chinese firms accused of selling weapons technology to other nations, including Pakistan. But it seems the US right now is content to take on faith that Beijing means what it says over non-proliferation. There are timely reasons for that. Next week comes another round of six-nation talks aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program convenes in Beijing. The US is relying heavily on China's influence with its recalcitrant neighbour to help bring about the desired result. The US is also trying to persuade China to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, a plan that seeks to halt the international trade in weapons of mass destruction by, among other measures, stopping and searching ships at sea. That is why Bolton was in Beijing. At the same time, China is seeking US assistance to rein in the independence proclivities of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, who faces an election on March 20. So it is in China's interests to play ball by, for example, applying appropriate gravitas to the nuclear secrets allegations coming out of Washington. As the week's events showed, the US and China have built sufficient ballast in their once fragile relationship to weather the occasional battering and to manage multiple and sometimes conflicting agendas, from trade and human rights to arms proliferation and Taiwan.

No spilloverTN 4 (Taiwan News, 4-27, Lexis)

He also said Washington's renewed protests about Beijing's human rights, weapons proliferation and trade practices were insufficient to destabilize U.S.-China relations, because America's reliance on Beijing in diplomatic efforts toward North Korea, and Beijing's hopes for U.S. pressure to be used against Taiwan, are part of a broad set of calculations keeping the relationship on track .

Tension inevitableBremmer and Roubini 9 (Ian, President – Eurasia Group and Nouriel, Professor of Economics – New York University and Chari – RGE Monitor, “The Yin and Yang of U.S.-China Relations”, Wall Street Journal, 9-1, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384601554931882.html)

American and Chinese officials said all the right things during this summer's inaugural round of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. President Barack Obama pledged to "forge a path to the future that we seek for our children." Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo wondered aloud whether America and China can "build better relations despite very different social systems, cultures and histories." He answered his own question, in English, with a "Yes we can." They can, but they probably won't. Yes, Mr. Obama will visit China in November. But when it comes to international burden-sharing, Washington is focused on geopolitical headaches while China confines its heavy-lifting to geoeconomic challenges. The two sides have good reason to cooperate, but there's a growing gap between what Washington expects from Beijing and what the Chinese can deliver. Many of the issues that create conflict in U.S.-Chinese relations are well known: an enormous bilateral trade deficit, disputes over the value of China's currency, protections for U.S. i ntellectual p roperty , the dollar's role as international reserve currency, conflicts over human rights, naval altercations, protectionist threats from both

sides, and disagreements over how best to handle North Korea's Kim Jong Il. But there are other, less obvious obstacles to partnership. First, both governments remain largely focused on formidable domestic challenges. Mr. Obama knows his political fortunes depend largely on the resilience of the U.S. economy and its ability to generate jobs. He's occupied for the moment with a high-stakes poker game with lawmakers in his own party over ambitious health-care and energy-reform plans. China's leadership faces competing internal demands from those who want to stimulate the economy toward another round of export-driven growth and others who want to shift quickly toward greater dependence on domestic consumption. Given the trade deficit, Washington would like Beijing to focus on the latter, but China won't move as fast as the U.S. would like, in part because the leadership recognizes that the loss of millions of manufacturing and construction jobs in recent months could fuel further turmoil in a country that already sees tens of thousands of large-scale protests each year. Second, there's the bureaucratic problem. For the past several years, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson chaired a strategic dialogue with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan. Washington and Beijing have now expanded the scope of talks to include the State Department and China's foreign ministry. Leaving aside the difficulties in building trust between U.S. and Chinese negotiators, State and Treasury don't coordinate well on strategy, and there's no guarantee that China's foreign and finance ministries will work seamlessly together either. The new formula for talks is bureaucratic infighting squared. The third reason the U.S. and China won't build a durable strategic partnership is that Beijing has little appetite for the larger geopolitical role Washington would like it to play. Why should Beijing accept the risks that come with direct involvement in conflicts involving Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israelis and Palestinians, Somalia and Sudan, and other sources of potential turmoil? It has more immediate problems at home.

No collapse – relations resilientWan 10 (Willy (Not Zhang), Foreign Service – Washington Post, “China: US Relations ‘Sound’”, Washington Post, 9-7, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603660.html)

At a time of tension in U.S.-China relations, a three-day visit by senior U.S. officials to Beijing began Monday with signs that Chinese leaders want to smooth over some key frictions. " Sound " and " stable " was how a top Communist Party official described the two countries' relationship while receiving the U.S. delegation, which included National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers and deputy national security adviser Thomas Donilon. The meeting comes after the U.S.-China relationship has been battered on several fronts . The United States has fought with China during the past few months over China's trade surplus and currency valuation, with little to show for it. U.S.-South Korea military exercises near the Chinese coast have incensed Chinese officials, as did President Obama's meeting with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and a U.S. arms sale to Taiwan , both of which happened earlier this year. Rhetoric on both sides has ratcheted up in recent weeks on national security issues - with China's state-owned party papers denouncing U.S. interference in South China Sea issues, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton responding in July at an Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting that the area is part of her country's "national interest," which set off more fuming in party papers. On Monday, both sides expressed hope that meetings between U.S. and Chinese officials scheduled in coming weeks may help thaw some of the recent difficulties. "Although there were some disturbances in China-U.S. relations, in April and May after President Obama and President Hu Jintao had two meetings, our relations have gotten back on a sound track ," Li Yuanchao, head of the section in the Chinese government that oversees senior party appointments, said before the closed-door talks began.

A2 Ks of Human Rights-- Not offense --- their evidence compares human rights to a non-existent ideal alternative --- not the status quo. Yes, human rights are incomplete and can be used for bad things --- but denial is worse --- that’s Wexler

-- Turn --- pragmatism --- regardless of the “truth” of human rights --- it works. Incorporation checks the worst oppressionCole 6 (David, Professor – Georgetown University Law Center, “The Idea of Humanity: Human Rights and Immigrant Rights”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Spring, 37 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 627, Lexis)

Phrasing rights claims in the language of international human rights may facilitate international pressure. When one charges that the United States government has violated the First or  [*639]  Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, foreign observers are likely to defer to Americans on the issue. What basis does a Swiss or Saudi citizen have to judge whether given actions violate American constitutional norms? Where, by contrast, the charges are framed in terms of international human rights, they speak a transnational language, one with which citizens and lawyers from any number of countries will feel more comfortable. There is no need to defer to the United States, for example, on what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Geneva Conventions say. Thus, international human rights language facilitates international moral and legal pressure on troubling U.S. practices.

-- Human rights check violence and oppression. Their theoretical potential should be embraced despite limitations in practice.Salecl 95 (Renata, Researcher – University of Ljubljana, “Law and the Postmodern Mind: Rights in Psychoanalytic and Feminist Perspective”, Cardozo Law Review, 16 Cardozo L. Rev. 1121, Lexis)Lefort strongly opposes theorists who perceive the notion of human rights as some kind of relic from the past, long stripped of its significance. He stresses that human rights, because of their abstract character and indefinability , cannot be situated in a specific historical era . This means that they cannot be genealogically analyzed, as Foucauldians would like, nor can their effects be measured or controlled. The concept of human rights therefore retains its potential to critique actual historical circumstances as long as it remains an empty, universal idea. Thus, while it is a mistake to place the idea of human rights in a specific historical context (as historicists try to do), it is also useless to search for some intrinsic human nature at the core of the idea of human rights (as natural rights theorists try to do). Marxists and Foucauldians make a similar mistake in rejecting the notion of human rights. When Marxists perceive human rights as an abstract idea masking real social antagonisms, and when Foucauldians consider human rights as a historically determined discursive praxis entrapped in the game of power, both camps miss the point that the abstract idea of human rights establishes the locus within which a split between law and power first arises. Human rights mark the point at which the all-encompassing power of political institutions is suddenly negated .

Reject claims of “cooption” --- they cause a search for progressively marginal politics that guarantees ineffective radicalism --- the CP is a revision that has far more explosive potentialZizek 98 (Slavoj, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, Law and the Postmodern Mind, p. 91-92)

Finally, the point about inherent transgression is not that every opposition, every attempt at subversion, is automatically "coopted". On the contrary, the very fear of being coopted that makes us search for more and more "radical," "pure" attitudes, is the supreme strategy of suspension or marginalization. The point is rather that true subversion is not always where it seems to be. Sometimes, a small distance is much more explosive for the system than an ineffective radical rejec tion . In religion, a small heresy can be more threatening than an outright atheism or passage to another religion: for a hard-line Stalinist, a Trotskyite is infinitely more threatening than a bourgeois

liberal or social democrat. As le Carre put it, one true revisionist in the Central Committee is worth more than thousand dissidents outside it. It was easy to dismiss Gorbachev for aiming only at improving the system, making it more efficient-he nonetheless set in motion its disintegration. So one should also bear in mind the obverse of the inherent transgression: one is tempted to paraphrase Freud's claim from The Ego and the Id that man is not only much more immoral than he believes, but also much more moral than he knows-the System is not only infinitely more resistant and invulnerable than it may appear (it can coopt apparently subversive strategies, they can serve as its support), it is also infinitely more vulnerable (a small revision etc, can have large unforeseen catastrophic consequences).

***Special Ed Trade-off DA Aff Answers***

Trump/DeVos Hurt Special Ed – 2acTrump and DeVos will weaken funding and programs for special educationWeinberg 17 (Aron, PhD candidate at The University of Texas at Austin, "What DeVos Means for Special Education," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aron-n-weinberg/what-devos-means-for-special-education_b_14758922.html)

Based on their track records or stated policy positions, several of President Trump’s confirmed and soon-to-be-confirmed cabinet heads will share a rather unique approach to their new positions: They may seek to undercut the mission statements of their own departments. Among this rarified company, newly confirmed Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, further distinguishes herself with a lack relevant experience and qualifications to direct and supervise the department she’ll be leading. DeVos lacks a degree in education, professional experience working in schools, and even a basic familiarity with the United States public school system that educates approximately ninety-percent of K-12 students. Something particularly concerning to the field of special education occurred during DeVos’ confirmation hearing: Under questioning it became apparent that she hadn’t heard of and knew nothing about the landmark piece of civil rights education legislation termed the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA), which serves children with disabilities and those at-risk for developing them. Built on the jurisprudence of federal and state-level case law that determined education in America should be treated not merely as a privilege but as a right under the “equal protection clause“ of the 14th amendment, the passage of IDEA provided this previously grossly underserved population - only 20% of whom were enrolled in school in 1970 - with the federally protected right to a free, publicly-funded education (FAPE). It originally passed in Congress over forty years ago as the “Education for All Handicapped Children Act” in 1975. And yet until it was made clear to DeVos during her hearing that IDEA was actually a federal law, she said its enforcement was “a matter that is best left to the states.” Until it was made clear to DeVos during her hearing that IDEA was actually a federal law, she said its enforcement was ‘a matter that is best left to the states.’ DeVos’ views on education, along with the role that individual states should take in providing education, are very similar to those of President Trump and other Republicans. She might even be called Trump’s “avatar” when it comes to education policy. After initially threatening to eliminate or drastically cut federal funding to the Department of Education, Trump’s September 2016 education plan proposed a popular remedy to what Republican legislators view as federal overreach in education policy and a stagnant public education marketplace lacking competition: the reallocation of a significant portion of federal funds for public schools into “block grants“ that states could use at their own discretion to finance public, charter, private, or online learning. The 2016 GOP platform goes further by proposing an amendment to the US Constitution that would limit federal or state oversight of these programs. It’s right up DeVos’ alley. The Michigan billionaire and Republican fundraiser has spent her philanthropic career promoting so-called “school choice” designed to steer taxpayer money away from public schools toward private schools, parochial schools, and charter schools that were publicly funded but privately run. According to a year long investigation by The Detroit Free Press, over the last twenty years she was largely successful in complementing Detroit’s own beleaguered public school system with “a second, privately managed failing system” that set no qualifications for charter applicants, received minimal ongoing oversight, and offered no consequences for poor performance. Although what DeVos, Congress, and President Trump accomplish remains to be seen, allowing states to use federal funds to privatize large swaths of their education programs is unlikely to benefit the approximately 1-in-8 school children who are presently served under IDEA with some form of special education services. Public school special education programs, which currently receive less than half of the 40 percent of special education funding that was promised under the original IDEA mandate, would be further crippled in states with weak special education programs. Some private schools may fill this education gap, but for-profit schools that could play a prominent role in this free-market landscape are unlikely to do the same. State-run public school systems could simply ignore — or at least practice far less compliance with — the educational and procedural requirements of IDEA. The education of children with disabilities costs on average more than twice as much as that of typically developing children, representing a poor return-on-investment. In order to stay in business and run a profit, it’s difficult to imagine most of these schools would be able to provide children with disabilities the free, high quality, individualized academic support they need and deserve. Nor would these schools be required to. As the “Council for Exceptional Children“ (CEC), a prominent advocacy organization for special education has explained, families of students who receive vouchers for private schools discard rights to a free-publicly funded education (FAPE) afforded to them under IDEA. Either reduced oversight by the federal government, or a repealed, weakened, or simply unenforced IDEA would be very likely to exacerbate already depressed educational options within states with poor educational infrastructure. Alternatively, states not wishing to comply with IDEA could exercise their right to opt-out of this discretionary grant program, (although none currently do), just as some states exercised their right to opt-out of ObamaCare’s Medicaid program against their own financial interest. In any of these scenarios, state-run public school systems could simply ignore — or at least practice far less compliance with — the educational and procedural requirements of IDEA. This likely wouldn’t relegate special education back to the pre-IDEA era when a majority of children with special needs were entirely excluded from

schools. Still, it would very likely lead to widespread failures to adequately serve children with disabilities . Such an example was recently uncovered in Texas. An in-depth investigation by The Houston Chronicle revealed that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) set an arbitrary 8.5 percent benchmark for inclusion in special education programs beginning in 2004. While saving TEA billions of dollars, it denied vital support to an estimated 250,000 children with special needs. That’s tens-of-thousands of children who were denied federally mandated opportunities to benefit from school that would prepare them for becoming active, engaged members of a democratic society in pursuit of lives that built on potentially stronger skill sets. Under a DeVos administration, such stories may become far more common.

Trump/DeVos Hurt Special Ed – 1arDeVos will ravage federal support for special education Nickell 4/10/17 (Lauren, educator and socialist activist based in Boston, MA, "Fighting for Special Education," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/betsy-devos-special-education-austerity-neoliberalism/)

The confirmation of Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education raises questions among faculty at schools across the nation about how to organize to protect public education. For many special education teachers in particular, the threat of widespread cuts to public schools is particularly urgent. Betsy DeVos is a champion of school privatization and advocate of dismantling public education, and she confidently and aggressively plans to pursue these goals. US special education departments have long suffered from ableist policy and funding practices, which are part and parcel of the

neoliberal assault on public schools — in which students with disabilities are always the ones thrown under the bus. DeVos, who openly opposes a federal guarantee of free and appropriate education to students with disabilities, appears poised to further ravage these services .

Special Ed Underfunded Now – 2acUS federal government UNDERFUNDS special education now Litvinov 5/19/17 (Amanda, Columnist @ Education Votes, "How Congress’ underfunding of special education shortchanges us all," http://educationvotes.nea.org/2015/05/19/how-congress-underfunding-of-special-education-shortchanges-us-all/)

The pages of the learn-to-read books in Vicki Zasadny’s special education classroom are tattered, smudged, and marked. Some of the information is outdated. That’s what happens when textbooks are 15 years old. The books tell a somber story about the chronic underfunding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Since the law was passed 40 years ago, the federal government has failed to provide even half of the funding it pledged to help schools educate kids with special needs . Those costs have always been shifted to states and local districts, whose current economies are in various stages of recovery from the financial crisis that kicked off in 2007. In the end, special needs students receive only the materials and services districts can afford. While students in Western Wyandotte County, Kan., are getting by with outdated books and must contend with ballooning

class sizes, their peers in a nearby district—where incomes are higher—receive iPads. Vicki Zasadny, a 35-year veteran teacher, sees the effects of underfunding in her special education classroom every day . “I thought the federal education programs were meant to help equalize those discrepancies, to help us meet the needs of all students, not just those who live in rich neighborhoods,” says Zasadny, who has taught in Kansas schools for 35 years. The state used to do a better job of making up for the shortfall in federal funds. “We used to have money for updated materials and professional development,” she says. “Now we pretty much have money for paper and pencils.”

Trump Budget Hurts Special Ed – 2acTrump push for school choice will hurt special education Detroit Free Press 5/20/17 ("Trump threatens regulations that protect us all," http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/05/21/federal-regulation-oversight/330682001/)

Trump’s proposed education budget, leaked to the Washington Post last week, will cut two areas the federal government does most to regulate: spending on special education and on poor children. But the planned cuts to the overall budget, combined with a redirection of funds, would still have serious effects on the fortunes of vulnerable kids in schools. Trump would gut about $9.2 billion from school spending, about 13% overall, and the cuts couldn’t be more targeted at poor kids, in particular. Gone would be after-school programs for some impoverished children, child care for kids whose parents are going to college and teacher training, and class-size reduction efforts. The smite represented here is rich with irony: Trump has promised over and over to build economic opportunity, but the programs on the chopping block are all about the kinds of support that make opportunity possible. It may not be popular to spend government money on so-called wrap-around services, but those efforts are what gird the very core of education. Poor kids often need more than the six-hour school day and a good teacher for education to make a difference in their lives. If government doesn’t make the extra efforts, poverty can become a reason that core education spending isn’t as effective. Even worse, though, the Trump budget would redirect money intended for support of public schools to expand school choice, and support for charter and voucher programs in particular. Forget, for a second, about the tenuous nature of improvement wrought by the billions already invested at the state

level in charter schools. The gamble of putting more dollars into these spotty efforts will exacerbate troubles for poor children and kids with disabilities . Charters have proved flaccid in their availability and effectiveness with special-education students — chiefly because the high cost of dealing with certain kinds of disabilities can only really be managed at

scale. Many charter schools outright reject children with the most profound disabilities because they just can’t provide the services they need. And choice has not been great, frankly, at boosting educational outcomes for poor kids. In Michigan, where education secretary DeVos has led the charter movement for two decades, a Free Press analysis of charter school performance showed that when poverty is taken into account, the results are really no better. Doubling down on that approach — siphoning public dollars to more aggressively pursue school choice — is a dastardly perpetuation of the mediocrity that charter schools have wrought.

Adfad

Federal Special Ed Efforts Fail – 2acFederal special education efforts fail - profits ALWAYS come before student interestNickell 4/10/17 (Lauren, educator and socialist activist based in Boston, MA, "Fighting for Special Education," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/betsy-devos-special-education-austerity-neoliberalism/)

Within the US education system — the primary function of which is to reproduce the American workforce — students with disabilities are defined as those whose performance is not in line with state standards for college and career-readiness or those who require additional or individualized educational resources to meet those standards. When

teachers ask, “Why is it always kids with disabilities who are first to be thrown under the bus?” the dismaying answer is that the character of schooling in the United States has always reflected the needs of capitalism rather than any kind of humanistic value in bettering people’s lives . When advances to special education services have been won in the past, it has not been due to the benevolence of those who manage the state deciding to hand down reforms for the benefit of students with special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for example, was won thanks to the struggle waged from below by civil rights activists and advocates of the Independent Living movement, who put forward a radical perspective on the politics of disablement and exposed masses of ordinary to a critique of ableism for the first time. Unfortunately, protections won under IDEA legislation have not been enough to defend the interests of students with disabilities in public education. Students with severe disabilities have become increasingly vulnerable as public education generally and special education policy in particular have been refashioned to reflect neoliberal priorities.

Budgets Aren’t Zero-Sum – 2acThe federal budget isn't zero-sum Adams 17 (Kimberly, Political Reporter @ Marketplace, "Trump is about to run into the budget reality," 2/28, https://www.marketplace.org/2017/02/28/economy/trump-budget-speech)

President Donald Trump has his big speech tonight, and one of the issues he’s expected to talk about is the budget. On the campaign trail and in speeches, Trump has made budgeting sound easy: You cut here, add there and you’re done, sort of the way businesses run

their processes. But the federal budget is not a zero-sum game — there are political pressures,and many items that simply can’t be cut. Trump would like to run the government like a business, but when it comes to the budget, there are some key differences. For one, members of Congress, who have to pass the budget, are not Trump’s employees. "In a business, he can say, 'You're fired' to people who don't cooperate," said Joe White of Case Western Reserve University, who has been studying the budget process for decades.

"Whereas he can't fire Paul Ryan and he can't fire any senators." Another difference: Cutting spending from one area doesn’t necessarily free up money for something else , because of politics.

Human Rights Cred Low Now – 2acUS human rights credibility low now - Trump foreign policy Boot 4/19/17 (Max, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Trump's making a big strategic mistake on human rights: Max Boot," https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/19/trump-human-rights-mistake-turkey-egypt-max-boot-column/100598352/)

But in one area Trump has been turning out to be exactly as expected — and that is in his disdain for human rights in foreign policy . To be sure, Trump is so erratic and inconsistent that even this statement needs to be caveated in light of his April 6 cruise-missile strike against Syria, which he ordered after being shocked by the gassing of “beautiful babies.” This is exactly the kind of humanitarian intervention he once campaigned against. But Syria aside, with the honorable exception of U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the president and most of his aides are displaying a marked indifference verging on contempt for what an earlier Republican president called the “freedom agenda.” Previous secretaries of State typically appeared to personally release the State Department’s annual human rights report. Not Rex Tillerson. He skipped the event altogether. And on his recent trip to Russia, unlike past American envoys, he did not meet with opposition activists. The U.S. is also resuming F-16 deliveries to Bahrain in spite of the Sunni royal family’s oppression of the majority Shiites, including its decision last year to dissolve the major opposition party, Al-Wefaq. As for Trump, he literally rolled out the red carpet earlier this month for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who seized power in a military coup and has since overseen a wave of repression. Human Rights Watch notes that under Sisi, “Egyptian police and National Security agents have routinely used torture and enforced disappearances against both criminal suspects and perceived political opponents with near impunity.” There is no indication that Trump even raised such human-rights abuses with Sisi. Instead he showered the Egyptian strongman with fulsome praise, saying, “We agree on so many things…. He’s done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation.” Trump even shook Sisi’s hand in a photo op — something he would not do with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. You could make the case that Trump is simply making the best of a bad situation in Egypt, where Sisi has already consolidated power and there is no credible alternative on offer. At least, one can argue, he is against Islamic extremism. That’s a harder case to make in Turkey, however, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a secularist like Sisi. He is an Islamist and, although popularly elected, he is in the process of destroying the last remnants of Turkish democracy. A major milestone in Erdogan’s consolidation of power occurred last weekend when he managed to eke out a narrow 51.4% to 48.6% victory in a referendum that will confer even more power on him. There are major questions, however, as to whether the vote was fair. European election observer Alev Korun suggested that up to 2.5 million votes might have been manipulated. Even if there was no actual fraud on Election Day, it was hardly a fair contest. Since a failed military coup last year, Freedom House notes, the government has arrested nearly 40,000 civilians, imprisoned “dozens of journalists,” shuttered “hundreds of media outlets and nongovernmental organizations,” arrested hundreds of officials from a major opposition party, and fired “more than a hundred thousand civil servants.” The State Department issued a statement which rightly expressed “concerns” that include “observed irregularities on voting day and an uneven playing field during the difficult campaign period, which took place under a state of emergency.” The European Commission called on Turkey to “launch transparent investigations into alleged irregularities.” Yet Trump himself has not offered a word of censure. Instead, he called Erdogan and congratulated him on his big win. There was not a hint in the White House account of the phone call to suggest that Trump expressed any qualms about the manner in which Erdogan achieved his victory or what it likely portends for Turkey, which is more repression. Granted, Turkey is a NATO ally that hosts a U.S. airbase, and the U.S. needs Turkey’s help to address problems such as the Syrian civil war. But it’s one thing to hold your nose and work with Erdogan despite his human-rights abuses. It’s another thing to actually praise him for destroying Turkish democracy. While the U.S. has certainly backed its share of dictators over the years, it’s hard to think of any president other than Richard Nixon who showed such indifference to the moral dimension of foreign policy . Trump clearly looks upon human rights concerns as a distraction from his strategic goals. What he doesn’t understand is that the United States has been a “winner” in

no small part because of our idealism, which has made America an attractive ally for freedom-seekers around the world. By jettisoning human rights promotion, Trump is sacrificing what has made America great .

Human Rights Cred Low Now – 1ar US human rights credibility is low – Trump’s actions speak louder than his wordsBrannen 4/7/17 (Kate, deputy managing editor of Just Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, "UNDER TRUMP, U.S. IS NO LONGER A CHAMPION OF HUMAN RIGHTS," http://www.newsweek.com/under-trump-us-no-longer-champion-human-rights-579028, http://www.newsweek.com/under-trump-us-no-longer-champion-human-rights-579028)

Trump’s welcoming of el-Sissi with open arms follows last week’s news that the State Department planned to support the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain without requiring the country to improve its human rights record as the Obama administration had done.

These decisions are just the latest in a series of moves that has everyone from human rights advocates to Republican senators worried . Last week, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called the U.N. Human Rights Council “so corrupt” without offering any evidence. The Trump administration didn’t attend recent hearings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, saying the topics being discussed were related to matters currently in litigation, a claim that advocates said wasn’t credible. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson chose not to personally unveil the State Department’s annual report on human rights across the globe, as his predecessors have typically done. Related: Tillerson lifts human rights conditions for arms aale to Bahrain In February, Politico reported that the Trump administration was considering pulling the United States out of the U.N. Human Rights Council, partly because it sees the body as overly critical of Israel. During his Senate confirmation hearing Tillerson’s responses, especially on Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, also raised red flags. Trump Sissi meeting President Trump meets Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on April 3. Trump's meeting with Sisi was his first with an African leader since becoming president in January. KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS Then there’s Trump’s personal admiration for strongmen in addition to el-Sissi, like Putin and Duterte. Are all of the signals alarming? Not quite. In its statement on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the State Department included a continued commitment to human rights standards, stating: “The promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as embodied in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Inter-American Democratic Charter, is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.” Haley slammed Russia and China when they opposed a Security Council resolution to impose sanctions for Syria’s use of chemical weapons. At his confirmation hearing, Tillerson did make statements like: “Our moral light must not go out if we are to remain an agent of freedom for mankind. Supporting human rights in our foreign policy is a key component of clarifying to a watching world what America stands for.” And the U.S. hasn’t left the U.N. Human Rights Council, at least not yet. Related: Is Trump abandoning the leadership of the free world? Trump officials have clearly given verbal support to international human rights, but is that commitment anything more than lip service? If words spoke louder than actions, Trump’s record might be viewed more favorably. For those keeping score, the list of things the Trump administration has done in its first few months in office to threaten human rights at home and abroad is a long one . Check out Columbia Law School’s Trump Human Rights tracker for more.