Text: The United States Federal Government should propose through binding consultation to Brazil that it should



Download 109.23 Kb.
Page4/4
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size109.23 Kb.
1   2   3   4

AFF ANSWERS

Perms

Do Both

Do the CP

Consult on other Issues

Consult and do the Plan regardless



“Should” is not mandatory – noncompliance is allowed with explicit justification


ADS 99 (1/24, http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html, accessed 8/14/06)

Shall


'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances.

Should


'should' is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not being stated clearly.

Says No

Brazil says no – they want to assert control over Latin American policy


Mar Guinot Aguado 8/6/12 – Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs (“BRAZIL: PLAYING CHESS IN LATIN AMERICA,” Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/brazil-playing-chess-in-latin-america/)

Challenging U.S. historical influence in the region, Latin American leaders’ political and economic agendas now conform more closely to Brazilian interests. Although traditionally considered the backyard of the U.S., the continent is now becoming the Brazilian playground. Brazil aspires to set the region’s agenda through a dynamic and independent foreign policy that significantly differs from a Washington perspective.



Says no – Brazil wants to prevent US hegemony in the region


Mar Guinot Aguado 8/6/12 – Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs (“BRAZIL: PLAYING CHESS IN LATIN AMERICA,” Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/brazil-playing-chess-in-latin-america/)

Half a century ago, a spirit of “what is good for the USA is also good for Brazil” defined the Brazilian government’s approach to foreign policy. Yet now Brazil is more aware of its power. As it seeks to expand its influence throughout and beyond Latin America, its foreign policy increasingly collides with the historically U.S.-dominated role in guiding issues such as trade and security matters. Since the 1990s, Brazil has risen as a regional power in Latin America by crafting political and economic alliances with its neighbors. Its attempts to influence the outcome of elections and develop economic exchanges in the region demonstrate its pursuit of a leadership role in Latin America—replacing the U.S. with a more likeable partner and perhaps a more agreeable mix.



Brazil says no – socialists in Brazil hate US involvement


Le Monde Diplomatique June 2013 – independent international newspaper (Renaud Lambert, “Brazil looms larger,” http://mondediplo.com/2013/06/08latinam)
At 74, he has become a straight talker: “What advantage do you see for France or Germany in integrating with a country such as Malta?” he asked. “None at all. Except perhaps that it’s a sovereign country, and therefore has a vote in international institutions.” With other major blocs forming around the world, Brazil must create its “own” region, based not on Latin America, since Mexico and Central America “vote with Washington”, but on South America, which should become “the central axis of our strategy of rejection of all subservience to US interests.” The anti-imperialism of the most progressive among Brazil’s senior civil servants is like Pomar’s. He thinks that, irrespective of the political convictions of its backers, a movement founded on this anti-US rhetoric could spur social change: “Every attempt to build a socialist bloc in Latin America has run into two obstacles: the power of the Latin American bourgeoisie, and that of the White House. Brazil’s integration initiative will not eliminate outside interference, but will reduce its impact, and give national politics greater autonomy.” The tough stance of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) — founded in 2008 — probably helped to foil Bolivian and Ecuadorian coups in 2008 and 2010. When the Venezuelan opposition and the US challenged the validity of the election of Nicolas Maduro, Unasur supported Hugo Chávez’s designated heir. “In the past, issues of that kind were settled by the Organisation of American States — that means by the White House,” said Pinheiro Guimarães. Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to Latin America as the “backyard” of the US (4).


Hegemony Turn

Binding consultation crushes U.S. leadership


Carroll ‘9 (James FF, Notes & Comments Editor – Emory International Law Review, J.D. with Honors – Emory University School of Law, “Back to the Future: Redefining the Foreign Investment and National Security Act's Conception of National Security”, Emory International Law Review, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 167, Lexis)
n221. See Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed., 9/11 is Over, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2007, § 4, at 12. This does not mean, however, that foreign countries should hold a veto over U.S. foreign or domestic policies, particularly policies that are not directly related to their national survival. Allowing foreign countries or international institutions to veto or modify unrelated U.S. policies would make a mockery of our foreign policy and destroy the credibility of American leadership. International cooperation does not require making our policy subservient to the whims of other nations. See generally The Allies and Arms Control (F.O. Hampson et al. eds., 1992). See also Khalilzad, supra note 177. 

Consult kills hegemony, which is a stronger internal link to relations


Krauthammer ‘2 (CHARLES, winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, writes a nationally syndicated editorial page for the Washington Post. “American Unilateralism”, http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/American%20Unilateralism.htm)
So much for the moral argument that under­lies multilateralism. What are the practical arguments? There is a school of realists who agree that liberal internationalism is nonsense, but who argue plausibly that we need international or allied support, regardless. One of their arguments is that if a power consistently shares rulemaking with others, it is more likely to get aid and assistance from them. I have my doubts. The U.S. made an extraordinary effort during the Gulf War to get U.N. support, share decision-making and assemble a coalition. As I have pointed out, it even denied itself the fruits of victory in order to honor coalition goals. Did this diminish anti-Americanism in the region? Did it garner support for subsequent Iraq policy - policy dictated by the original acquiescence to that coalition? The attacks of September 11 were planned during the Clinton administration, an administration that made a fetish of consultation and did its utmost to subordi­nate American hegemony. Yet resentments were hardly assuaged, because extremist rage against the U.S. is engendered by the very structure of the international system, not by our management of it. Pragmatic realists value multilateralism in the interest of sharing burdens, on the theory that if you share decision-making, you enlist others in your own hegemony enterprise. As proponents of this school argued recently in Foreign Affairs, “Straining relationships now will lead only to a more challenging policy environment later on.” This is a pure cost-benefit analysis of multilateralism versus unilateralism. If the concern about unilateralism is that American assertiveness be judiciously rationed and that one needs to think long-term, hardly anybody will disagree. One does not go it alone or dictate terms on every issue. There's no need to. On some issues, such as membership in the World Trade Organization, where the long-term benefit both to the U.S. and to the global interest is demonstrable, one willingly constricts sovereignty. Trade agreements are easy calls, however, free trade being perhaps the only mathematically provable political good. Other agreements require great skepticism. The Kyoto Protocol on climate change, for example, would have had a disastrous effect on the American economy, while doing nothing for the global environment. Increased emissions from China, India and other third-world countries which are exempt from its provisions clearly would have overwhelmed and made up for whatever American cuts would have occurred. Kyoto was therefore rightly rejected by the Bush administration. It failed on its merits, but it was pushed very hard nonetheless, because the rest of the world supported it. The same case was made during the Clinton administration for chemical and biological weapons treaties, which they negotiated assiduously under the logic of, “Sure, they're useless or worse, but why not give in, in order to build good will for future needs?” The problem is that appeasing multilateralism does not assuage it; appeasement only legitimizes it. Repeated acquiescence on provisions that America deems injurious reinforces the notion that legitimacy derives from international consensus. This is not only a moral absurdity. It is injurious to the U.S., because it undermines any future ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally, if necessary. The key point I want to make about the new unilateralism is that we have to be guided by our own independent judgment, both about our own interests and about global interests. This is true especially on questions of national security, war making, and freedom of action in the deployment of power. America should neither defer nor contract out such decision-making, particularly when the concessions involve per­manent structural constrictions, such as those imposed by the International Criminal Court. Should we exercise prudence? Yes. There is no need to act the superpower in East Timor or Bosnia, as there is in Afghanistan or in Iraq. There is no need to act the superpower on steel tariffs, as there is on missile defense. The prudent exercise of power calls for occasional concessions on non-vital issues, if only to maintain some psychological goodwill. There's no need for gratuitous high-handedness or arrogance. We shouldn't, however, delude ourselves as to what psychological goodwill can buy. Countries will cooperate with us first out of their own self­interest, and second out of the need and desire to cultivate good relations with the world's unipolar power. Warm feelings are a distant third. After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Yemen did everything it could to stymie the American investigation. It lifted not a finger to suppress terrorism at home, and this was under an American administration that was obsessively multilateralist and accommodating. Yet today, under the most unilateralist American administration in memory, Yemen has decided to assist in the war on terrorism. This was not the result of a sudden attack of Yemeni goodwill, or of a quick re-reading of the Federalist Papers. It was a result of the war in Afghanistan, which concentrated the mind of recalcitrant states on the price of non-cooperation. Coalitions are not made by superpowers going begging hat in hand; they are made by asserting a position and inviting others to join. What even pragmatic realists fail to understand is that unilateralism is the high road to multilateralism. It was when the first President Bush said that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would not stand, and made it clear that he was prepared to act alone if necessary, that he created the Gulf War coalition.

Links to Politics

Links to more to politics because consultation causes GOP backlash


Patrick 1 (Stewart—research associate at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, and a 2001-02 international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy Journal, Sept. 22)

The administration, for its part, disavows the label, advancing the more comforting “leadership” and underlining its commitment to “consultations” with foreign partners. As President Bush told the press at the NATO summit, “Unilateralists don’t come around the table to listen to others… Unilateralists don’t ask opinions of world leaders.” (1) Yet skepticism about multilateral cooperation runs deep within this administration. A common Republican attack during the 2000 presidential campaign was that the Clinton administration (and by extension Al Gore) had made a fetish of multilateralism. Condoleeza Rice, now national security advisor, chided Democrats for subordinating U.S. national interests to “the interests of an illusory international community” and for clinging to “the belief that the support of many states—or even better, institutions like the United Nations—is essential to the legitimate exercise of power.” Republicans, in contrast, understood that “multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves. During its first year in office, the new Bush administration has moved to implement this foreign policy philosophy, walking away from a number of international treaties and commitments.




Consultation CPs Bad Theory

Consult CP’s are bad

Potentially wholly plan inclusive CP’s are bad, they steal affirmative ground because it’s difficult to generate offense, also the neg has another constructive, where they can make new arg based on what aff says the external actor will do

They’re not competitive because they generate artificial competition off immediacy, certainty, and failure to consult, this justifies arguments that aren’t functionally competitive like the delay cp. Look to functional competition first, textual competition means the aff would win every time by perming one word from the cp text

CP’s without a substantial literature base are bad, there are an infinite number of countries and institutions the neg could chose to consult, lack of specific solvency for Afghanistan proves abuse



Relations High Now

No need for consultation – Relations are rising now


Anthony Boadle 2013 Fri May 31, 2013 “Biden says U.S. and Brazil ready for deeper relationship” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-brazil-usa-biden-idUSBRE94U14220130531 MT

"We're ready for a deeper, broader relationship across the board on everything from the military to education, trade and investment," Biden told reporters after meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The White House announced on Wednesday that Rousseff will make a state visit to Washington on October 23, the only one that President Barack Obama is offering a foreign head of state this year, indicating the importance his administration is placing on closer ties with Latin America's largest nation. Biden praised Brazil for recently writing off $900 million in African debt, saying it showed the emergence of Brazil as a "responsible" nation on the world stage. During his three-day visit, Biden also commended Brazil for lifting millions of people from poverty over the last decade and showing the world that development and democracy are not incompatible. However, he also urged Brazil to open its economy more to foreign bushiness and to be more vocal in defense of democracy and free-market values. Relations between Washington and Brasilia have improved since Rousseff took office in 2011 and adopted a less ideological foreign policy than her predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who befriended Iran and drew Brazil closer to Venezuela's anti-U.S. government under the late Hugo Chavez. As the Brazilian economy surged on a commodity boom in the last decade, China displaced the United States as Brazil's largest trading partner due to its massive purchases of Brazilian iron ore and soy. Perceiving the advent of better ties between Brasilia and Washington, U.S. and Brazilian businesses are actively pushing for a strategic partnership between their countries that would allow for more flexible investment rules, a treaty to eliminate double taxation and a visa waiver program to make travel easier for tourists and executives. "The atmospherics are improving rapidly, in part because Brazil has taken a lower profile on some contentious global political issues like Iran," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Americas Society, a business forum dedicated to fostering ties between the United States and Latin America.



Spy Scandal wont affect relations


Associated Press 7/10/13 (Leading Brazil congressman says disclosures of US spying will not affect relations Published July 10, 2013

The head of Brazil's joint congressional committee on intelligence says reports disclosures alleging that that the United States has collected data on billions of telephone and email conversations in Latin America's biggest country will not affect Brazil-U.S. relations. Congressman Nelson Pellegrino tells foreign correspondents in Brasilia that despite Brazil's strong repudiation of the U.S. information gathering activities in Brazil "the good relations we have with the United States will not be interrupted." Late last week, the O Globo newspaper reported that information released by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort aimed at monitoring communications around the world. The Brazilian government is investigating the disclosures and Congress has asked U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon for explanations.
1   2   3   4


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page