\

}***AFF Answers

***Uniqueness

2AC No Pivot—Syria

Pivot away from Middle East impossible—Syria guarantees huge security role Hunter 5/5Robert, former US ambassador to NATO and Director of West European Affairs and Director of Middle East Affairs, “President Obama: Keep Your Nerve on Syria,” may-5, http://www.lobelog.com/president-obama-keep-your-nerve-on-syria/ /// cmf

Then a final dilemma: the US desire to “pivot” to Asia. But at least some refocusing of policy and military assets will not be as easily done as has been hoped with the end of the Iraq War, the winding down of the Afghanistan War and the efforts to keep Iran from crossing either US or Israeli red lines on its nuclear

program.¶ With Syria and its interlocking dilemmas, plus other continuing challenges in the region, the US will not be able to rid itself of a major security role in the Middle East anytime soon, even if it (rightly) promotes an international approach to even some of these dilemmas, no matter how much oil and gas is eventually produced in the continental US.

2AC Link Non-Unique

Link is non-unique—Obama already heavily focused and engaged in Latin America Andrews 6/9Anna, former ambassador to Costa Rica, interview conducted by David Boddiger, “U.S. ambassador in Costa Rica wraps up term this week,” http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/U.S.-ambassador-in-Costa-Rica-wraps-up-term-this-week_Sunday-June-09-2013 ///cmf

President Obama’s visit to Costa Rica in early May was pretty significant in that many Central

Americans felt they were being ignored by his administration. Does his visit indicate a renewed commitment to or interest in the region? ¶ I am aware that there are those who have questioned whether

President Obama was committed to Latin America. What I think is evident from the president’s visit here is it gave us a chance to really look more carefully at the president’s commitment to Latin America, and what I found is that President Obama in 2009, on one of his first trips outside the U.S., went to the

Summit of the Americas. At that summit, he outlined his vision for a new partnership with Latin America and a commitment to partner for the benefit of all the people of the Americas.¶

What we’ve seen between the time that Obama went to the first Summit of the Americas to his visit here in Costa Rica is that

the president has visited the Latin American region six times in five years, and that early in his

second administration, one of the first trips he’s taken is to come back to the region and reiterate his continued support. The investments we have been making in Latin America and Central America in the areas

of security, trade and education are really significant. ¶ I think often times we don’t have time to gather the facts and,

therefore, we make conclusions based on less than the full information. But I think that if you look at the president’s early commitment, his vision, and the investments we have been making, I think

it makes his visit to Costa Rica, rather than coming back to or renewing, it’s really a continuation and a highlighting of the president’s commitment to this region.

***Thumpers

2AC Middle East Generic Thumper

Despite rhetoric of pivoting to Asia, Middle East conflicts will keep the US embroiled there Burns 7/5Nicholas, GlobalPost senior foreign affairs columnist, is professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, “Why Egypt matters to the US,” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/why-egypt-matters-to-united-states ///cmf

Washington cannot focus its energies on all 22 Arab states simultaneously, and Egypt should be the overwhelming priority. That is one reason why staying involved in Egypt, making a substantial increase in American economic aid, and resolving to make a much greater effort to support democratic forces there is so important.¶ Second, this week’s events in Egypt also remind us, once again, of the continued importance of the Middle East to American interests.

The Obama administration announced in 2011 a major shift in American foreign policy toward Asia. It was widely understood to be a pivot from our decades-long involvement in the turbulent Middle East to a priority focus on Asia, with a rising China challenging us for global power.¶ The instinct that Asia will be the most important region for American engagement in this century is not wrong. It is just

premature.¶ Events in Egypt and the continued challenges of the bloody civil war in Syria, the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian struggle, and a recalcitrant Iran mean the US will be more occupied on a daily basis with the problems of the Middle East than any other region for at least the rest of the decade — and probably well beyond. America’s vital interests are still very much on the line there. The region’s poverty, instability, energy resources, growing Shia-Sunni divide and revolutionary ferment all point to a continuing American preoccupation. Any dream of a

sharp shift of American attention away from the Middle East is illusory.

1AR Syria Thumper

Obama focusing all diplomatic capital and military resources on Syria—loss of credibility non-unique -Tanks credibility

Cooke 6/23Shamus, “Syria Is Becoming Obama's Iraq,” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17160-syria-is-becoming-obamas-iraq ///cmf

In perfect Bush-like fashion, President Obama has invented a bogus pretense for military intervention in yet another Middle East country. The president’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons - and thus crossed Obama’s imaginary “red line” - will likely fool very few Americans, who already distrust their president after the massive NSA spying

scandal.¶ Obama has officially started down a path that inevitably leads to full-scale war. At this

point the Obama administration thinks it has already invested too much military, financial, and diplomatic capital into the Syrian conflict to turn back, and each step forward brings the U.S. closer to a direct military intervention. ¶ Much like Obama’s spying program, few Americans knew that the United States was already involved, neck deep, with the mass killings occurring in Syria. For example, Obama has been directly arming the Syrian rebels for well over a year. The New York Times broke the story that the Obama administration has - through the CIA - been illegally trafficking thousands of tons of guns to the rebels from the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If not for these Obama-trafficked guns, thousands of deaths would have been prevented and the Syrian conflict over.¶ But even after the gun trafficking story broke, the mainstream media largely ignored it, and continued “reporting” that the U.S. has only been supplying the Syrian rebels with “non-lethal aid,” a meaningless term in a war setting, since all military aid directly assists in the business of killing.¶ The U.S. media also buried the truth behind the ridiculous chemical weapons claims by the Obama administration, which, like Bush’s WMDs, are based on absolutely no evidence. Having learned nothing from Iraq, the U.S. media again shamelessly regurgitates the “facts” as spoon-fed to them by the government, no questions asked. In reality, however, a number of independent chemical weapons experts have publicly spoken out against Obama’s accusations.¶ The U.S. media also refuses to ask: on what authority does the United States have to determine the usage of chemical weapons in other countries? This is the job of the UN. What has the UN said on the matter?¶ Top UN rights investigator Carla del Ponte said:¶ “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the [Syrian] rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.”¶ Again, the “rebels” have used chemical weapons, not the Syrian government, according to the UN representative. Many analysts have pointed out the obvious fact that the Syrian government would have zero military or political motive to use chemical weapons, especially when they have access to much more effective conventional weapons. Obama’s Bush-like lies are too familiar to the American public, who overwhelmingly do not support military intervention in Syria, or giving direct military aide to the Syrian rebels.¶ What has the UN said on giving military aid to the rebels?¶ UN chief Ban Ki-moon has called the Obama’s decision “a bad idea” and “not helpful.” This is because pouring arms into any country where there is a conflict only increases the bloodshed and risks turning the

conflict into a broader catastrophe.¶ But like Bush, Obama is ignoring the UN, and there’s a logic to his madness. Obama

has invested too much of his foreign policy credibility in Syria. His administration has been the

backbone of the Syrian rebels from the beginning, having handpicked a group of rich Syrian exiles and molded them into Obama’s “officially recognized” government of Syria, while pressuring other nations to also recognize these nobodies as the

“legitimate Syrian government.” Assad’s iron grip on power is a humiliation to these diplomatic

efforts of Obama, and has thus weakened the prestige and power of U.S. foreign policy abroad.

1AR Israel Peace Process Thumper

Obama administration focusing and investing diplomacy in peace process Stearns 6/27Scott, VOA’s State Department correspondent, “Kerry: Israeli, Palestinian Leaders Tested in Peace Process,” http://www.voanews.com/content/Kerry-says-israeli-palestinian-leaders-teste-in-peace-process/1690395.html ///cmf

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are both being tested politically in pursuit of a two-state peace

solution. Kerry is in the region for talks with both men, his fifth visit in as many months. ¶

Continuing his shuttle diplomacy, Kerry says Netanyahu and Abbas share "a serious commitment of purpose" in the face of considerable political challenges to Mideast peace.¶ "The politics of both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas

have both been tested, as they always are in this part of the world," said Kerry.¶ Kerry is making getting Israelis

and Palestinians back to talks a priority . It is the fifth time in as many months that he has visited the region. ¶ Since Kerry began the diplomatic push, more conservative members of Netanyahu's ruling coalition have pronounced the two-state solution dead. Abbas is under pressure to show results for his non-violent approach, having accepted his newly-appointed prime minister's resignation after just three weeks in office.¶ But Kerry said both men are skilled political veterans who believe the peace process "is more important to their countries than some of their current political challenges may make it seem."¶ "President Abbas has been at this a long time. He has been motivated by the desire to try to create his country, to give the Palestinians their homeland, to define it, and to be able to meet the needs of his people," Kerry said.¶ As Israel's second-longest serving prime minister, Netanyahu knows what is at stake, Kerry said.¶ "He understands how volatile the region is, what the complications and threats are to Israel, the downsides of

failure. And I think he understands that this is a serious moment," the secretary said.¶ Kerry said the Obama

administration is determined to keep working toward Mideast peace, but it is up to Abbas

and Netanyahu to make the hard choices.¶ "In the end, they will have to make key decisions about whether or whether not they're prepared to proceed forward based on the understandings that we hope we could reach," he said.¶ After meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem Thursday, Kerry meets here in Jordan with Abbas Friday.

2AC Africa Thumper

Recent commitment to sustained engagement in African energy thumps the DAGoldman 7/1Julianna, “Obama plans $7bn African energy venture,” http://www.bdlive.co.za/africa/africanbusiness/2013/07/01/obama-plans-7bn-african-energy-venture ///cmf

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama has plans for an initiative to enhance access to electricity across Africa by tapping the continent’s vast energy resources and attracting international investment.¶ The US administration said the $7bn venture, called Power Africa, will complement an additional $9bn in

private funds to double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the White House more than two-thirds of the population is without electricity.¶ Mr Obama unveiled the energy programme at the University of Cape Town on Sunday night.¶ "We’re looking to provide support and partnership so the lights can turn on and stay on," said Gayle

Smith, National Security Council senior director for development and democracy.¶ Mr Obama arrived in Cape Town on Sunday morning on the second leg of a trip to Africa where he has been promoting

trade and investment, pledging sustained US engagement and underscoring the importance of

democratic values to economic growth.¶ The failing health of former president Nelson Mandela has weighed heavily on the trip and Mr Obama has spent his time, especially in the South African icon’s home country, invoking his legacy as a model for the continent’s leaders to earn international respect and credibility.¶ Mr Obama visited Robben Island, a landmark in Madiba’s life and the antiapartheid movement. Robert F Kennedy delivered his Ripple of Hope speech in 1966 at Cape Town University, shortly after Mr Mandela was jailed.¶ "It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped," Mr Kennedy said at the time. "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope," said the senator, then a US presidential candidate.¶ "And crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."¶ Mr Obama also visited a community centre that focuses on HIV/AIDS prevention with Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.¶ "The types of countries that are part of Power Africa, for instance, are the ones who are doing the right things on governance," said deputy National Security Council director Ben Rhodes.¶ "If we’re going to get investment from international development banks, from private-sector partners, they need to have the

predictability that comes with the rule of law and governance."¶ The venture will begin in six countries — Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Tanzania — to add more than 10,000MW of cleaner, more efficient electricity-generation capacity and will increase electricity access to at least 20-million new households and commercial entities, according to the US.¶ General Electric is among the companies that have contributed to the $9bn in private-sector funding for the programme’s first phase and has committed to help bring 5,000MW of new energy to Tanzania and Ghana.¶ "We are in a situation where poverty is being conquered on this continent at a speed that is unprecedented," said Ms Smith. "It’s much more targeted assistance from us than in the past."¶ Sunday’s announcement follows criticism that Mr Obama’s engagement with sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind that of his predecessors Bill Clinton and George W Bush, creating an opening for countries such as China to tap the region’s resources.¶ Mr Bush, who took US spending on Africa to new levels, made a six-country visit in 2008 and a three-country stop in 2011 after he left the White House.¶ His Africa legacy includes the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), a $15bn commitment to prevent and treat AIDS infections, credited with saving or extending millions of lives on the continent.¶ Mr Clinton signed the African Growth and Opportunity Act, an important trade agreement with countries in sub-Saharan Africa.¶ Mr Obama was largely occupied in his first term with the

US financial crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a foreign policy pivot towards Asia.¶ A year ago, he issued a policy directive on sub-Saharan Africa calling for expanded economic growth and pressing for stronger democratic institutions. ¶ Mr Obama will travel to Tanzania on Monday for the last stop of his tour and to the country’s fast-growing Dar es Salaam to convene a roundtable of company executives and promote investments in electrification projects.

1AR Africa Thumper

Africa will dominate US foreign policy in the coming years Goodmar 7/2Sarah “Obama's Africa Trip: A Renewed Commitment to US-African Relations,” http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/obamas-africa-trip-renewed-commitment-us-african-relations ///cmf

President Obama’s speech at the University of Cape Town on June 30 was a highlight of his

anticipated trip to Africa, demonstrating a renewed commitment to US-African relations on the part of the administration. His speech formed a narrative of progress and hope for the future, acknowledging the strides that the countries of Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania have made in democratization,

while also making a point to ensure security in Central Africa. His mention of Sudan, South Sudan, and the Congo demonstrate a commitment to addressing mass atrocities in the region, while acknowledging the urgings of democracy’s greatest asset—its people: "We can't force a solution on to the region. The peoples of the region have to stand

up and say that enough, it’s time to move forward in a different way.”¶ President Obama’s trip to Africa, though

highlighting and applauding democratic nations and institutions, emphasized the attention that must be paid to push for peace in the Sudans, Congo and areas where the Lord’s Resistance Army operates. He stated,¶ “These efforts have to lead to lasting peace, not just words on a paper or promises that fade away. Peace between and within Sudan and South Sudan, so that these governments get on with the work of investing in their deeply impoverished peoples. Peace in the Congo with nations keeping their commitments, so rights are at last claimed by the people of this war-torn country, and women and children no longer live in fear.”¶ His acknowledgement of coalitions in the region that are working to stabilize an increasingly volatile environment heed the work of neighboring African countries seeking to bring peace and security to the region.¶ His trip, premised on the growth of African trade, democracy building, and youth participation has centered on the importance of grassroots participation in African progress - from President Obama’s visit to a South African community health center to a food security event in Dakar, Senegal. However, his emphasis on the importance of transparent institutions was a focal point of his speech.¶ While he applauded burgeoning democracies and rapidly growing economies in Africa, he also recognized the fragility and unevenness of this progress, and the dire security and human rights situations of many African nations: “From Congo to Sudan, conflicts fester -- robbing men, women and children of the lives that they deserve. In too many countries, the actions of thugs and warlords; and drug cartels and human traffickers hold back the promise of Africa, enslaving others for their own purposes.” His reference to Central Africa reflects his administration's commitment to condemn and address mass atrocities in the region, consistent with recent changes to his foreign policy team, most notably Susan Rice’s ascendance as National Security Advisor and Samantha Power’s nomination to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.¶ During the last leg of his trip, President Obama responded to a recent U.N. group of experts report that confirmed Rwanda and Congo’s support of armed rebel group M23 at a news conference in Tanzania: “The countries surrounding the Congo, they've got to make a commitment to stop funding armed groups that are encroaching on territorial integrity and sovereignty of Congo.” He concluded by emphasizing his inability to force a solution onto the region, saying that peace must be reached at the grassroots, and praised Tanzania’s positive contributions to the United Nations peacekeeping force in

Congo, or MONUSCO.¶ The speech signals an effort to alter the status quo of U.S.-African relations—from responding to pleas for aid and assistance to holistic partnerships with African nations—by addressing systemic oppression on the environmental, economic, social, and educational levels. President Obama announced plans to convene a summit in the United States next year, with heads of state from sub-Saharan Africa called to help “launch a new chapter in U.S.-African relations.” In addressing popular criticism against the U.S. for “meddling” in foreign affairs, he asserted that the administration would only assist and support an African infrastructure made up of transparent institutions: “America will make no apology for supporting African efforts to end conflict and stand up for human dignity.”

***Link

2AC AT Regional Focus Trades-off

The US can focus on more than one region at a timeMichael Green, 11/21/11, Foreign Policy, "Dizzy yet? the pros and cons of the asia pivot," http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/21/dizzy_yet_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_asia_pivot

In addition, the "pivot" spin makes the United States look like a spastic superpower that swings around focusing on only one region at a time. During the Cold War, the United States managed a grand strategy that was global in scope with skill; are we not capable of doing so today, when our freedom of maneuver and our relative power are in fact greater? It is unbecoming of a global power; unnerving for our European allies (whose support we also need to manage China's ascendance); and carries the unfortunate connotation that we may "pivot" again based on a new, reductionist, one-region-at-a-time concept of grand strategy.

***Impact

**Defense**

2AC Decline Inevitable

Failure in Syria already tanking US credibility and hegemony—Snowden conflict proves Cooke 7/1Shamus, Global Research, “How Edward Snowden and Syria Will Change Obama’s Foreign Policy,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-edward-snowden-and-syria-will-change-obamas-foreign-policy/5341269 ///cmf

When the NSA spying scandal broke, so did the illusion that President Obama was significantly different than his predecessor, Bush Jr. Obama’s meticulously crafted image was specifically created as an alternative to Bush: Obama campaigned as a peace candidate who loved civil liberties and wanted to work with the UN instead of unilaterally launching wars.¶ But now that the president has been fully exposed as an aspiring Bush III, will he retreat back into the sheep’s clothing he wore as candidate Obama? Or will he shed any remaining pretense and fully adopt Bush’s international recklessness? The answer is that both are likely true: Obama will continue to perform his stale routine as a “pragmatist” while in reality acting

out an even more dangerous foreign policy than Bush.¶ This is because Edward Snowden, Russia, and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad have backed President Obama into a corner; all have exposed major weaknesses in the foreign power of the United States, and Obama will not allow himself — and more importantly “U.S. national [corporate] interests” — to appear weak while Iran, Russia and China are rising

economically and/or politically. This dynamic will inevitably lead Obama to a more aggressive foreign policy, more Middle East wars, and more dangerous confrontations with Iran, Russia, and China.¶ Obama has never been so vulnerable to his domestic right wing, which has been successfully skewering him for the Snowden affair. The president’s “I don’t care” attitude is obviously an act, and is only further

provoking his right-wing attackers, a good example of which comes from the Heritage Foundation:¶ “[China and Russia's] unwillingness to extradite…[Edward Snowden] is just the latest example of the waning of American global power and influence courtesy of Team Obama…The big question, naturally, is:

With perceptions of [the United States’] plummeting power quite plausible, who might be the next to take pleasure in challenging our [U.S.] interests?” ¶ This is not just the opinion of a right-wing pundit, but of the entire U.S. political establishment, Democrat and Republican alike. One need only remember that during the Obama-Romney debate on foreign policy in the last election, there was very little debating and much agreement on the need for U.S. “power” to be projected abroad.¶ To be fair to Obama, the right wing has been too hard on him for his “weak” foreign policy, since in reality Obama has acted incredibly hawkish internationally; the U.S. media simply did their best to hide his actions from criticism, as did the Republicans who he worked with in tandem.¶ For example, in Latin America Obama backed a military coup in Honduras against an elected government, and later backed a coup in Paraguay and funneled cash to the far right wing in Venezuela to undermine the Chavez government, while maintaining the cold war era embargo against Cuba. Consequently, Latin America now equates Obama’s foreign policy with Bush’s. The U.S. Republicans were in complete agreement with these policies of Obama.¶ The Middle East is another example of Obama already acting the scoundrel. His Bush-like “surge” tactic in Afghanistan extended a pointless war against the Taliban with whom he is now trying in vain to negotiate an “honorable” peace; Obama broke international law in Libya when he bombed the nation into regime change; in Syria Obama is continuing to escalate a devastating war by funneling even more guns and cash to a “rebel” group dominated by Islamic extremists, again without UN approval. Never mind his shameless support of Israel’s criminal policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and his “strong alliance” with the Persian Gulf Monarchy dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.¶ Up until now Obama has been able to implement these Bush-like policies with a nice guy label. But nice

will no longer do— the international situation has changed. Edward Snowden and Syria’s president have humiliated President Obama on key issues, and Obama must now bare his teeth, lest other nations exploit his

weakness.¶ Syria, for example, is crucially important to Obama because he has invested massive U.S. diplomatic capital in assembling a Bush-like “coalition of the willing” to topple the Syrian president, and if Obama fails in his attempt at regime change his coalition of lackeys will not follow the U.S.’s lead in future endeavors, and may look instead to follow Iran or Russia. With each step

deeper into the Syrian morass Obama will find himself unable to retreat; and at this point a step backwards would significantly diminish U.S. power in the Middle East. When Obama said, “Assad must go,” he committed U.S. involvement to ensure that it happens.¶ More importantly, if Syria is able to defend itself from the U.S.-backed rebels — or possibly a direct U.S. invasion — other countries will no longer be scared into submission to accept U.S. foreign policy. This is crucial because as U.S. economic power wanes, its military becomes the foreign policy tactic of choice.¶ Obama would like his Syrian intervention to be as politically painless as Bill Clinton’s destruction of Yugoslavia, or Obama’s destruction of Libya. But Obama’s rebels are being crushed on the battle field, requiring that Obama become increasingly invested in directly toppling the Syrian president; Obama’s rebels are now to be directly armed with more sophisticated weaponry from the U.S., which will be funneled to them by the increasing amounts of U.S. troops on the Syria-Jordan border who are training the rebels, and

where a sophisticated U.S. anti-aircraft missile system has been added “for defense.” Obama has already drawn up plans for an innocent sounding “no fly zone,” which in reality equals direct military invasion. ¶ Obama now feels that he cannot back down in Syria, lest Russia and Iran advance.

Geopolitics has reached a crescendo in the Middle East and the wider world, where one wrong step can equal a broader regional or even world war. ¶ The ongoing global economic crisis is pushing U.S. corporations to demand that “their” political parties — Democrats and Republicans — act more “boldly” abroad to acquire new markets/consumers for corporate products, new vehicles for investment, and new sources of cheap raw materials and labor. Russia and China have similar aspirations.¶ Barely into his second term Obama’s corporate backers are demanding he bare his fangs and quit acting the lamb — U.S. “national” interests are at stake! In doing so Obama will expose the true nature of the U.S. two-party system, and thus funnel political activity into the streets and/or the creation of a new, mass party of working people to challenge the decrepit political status quo. The first black president was the last great hope of the American two-party system. His failure will herald a new era in U.S. politics.

Asia Prolif Inev

Asian prolif inevitable—even a credible Asia pivot isn’t enough to assuage allies fears Karl 13 David, president of the Asia Strategy Initiative and director of studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy, “U.S. Strategic Credibility in Asia: An Update,” April-1, http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/04/01/u-s-strategic-credibility-in-asia-an-update/ ///cmf

In a post two weeks ago, I argued that the Obama administration confronts a serious credibility gap in Asia and cited as one example the small but growing number of influential South Koreans calling for their country to develop its own nuclear weapons because of renewed doubts about Washington’s commitment to South Korea’s security. This specific problem involves what is known in strategic policy circles as “extended deterrence” – that is, the convincing projection of U.S. nuclear deterrence power over far-flung allies confronted with menacing enemies.¶ Extended deterrence entails a two-fold challenge: Dissuading hostile states from taking offensive action while also persuading allies that there is no need to bolster their security through nuclear proliferation. Washington spent a great deal of treasure and psychic energy during the Cold War coming to grips with these problems, mainly in Europe as it tried to reassure NATO countries that America had their back even as Soviet nuclear forces grew in size and capacity. To a much lesser extent the problems of extended deterrence were also at work in East Asia during the Cold War. But they are now cropping up again as the regional security order becomes more complex.¶ This can be seen most clearly in the drama now playing out with North Korea. The United States has responded to Pyongyang’s increasing bellicosity in a way straight out of the Cold War playbook: 1.) by beefing up missile defense capabilities in Alaska; and 2.) sending nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers on practice runs over the Korean peninsula.¶ As illustrated in a Pentagon press conference following the bomber runs, the intended audience for these moves is not just Pyongyang. General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a point of emphasizing:¶ The reaction to the B-2 that we’re most concerned about is not necessarily the reaction it might elicit in North Korea, but rather among our Japanese and Korean allies. Those exercises are mostly to assure our allies that they can count on us to be prepared and to help them deter conflict.¶ As the mission was being announced in an official statement, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was also on the phone with his South Korean counterpart, reaffirming the United States’ “unwavering” commitment to defend the South.¶

Regardless of how the current North Korean crisis ends or the Obama administration’s success in dealing with the broader credibility problems of its “Asia pivot,” Washington’s challenges with extended deterrence will only grow in the years ahead as nuclear proliferation expands in the region and what some (here and here) are calling the “Second Nuclear Age” takes more concrete shape.

No Japan Prolif

Timeframe for Japanese prolif is years—no tech or materials Logan 13Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,” Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf

Importantly, however, the time it would take Japan, for example, to go nuclear, is almost certainly longer than the conventional wisdom, which has generally hovered around six months.120

There is little indication that Japan has prepared for such a rapid timeframe. Not only would Japan need to produce weapons-grade fissile material, but a significant amount more work would need to be done in developing delivery systems. A number of size- able technical

hurdles would put Japan’s time- frame in the realm of years, not months, to be- come a bona fide nuclear-weapons state.121 If Washington were to insist that Japan carry a heavier share of the burden for providing for its own defense, Tokyo may look into how it would overcome these hurdles.122

AT China Rise Bad

Liberal institutions and domestic politics ensure peaceful China rise Logan 13Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,” Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf

Two logics underpin the theory of the optimists, both borrowed from the liberal school of international relations.11 First is

“liberal institutionalist” logic, which holds that China’s political and military behavior can be constrained in a web of international institutions. These would allow it to rise into the existing international order—which was shaped by the institutions created un- der American leadership after World

War II—and prevent China from transforming the rules that govern the order.12¶ For liberal institutionalists, it is hard to understand why China would have any problems with the status quo. They wonder why, given that China has made huge strides forward in terms of prosperity and even influence under the existing order, it would bother to try changing it.13 Liberal institutionalists see international politics as tightly constrained by international institutions and laws, and argue, as Princeton’s G. John Ikenberry does, that while “the United States cannot thwart China’s rise, it can help ensure that China’s power is exercised within the rules and institutions that the United States and its partners have crafted over the last century, rules and institutions that can protect the interests of all states in the more crowded world of the future.”14¶ Optimists argue

that China can be con- strained because the expansive and cross- cutting network of international institutions promotes positive-sum outcomes and renders the American-dominated order “hard to overturn and easy to join.”15 If Washington plays its cards correctly, Iken- berry writes,

it can “make the liberal order so expansive and institutionalized that China will have no choice but to join and operate within it.”16¶ The second liberal logic holds that states’ international behavior is induced by the domestic political structures within them.17 In this view, to the extent that China has foreign policy objectives that conflict with American interests, these exist because of China’s undemocratic domestic politics.

Accordingly, the argument goes, if China democratized, China could continue to rise while resigning itself to U.S. preponderance. ¶ Advocates of this view place less emphasis on international institutions. For them, the question is whether China’s domestic politi cal system can be transformed from one-party rule toward democracy. If it can, there is less reason to fear that China’s international am- bitions will grow dangerously expansive. This theory is popular in Washington, where policy is based in part on the belief that continued economic growth

will help transform China’s political system in a democratic direction.¶ If all goes according to plan, economic growth in China will produce a growing middle class, which should then demand greater political rights. These demands are expected to generate more democratic politics.18 Then, these increasingly democratic politics are supposed to plug into a crude version of democratic peace theory, in which the domestic institutions of democratic countries prevent them from going to war (or presumably, in this case, even engaging in serious security competition) with other democracies.¶ What both schools of liberalism agree

on is that there is no iron law that growing Chinese power will create a zero-sum security tradeoff between China and the United States and its allies. This represents the central disagreement between the optimists and pessimists.

AT China War

China doesn’t have the military capabilities to start a conflict Logan 13Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,” Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf

The broader problem with U.S. China policy is that it takes as a given that a more powerful and activist

China would be bad for U.S. national security, but no one has detailed precisely how. The American

Enterprise Institute’s Dan Blumenthal and his coauthors write that China is a threat to the United States because its “ambitions threaten America’s Asian allies, raise questions about the credibility of U.S. alliance pledges, and imperil the U.S. military strategy that underpins its global primacy.”84 It is telling how prominently alliances figure in

this formulation, but Blumenthal’s logic is backward. The United States should form alliances with countries when it needs to fight a common enemy. It shouldn’t litter the globe with alliance commitments during peacetime, and then threaten war for the sake of those alliances. In the modern era, Washington’s alliances exist pri- marily to defend the allies and the credibility of other alliances, not the United States.¶ At the bottom of realist theories of international relations, such as Mearsheimer’s, is the prospect of being conquered or otherwise losing political sovereignty. Just as it is terrifically difficult to envision the United

States conquering China today, it is similarly difficult to imagine China conquering the United States, given the Pacific Ocean and the massive American nuclear arsenal. Even Chinese naval

dominance over a good chunk of the Pacific seems like a fantasy for the foresee- able future.

Currently the PLA is struggling to acquire the ability to control its near seas. Its highly touted first

aircraft carrier is, in the apt phrasing of one analyst, “a piece of junk,”85 and China is decades from having a bona fide blue-water navy, let alone one that could challenge the United States.¶ Of

course, a number of smaller problems are more likely. A much more powerful China could attempt to use its navy to exclude the United States from engaging in commerce with states in Asia. If it could overwhelm neighboring states,

China could hold hostage the sea lanes in Asia to extract concessions from other states in the region. But it bears asking

how likely those scenarios are, especially considering the sizable costs China would incur to achieve such results.

AT Solves Credibility

Asia pivot bad for credibility—forces us into conflict or be seen as a paper tiger Raine and Miere 13Sarah and Christian, Transatlantic Fellow @ the German Marshall Fund and Senior Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security@ IISS, “Chapter Four: The US in the South China Sea,” Adelphi Series, 53:436-437, 151-178, Taylor and Francis /// cmf

Another further constraint on US engagement is the limit on alliance-building in Southeast Asia demanded by US national interests beyond the South China Sea. As Germany and the UK manoeuvred before the First World

War to construct alliances designed to deter conflict, the dominoes of commitments engendered ended up actually helping to fan the flames of war.34 The danger for the US is that it ends up creating expectations it may not want to meet, taking on actual or perceived commitments that force it towards a crossroads it might otherwise seek to avoid: the decision to stand by an ally or

partner on principle and risk an escalation on a matter not of fundamental national interest, or to be seen to have their bluff called, thereby bringing into question the core credibility of US commitments in the region. This is particularly the case with regard to the Philippines, with whom the US has a Mutual Defence Agreement, certainly applicable to the Western Pacific but questionably applicable to the South China Sea. As the Philippines sent its US-donated cutter to arrest Chinese fisher- men off Scarborough Reef in April 2012, the US had a delicate balance to strike in the support it proffered. A ‘2+2’ meeting in May between the foreign and defence ministers of the two coun- tries stressed Washington’s strategic ambiguity on the issue: while reaffirming the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, US diplomats also highlighted their country’s neutrality on the South China Sea sovereignty disputes. Whilst Secretary of State Clinton therefore explicitly stated that the US would protect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, she notably neglected to mention whether the defence treaty extended to disputed areas of the sea. The message sent was clear in its equivocality and is similar to the US position on Taiwan: while the US will help the Philippines develop its military and will protect undisputed Philippine territory, it cannot afford to provide a carte blanche for defending disputed areas claimed by the Philippines.

**Offense**

Asia Pivot Bad—Global Arms Race

Asia pivot triggers global arms race and war Klare 13Michael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “The Cold War redux?,” Jun-3, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-030613.html /// cmf

In March, Russia agreed to sell 24 Sukhoi Su-35 multi-role combat jets and four Lada-class diesel submarines to China on the eve of newly installed President Xi Jinping's first official visit to Moscow. Although details of the sale have yet to be worked out, observers say that it will represent the most significant transfer of Russian weaponry to China in a decade.¶ The Su-35, a fourth-generation stealth fighter, is superior to any plane now in China's arsenal, while the Lada is a more advanced, quieter version of the Kilo-class sub it already possesses. Together, the two systems will provide the Chinese with a substantial boost in combat quality.¶ For anyone who has followed Asian

security affairs over the past few years, it is hard to view this deal as anything but a reaction to the

Barack Obama administration's new Asian strategy, its "pivot" to the Pacific. As announced by President

Obama in a speech before the Australian Parliament in November 2011, it involves beefing-up the already strong US

air and naval presence in the western Pacific - in, that is, waters off China - along with increased US arms aid to American allies like Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.¶ Not surprisingly,

China has responded by bolstering its own naval capabilities, announcing plans for the acquisition of a

second aircraft carrier (its first began operational testing in late 2012) and the procurement of advanced arms from Russia to fill gaps in its defense structure. This, in turn, is bound to increase the pressure on Washington from Japan, Taiwan, and other allies to provide yet more weaponry, triggering

a classic Cold-War-style arms race in the region. ¶ On the eve of Secretary of State John Kerry's June

24 visit to India, that country's press was full of reports and rumors about upcoming US military sales. Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, was widely quoted as saying that, in addition to sales already in the pipeline, "we think there's going to be billions of dollars more in the next couple of years." In his comments, Shapiro referred to Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who, he said, was heading up an arms sales initiative, "which we think is making some good progress and will, hopefully, lead to an even greater pace of additional defense trade with India".¶ To some degree, of course, this can be viewed as a continuation of weapons sales as a domestic economic motor, since US weapons companies have long sought access to India's vast arms market. But such sales now clearly play another role as well: to lubricate the US drive to incorporate India into the arc of powers encircling China as part of the Obama administration's new Asia-Pacific strategy.¶ Toward this end, as Deputy Secretary of State William Burns explained back in 2011, "Our two countries launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific to ensure that the world's two largest democracies pursue strategies that reinforce one another." Arms transfers are seen by the leaders of both countries as a vital tool in the "containment" of China (though all parties are careful to avoid that old Cold War term). So watch for Kerry to pursue new

arms agreements while in New Delhi.¶ Repeating History¶ These are just some examples of recent arms deals (or

ones under discussion) that suggest a fresh willingness on the part of the major powers to use weapons transfers as instruments of geopolitical intrusion and competition. The reappearance of

such behavior suggests a troubling resurgence of Cold War-like rivalries. Even if senior

leaders in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing are not talking about resurrecting some 21st-century version of the Cold War, anyone with a sense of history can see that they are headed down a grim, well-trodden path

toward crisis and confrontation. ¶ What gives this an added touch of irony is that leading arms suppliers

and recipients, including the United States, recently voted in the UN General Assembly to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, which was meant to impose significant constraints on the global trade in conventional weapons. Although the treaty has many loopholes, lacks an enforcement mechanism, and will require years to achieve full implementation, it represents the first genuine attempt by the international community to place real restraints on weapons sales.¶ "This treaty won't solve the problems of Syria overnight, no treaty could do that, but it will help to prevent future Syrias," said Anna MacDonald, the head of arms control for Oxfam International and an ardent treaty supporter. "It will help to reduce armed violence. It will help to reduce conflict."¶ This may be the hope, but such expectations will quickly be crushed if the major weapons suppliers, led by the US and Russia, once again come to see arms sales as the tool of choice to gain geopolitical advantage in areas of

strategic importance. Far from bringing peace and stability - as the proponents of such transactions invariably

claim - each new arms deal now holds the possibility of taking us another step closer to a new Cold War with all the heightened risks of regional friction and conflict that entails. ¶ Are we, in fact, seeing a mindless new example of the old saw: that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it?

Asia Pivot Bad—China War

Continued pursuit of China containment policy triggers US-Sino war Yang 13Yoa, director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University and editor of China Economic Quarterly, “America’s pivot to Asia will provoke China,” Feb-12, http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2013/02/12/americas-pivot-to-asia-will-provoke-china/#ixzz2XuEFkpjX /// cmf

One of the purposes of the pivot is presumably to hedge China’s military encroachment on its neighbours. It should be noted, though, that the growth of China’s military spending has been largely a result of its economic growth. Military spending is measured in nominal terms and the nominal size of China’s economy has been growing by double-digit rates.¶ To the average Chinese, the US is once again showing its nature as a hegemon that wields its

power wherever it likes to, reinforcing the long-held Chinese view that “being backward is to invite bullies”. If the pivot

has any effect on China, it must be that it has pushed Beijing to accelerate its military build-up. ¶

Americans like to say that the pivot is a response to China’s more aggressive claims on some of the islands and reefs in the South China and East China Seas. Informed Chinese would not agree with this view. But regardless of the sequence of the

events, the result presented to the world is that the American pivot has escalated tensions in the region. It has been taken as an encouragement by China’s neighbours; in the meantime, it has forced China to take more assertive actions. ¶ The more constructive part of the pivot should have been the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But even on this count, the US has caused more suspicion than goodwill in China. The TPP was designed for like-minded countries to form, in President Barack Obama’s words, “a platinum” free-trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific region. It was the result of both America’s agony with the ineffectiveness of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum and the White House’s political strategy to please those on both the right and the left – it expands free trade, so Republicans are happy; but it also requires member countries to meet labour, environmental and even human rights standards, so Democrats are happy.¶ To most Chinese, however, the TPP is one of America’s intentional moves to exclude China. For one thing, there is no way for China to meet its conditions in the medium term. For another, the TPP will not bring significant gains to the US, precisely because China, the US’s largest trading partner in the region, is not going to join.¶ More importantly, China was not part of the design process. To China, the TPP is a club set up solely on American will; China can knock on the door, but can be rejected. Ten years ago, when China applied to join the World Trade Organisation, this would not be a problem. Today, China feels differently: it has become reluctant to accept something if it does not feel ownership.¶ In

a sense, all Chinese history since the mid-1800s has involved China trying to become as equal as other world powers. Today, China’s leaders and the Chinese people are increasingly feeling that point is coming. Yet the existing powers, noticeably, the US and EU, may have different ideas about equality. To them, China will only be treated as “one of us” after China is fully transformed politically and socially. This discrepancy of beliefs will be a major source of tension between China and existing powers in the coming years.

Only the pivot risks conflict between the US and China – it stirs up nationalist fervor and breaks down economic interdependenceJohn Glaser, 6/24/13, The Washington Times, "The asia pivot: making an enemy of china," http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/john-glaser-intelligence-foreign-policy-world/2013/jun/24/asia-pivot-making-enemy-china/

But there is one aspect of Obama’s bellicose foreign policy so far removed from the al-Qaeda threat that he has been unable

to conjure it: the so-called Asia Pivot.¶ The “rebalancing” to East Asia is a confrontational policy that involves surging American military and naval presence throughout the region ― in the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, Guam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. ― and boosting support to China’s neighboring rivals.¶ Washington has been refurbishing old WWII military bases in the region and building new ones in order to lay the groundwork for an “air-sea battle” with China. We’ve even deployed surveillance drones near China’s borders. One wonders how might America react to such gestures in

her backyard.¶ What villainous offense has China committed against American security? Are they supporting terrorists? Have they threatened us with military attack? Are they amassing weapons of mass destruction pointed

at Washington?¶ No, nothing like that. Obama hasn’t been able to invoke a monster to destroy in

China because there isn’t one. China’s mere existence as a rising economic and military power is its major transgression. China threatens not the security of Americans, but the hegemony of Washington.¶ The Asia Pivot harks back to a time when imperial powers didn’t have to justify military expansionism with tall tales of impending attacks on the homeland. It more resembles the famed “Great Game” in which the British Empire fought with the Russian Empire for strategic supremacy in Central Asia.¶ According to Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, writing in Foreign Affairs, “China is the only country widely seen as a possible threat to U.S. predominance. Indeed, China’s rise has led to fears that the country will soon overwhelm its neighbors and one day supplant the United States as a global hegemon.”¶ They add that

America “is the most intrusive outside actor in China’s internal affairs, the guarantor of the status quo in Taiwan, the largest naval presence in the East China and South China seas, the formal or informal military ally of

many of China’s neighbors, and the primary framer and defender of existing international legal regimes.”¶ The U.S. could cut its defense budget in half tomorrow and still outspend China on its military. But that hasn’t calmed the Obama administration into easing his approach.¶ This comes with serious risks. Already by 2011, the Center for Strategic International Studies identified in a report the unintended consequences that could come with Obama’s stern posture in Asia.¶ The report predicted “a shift in Chinese foreign policy based on the new leadership’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that seeks to prevent China’s reemergence as a

great power.”¶ “The U.S. Asia pivot has triggered an outpouring of anti-American sentiment in China that will increase pressure on China’s incoming leadership to stand up to the United States,” the report added. “Nationalistic voices are calling for military countermeasures to the bolstering of America’s military posture in the region and the new U.S. defense strategic guidelines.”¶ Or, in the words of former Chinese diplomat Jia Xiudong: “Don’t treat China as an enemy. Otherwise you end up with an enemy in China.”¶ The economic interdependence between the U.S. and China has risen to unprecedented levels, and that’s a good thing. Left to their own

devices, Americans and Chinese would continue to engage in peaceful, mutually beneficial trade. Only Washington,

going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, could turn that into a casus belli .

Continuing to contain China risks confrontation—domestic pressures escalate quickly Glaser 13Bonnie, Senior Adviser for Asia @ CSIS, Freeman Chair in China Studies and Senior Associate, Pacific Forum, “Pivot to Asia: Prepare for Unintended Consequences,” April-13, http://csis.org/publication/pivot-asia-prepare-unintended-consequences ///cmf

The Obama administration’s initial policy in 2009 raised fears in many Asian capitals of a G2 condominium that would make decisions over the heads of others. Those concerns were unwarranted and short lived. Beijing interpreted the U.S. approach as weakness, which, along with China’s economic success and America’s struggles, led to a year of Chinese hubris that manifested itself in a series of intimidating actions in China’s neighborhood. Subsequent entreaties by regional states to

counterbalance China increased U.S. attention to the Asia-Pacific region. Now, the U.S. Asia “pivot” has prompted Chinese anxiety about U.S. containment and heightened regional worries about intensified U.S.-China strategic competition. ¶ In the run-up to the leadership transition that will take place at

China’s 18th Party Congress this fall, Beijing is inwardly focused and unlikely to act on its fears. However, 2013 could see a shift in Chinese foreign policy based on the new leadership’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that seeks to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power. ¶

Signs of a potential harsh reaction are already detectable. The U.S. Asia pivot has triggered an outpouring of anti-American sentiment in China that will increase pressure on China’s incoming leadership to stand up to the United States. Nationalistic voices are calling for military countermeasures to the bolstering of America’s military posture in the region and the new U.S. defense strategic guidelines. For example, an article published in China’s Global Times, a jingoistic newspaper owned by the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, called for China to strengthen its long-range strike capabilities.¶ Deng

Xiaoping’s guideline to keep a low profile in the international arena, designed more than two

decades ago to cope with uncertainty produced by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, is increasingly seen by China’s elite and public as irrelevant and even harmful to the task of defending Chinese ever-expanding “core interests.” Some voices are calling for closer alignment with Moscow and promoting the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) as a new “pole” in the international arena to strengthen the emerging powers against the West.¶ Xi

Jinping, who will assume the helm as China’s new leader later this year, will be under pressure from many domestic constituencies to more forcefully defend Chinese interests in the international arena.

Seeking to quickly consolidate his power and enhance the legitimacy of the Communist Party, Xi and his newly installed Politburo Standing Committee colleagues may be more willing than their predecessors to test drive a policy that is more confrontational.

US-China war goes nuclearJohnson 1Chalmers, The Nation, May 14, Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US

warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the

world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.