consult brazil cp - scdi 2013

8/13/2019 Consult Brazil CP - SCDI 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consult-brazil-cp-scdi-2013 1/30

Consult Brazil CP



1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should propose through binding

consultation to Brazil that it should

(insert plan)

The United States Federal Government should support this proposal during

consultation. The United States Federal Government should abide by the

results of consultation. We’ll clarify

Observation 1: Competition

1. “Resolved” means “to make a firm decision about”, American Heritage

Dictionary, 03 – indicates certainty

2. “Should” means “used to express obligation”, Dictionary.com, 03.

3. The CP also tests the immediacy and certainty of the plan. Voting for the aff

has the opportunity cost of preventing using the aff in negotiations with Brazil.

Observation 2: US-Brazil Relations:

Genuine consultation revitalizes US-Brazilian relations.

Einaudi ’11 (Luigi R., Distinguished Visiting fellow in the Center for Strategic research, institute

for national Strategic Studies, “Brazil and the United States: The Need for StrategicEngagement,” March 2011, .pdf)

The United States has a basic national security interest in Brazil’s continuing democratic and market- oriented success, which

improves its will and capacity to help address pressing global problems. We are in a rapidly changing period of

international relations, in which a high premium is put on skilled and effective diplomacy in order

to provide a measure of management to situa- tions that could spin out of control. We are still haunted by nuclear

weapons. In these circumstances, Brazil plays an important role . It is in the U.S. interest to find

as many ways as possible not only to cooperate with Brazil, but also to engage with Brasilia as

a regional and global partner in the maintenance of peace and prosperity . A prerequisite for improved

mutual engagement will be changes in perspective on both sides. Mutually benefi- cial engagement requires the

United States to welcome Brazil’s emergence as a global power. Brazil is more than a tropical China35; it is

culturally and politically close to the United States and Europe. Brazil, in turn, needs to realize that the United States accepts its rise.

Brazil also needs to recognize that the United States still matters greatly to Brasilia and that more can be achieved working with

Washington than against it. The United States and Brazil have vast overlapping interests, but a formal strategic partnership is

probably out of the question for both countries. In the United States, Brazil must compete for policy attention with China, India, Rus-

sia, Japan, Mexico, and several European countries. It poses no security threat to the United States. Moreover, despite Brazil’s

importance in multilateral organizations, particularly the UN, Brazil can be of limited practical assistance at best to the United

States in its two current wars. Brazil’s interests, in turn, may be fairly said to include the need to distinguish itself from the United

States. Diplomatically, this means neither country can expect automatic agreement from the other. Interests differ and it may be

politically necessary to highlight differences even when interests are similar. But both countries should make every

effort to develop a habit of “permanent consultation” in an effort to coordinate policies, work



pragmatically together where interests are common, and reduce surprises even while

recognizing that specific interests and policies often may differ. A first operational step,

therefore, is for both countries to hold regular policy-level consultations, increase exchanges of

information, and coordinate carefully on multilateral matters. This is much easier said than done. The list of global issues on which

Brazil is becoming a major player includes conflict resolution, all aspects of energy, including nuclear matters, all types of trade, the

environment, space, and the development of international law, including law of the seas and nonproliferation. To share

information and ensure effective consultation on so many functional issues will require finding ways to lessen the geographic

stovepiping natural to bureaucracy. The U.S. Department of State, for example, has historically organized itself into geographical

bureaus responsible for relations with countries in particular regions, leaving functional issues to offices organized globally. This

organization hampers the exchange of information and consultation with countries such as Brazil, whose reach and policies go

beyond their particular geographic region. One result is that multilateral affairs are still often an isolated afterthought in the U.S.

Government. Are there things the United States and Brazil could do, whether bi- laterally or in the World Trade Organization, that

would offset some of the negative effects of the China trade on manufacturing in both their countries?36 Just posing the question

reveals the complexity of the task.

Strong US-Brazil relations solve every major global problem.

Bodman ’11 (Samuel W. and James D. Wolfensohn, Chairs Julia E. Sweig, Project Director,

Council on Foreign Relations, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations,” Independent Task Force

Report No. 66, .pdf)

Cooperation between the United States and Brazil holds too much promise for

miscommunication or inevitable disagreements to stand in the way of potential gains. A

strengthened U.S.-Brazil relationship could be the basis for economic growth in Brazil, the United

States, and globally, as well as for lasting peace and democratic stability in the region, nuclear

nonproliferation, international progress on combating climate change, development of a global

renewable energy market, global food security, and more legitimate and effective international

institutions. Presidents Obama and Rousseff have laid the groundwork for progress on many of these fronts. The moment

to build on this positive foundation is now.



Solvency



Says Yes

Brazil wants consultation – recent talks prove and the framework for

consultation already exists

CFR 2011 – Council on Foreign Relations (Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations,” Independent Task Force

Report No. 66)

The Obama-Rousseff meetings in Brazil earlier this year were a signal that both countries are

willing to forge closer ties on bilateral, regional, and global issues. Obama’s trip, at a time of

heightened tensions in the Middle East and military action in Libya, underscored the U.S. desire

to put relations on a more positive track. The Task Force welcomes the ten new bilateral

agreements that the two presidents signed, which include accords on biofuels, use of space,

educational exchange, promotion of decent work in third countries, and—significantly—a

framework to negotiate new commercial and economic agreements.44 Still, the Task 64

Force is concerned that no mechanism exists in the U.S. government to coordinate these

initiatives and drive policy toward Brazil.

Empirics prove Brazil would say yes to the plan BUSBC, 2012 no date 2012, Brazil-US business council, Bolstering Security, Growth, and

JobCreation,http://www.brazilcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Brazil_EnergyReport.pdf

Cooperation between the United States and Brazil on energy and energy-related issues has

traditionally focused on information exchange, technical assistance, and capacity building. Much of this activity

has been through regular workshops between both countries’ government officials and private sector representatives. However,

as the energy sector moves to the forefront of public policy in both countries because of its

powerful growth and job-creating potential, additional dimensions have been incorporated into

the bilateral energy agenda. These new dimensions include trilateral cooperation in Central

America, the Caribbean, and Africa; multilateral cooperation on standards development andclean energy promotion; joint research and development; diplomatic coordination in multilateral fora; regulatory

cooperation; and trade and investment promotion. Public policy reform and harmonization, as well as

business development, are additional areas in which to further this partnership.

Brazil is seeking to cooperate now – they would say yes

Meyer 2013 (Brazil-U.S. Relations Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs February 27, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf

As Brazil’s economy has grown to be the seventh largest in the world, the country has utilized its

growing economic clout to assert Brazilian influence on a range of global matters. On global

trade and financial issues, where Brazil’s economic weight ensures the country a principal role in

policy discussions, Brazil has sought to coordinate with, and represent, other developing nations. This has

coincided with a broader focus on “South-South” cooperation, in which Brazil has expanded diplomatic and

commercial ties with countries throughout the developing world. With its increasing international prominence, Brazil

has pushed for a democratization of global governance institutions and a greater role for

emerging powers in resolving issues of geopolitical importance. Although few analysts deny that Brazil’s

international stature has risen significantly over the past decade, many believe that the country must overcome

considerable challenges to be considered a world power. These include undertaking reforms to

http://www.brazilcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Brazil_EnergyReport.pdf

http://www.brazilcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Brazil_EnergyReport.pdf



maintain strong economic growth, addressing long-standing domestic security challenges, and

modernizing and expanding its military capacity.



Consultation Solves Effective Engagement

Consultation ensures multilateral effectivenessHaass, 2000 (Richard N. Haass, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush, is Director of

Foreign Policy at Brookings, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,” Survival,vol. 42, no. 2, Summer, The International Institute for Strategic Studies)-mikee

There is growing consensus that sanctions, when employed unilaterally, are rarely effective. Not

surprisingly, a corollary exists for the provision of incentives; engagement strategies which

disregard the international environment in which they are crafted are also likely to fail. Just as a US

embargo on a country’s oil sales is ineffective in coercing changes when Europe will buy the barrels America forgoes, incentives

are less powerful when their equivalents are being offered elsewhere unconditionally. For example,

had China been willing to donate or to sell subsidised fuel oil to North Korea, or to assist Pyongyang in the construction of additional

energy sources, the package offered under the Agreed Framework would have carried far less weight. The differing policies of

Western countries towards Iran demonstrate how a failure to coordinate policies can diminish the force of either a punitive

approach or an engagement strategy. European efforts to influence Iran through substantial economic contacts have all but

undermined American attempts to use economic coercion to pressure the Islamic regime into changing its behaviour. Rather than

leaving it without export markets and foreign-exchange resources, European and Asian companies quickly filled the gap created bythe American withdrawal from Iran. US secondary sanctions mandated under the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act requiring the

imposition of penalties on foreign firms that invest in Iran’s oil sector have also proven to be largely feckless; instead of making Iran

desperate for investment, the law has stoked not only transatlantic tensions, but also frictions between the US congressional and

executive branches.13

Consultation ensures US credibility in the engagement strategy.O'Sullivan, 2000 (Meghan L. and Richard N. Haass, “Engaging Problem Countries,” Brookings

Policy Brief Series, June, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2000/06/sanctions-haass)

Implementation of engagement strategies is a demanding enterprise. U.S. policymakers seeking to engage a

recalcitrant regime should consult intensively with American allies; a failure to do so increases

the possibility that another country will undermine the U.S. strategy by offering similar benefitswithout demanding any changes in behavior. Moreover, as the European Union's unsuccessful attempt to engage

Iran through its 'critical dialogue' policy demonstrated, the extension of incentives for cooperation should be accompanied by the

threat of credible penalties for defiance. It was Europe's reluctance to jeopardize its extensive economic contacts with Iran for

political objectives (in addition to believing in the value of diplomatic contacts) that undermined its ability to influence Iranian

behavior.

Consultation with Brazil is necessary for successful plan action

Hakim ‘4 (Peter The Reluctant Partner January/February 2004

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59537/peter-hakim/the-reluctant-partner)

The Bush administration has no more important task in the hemisphere than to cultivate a constructive working relationship withBrazil. As Latin America's largest and most influential country, Brazil will determine, to a

large extent, whether the United States is able to advance its foreign policy agenda in

Latin America, and on some issues it will affect U.S. success outside the region. Although

Brazil may not be powerful enough to shape policy in Latin America as much as it might like, it often has enough

muscle to substantially help -- or obstruct -- U.S. plans for the region. The main test of

the relationship will not be whether Brazil and the United States can find areas of

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59537/peter-hakim/the-reluctant-partner

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59537/peter-hakim/the-reluctant-partner



cooperation, but whether they are able to accommodate their divergent interests and

goals, tolerate different practical perspectives and, in the end, avoid conflict.



Relations Net-Benefit



Relations on the Brink

Brazil and US relations are declining in the status quo.

Hakim, 2012(Peter Hakim October 22, 2012 Inter-American Discord: Brazil and the United States,

http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3115)

The US and Brazil have not had an easy time with each other in recent years. Although relations

between the two countries are by no means adversarial or even unfriendly, they have featured more discord than

cooperation—both regionally and globally. And there is little reason to expect dramatic

change any time soon. At the 2005 summit meeting of hemispheric leaders, disagreements between the US

and Brazil brought a halt to the faltering negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas

(FTAA). In 2009, it was largely US-Brazilian differences that delayed resolution of the Honduran political

impasse for almost a year. Later in 2009, Brazil galvanized opposition across South America to block a US-Colombian

military accord. Today, the two countries remain at loggerheads over Cuba’s participation in hemispheric affairs, disagree on how to

manage relations with Paraguay in the aftermath of the impeachment and ouster of President Lugo, and continue to have sharply

diverging views on the appropriate roles of the Organization of American States and its Inter-American Human Rights

Commission. Even more unsettling for US-Brazilian relations have been the clashes over global

issues. Washington has been especially troubled, and the bilateral relationship most bruised,by Brazil’s defense of Iran’s nuclear program and its opposition to UN sanctions on Iran. The two countries have also taken

conflicting positions on nonproliferation questions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and international responses to the uprisings in

Syria and Libya. World trade negotiations have long been a matter of contention for both nations.

Recent spy scandal puts US-Brazil relations on the brink.

BBC 7/11/13 ( July 11 2013 US allies Mexico, Chile and Brazil seek spying answers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-

america-23267440

Brazil apparently remains the main target of US snooping in Latin America, with major firms

and foreign visitors routinely targeted. The surveillance was allegedly conducted through partnerships between

Brazilian telecoms firms and US agencies, although the reports did not name any companies. On Monday Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff urged the US to explain, and has ordered an investigation into the claims. During

angry exchanges in parliament on Wednesday, senators suggested Brazil should give Mr

Snowden asylum, while others said Brazil should cancel lucrative defence contracts with the

US. The allegations on O Globo detailed claims of US spying across Latin America, sparking an angry reaction from traditional

American foes in the region like Venezuela and Ecuador. But analysts say the US will be much more concerned

with the irritation the revelations have caused in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Chile.



Consultation Key

Consultation on Latin American engagement ensures a healthy US-Brazil

relationship.

Frechette & Samolis ’12 (Myles and Frank, “A TENTATIE EMBRACE: BRAIL’S FOREIN ANTRAE RELATIONS ITH THE UNITE STATES,” March April May 2012, Poltica Eterna, .pdf)

For the U.S., strategic engagement with Brazil is crucial, especially concerning trade, global

governance, the environment, biofuels, renewable energy, and its interest in reducing U.S. dependence on Middle East oil. The

Western Hemisphere already supplies one-fourth of the world’s crude oil, one-third of the world’s natural gas, nearly one -fourth of

its coal, over a third of global electricity, and is a leader in renewable energy. Last year, the U.S. imported nearly half of the oil and

petroleum products it used, 49 percent of those imports came from the Western Hemisphere and only 18 percent from the Persian

Gulf. Canada and Mexico are already the top two foreign sources of oil to the U.S. and big deposits in Brazil are becoming accessible.

Energy epert aniel Yergin wrote recently that the world’s new oil map is no longer centered on the Middle East, but on the

Western Hemisphere. He predicts that by 2020, the Western Hemisphere will import only half as much oil from outside the region as

it does today. Some analysts suggest that China will soon supplant the U.S. in trade with the region. But China’s share of Latin

American trade went from 2 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2011. Eight percent of Latin America’s eports went to China, but 41

percent went to the U.S. Further, Latin American trade with China is largely limited to commodities. This prevents countries from

diversifying and moving up the production ladder. In reality, 60 percent of Latin America’s eports to the U.S. are manufactu red

goods, 87 percent of Latin America’s eports to China are raw materials. The numbers are even starker when it comes to China’s

trade with Brazil. It is clear Latin American economies want to modernize, diversify, and move up the value chain, and the U.S. is

likely to be their partner of choice for many years to come. The U.S. and Latin America have broader, healthier,

and more balanced relationships. Their economies are more complementary and their ties are

stronger. Turning from trade to investment, the U.S. is still the largest investor in Latin America and the

Caribbean. In Brazil, the Central Bank recently published data on foreign direct investment (FDI) as of December 31, 2010. The U.S.,

with $105 billion, was first. This is 13 times greater than the $8 billion of Chinese investment. In fact, China ranked 16th, after

Canada and Mexico. There are many topics that require dialogue between the U.S. and Brazil . The U.S. is

engaged in twenty different dialogues with Brazil. Three are at the Presidential level, eight are at the Cabinet or Undersecretary

level, and another eight are at the Assistant Secretary level. Most of these dialogues are chaired by the State Department, but the

Departments of Commerce, Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, and Energy also chair at least one. Another dialogue involves race

relations, which also includes non-government experts. Several dialogues also involve economic financial and business issues, while

others concern the environment, nuclear energy, and consular issues. This degree of intensity and interest by the

U.S. signal that the U.S. welcomes Brazil’s economic growth and leadership in the region. But,more fundamentally, it demonstrates that the U.S. seeks collaboration with Brazil whenever

possible. Brazil alone defines its own national interest and hence, its foreign policy. There will be differences on

many issues between the two governments, but strategic engagement is crucial.

Consultation over the plan repairs our declining relationship with Brazil.

Meyer ‘13 (Brazil-U.S. Relations Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs February 27, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf )

Relations between Brazil and the United States are generally friendly. “As two of the world’s largest

economies and democracies, with shared values and increasingly converging goals, Brazil and the United States are natural partners

in a rapidly changing world,” according to U.S. officials.84 The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy states tha t the

United States “welcome*s+ Brazil’s leadership and seek*s+ to move beyond dated North-South divisions to pursue progress on

bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues.”85 The United States and Brazil have established over 25 dialogues

to enhance coordination and cooperation on a wide variety of issues. Among other topics, the United

States and Brazil engage on security, energy, trade, human rights, and the environment. Although

Brazil and the United States share a number of common goals, the countries’ occasionally divergent national interests and

independent foreign policies have led to disagreements on trade and political matters. Some long-running disputes include the

stalled Doha trade negotiations and Brazilian opposition to U.S. cotton subsidies. Additional differences have emerged in

recent years, many of which have centered on the countries’ approaches to foreign policy. In 2010






and 2011, f or example, Brazil used its temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council to advocate

engagement with internationally isolated regimes like Iran, Libya, and Syria, rather than sanctions, which it views as a

prelude to armed conflict. Some analysts and policymakers assert that Brazil’s increasing global prominence and

involvement on an array of issues will inevitably lead to disputes with the United States and that

managing those disputes in a transparent and respectful manner will be crucial to maintaining

friendly relations moving forward.8

Consultation brings Brazil closer to the US.

Brown 2013 (Lawrence T. Restoring the “Unwritten Alliance” Brazil-U.s. Relations http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-

69/JFQ-69_42-48_Brown.pdf )

The primary challenge the United States faces in the 21st century, according to historian and

diplomat Joseph Nye, “is not one of decline but what to do in light of the realization that even

the largest country cannot achieve the outcomes it wants without the help of others.”1

Acknowledging Brazil as a genuine partner is problematic for American leaders since the United

States exercised tremendous unilateral influence in South American affairs throughout the 19th

and 20th centuries. Today, U.S. hubris lingers in relations with Brazil. This residual attitude

prompts some U.S. leaders to consider any Brazilian disregard for U.S. interests as an affront.Instead of regarding Brazil’s economic growth as a challenge to U.S. hegemony, U.S. leaders

should commend it as a regional achievement. Additionally, some current perceptions of the

two countries’ strategic interests as continuing to diverge are historically shortsighted. Such a

view affirms a U.S. failure to adapt long-range diplomatic strategies to match the global rise of

many countries. Undeniably, the United States needs Brazil—now and in the future.

Brazil’s growing influence in the south makes consultation necessary to maintain

relations


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)

As its economy has grown to be the seventh largest in the world, Brazil has utilized itsnewfound economic power to consolidate its influence in South America and play a larger role

in international affairs. The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy recognizes Brazil as an

emerging center of influence, and welcomes the country’s leadership on bilateral, hemispheric, and global

issues. U.S.-Brazil relations generally have been positive in recent years , though Brazil has

prioritized strengthening relations with neighboring countries and expanding ties with

nontraditional partners in the “developing South.” While some foreign policy disagreements

have emerged, the United States and Brazil continue to engage on issues such as security,

energy, trade, human rights, and the environment.

Consultation key to relationsRalph H. Espach and Joseph S. Tulchin, June 2010 - Ralph H. Espach, Ph.D. is a senior research

scientist and director of the Latin American Affairs program at CNA’s Center for Strategic Studies

Can the U.S. do anything about Brazil’s ambivalence toward this bilateral relationship? Certainly,

But it will require prolonged patience. Essentially the United States faces the task of replacing

the old narrative regarding U.S.-Brazilian relations, which was ingrained in the heads of most

Brazilian elites, politicians, and military leaders during the 1970s and 1980s, with a new



narrative. Brazilians appreciate language that implies respect and partnership, but there is a

need for actions that demonstrate respect, confidence, and the acceptance of disagreement on

some issues. The building of confidence is a long-term goal. It will require U.S. acquiescence to

Brazil on some South American policy matters, even in moments when Brazilian rhetoric or

actions make U.S. leaders uncomfortable. If the United States would prefer a Brazil-led South

American region, it must be comfortable allowing Brazil to lead.



Consultation Key – Energy

Consultation with Brazil over energy is key to strong relations

Langevin, 2012 (Energy and Brazil – United States Relations, August 20, 2012 ,Mark, Langevin - Ph.D., Director of Brazil

Works and Mark is also Associate Adjunct Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-University College,

http://www.brazil-works.com/energy-and-brazil-united-states-relations/)

Energy has often played a central role in Brazil-United States bilateral relations. In the first half of the

twentieth century the United States based Good Roads Movement, fueled by the American Road Builders Association and the

American Automobile Association, paved the way for U.S. oil companies and auto manufacturers to bring fossil fueled cars to Brazil

(ownes 1992). In the decades following orld ar II, the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve and the “Atoms for Peace” program

pulled the largest nations of the Western hemisphere toward a close strategic orbit, including Brazil. It was not until the first OPEC

oil embargo in 1973 and the nuclear deal between Brazil and West Germany that bilateral relations slumped as Brazil placed its

national energy security ahead of its special relationship with the U.S. (Gall 1976:155). Since this critical juncture, Brazil has sworn

off nuclear weapons, become a world leader in biofuels, discovered massive offshore “pre-salt” hydrocarbon reserves, and become

a major international leader in climate change policy negotiations. Throughout the engagement and turbulence of

Brazil-U.S. relations, particular private sector interests and national foreign policies have

swirled to elevate energy affairs toward the top of the bilateral agenda. Both Brazil and the

U.S. have called for greater cooperation on energy matters in the past several years and under

different administrations. In 2007 then Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and George W. Bush of the U.S.celebrated the biofuel boom by signing the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Brazil to Advance

Cooperation on Biofuels to foment bilateral cooperation. During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign then candidate Barack

Obama promised an “Energy Partnership of the Americas” to deliver up regional energy

security in close cooperation with Brazil (Spencer 2009). In April of 2009, the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended a $2

billion facility to enable Brazil’s nationally controlled energy company, Petrobras, to obtain favorable f inancing for the purchase of

U.S. manufactured drilling equipment (United States Export-Import Bank 2011). In May of 2011 the facility became operative and

the Ex-Im Bank approved a request from JP Morgan Chase, acting as lender, to finance over $300 million in Petrobras’ purchases of

U.S. manufactured products (Ibid.) In March of 2011 Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff hosted U.S. President Obama

to herald the establishment of a “strategy energy dialogue.” Clearly, both Presidents Rousseff

and Obama are keen on energy as a leading issue in bilateral affairs. This should come as no surprise

since Dilma is the former Secretary of Energy for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, former Minister of Mines and Energy, and former

Chair of Petrobras’ Board of Directors. Obama has also emphasized the vital role of renewable energy

and energy security in domestic and foreign affairs, both as candidate and as president. Today, both nations’foreign policymakers recognize the key role of energy as a bilateral and global issue of strategic importance; and the establishment

of the bilateral Strategy Energy Dialogue makes energy a pivotal matter for some time to come. This discussion paper examines this

fundamental bilateral issue and evaluates the challenges and opportunities for deepening bilateral and bi-national cooperation

through the current set consultative mechanisms, including the Strategic Energy Dialogue, across the subsectors of petroleum,

ethanol, and electricity generation-transmission-distribution (GTD).



Terrorism Impact

US-Brazil Relations are necessary to fight terrorism


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)

The U.S. government has worked with Brazil to address concerns about the TBA and strengthen

the country’s counterterrorism capabilities. The countries of the TBA and the United States

created the “3+1 Group on Tri-Border Area Security” in 2002, and the group built a Joint Intelligence Center to

combat trans-border criminal organizations in 2007. Within Brazil, the United States has supported efforts to

implement the Container Security Initiative (CSI) at the port of Santos, and U.S. authorities are currently training

Brazilian airline employees to identify fraudulent documents. The State Department’s Country

Reports on Terrorism for 2011 commends the Brazilian government for its continued support

of counterterrorism-related activities, including investigating potential terrorism financing,

document forgery networks, and other illicit activity.96 Brazil has yet to adopt legislation, however, to make

terrorism and terrorism financing autonomous offenses. Like many other Latin American

nations, Brazil has been reluctant to adopt specific antiterrorism legislation as a result of thedifficulty of defining terrorism in a way that does not include the actions of social movements

and other groups whose actions of political dissent were condemned as terrorism by

repressive military regimes in the past.97 Nevertheless, some Brazilian officials have pushed

for antiterrorism legislation, asserting that the country will face new threats as a result of

hosting the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.

Terrorism causes global nuclear escalation – national retaliation goes global

Morgan 2009 (ennis Ray, Professor of Foreign Studies at Hankuk University, ecember, “orld on fire: two scenarios of the

destruction of human civilization and possible etinction of the human race” Futures, Vol 41 Issue 10, p 683-693, ScienceDirect) MG

In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question "Is Nuclear War Inevitable??" [10].4 In Section 1, Moorepoints out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No

doubt, they've figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to

set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to

do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow

or Israel. Because of the Russian "dead hand" system, "where regional nuclear

commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed," it is likely

that any attack would be blamed on the United States" [10]. Israeli leaders and

Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a

nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal

"Samson option" against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore,

the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even "anti-Semitic" European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and

the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as

well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them

much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon

most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to

come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear



fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically

transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a

100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.



Disease Impact

US-Brazil Relations are key to preventing spread of disease

Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011 Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director,

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, “lobal Brazil and U.S.-

Brazil Relations July 2011 Independent Task Force Report No. 66 Page 28”, http:www.cfr.orgbrazilglobal -brazil-us-brazil-

relations/p25407?cid=emc-BrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11,

The Task Force urges action within the U.S. Congress to allow technology transfer to

accompany Brazilian purchases of U.S. military equipment. These transfers would boost

bilateral trade, U.S. industry, and defense cooperation and simultaneously support Brazil’s

technology and innovation agenda. Brazil’s investment in health research is providing tangible benefits

and important successes in developing interventions for disease, including HIV/AIDS and the

so-called neglected diseases that disproportionally affect low- and middle-income countries

(such as malaria, tuberculosis, and leprosy). The Task Force encourages the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to foster partnerships with their

Brazilian counterparts to help build global health capacity and collaborate in scientific

research projects that could help generate novel diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.

Diseases cause extinction

Yu, 2009(Victoria, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science May 22, DUJS aims to increase scientific awareness within the Dartmouth

community by providing an interdisciplinary forum, “Human Etinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,”

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate)

A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known

case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines

have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are

constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated

human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists

have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIS, mainly due to HI’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically , two

factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HI’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof -

reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain

characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for

years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system.

However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential.

The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and

antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a

new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza

can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,”

according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came

in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu

pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).



Warming Impact

Relations solve global warming

Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011 Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director,

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, “lobal Brazil and U.S.-

Brazil Relations July 2011 Independent Task Force Report No. 66 Page 28”, http:www.cfr.orgbrazilglobal-brazil-us-brazil-

relations/p25407?cid=emc-BrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11,

The Task Force finds that energy is and will remain a critical component of Brazil’s economic and

political agenda, driven by rising per capita energy consumption, development of substantial domestic energy resources, and

the need to expand existing energy infrastructure. Brazil’s investment in this industry is a primary example of

its domestic and international agendas reinforcing each other. The United States and Brazil

have common interests in improving energy efficiency, reducing carbon intensity, promoting

the development of biofuels, expanding the use of natural gas, and managing offshore oil

exploration and development. The Task Force applauds the formation of a bilateral Strategic Energy Dialogue,

announced by Obama and Rousseff, to address a broad range of energy issues, including the safe and sustainable development of

Brazil’s deepwater oil and gas resources, as well as cooperation on biofuels and other renewals, energy efficiency, and civilian

nuclear energy. The dialogue aims to encourage energy partnerships, create jobs in both countries, makeenergy supplies more secure, and help address the challenge of climate change.17 The Task Force

urges both countries to ensure that this initiative becomes a self-sustaining endeavor that brings

together government officials, regulators, and the private sector to engage in conversation,

cooperation, and collaboration where appropriate.

Global warming causes famine and extinction

Harvey 11 6/21/2011 ((Reporter for yahoo news on the environment)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans) ja

OSLO (Reuters) – Life in the oceans is at imminent risk of the worst spate of extinctions in millions

of years due to threats such as climate change and over-fishing, a study showed on Tuesday. Time was

running short to counter hazards such as a collapse of coral reefs or a spread of low-oxygen "dead zones,"

according to the study led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). "We now face losing marine

species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation," according to the

study by 27 experts to be presented to the United Nations. "Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities

are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next

globally significant extinction event in the ocean," it said. Scientists list five mass extinctions over 600 million years -- most recently

when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, apparently after an asteroid struck. Among others, the Permian period abruptly

ended 250 million years ago. "The findings are shocking," Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, wrote of the conclusions from a

2011 workshop of ocean experts staged by IPSO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at Oxford University.

Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the world's population and the seas cycle oxygen and

help absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities. OXYGEN Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute,

said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had

featured in several past mass extinctions. A build-up of carbon dioxide, blamed by the U.N. panel of

climate scientists on human use of fossil fuels, is heating the planet. Absorbed into theoceans, it causes acidification, while run-off of fertilizers and pollution stokes anoxia. "From a geological point of view,

mass extinctions happen overnight, but on human timescales we may not realize that we are in the middle of such an event," Bijma

wrote. The study said that over-fishing is the easiest for governments to reverse -- countering global warming means a

shift from fossil fuels, for instance, toward cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.

"Unlike climate change, it can be directly, immediately and effectively tackled by policy

change,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans



Economy Impact

Relations are key to solving the economy

Bonoma, 2012Diego Bonoma , September 9, 2012 U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership Offers Great Potential, http://www.freeenterprise.com/us-brazil-

energy-partnership-offers-great-potential The U.S.-Brazil energy partnership has the potential to foster energy security, economic

growth, and job creation—priorities for both countries. Reflecting this shared vision, President Barack Obama and Brazilian

President Dilma Rousseff last year launched the U.S.-Brazil Strategic Energy Dialogue (SED), a presidential-level mechanism to

strengthen bilateral cooperation in this area. We at the Brazil-U.S. Business Council applaud this effort towards a bold

bilateral partnership in energy. We have been vigorously engaged in energy cooperation to

deepen the commercial pillar of the U.S.-Brazil partnership, with an emphasis on trade and

investment promotion. In this context, we worked closely with the White House, the U.S. Department of Energy and other

federal government agencies to launch the SED in August 2011. On that occasion, deputy secretary of energy Daniel Poneman met

with private sector representatives in both São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and officially launched the dialogue in Brasília. Further

recognizing the importance of our energy partnership, this week, I moderated a panel featuring key U.S. and

Brazilian government officials at the 13th edition of the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo’s Annual Energy

Conference— Brazil’s largest energy-related event. During the panel, the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, along with the U.S.Department of Energy, announced the next meeting of the SED in Washington, D.C. this coming October. The Ministry also

announced that the private sector will be, for the first time, officially incorporated in the dialogue’s program of work – a

longstanding request of the Brazil-U.S. Business Council and our partners in the U.S. and Brazil. The Brazil-U.S. Business Council also

launched this week its latest report: “The U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership: Bolstering Security, rowth, and Job Creation.” In t his

report, we talk about the state of the partnership and offer recommendations for both countries to take advantage of the

benefits it could bring. The potential is there for this energy partnership to develop into one of

the world’s greatest and bring real benefits for the citizens and economies of both countries.

It’s great to see the governments and private sectors of both countries’ taking steps toward it.

Economic decline causes extinction

Royal ‘10(director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense (Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic,

Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external

conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the

security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national

levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996)

work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise

and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader

to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of

relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the

risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of powercould lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a

declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel

leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes

and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level.

Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a s ignificant variable in

understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific

benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of

future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the



likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those

resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers

protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic

decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong

correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of

economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and

prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal

conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify

the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess.

2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism

(Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to

external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.

"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline,

sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create

a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting

evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani

and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states,

due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic

support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus

weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic

scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of

economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external

conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not

featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.



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 thatrequirement _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: “hat advantage do you see for France or ermany in

integrating with a country such as Malta?” he asked. “None at all. Ecept perhaps that it’s a

sovereign country, and therefore has a vote in international institutions.” ith other major

blocs forming around the world, Brazil must create its “own” region, based not on Latin

America, since Meico and Central America “vote with ashington”, but on South America,

which should become “the central ais of our strategy of rejection of all subservience to US

interests.” The anti-imperialism of the most progressive among Brazil’s senior civil servants islike 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 hite 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

http://www.coha.org/brazil-playing-chess-in-latin-america/




http://mondediplo.com/2013/06/08latinam








Chávez’s designated heir. “In the past, issues of that kind were settled by the Organisation of

American States — that means by the hite House,” said Pinheiro uimarães. 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 ForeignInvestment 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 everyissue. 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.

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/American%20Unilateralism.htm





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 themind 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, WorldPolicy 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 eercise 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 specificsolvency 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 emailconversations 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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-brazil-usa-biden-idUSBRE94U14220130531



consult brazil cp - scdi 2013

Documents