politics disadvantage - skfta

Houston Urban Debate League Politics - SKFTA2011 Summer Debate Institute

Politics - SKFTA

1NC....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

***Uniqueness ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 SKFTA – Yes......................................................................................................................................................................... 6SKFTA – Yes: Markups Prove............................................................................................................................................... 8SKFTA – Yes: Coming Fast.................................................................................................................................................. 9SKFTA – Yes: Top Of Docket.............................................................................................................................................. 10SKFTA – Yes: TAA.............................................................................................................................................................. 11A2: TAA Blocks Passage..................................................................................................................................................... 13SKFTA – Yes: Close........................................................................................................................................................... 14SKFTA – Yes: Korea........................................................................................................................................................... 15

***Internal Links ................................................................................................................................................................. 16 SKFTA – Political Capital Key............................................................................................................................................. 17SKFTA – GOP KEY............................................................................................................................................................. 18OBAMA GETS CREDIT/BLAME......................................................................................................................................... 19OBAMA PUSH.................................................................................................................................................................... 21CAPITAL KEY..................................................................................................................................................................... 22A2: WINNERS WIN............................................................................................................................................................. 23

***Links ............................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Link – SPS – Unpopular...................................................................................................................................................... 25Link – SPS – Political Capital.............................................................................................................................................. 27Link – SPS – Unpopular – Lobbies...................................................................................................................................... 28Link – Constellation – Congress.......................................................................................................................................... 29

***Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 2NC DA Outweighs............................................................................................................................................................. 32NK – SKFTA Solves Korea War.......................................................................................................................................... 33NK – China Escalation........................................................................................................................................................ 34NK – CBW Impact............................................................................................................................................................... 352NC Asian Leadership........................................................................................................................................................ 362NC Regionalism................................................................................................................................................................ 37Asian Regionalism – SKFTA Key........................................................................................................................................ 39SKFTA Turns Case – Hegemony........................................................................................................................................ 40SKFTA Turns Case – Competitiveness............................................................................................................................... 41SKFTA Turns Case – Econ................................................................................................................................................. 42SKFTA Turns Case – Innovation......................................................................................................................................... 43SKFTA Turns Case – Warming........................................................................................................................................... 44

***AFF Answers ................................................................................................................................................................. 44 SKFTA - No......................................................................................................................................................................... 45SKFTA – No........................................................................................................................................................................ 47SKFTA – No: Public Opposition.......................................................................................................................................... 48SKFTA – No: Vote Count.................................................................................................................................................... 49SKFTA – No: TAA............................................................................................................................................................... 50SKFTA – No: Korea............................................................................................................................................................. 51SKFTA – No: Obama Not Pushing...................................................................................................................................... 53Aff – SPS – Plan Popular.................................................................................................................................................... 54AFF – Constellation – Link – Congress Supports................................................................................................................56AFF – Constellation – Link – Bipart Support........................................................................................................................ 57Link Turns - General............................................................................................................................................................ 58Winners Win........................................................................................................................................................................ 59Political Capital Not Key...................................................................................................................................................... 61Political Capital Not Key Ext................................................................................................................................................ 62IMPACT D: US-SK RELATIONS (General)......................................................................................................................... 63

1

Houston Urban Debate League Politics - SKFTA2011 Summer Debate Institute RELAT’S D: AT – CHINESE AGGRESSION....................................................................................................................... 64RELAT’S D: AT -- SK ECON............................................................................................................................................... 65IMPACT D: AT -- ECON IMPACT....................................................................................................................................... 66AT: Trade............................................................................................................................................................................ 67AT: Alliance......................................................................................................................................................................... 68AT: Korean War................................................................................................................................................................... 69AT: Contain China............................................................................................................................................................... 70AT: Economy....................................................................................................................................................................... 71AT: Clean Tech................................................................................................................................................................... 72AT: Democracy.................................................................................................................................................................... 73

2


1NC

A. SKFTA will pass – GOP can’t organize opposition, Obama push keyReuters, 7/15 (Jason Reed, Doug Palmer, 7/15/11, “Obama urges compromise to ease way for trade deals,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-usa-debt-obama-trade-idUSTRE76E4JC20110715)

“I've got three trade deals , sitting ready to go. These are all trade deals that Republicans told me were their top priorities. They told me this would be one

of the best job creators we could have," Obama said at a news conference "And yet it's still being held up because some folks don't want to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance to people who may be displaced as a consequence of trade. Surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems," he said. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a nearly 50-year-old program that provides retraining and income assistance to help workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition. Congress has modified the program over the years, most recently in 2009 when it was expanded to cover additional workers and provide more generous healthcare assistance. The new benefits expired early this year when many newly elected Tea Party conservatives objected to the approximately $1 billion annual cost of the expanded program. Obama administration officials warned Republicans in May the White House would not send the trade deals to Congress for a vote until there was deal to renew the expired TAA benefits. The administration and key lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives struck a bipartisan compromise on a slimmed-down version of the 2009 TAA reforms, but no deal was

reached on how Congress would consider the legislation. Democrats fear Republicans will block a vote on the program and so have insisted that Obama put the TAA package into the implementing legislation for the South Korea agreement, where it would be protected against any amendments. However, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and some other party members have threatened to vote against the Korea trade deal if it includes TAA. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told the U.S.-Korea

Business Council Thursday evening that Republicans had not offered any "credible" plan for ensuring consideration of the three trade deals and TAA. "We can no longer wait. If there's no agreement on an alternative approach in the very near future, we will move forward to seek passage of the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with TAA" included, Daley said.

B. Insert Link Card

C. POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO SKFTA PASSAGE. GREEN 10. [11/1 -- Michael, senior advisor @ the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Echoes of the past haunt G-20” -- http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2927756]

Fortunately, President Obama has backed his trade negotiators by declaring his desire to see the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement approved by the end of this year, but that is the easy part. Its passage will require him to exhibit leadership by side-stepping some of his own in the Democratic caucus and working with (probably) a majority Republican House. This will take a lot of political capital. The fact that the White House still talks about “exports” rather than “trade” leaves some worrisome questions about how much the administration really understands and is committed to this goal.

3

http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals

http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-usa-debt-obama-trade-idUSTRE76E4JC20110715


1NCD. SKFTA is key to alliance and asian stability – failure results in alliance collapseHwang and Kim 2005 ([Balbina Y. (Policy Analyst for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center) Anthony B (Research Associate in the Center for International Trade and Economics, at The Heritage Foundation) “Beyond the U.S.–South Korea Alliance: Reinvigorating Economic Relations”, Backgrounder #1853, May 18, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg1853.cfm

Recently, increasing anxiety about the future of the U.S.–Republic of Korea alliance has raised concerns in both Washington and Seoul. Yet the two allies have more in common today than ever before in a relationship that has endured for more than 50 years. This includes shared values of open markets, free trade, respect for the rule of law, and democratic principles. With South Korea’s development into one of East Asia’s most vibrant market-oriented democracies, its economic relationship with the United States has steadily grown stronger, becoming one of the most important pillars

supporting the alliance. One of today’s most prominent issues is the possibility of reaching a free trade agreement (FTA). Although the ongoing FTA review process will not automatically result in FTA negotiations, it will provide insights into the obstacles to bilateral trade and lay the foundation for a future trade agreement.[1] Washington and Seoul should seize this opportunity to examine thoroughly the range of trade issues that exist between the two countries and to develop solutions. Regardless of whether or not an FTA is determined to be feasible at this time, mutual acceptance and resolution of challenges in the trading relationship will lead to a more positive and productive future for the United States and Republic of Korea (ROK); therefore, the possibility of launching formal FTA

negotiations should be vigorously pursued. The Current Status of U.S.–ROK Economic Relations Since the inception of a mutual security treaty in 1953, the United States and South Korea have enjoyed a strong alliance that is considered one of the pillars of stability and security in Northeast Asia. While the alliance has provided the basis of a broad and mutually beneficial economic partnership for the past half-century, many Americans might be surprised to learn that Korea actually entered into the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation with the United States in 1882. This was Korea’s first treaty with a Western power, and during this long and sometimes rocky relationship, the two allies have come together in cooperation when strategic interests have converged.[2] The United States has played a critical role in the South Korean economy since the Korean War, but the bilateral economic relationship has steadily equalized in recent years, with bilateral trade expanding dramatically in the past 20 years. In 2004, total trade between the two countries exceeded $70 billion, a 120 percent increase from 1990.[3]South Korea has the world’s 11th largest economy, and the United States is its second largest export market, accounting for nearly 20 percent of its total exports in 2004 (more than 6 percent of South Korea’s GDP).[4] Major exports to the United States include electrical and general machinery, cellular phones, textiles, and steel. In turn, South Korea is America’s seventh largest export market, importing such goods as semiconductors, machinery, aircraft, agricultural products, and beef. In 2003, South Korea was the United States’ fifth largest market for agricultural products and third largest beef market.[5]Bilateral trade in services has grown robustly as well. The United States is a major supplier of private services to the South Korean economy and ran a $4 billion surplus in 2003.[6] American companies have established a substantial presence in South Korea, with marked increases in foreign direct investment (FDI) in recent years. Over the past decade, American investments totaled nearly $30 billion, with FDI from the U.S. reaching a new record of $4.7 billion in 2004 alone—an astounding 280 percent increase from 2003. Today, more than 3,000 U.S. companies operate in South Korea. Why an FTA with the ROK? Enthusiasm for a U.S.–ROK FTA has grown steadily in recent years, particularly in South Korea, while American interest has been more cautious. In principle, the Bush Administration has been a strong proponent of bilateral trade agreements because they are an integral part of U.S. trade strategy to promote competitive liberalization, both at home and abroad.[7]Comprehensive agreements benefit both partners by injecting new competition into their domestic economies, lowering consumer prices, and shifting factors of production to more efficient uses, leveling the playing field for exporters. While free trade is certainly best pursued globally to minimize barriers and distortions in trade, the slow pace of negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has led many nations to pursue free trade through bilateral and regional agreements, allowing countries to customize agreements that meet the needs and concerns of individual countries.For the United States, an FTA with South Korea makes immense sense considering the existing areas of economic convergence and complementarities and the potential for even greater future gains. As one of America’s top trading partners, with bilateral trade exceeding $70 billion in 2004, South Korea currently enjoys relatively free access to the U.S. market while American exporters still face hurdles in South Korea.One of the greatest benefits of an FTA for the United States would be increased opportunity to export to South Korea. A 2001 U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) report predicted that a U.S.–ROK FTA would increase annual American exports to South Korea by nearly $20 billon, while South Korean exports to the United States would rise by $10 billion.[8]The ITC study concluded that the largest gains in American exports would be in agricultural products such as dairy and meat products. South Korea, which imports over $2 billion in U.S. farm products annually, is America’s fifth largest export market for agricultural goods. An FTA would provide greater access to agricultural goods by eliminating many of the strict non-tariff barriers.Official and private studies on the likely economic impact of an FTA conclude that it would benefit producers and consumers in both countries. For South Korea, increasing participation in trade agreements is not just beneficial, but may be necessary in order to achieve its stated goal of raising annual per capita income to $20,000 by 2010. Partially due to its scarcity of natural resources and the economy’s heavy reliance on external trade, which

accounts for nearly 70 percent of GDP, South Korea will not realize this goal unless exports grow by 12 percent annually.[9] Significantly, the benefits of a U.S.–ROK FTA would go beyond promoting free trade, increasing economic benefits, and bolstering the broader bilateral relationship. Agreement and cooperation on economic issues provide a strong basis from which to reinforce collaboration in the political and security arenas. An FTA would undoubtedly reinvigorate and strengthen the dynamic and

comprehensive U . S.–ROK alliance , which has been the cornerstone of peace and stability in Northeast Asia for more than 50 years. Although a broad consensus on the benefits of a U.S.–ROK FTA has existed since the idea was first floated in the mid-1980s, daunting obstacles have impeded implementation. While some of these challenges are structural, lack of political will and lack of support on both sides of the Pacific have hampered any real progress toward initiating serious negotiations. The American and South Korean business communities are enthusiastic about an FTA, but official support in Washington has been muted, due not only to specific markets such as agriculture, which is likely to be a highly contentious issue, but also to the view that South Korea needs to do more with existing agreements and regulations. Seoul’s difficulty in passing the ROK–Chile FTA, which took almost a year to ratify, does not bode well for future South Korean trade agreements. In particular, growing popular nationalism in response to the opening of South Korean markets has caused concern in Washington. While nationalism itself is not necessarily a negative trend, in South Korea the tone is worrisomely tied to anti-foreign sentiment, including a popular backlash against foreign investments. One trade area in which popular nationalism has overtaken the debate is the South Korean movie industry, which maintains a screen quota limiting the screening of foreign movies on the basis that South Korean culture must be protected in order to thrive. Tensions over this quota remain a primary stumbling block for the conclusion of the bilateral investment treaty.[11] While the Bush Administration is skeptical about the near-term possibility of an FTA, support is stronger in the U.S. Congress. In May 2001, Senator Max Baucus (D–MT) introduced a bill (S. 944) authorizing FTA negotiations with the ROK, marking the second time that he sponsored such legislation.[12] Regrettably, because of the lack of broader support in Congress and in the Administration, it did not lead to the launching of formal negotiations. Nevertheless, the United States should consider negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea in the near future, although several areas of concern must be addressed before formal negotiations can begin. As the 2001 ITC report identified, the South Korean regulatory regime is still a significant barrier to U.S. exports, along with other non-tariff measures such as product and safety standards and pharmaceutical testing requirements. Seoul needs to address such issues before any future agreement is even considered. To create and build positive momentum for an FTA with South Korea, the United States should consider: Urging the South Korean government to demonstrate its political will by tackling issues such as U.S. beef imports and the screen quota. Initiating action on these two issues in particular would establish that South Korea is serious about seeking an FTA with the United States. Expeditiously lifting the ban on U.S. beef imports ahead of Japan would generate many supporters for the FTA among U.S. policymakers, given that the issue is being watched carefully at the highest levels of the Bush Administration and Congress. Ending the screen quota would also send a strong signal that the political leadership in Seoul is strong enough to stand against special-interest groups seeking specialized protection.[13] Working to elicit stronger and more concerted support from policymakers and the business communities in both countries. The American and South Korean business communities have been moving gradually to organize a more effective campaign to promote an agreement and inform the general public about the potential benefits of an FTA. More important, growing numbers in Congress also understand the critical importance of the bilateral economic relationship. However, it would be equally important to have an influential advocate in the Bush Administration. Such orchestrated support to build positive momentum for a U.S.–ROK FTA would increase prospects for formal negotiations. Encouraging the ongoing process of reform in South Korea. The American pursuit of an FTA with South Korea should incorporate the broader goal of upgrading South Korea’s economic system. While a bold sense of entrepreneurship has indisputably played a key role in South Korea’s tremendous economic success, the economic system remains shackled by barriers that still limit entrepreneurial opportunities. The 2005 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual study by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, lists South Korea as the 45th freest economy out of 155 economies surveyed.[14] As Asia’s third largest economy, South Korea’s economy has the fundamentals—such as its large supplies of capital, highly educated labor forces, modern infrastructure, and stable legal system—all in place. What is missing is strong political leadership to address more difficult issues that keep South Korea from being a truly free economy. Conclusion Given the challenges posed by several contentious trade issues, a U.S.–ROK FTA in the near future may be an overly ambitious goal. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly in the interests of both countries to work toward a trade agreement. The American National Association of Manufacturers has identified South Korea as a one of the “top five candidate countries” for a future trade agreement.[15] If an agreement is to be reached,

however, this positive assessment must be accompanied by concerted efforts in Washington and Seoul. Both the United States and South Korea have much to gain from reinvigorating their economic relations. Seeking an FTA will reinforce the alliance by establishing a positive venue for dialogue and ultimately serve the national interests of both countries.

4


1NC

E. Korean conflict causes every impactHayes and Green, 10*Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)

The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and

economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of

nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by

comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear

weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction

affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.

5

***Uniqueness


SKFTA – Yes

The house is drafting a bill so that SKFTA will pass.Chicago Tribune 7/5 (7/5/11, "House eyes action on trade bills after setback ", http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-house-eyes-action-on-trade-bills-after-setback-20110705,0,1576823.story)

A key panel in the House of Representatives plans to start action this week on three long-delayed free trade agreements

after a failed attempt last week in the Senate, congressional aides said on Tuesday. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet on Thursday to consider draft legislation for U.S. trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, the aides said. The Ways and Means panel will work on draft bills that do not include a renewal of federal "trade adjustment assistance," an aide said, referring to a retraining program for displaced workers opposed by many Republicans.

Congress is preparing to pass SKFTA.Yonhap News 7/6 (Lee Chi-dong, 7/6/11, " Congress ready for discussions on FTA with S. Korea ", http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/07/07/30/0301000000AEN20110707001000315F.HTML)

The U.S. Congress looks set to begin a full-scale review of bills later this week on major trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, while a proposed renewal of a costly program to help American workers remains a potential deal-breaker. The Democrat-led Senate Finance Committee plans to open a "mock" markup of the draft implementing bills for the free trade agreements (FTAs) on Thursday, according to committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) The session, originally supposed to take place a week ago,

was canceled due to a Republican boycott. Baucus said in a press release that the new date was set "after consulting with members" of the committee and it would touch on a controversial extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program to minimize the negative impact of trade on U.S. workers. President Barack Obama said he would not submit the bills on the FTAs unless Congress agrees to extend the US$1 billion-a-year TAA program, which expired in 2010. Republican members oppose it amid a partisan budget war. "It is past time to get this package moving. Right

now, our competitors are gaining ground in these vital markets, and jobless Americans in need of opportunities are left waiting while these trade agreements languish," Baucus said. South Korea's FTA with the European Union took effect last week. He added, "We

need to come together to move these three trade agreements and Trade Adjustment Assistance forward because American workers and small businesses simply cannot afford to wait any longer." On Thursday, meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee, controlled by Republicans, is also scheduled to hold a separate discussion session on the draft FTA bills. The TAA issue is not on the agenda, however. Congress holds such a mock markup under the Trade Promotion Authority Act, also known as "fast track" procedures, so that related committees can recommend to the administration the provisions that should be included in the final version of bills. Once the administration sends a final bill, Congress can put it up to only a "yes or no" vote.

SKFTA will be passed by CongressSan Antonio Express 7/17 (7/17/11, “Deal on trade pacts is a winner,” http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Deal-on-trade-pacts-is-a-winner-1468096.php)

For too long, politics has prevented the United States from concluding free-trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. With a compromise within reach in negotiations between the White House and congressional Republicans, both sides should seize the moment to set aside partisan differences in the interest of the economy and American leadership . The three trade pacts have been languishing for years. The biggest trade agreement, with Korea, was negotiated by the Bush administration in 2007. Touting the agreement last December,

President Barack Obama said it would bolster U.S. exports by up to $11 billion and support at least 70,000 American jobs. Despite the benefits to the United States and its trading partners that would accrue from the free-trade agreements, Democrats on Capitol Hill have blocked their approval. Their objections range from the reasonable, such as concerns about labor rights and equal access for U.S. industries in foreign markets, to

the purely political, such as pandering to domestic labor unions. Those issues had largely been resolved. A bipartisan consensus was building to pass the three agreements. Then in May, the White House announced that President Obama would not submit the agreements to Congress without a long-term expansion of an assistance program for workers displaced by foreign competition. The inclusion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in the package unnecessarily complicated the matter, with Republicans questioning its costs and efficacy. Now the White House has agreed to reduce the size of the program and send

the trade deals to Congress for approval. U.S. trade competitors aren't sitting still while American politicians dally. The European Union also negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea in 2007. That agreement actually went into effect on July 1, beginning a process that will put a wide range of American goods and services at a competitive disadvantage in

the world's 15th-largest economy. Groups on both sides of the aisle will find fault with the pacts and the trade assistance program compromise. But this is the best chance to finalize agreements that will reassert U.S. commitments to allies and free trade while giving a needed boost to the economy .

6

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Deal-on-trade-pacts-is-a-winner-1468096.php

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/07/07/30/0301000000AEN20110707001000315F.HTML

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-house-eyes-action-on-trade-bills-after-setback-20110705,0,1576823.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-house-eyes-action-on-trade-bills-after-setback-20110705,0,1576823.story


SKFTA – Yes

Will pass – opponents backing downKlingner 5-16 (Bruce, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia – Heritage Foundation, “KORUS won't help North Korea,” The Hill, 2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/161429-korus-wont-help-north-korea)

After years of delay, the South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) is rushing toward bipartisan Congressional approval. The Obama administration will formally submit it to Congress this month, and many previously fierce opponents have now jumped onboard as advocates.

7


SKFTA – Yes: Markups Prove

The mock markups voted for the passage of FTAs.San Francisco Chronicle 7/7 (7/7/11, " Senate Panel Backs South Korea Trade Pact, Republicans Balk ", http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/07/bloomberg1376-LNYXPV0D9L3501-7B051UEVVMKN7E6SGBCCKCEPVF.DTL)

The Senate Finance Committee backed legislation for a free-trade agreement with South Korea without support from

Republicans, who object to using the accord to renew aid for workers who lose their jobs to global competition. The House Ways and Means Committee endorsed a separate bill today on South Korea that didn't provide for renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program sought by the Obama administration. The House and Senate panels also backed legislation to

adopt trade agreements with Panama and Colombia. The meetings were "mock markups" that give lawmakers a chance to make amendments before legislation is submitted by the president. Free-trade accords are covered by fast-track rules. Once the president sends a bill, the process provides limits on debate and amendments before an up-or-down vote. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance committee, led lawmakers in opposing the Korea deal with worker aid added. The bill was backed on a 13-11 party-line vote. In the House, the Korea accord vote was 22-15. "Placing the TAA spending program in the South Korea bill was not

an acceptable outcome," Hatch said before losing a vote to amend the measure. The South Korea deal would boost U.S. exports by as much as $10.9 billion a year when in full effect, and the accord with Colombia would increase exports by as much as $1.1 billion,

according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. President Barack Obama reworked the three free-trade agreements in response to concerns among Democrats on issues such as labor rights. The administration has been pushing to get the deals approved by Congress before a recess next month. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and Finance committee chairman, said he wouldn't demand that Obama send a South Korea bill that includes worker aid, as long as Congress renews the program as it approves measures for the three trade agreements.

8

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/07/bloomberg1376-LNYXPV0D9L3501-7B051UEVVMKN7E6SGBCCKCEPVF.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/07/bloomberg1376-LNYXPV0D9L3501-7B051UEVVMKN7E6SGBCCKCEPVF.DTL


SKFTA – Yes: Coming Fast

Obama will send Congress the bill before the August recessSan Francisco Chronicle 7/14 (7/14/11, "Daley Says Obama May Submit Korea Trade Bill With Worker Aid," http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/14/bloomberg1376-LOCMQI6JIJVB01-2F69DOSS1QURS6R3UQV6H3LRBN.DTL)

White House Chief of Staff William Daley said the Obama administration may send Congress a bill for a South Korea free-trade agreement that includes worker aid "very soon" unless lawmakers present an alternative for renewing the expired program. The Senate Finance Committee supported draft legislation last week for the trade accord over opposition from Republicans, who objected to its

extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance. The House Ways and Means Committee endorsed a South Korea bill without the aid attached,

and Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan led Republicans in defeating an amendment that would have added the assistance to a Panama trade deal instead. "We can no longer wait," Daley said yesterday at a U.S.- Korea Business Council dinner in Washington. "If there is no agreement on an alternative approach in the very near future, we will move forward to seek passage of the FTA with TAA. There is no time to

waste playing politics as usual." Last week's hearings were "mock markups" that let lawmakers give the president their views on free-trade deals before he submits them formally under fast-track rules that prohibit amendments and provide for a yes-or-no vote. Republicans "have yet to present a credible alternative to getting this legislation passed in a timely fashion," Daley said. "If we do not act before the August recess, American businesses will suffer." The Obama administration is pushing for passage of the free-trade agreement and

those with Colombia and Panama that were reached under President George W. Bush. Export Boost The South Korea deal would boost U.S. exports by as much as $10.9 billion a year when in full effect, and the accord with Colombia would increase exports by as much as $1.1 billion, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program augments health and unemployment benefits to workers who lose their jobs because of overseas competition. As part of stimulus legislation in 2009, it was expanded beyond manufacturing to include service workers such as call-center employees. Republicans say renewing the expanded aid would be too costly when lawmakers are struggling to reduce the federal deficit.

Democrats and Republicans are trying to agree on and sign FTAs as soon as possible to make the business community happy.Washington Times 7/7 (Tim Devaney, 7/7/11, " Partisan rift stalling free-trade pacts ", http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/7/partisan-rift-stalling-free-trade-pacts/)

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday clashed over long-delayed free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, with Republicans balking at an Obama administration demand to attach money for a program to aid American workers as a part of the package. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee warned they would vote against the trade pacts - the first

major free-trade deals to move forward under Mr. Obama - unless funds for the controversial Trade Adjustment Assistance program were also included to protect workers who lose their jobs because of increased imports. But Republicans on the Senate

Finance Committee, who last week boycotted a vote on the issue, stood firm against legislation to move forward the South Korea deal, after the majority Democrats included the TAA funding on a straight 13-11 party-line vote. The free-trade deals have strong backing from the business community, and President Obama and top Hill Republicans have cited trade as one area of bipartisan cooperation in the wake of the 2010 midterm elections. The trade agreements originally were negotiated by the administration of President George W. Bush, but have yet to be officially

submitted to Congress. Recently, the Obama administration renegotiated the agreements, and Democrats said they were ready to vote in favor of the deals with South Korea and Panama, although some in the party have raised questions about Colombia’s record on labor rights and protections for union

leaders. Republicans, however, have said they would not vote on the deals until all three are ready. U.S. business groups have expressed fears that the trade stalemate will leave the U.S. on the sidelines as the European Union and other rivals rush to open markets with rising economic powers such as South Korea. “One thing is perfectly clear: We cannot afford to let these trade agreements languish any longer,” Mr. Camp said. “The rest of the world is fast moving forward, and we risk losing market share and jobs if we fail to act.”

9

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/south-korea/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/colombia/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/panama/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-senate-committee-on-finance/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-senate-committee-on-finance/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ways-and-means-committee/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/panama/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/colombia/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/7/partisan-rift-stalling-free-trade-pacts/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/14/bloomberg1376-LOCMQI6JIJVB01-2F69DOSS1QURS6R3UQV6H3LRBN.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/14/bloomberg1376-LOCMQI6JIJVB01-2F69DOSS1QURS6R3UQV6H3LRBN.DTL


SKFTA – Yes: Top Of Docket

SKFTA WILL PASS – TOP OF THE DOCKET. GLADE 6-20. [Jim, “White House to send Colombia FTA to Congress before August recess: kirk” Colombia Reports -- http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/17077-obama-administration-to-send-fta-to-congress-before-august-recess-state-dept-official.html]

The Obama administration hopes to send trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea to Congress before the August recess, said a U.S. State Department advisor Sunday. “Now it seems like the stars are in alignment -- it’s that important to us,’’ economic advisor Kevin Sullivan told the Miami Herald. The initial plan was to send only the South Korean trade agreement for congressional approval before the recess, but because discussions between the Obama administration and Republican legislatures about domestic job assistance programs have been "narrowed substantially," informal debates in Congress are able to begin, said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Monday. "We're making good progress. Hopefully we can resolve the few outstanding differences," said Kirk,

a champion of the agreement with Colombia. U.S. legislators are busy trying to reach an agreement on the Trade-Adjustment

Assistance (TAA) program that aims to provide aid and retraining to workers who lose their jobs as a result of increased imports before congressional debate on the FTA's with Colombia, South Korea and Panama begin. The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R, TX), said last week that a panel would start informal debates on the deals this week. Brady was reportedly hopeful that an agreement on the TAA program would be reached before the committee began debating the FTA's.

Top of docket - Committee Setback is only temporaryCohen, 7/1, Richard E. Cohen is a senior congressional reporter for Politico, Cohen also has been an author of numerous books about Congress. From 2001 until 2010, he was co-author with Michael Barone of The Almanac of American Politics, He was the 1990 winner of the Everett McKinley Dirksen Award for distinguished reporting of Congress. He has served many years as a member of the executive committee of the congressional periodical galleries, and currently is chairman of the committee, Politico.com

Some caveats and nuances are present in the Senate meltdown that forced postponement of the committee's handling of the

trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, and extension of the trade-adjustment assistance program for unemployed workers.

For one thing, most committee members support the trade agreements, which likely will return soon for Finance action. And the committee found itself as something of a bystander in the ongoing attacks between House Republicans and the Obama Administration.

10


SKFTA – Yes: TAA

Republicans can’t decide on how to proceed with TAA so it will be joined with SKFTA and SKFTA will be passedHill 7/13 (Vicki Needham, 7/13/11, "GOP split on trade tactics ", http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/171079-gop-split-on-trade-tactics)

House and Senate Republicans are split on how to proceed with three pending trade agreements as negotiations with the White House continue over the inclusion of a worker-assistance program. Although Republicans in both chambers agree

that the program — known as Trade Adjustment Assistance — should be considered separately from the trade agreements, they differ on what procedures to use. House Republicans are considering holding separate votes on TAA and the Korean trade agreement. After the vote, they would recombine the two parts and send the package to the Senate. But Senate Republicans say separate consideration of TAA isn’t enough. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants the TAA measure tied to the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority, otherwise known as “fast-track.” That authority allows the White House to negotiate new trade agreements and submit them to Congress for an up-or-down vote without any amendments. A renewal of the expired fast-track authority hasn’t been on the House’s radar. Obama administration officials have said the issue isn’t on the table for consideration right now, but that they intend to look

at it down the road as negotiations advance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The South Korea, Colombia and Panama pacts all are covered under fast-track because they were signed before the authority expired in June 2007. TPA has been considered a necessity for brokering trade deals because it provides some certainty to potential trading partners that Congress won’t carve up the agreements. “I have made it clear to the president and the White House that TAA should move on its own,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday. “We expect in the House to move four separate bills,

and I would hope they would heed our advice.” Without an agreement on procedure between the White House and Congress, the administration will probably send the trade agreements to Capitol Hill with TAA included in the Korean deal because it provides a guarantee that the streamlined program passes.

FTAs are close to being passed in Congress.Korea Times 6/29 (6/29/11, “Obama clears hurdle to FTAs with S. Korea,” http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/06/113_89815.html)

President Barack Obama has reached a deal with congressional Republicans on the terms of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, clearing a major obstacle to the ratification of bilateral trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, the White House announced Tuesday. "As a result of extensive negotiations, we now have an agreement on the underlying terms for a meaningful renewal of a strengthened TAA," press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. TAA is designed

to provide re-training and health care benefits for workers who lose jobs due to import competition. Obama has said he would not submit the free trade agreements (FTAs) with the three nations before resolving the renewal of the TAA program, which was expanded two years ago and expired in February. The Republicans had refused to agree to extend TAA, citing budget constraints. "The president embraces these critical elements of TAA needed to ensure that workers have the best opportunity to get good jobs that keep them in the middle class. Now it is time to move forward with TAA and with the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements, which will support tens of thousands of jobs," Carney added. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said his committee will hold a "mock" markup on Thursday of the bills on the FTAs with the three trading partners that includes the extension of TAA. But it remains unclear how smooth the process will be. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would vote against the FTA with South Korea if it includes a renewal of TAA. "Speaking for myself, I've never voted against a trade agreement before. If the administration were to embed a Trade Adjustment Assistance into the Korea trade agreement, I would be voting against it," McConnell said. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) also criticized the TAA deal, calling it "highly partisan." "This highly partisan decision to include TAA in the South Korean FTA implementing bill risks support for this critical job-creating trade pact in the name of a welfare program of questionable benefit at a time when our nation is broke," Hatch said in a statement. He added Obama "should send up our pending trade

agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea and allow for a clean vote." The South Korea-U.S. FTA, called KORUS FTA, was signed in 2007 under the previous governments of the two sides. The ratification process has been stalled, however, in both nations. Obama, seeking reelection next year, views the KORUS FTA as a tool to expand exports and create jobs in a sluggish economy. The U.S. government's efforts to get it ratified have gained urgency as South Korea struck a deal with the European Union to put a bilateral free trade agreement into effect in July.

11

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/06/113_89815.html

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/171079-gop-split-on-trade-tactics

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/171079-gop-split-on-trade-tactics


SKFTA – Yes: TAA

Republicans and Democrats have come up with a compromise for TAA and will pass SKFTA quickly.Hill 6/28 (Kevin Bogardus, Vicki Needham, 6/28/11, " Baucus announces grand bargain to clear pending trade deals,” http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/168849-baucus-announces-grand-bargain-on-trade-deals)

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced a deal Tuesday that should clear the path for congressional approval of three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Baucus said he had secured an agreement with the White House and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to renew the expanded version of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The program, which funds job-training programs and healthcare benefits for workers hurt by trade,

will be extended until the end of 2013. “The road to this point has not been an easy one, but our economy needs these jobs and these opportunities,” Baucus said in a statement. “That’s why we have continued to fight to pass these job-creating agreements and restore this vital worker-assistance program. We think this package can get the support needed to become law. American workers and our economy can’t afford for us to wait any longer to move forward.” The White House hailed the agreement as a breakthrough. “The president embraces these critical elements of TAA needed to ensure that workers have the best opportunity to get good jobs that keep them in

the middle class. Now it is time to move forward with TAA and with the Korea, Colombia and Panama trade agreements, which will support tens of thousands of jobs,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney in a statement. The White House said the trade deals would not be submitted to Congress until lawmakers reached a deal to renew the expanded version of TAA. The program expired in February of this year. Some Republicans balked at renewing the trade aid initiative because of worries over adding to the national deficit. TAA’s renewal will be included in the Korea trade agreement’s implementing bill. In addition, the deal includes reauthorization of both the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act until the end of July 2013. Both of those measures will be added to the Colombia trade deal’s implementing bill. Baucus said he would hold a mock markup on Thursday for all three pending trade

agreements. Once lawmakers’ amendments are reviewed by the Obama administration, final versions of the trade deals’ implementing bills will be sent to Congress for up-or-down votes under Trade Promotion authority, often called “fast-track.”

12

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/168849-baucus-announces-grand-bargain-on-trade-deals


A2: TAA Blocks Passage

Compromise coming – momentumWSJ, 6/20/11 – (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576397564205709294.html)

Mr. Kirk said in an interview that the administration would still prefer to complete talks on the job retraining program before preliminary work begins on trade deals with

South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But he said growing momentum toward a deal to restore funding for the Trade-Adjustment Assistance program means the administration "is in a good place" to work with Congress on draft legislation that provides Congress with an opportunity for input before the trade deals are formally submitted for an up-or-down vote. Following

continued negotiations over the weekend, differences between the Obama administration and Republican lawmakers have "narrowed substantially" on Trade-Adjustment Assistance, which lost significant resources when some benefits were allowed to expire in

February. "We're making good progress. Hopefully we can resolve the few outstanding differences," Mr. Kirk said before giving

a speech to the annual Conference of Mayors. Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), who chairs the Ways and Means trade subcommittee, said last week that the panel would start debating the trade deals this week, suggesting that a broad agreement on trade agenda could be near. However, no debates have been scheduled yet, as the two sides continue to try to hash out a compromise. While the committee doesn't need the administration's blessing to begin the informal discussions, trade officials are expected to participate in the process.

Compromises solve TAA nonsenseLee Chi-Dong 6-20-11 [Yonhap News Agency, June 20, 2011, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/06/21/52/0301000000AEN20110621000400315F.HTML]

"We are working daily with our partners in Congress toward the next step in the process, which would be a mock markup of the Korea agreement as well as the other pending deals," she told Yonhap News Agency. "We meet with our Korean counterparts regularly to update them on developments here in Washington." The White House said, however, it has yet to secure congressional support for TAA

before forwarding the trade pacts to Capitol Hill. “We are still working closely with leaders in the House and the Senate to reach an agreement on TAA,” a White House spokesman said in response to the Colombian president's recent comments that the Republicans and Democrats have already struck an agreement on the issue, according to World Trade Online, which specializes in trade news.

13


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576397564205709294.html


SKFTA – Yes: Close

SKFTA will pass- major obstacle resolved but passage is not guaranteedNew York Times 6/28/11 (Binyamin Applebaum, “White House and Congress Clear Trade Deal Hurdle”, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/business/29trade.html//)

The White House struck a deal with House Republicans Tuesday to reinstate benefits for workers who lose jobs to foreign competition, addressing a major obstacle to consideration of three free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Haggling over the modest and obscure benefits program had tied up the trade pacts for months, pitting Democrats concerned about the impact of competition on American workers against Republicans eager to increase foreign trade but loath to increase federal spending on another aid program. But the deal does not assure that Congress will pass the pacts, which are crucial ingredients in the Obama administration’s recipe for reinvigorating economic growth. Indeed, Republicans quickly said they would continue to insist that the benefits program be considered separately from the trade agreements, a condition Democrats described as unacceptable. The Obama administration, which had maintained for weeks that it would not submit the trade pacts to Congress until the deadlock was resolved, by Tuesday night found itself defending its new deal as an important step that might lead to a complete resolution. “As a result of extensive negotiations, we now have an agreement on the underlying terms for a meaningful renewal of a strengthened” benefits program, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said in a statement. Other administration officials hastened to clarify that that deal did not extend to the question of how that agreement might be approved. Senator Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, said that he would convene a hearing Thursday morning, starting a process that could end with the bills passing into law before the end of summer. “We think this package can get the support needed to become law,” Mr. Baucus said. “American workers and our economy can’t afford for us to wait any longer to move forward.”

14


SKFTA – Yes: KoreaYes passage on both sidesYonhap News 6/22 [“AMCHAM chief rosy about Korea-U.S. FTA ratification” June 22, 2011; Yonhap News Agency; ]

The new head of the U.S. business community in South Korea said Wednesday that he is "optimistic" about the early ratification of a bilateral free trade deal and is doing his best to achieve it. The free trade agreement, known

as the KORUS FTA, was signed in June 2007, but the two countries re-negotiated to revise controversial terms on auto tariffs and pork late last

year. The bill has been awaiting approval from the legislatures of both countries. "In recent public remarks, U.S. President

Obama cited 'unprecedented support' for the KORUS FTA in the United States," said Pat Gaines, the newly elected chairman

of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM). "AMCHAM remains very optimistic that this historic agreement will be ratified in both countries in the near future. AMCHAM is doing everything possible to make this happen." Gaines, also president of Boeing Korea, was elected in May as the AMCHAM chairman, replacing former chairman Frank Little of 3M.

Gaines said that a delegation of AMCHAM visited Washington in March and met with members of the U.S. Congress and the government to urge them to make efforts to ratify the FTA deal as soon as possible. "We were

very pleased with the amount of positive support we heard related to the agreement," he said. The trade pact passed the Cabinet of South Korea, but it has yet to be presented to the parliament as the main opposition party is against the accord, claiming that it favors the U.S. In the U.S., the Trade Adjustment Assistance, a federal program designed to provide re-

training and health care benefits for workers, has been hindering the parliamentary ratification process. But the prospect of ratification has risen recently as Washington is making a push for passing the trade bill within this year, along with FTAs with Panama and Colombia.

there are enough votes despite oppositionKim 6/24 [Rueters, Jack Kim; June 24; “Q+A-Where is the S.Korea, US free trade pact headed?” http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/korea-usa-trade-idUSL3E7HO0AC20110624]

South Korea President Lee Myung-bak's government has sent the trade bill to parliament but the assembly has yet to set the

date to begin reviewing it. A majority of the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) support the deal. Some opposition Democratic Party members oppose it, saying a revision to the deal reached in December damaged the interest of South Korean

automakers. The ruling GNP has the number to force it through parliament but does not want to repeat the political embarrassment caused by a previous attempt to do so. IS THERE ENOUGH SUPPORT ONCE IT COMES TO A VOTE? The December revision addressed concerns by U.S. car makers and auto unions that the original deal had favoured South Korean automakers too heavily. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said those changes meant winning approval in Congress would no longer be "horribly difficult". But it still faces stiff opposition, including from the AFL-CIO, the main U.S. labour group. In South Korea, the pact has broad support from the public and from businesses which see it as a chance to enter a greater U.S. market and to buy cheaper imports at home. In addition to backing from the ruling GNP, some opposition Democratic Party members, who had supported the pact when the former liberal president negotiated it in 2007, are for the deal.

15


SKFTA – Yes: Korea

SKFTA is supported by both governments and will pass soon.Yonhap News, 6/22 (6/22/11, "New AMCHAM chief rosy about Korea-US FTA ratification ", http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2011/06/22/36/0503000000AEN20110622007200320F.HTML)

The new head of the U.S. business community in South Korea said Wednesday that he is "optimistic" about the early ratification of a bilateral free trade deal and is doing his best to achieve it. The free trade agreement, known as the KORUS FTA, was signed in June 2007, but the two countries re-negotiated to revise controversial terms on auto tariffs and pork late last year. The bill has been awaiting approval from the legislatures of both countries. "In recent public remarks, U.S. President Obama cited 'unprecedented support' for the KORUS FTA in the United States," said Pat Gaines, the newly elected chairman of the American Chamber of

Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM). "AMCHAM remains very optimistic that this historic agreement will be ratified in both countries in the near future. AMCHAM is doing everything possible to make this happen." Gaines, also president of Boeing Korea, was elected in May as the AMCHAM chairman, replacing former chairman Frank Little of 3M. Gaines said that a delegation of AMCHAM visited Washington in March and met with members of the U.S. Congress and

the government to urge them to make efforts to ratify the FTA deal as soon as possible. "We were very pleased with the amount of positive support we heard related to the agreement," he said. The trade pact passed the Cabinet of South Korea, but it has yet to be presented to the parliament as the main opposition party is against the accord, claiming that it favors the U.S. In the U.S., the Trade Adjustment Assistance, a federal

program designed to provide re-training and health care benefits for workers, has been hindering the parliamentary ratification process. But the prospect of ratification has risen recently as Washington is making a push for passing the trade bill within this year, along with FTAs with

Panama and Colombia. "Secretary Clinton emphasized that passing the KORUS FTA will be beneficial for both countries and that it is one of her highest priorities," said Gaines, adding that U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is also supportive of ratification of the agreement. "As chairman of AMCHAM, I will do my part to promote and support the early ratification of the KORUS FTA," said Gaines. The accord, if it takes effect, will boost South Korea's economic growth by 6 percent over the long-term and help create 340,000 new jobs, according to the state-run

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. South Korea's trade with the U.S., the world's largest economy and its second-largest trading partner, came to US$84.7 billion last year. Meanwhile, Gaines said that AMCHAM will step up efforts to strengthen relations and

cooperation with the South Korean government and business community. "It is clear that the economic and trade relationship between the U.S. and Korea is growing and changing, and it is essential for AMCHAM to grow with these changes," said Gaines

South Korea is working to pass KORUSYonhap News, 7/8 (7/8/11, "Opposition lawmakers call for renegotiation of KORUS FTA," http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/07/09/56/0301000000AEN20110709001200320F.HTML)

A group of lawmakers affiliated with South Korea's main opposition party submitted a resolution on Saturday calling for the renegotiation of a free trade deal with the U.S. In the resolution, the 10 lawmakers of the Democratic Party said the free trade pact awaiting parliamentary approval in both countries should be renegotiated in order to reflect a balance of interest. In December, Seoul and Washington agreed on a supplemental agreement to address U.S. concerns over the lopsided auto trade, the biggest hurdle to

getting congressional approval for the deal, signed in 2007. South Korea posted a trade surplus of US$9.4 billion with the U.S. in 2010, with two-way trade topping $90 billion, according to data compiled by the Korea International Trade Association. The pact will help South Korea's trade surplus with the U.S. widen by $463 million annually over 10 years, aided by increased exports of automobiles, electronics and textiles, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy estimated earlier.

KORUS will pass despite opposition.Arirang News 7/11 (7/11/11, "GNP To Push for KORUS FTA Ratification in Aug. ", http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=117994&code=Ne3&category=4)

The ruling Grand National Party has reconfirmed its decision to pass the ratification bill for the Korea-US free trade agreement during the August extraordinary session. During a supreme council meeting on Monday, GNP floor leader Hwang Woo-yea said the ratification bill is one of many pending legislations that the ruling party must pass during the next session, reconfirming the agreement made by senior party members the day before. The GNP held a meeting on Sunday led by new Chairman Hong Joon-pyo and decided to approve the trade pact that did not see any progress in the June session. And on Monday morning, a member of the GNP supreme council and the chairman of the trade committee, Nam Kyung-pil, called on opposition party leaders to stop using negative rhetoric in regards to the Korea-US FTA to achieve political gains.

Appearing on a radio program, Nam said that while he will work with lawmakers who oppose the trade deal, opposition parties should come to the talks for a genuine discussion on a way forward. The trade committee chairman's remarks are in response to 10 lawmakers from the main opposition Democratic Party introducing a non-binding resolution on Saturday, which calls for the renegotiation of the FTA with the US, reiterating the DP's position that the balance of the deal has been broken following the additional rounds of negotiations this past December.

16

***Internal Links


http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2011/06/22/36/0503000000AEN20110622007200320F.HTML


SKFTA – Political Capital Key

PC KEY – WILL PASSPalmer 5-5 (Doug, Staff Writer, “Boehner says Obama push needed to pass trade deals,” Reuters, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-usa-trade-boehner-idUSTRE74453V20110505)

The U.S. House of Representatives hopes to pass long-delayed free-trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama by August, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday. "We can move pretty quickly but it's going to take help by the president as well," Boehner told reporters. Although Republicans, who now control the House, are generally pro-trade, some members of the party are skeptical of trade deals. "I do believe a lot of work will have to be done with our own members," Boehner said. In addition, a large portion of Democrats are likely to vote against the pacts, especially the Colombia agreement, which is generally seen as the most controversial of the three trade deals because of a long history of violence against union workers in the Andean country. "The president is going to have to be out there as well talking about the importance of these

three agreements. We hope to have them finished by the August recess," Boehner said. U.S. Trade Representative Ron

Kirk told reporters separately he was optimistic Congress would pass the three trade deals with "good bipartisan support." But talking to reporters after a speech, Kirk said it was "critical" lawmakers also renew an expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program to help retrain workers who have the lost their jobs because of foreign competition. "TAA is for us, again, part of the package," Kirk said. Congress approved an expanded TAA program as part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill, but it expired early this year. Efforts to renew the program failed when some Republicans in the House of Representatives objected to its cost. The beefed-up program has helped "a half a million workers and families in every state ... and it is critical that we have that program authorized at those levels," Kirk said. After striking side deals to address outstanding concerns about each of the three trade pacts, the Obama administration now has "agreements that we think are going to garner good bipartisan support," Kirk said. "We believe we can work with the leadership in the House and the Senate to get them passed," Kirk said. The trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama were signed during the administration of President George W. Bush, but they stalled in the face of Democratic opposition. Since December, the Obama administration has negotiated new auto provisions for the Korean agreement, a tax information exchange treaty with Panama and an action plan with Colombia to address longstanding US concerns about anti-union violence. Administration officials said Wednesday they were prepared to begin technical discussions with Congress on implementing legislation for all three agreements, after Colombia met initial benchmarks in the labor action plan.

17


SKFTA – GOP KEY

GOP VOTES KEY TO SKFTA PASSAGE. BRODER 10. [david, op-ed columnist, “What the GOP can do for Obama” Washington Post -- Aug 1]

For instance, it is clear that if Obama seeks Senate approval of the stalled free-trade agreement with South Korea -- a step that would shore up his Asian foreign policy and end the impasse on trade -- he will need a higher percentage of votes from Republicans than he is likely to get from Democrats.

GOP SUPPORT NOT INEVITABLE – AVOIDING PARTISAN ISSUES KEY TO ENSURE COOPERATION. KAROL 10. [David, assistant professor of government at American University, “After the election: Can Obama find common ground with the GOP on trade?” The Hill -- 10/28]

Beyond these differences however, the chief obstacle to cooperation between the administration and GOP legislators on trade is pervasive mistrust flowing from polarization, which aggravates politicians’ temptation to posture for short-term partisan advantage. While President Clinton worked with Republicans to liberalize trade via NAFTA

and PNTR, partisan mistrust impeded cooperation in the 1990s as well. Then Speaker Gingrich and most GOP legislators did back Clinton’s 1997 request for fast track authority. Yet Clinton’s fast track bid failed in part because dozens of Republicans were reluctant to give him a win of any sort. The following year Gingrich brought up the bill when he knew the votes weren’t there simply to drive a wedge between Democrats and the business community. So cooperation between Obama and Congressional Republicans on trade policy is hardly assured. Yet in an era in which the partisan divide looms large it is one area where at least common ground is visible.

18


OBAMA GETS CREDIT/BLAME

Obama is the Velcro president – all agency action links. Nicholas and Hook 10. (Peter and Janet, Staff Writers – LA Times, “Obama the Velcro president”, LA Times, 7-30, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3)

If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the colossus of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit. Insulating the president from bad news has proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary Steven Chu is prone to

long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically he creates some of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a

Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen ." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and understandable — such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. But at this stage, it may be late in the game to downsize either the president or his agenda. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The man came in promising change. He has a higher profile than some presidents because of his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the message he brought in. It's naive to believe he can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face of the oil spill. The buck stops with his office."

19


OBAMA GETS CREDIT/BLAME

PRESIDENCY IS THE FOCAL POINT OF POLITICS – PRESIDENT GETS THE CREDIT OR THE BLAME, DESERVED OR NOTRosati 4. [Jerel A., University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 80]

Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents receive credit when things are perceived as going well and are blamed when things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control. With so many complex issues and problems to address – the debt problem, the economy, energy, welfare, education, the environment, foreign policy – this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as presidential promises and public expectations remain high, the president’s job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success occur, given the lack of presidential power, it is probably not by the president’s own design. Nonetheless, the president – the person perceived to be the leader of the country – will be rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor). However, if the president is perceived as unsuccessful – a failure – this results not only in a weakened president but one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent president or his heir as presidential nominee.

20


OBAMA PUSH

Only Obama involvement gets plan passedGeneral Hamel et. al, 09 – Michael A., Lt. General (retired), USAF (3/10/10, The Committee for US Space Leadership, “MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT: America’s Leadership in Space,” http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Memo_For_the_President_March_10_20091.pdf)

Just as the mastery and use of the maritime and air domains helped define the course of world affairs and the histories of the 19th and 20th centuries, so too mastery of space will be a defining feature of the 21st century. Loss of our strategic advantage in space would have acute consequences, both symbolic and substantive, on U.S. standing in the world and erode capabilities crucial to the nation’s security and prosperity in the decades ahead. We know the formula for success in space. It takes the right skills, hard work, and effective management, starting at the top. Strong White House leadership is essential to putting the national space enterprise on an effective new course, which in turn will be highly supportive and synergistic with your broader agenda, priorities, and goals for the nation. Nearly fifty years ago, a new President challenged America to become the world leader in space, to send Americans to the moon and return them safely to Earth within a decade. America succeeded in achieving President Kennedy’s vision, and the nation has benefited beyond imagination from meeting that challenge. America is at a new crossroads, and we need our new President to inspire the nation with a space vision and government actions to assure our continued leadership in the 2s1t century.

Plan requires presidential involvement – means Obama gets the blame Marcia Smith ’11 Smith is President of the Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC, which specializes in news, information and analysis of civil, military and commercial space programs and other technology areas. From March 2006-March 2009, Ms. Smith was Director of the Space Studies Board (SSB) at the National Research Council (NRC), “Last Man on Moon and Space Policy Expert Dismayed at State of U.S. Human Spaceflight Program” 5/25 http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1591:last-man-on-moon-and-space-policy-expert-dismayed-at-state-of-us-human-spaceflight-program&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

Logsdon recounted the key points of his new book, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, emphasizing that JFK was not a space visionary, but a President coping with Cold War realities. In his op-ed for the Orlando Sentinel today, Logsdon suggested that JFK could be a role model for President Obama in remaining closely involved in space program decisions. "If President Obama hopes for a positive space legacy, he needs to emulate John Kennedy; without sustained presidential leadership, NASA will continue to lack the focus required for a space effort producing acknowledged international leadership and national pride in what the United States accomplishes," Logsdon wrote.

Executive Controls Space Policy – Obama Push Is RequiredG. Ryan Faith ’10 G. Ryan Faith is an independent technology consultant and Adjunct Fellow for Space Initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS). “President Obama’s Vision for Space Exploration (part 2)” 4/26 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1616/1

One thing that President Obama can learn from the fate of his predecessor’s plan for space exploration is that continued, periodic political support at the Presidential level is of great importance—or is perceived to be within the space community—because of the sentiment that the national space exploration program is a tool to be used by and within the prerogative of the executive. Should international cooperation play a greater role in American plans in the near future, engagement by the President and State Department on behalf of NASA will be quite valuable.

21

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1616/1


CAPITAL KEY

Ideology doesn’t outweigh – presidential success dictates votesLebo, 2010 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Journal of Politics, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” forthcoming, google)

Keeping this centrality in mind, we use established theories of congressional parties to model the president’s role as an actor within the constraints of the partisan environment of Congress. We also find a role for the president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes and consequences of success. We develop a theory that views the president’s record as a key component of the party politics that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the electoral outcomes that follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics in Congress argue that cross-pressured legislators will side with their parties in order to enhance the collective reputation of their party (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), but no empirical research has answered the

question: "of what are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it is the success of the president – not parties in Congress – that predicts rewards and punishments to parties in Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.

Studies prove issues spillover—the president is key.Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in Congress. Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association, 1-26. Retrieved from Political Science Complete database.

Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is clear that a handful of variables strongly influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation. Of these variables, party control of Congress is most important (Bond and Fleisher 1990), in that conditions of unified government increase, while conditions of divided government decrease presidential success, all else equal. The president’s approval ratings (Edwards 1989) and a favorable honeymoon (Dominguez 2005) period may also increase presidential success on legislation. In addition, presidential speeches that reference policies or roll-call votes tend to increase the president’s legislative success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha 2006). In their landmark examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond and Fleisher (1990, 230) identify yet another condition that may facilitate presidential success on legislation when they write that “the president’s greatest influence over policy comes from the agenda he pursues and the way it is packaged.” Moreover, the policies that the president prioritizes have “a major impact on the president’s relationship with Congress.” Taken together, these assertions strongly suggest that the policy content of the president’s legislative agenda—what policies the president prioritizes before Congress—should be a primary determinant of presidential success in Congress.

Capital determines agenda above all elseLight 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 34)

In chapter 2, I will consider just how capital affects the basic parameters of the domestic agenda. Though the internal resources are important contributors to timing and size, capital remains the cirtical factor. That conclusion will become essential in understanding the domestic agenda. Whatever the President’s personal expertise, character, or skills, capital is the most important resource. In the past, presidential scholars have focused on individual factors in discussing White House decisions, personality being the dominant factor. Yet, given low levels in presidential capital, even the most positive and most active executive could make little impact. A president can be

skilled, charming, charismatic, a veritable legislative wizard, but if he does not have the basic congressional strength, his domestic agenda will be severely restricted – capital affects both the number and the content of the President’s priorities. Thus, it is capital that determines whether the President will have the opportunity to offer a detailed domestic program, whether he will be restricted to a series of limited initiatives and vetoes. Capital sets the basic parameters of the agenda, determining the size of the agenda and guiding the criteria for choice. Regardless of the President’s personality, capital is the central force behind the domestic agenda.

22


A2: WINNERS WIN

WINNERS-LOSE FOR OBAMARYAN 9. [1-18 -- Selwyn Professor of Social Science at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of West Indies. Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell, http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968]

Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make many "u" turns and detours which may well land him in quick sand. Obama will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is one of the most historic the

country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant

communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush

and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents

of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face inscribed with the plaintive words, "I Trust You." Despite the general optimism about Obama's ability to deliver, many groups have already begun to complain about being betrayed. Gays, union leaders, and women have been loud in their complaints about being by-passed or overlooked. Some radical blacks have also complained about being disrespected. Where and when is Joshua going to lead them to the promised land, they ask? When is he going to pull the troops out of Iraq? Civil rights groups also expect Obama to dis-establish Guantanamo as soon as he takes office to signal the formal break with Dick Cheney and Bush. They also want him to discontinue the policy which allows intelligence analysts to spy on American citizens without official authorisation. In fact, Obama startled supporters when he signalled that he might do an about-turn and continue this particular policy. We note that Bush is signalling Obama that keeping America safe from terrorists should be his top priority item and that he, Bush, had no regrets about violating the constitutional rights of Americans if he had to do so to keep them safe. Cheney has also said that he would do it again if he had to. The safety of the republic is after all the highest law. Other groups-sub-prime home owners, workers in the automobile sector, and the poor and unemployed generally all expect Obama to work miracles on their behalf, which of course he cannot do. Given the problems of the economy which has not yet bottomed out, some promises have to be deferred beyond the first term. Groups, however, expect that the promise made to them during the campaign must be kept. Part of the problem is that almost every significant social or ethnic group believes that it was instrumental in Obama's victory. White women felt that they took Obama over the line, as did blacks generally, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, rich white men, gays, and young college kids, to mention a few of those whose inputs were readily recognisable. Obama also has a vast constituency in almost every country in the world, all of whom expect him to save the globe and

the planet. Clearly, he is the proverbial "Black Knight on a White Horse." One of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or

political suasion and promises of future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and plural, but socially and geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline which translated, means you do what I the leader say you do. Although Obama is fully aware of the political limitations of the office which he holds, he is fully aware of the vast stock of political capital which he currently has in the bank and he evidently plans to enlarge it by drawing from the stock held by other groups, dead and alive. He is clearly drawing heavily from the caparisoned cloaks of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Obama seems to believe that by playing the all-inclusive, multipartisan, non-ideological card, he can get most of his programmes through the Congress without having to spend capital by using vetoes, threats of veto, or appeals to his 15 million strong constituency in cyberspace (the latent "Obama Party").

Link outweighs the link turn on timeframeSilber 07 [PhD Political Science & Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making – Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, [Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS]

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term. If a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that “capital declines over time –

public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent . The decline of capital makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps determine if such capital can be replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be developed.

23


A2: WINNERS WIN

WINNERS WIN NOT TRUE FOR OBAMA. GALSTON 10. [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]

Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory

would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.

WINNERS DON’T WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES – THE HILL IS TOO POLARIZED. MANN 10. [Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections” Brookings Institute -- November]

That perception of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obama’s initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised party system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place. Republicans adopted a strategy of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the President’s agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and

compromise, even on matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic majority.

WINNERS LOSE FOR OBAMA – LOSES THE SPIN GAME. BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “Education of a President” New York Times]

But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment, they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average. “We’re all a lot more cynical now,” one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.” The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to roll over, we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.” Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber and Obama’s ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for the absence of bipartisanship. “I think his fate was sealed,” Durbin said. “Once the Republicans decided they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it extremely difficult and dragged it out for a longer period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them there’s a problem, they want a solution.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade Obama harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on substantive accomplishments,” he told me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health care legislation is “an incredible achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously

successful,” in Rendell’s judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who

later became an Obama supporter. “We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”

24

***Links


Link – SPS – Unpopular

Nobody supports SPSBoswell 4 (David, Speaker – International Space Development Conference, “Whatever Happened to Solar Power Satellites?”, The Space Review, 8-30, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)

High cost of launching Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.”

No Support for space solar powerMahan 7 (Rob, Founder – Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, “SBSP FAQ”, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/)

What are the main hurdles to developing and deploying space-based solar power? Let me start by saying that I believe there are three solutions to every complex problem. First, the technical solution – how are we going to solve the problem (often the easiest). Second, the financial solution – who is going to pay for / profit from the solution. And third, the political solution – who is going to organize the solution … and take credit for it. The technical solution for space-based solar power is exciting because no scientific breakthroughs are needed. It is essentially a complex engineering project. The technical solution will initially be dependent on developing low cost and reliable access to space, but later we could use resources mined from Moon and near Earth objects like asteroids. The financial solution will admittedly be very expensive at first, so there must be an early adopter, like the Defense Department, to provide a market and rewards for those willing to invest in space based solar power and the supporting technologies. Engineering and scientific advancements and the commercialization of supporting technologies will soon lead to ubiquitous and low cost access to space and more widespread use of wireless power transmision. Economies of scale will eventually make space-based solar power affordable, but probably never cheap again, like energy was fifty years ago. Eventual Moon based operations will reduce costs significantly, since it takes twenty-two times less energy to launch from Moon than from Earth’s gravity well and the use of lunar materials will allow heavier, more robust structures. The political solution will most likely be the biggest hurdle to the development of space-based solar power because so many areas have to be negotiated and agreed upon, not only within the United States, but with our allies around the world, too. Strong energy independence legislation is the first step that needs to be taken immediately. Treaties and agreements for the military and commercial use of space must be negotiated and put into place. Universal safety measures must be agreed upon and integrated into related legislation and treaties. Getting widespread voter (i.e. tax-payer) support to prompt Congress to take action may be the highest hurdle of all

25

http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm



Link – SPS – Unpopular

No Congressional support for Space solar power-too expensiveDay 8 (Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Knights in Shining Armor”, The Space Review, 6-9, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)

If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering

fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for

SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—

one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly “falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home. But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

Last time SPS was introduced to congress- it was blocked because of controversy Eakman – 11 (Beverly K. Eakman, She left to become a scientific writer for a NASA contractor. She went on to serve as a former speechwriter for the Voice of America and for the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger when he chaired the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. She was an editor and writer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice before retiring from federal government. She is now author of six books covering education policy, mental-health issues, data-trafficking and political strategy, with dozens of keynote speeches, feature articles and op-eds to her credit. Her most recent works include A Common Sense Platform for the 21st Century and the 2011 Edition of her ever-popular seminar manual, How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics (Midnight Whistler Publishers, 2010 and 2011, respectively, 17 March 2011, 17 March 2011, , http://www.americandailyherald.com/20110318328/top-stories/left-wing-tsunami-puts-us-energy-infrastructure-at-risk//ZY)

The solar-array concept went from NASA to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in Washington, DC, but was quickly deep-sixed for political reasons, mainly because of the environmentalists’ concerns over stray birds flying through the microwave beams—technically called “passive relay microwave energy”—(unlikely to harm wildlife in places like the Mojave Desert).

Oil companies contributed to scuttling of the project out of expectations that resurgence in a U.S.-based oil economy eventually would push the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) out of the picture, which never happened. Instead of giving the green light to American oil-drilling, Congress learned nothing from Carter-era gas lines, and imported even more oil from overseas, because environmentalists deemed drilling at home messy, smelly and toxic.

Solar power creates infighting amongst dems and reps over technicalities Washington Examiner (blog) 6/8 (Rand Simberg, 6/8/11, " Space politics makes strange bedfellows ", http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/space-politics-makes-strange-bedfellows)//ZY

These words were music to the ears of both the Competitive Space Task Force (full disclosure: of which I am chairman) and Tea Party in Space, a Florida-based group that promotes a vigorous but fiscally responsible space program (something exactly the opposite of what those

who make space policy on the Hill seem to want). Hence, Monday's press release lauding the two senators' action. Interestingly and ironically, it

sets up a potential battle in the upper chamber over space policy, in which the Democratic senators from California are fighting for a competitive approach (in the interest, of course, of their own home state contractor), against a "conservative" Republican senator from Utah who insists on a wasteful, sole-source pork-based one in the interest of his state. Which

all goes to show (as we've seen for the last year and a half) that space policy is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and it is driven primarily by rent seeking, not a desire to open up space to humanity. As long as space policy remains unimportant, it will continue to be subject to the petty politics of those whose states and districts benefit from the jobs created, even as wealth is destroyed. But the good news is that this may delay things sufficiently long that an expensive, unnecessary rocket never gets built at all.

26

http://www.americandailyherald.com/20110318328/top-stories/left-wing-tsunami-puts-us-energy-infrastructure-at-risk

http://www.americandailyherald.com/20110318328/top-stories/left-wing-tsunami-puts-us-energy-infrastructure-at-risk

http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/milspace031008.xml&headline=GAO%20IDs%20Space%20Acquisitions%20Woes



Link – SPS – Political Capital

Space solar power requires massive political willDavid 8 (Leonard, Research Associate – Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer – Space.com, “Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space”, CleanTech, 5-15, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx? ArticleId=69)\

Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said

John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think

the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new

agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

27

http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?%20ArticleId=69


Link – SPS – Unpopular – Lobbies

Subsidizing solar would create a firestorm of controversy- powerful lobbies, industry leaders, environmentalists and conservative economists NYT, By JOHN M. BRODER, Published: January 31, 2011, Obama’s Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html//ZY

Previous efforts have run up against bipartisan opposition in Congress and heavy lobbying from producers of oil, natural gas and coal . The head of the oil and gas lobby in Washington contends that the president has it backward — that the industry subsidizes the government, through billions of dollars in taxes and royalties, not the other way around. But even as the

president says he wants to do away with incentives for fossil fuels, his policies continue to provide for substantial aid to oil and gas companies as well as billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, nuclear and other energy sources with large and long-lasting

environmental impacts. Mr. Obama’s proposal rekindles a long-running debate over federal subsidies for energy of all kinds , including petroleum, coal, hydropower, wind, solar and biofuels. Opposition to such subsidies — often euphemistically referred to as incentives,

tax credits, preferences or loan guarantees — spans the ideological spectrum, from conservative economists who believe such

breaks distort the marketplace to environmentalists who believe that renewable energy sources will always lose out in subsidy fights because of the power of the entrenched fossil fuel industries. David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative

Heritage Foundation , argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources. “We would like to get rid of all subsidies,” Dr. Kreutzer said. “We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I don’t know if that’s true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down.” H. Jeffrey Leonard, president of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity

firm that invests in clean-technology ventures, said that the current subsidy structure was the legacy of 60 years of lobbying and political

jockeying in Washington that largely benefits oil, coal, nuclear power and corn-based ethanol. He calls for scrapping all subsidies and letting fuel sources compete on equal ground. Mr. Obama is not willing to go that far. He has supported favored tax treatment for wind and solar power as well as a 50 percent increase in federal research spending on other alternative energy sources. He also has proposed as much as $50 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, money he believes is needed because the private market is unwilling to assume the potential costs of a catastrophic accident. Energy economists say that the president’s call in the State of the Union address for doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035 is designed to manipulate energy markets, forcing utilities to shift to the government’s preferred sources of energy on the government’s timetable, although leaving to them the choice of fuels. A White House spokesman put it a bit more benignly. “The plan the president outlined would establish a clear goal for clean energy and let utilities achieve that in the most cost-effective way possible,” the official said. Mr. Obama’s policies encourage utilities to switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas to generate electricity, which simply substitutes one fossil fuel for another and helps subsidize natural gas exploration and distribution. The president is also proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants and oil refineries, another hidden subsidy for fossil fuels. And, many environmentalists argue, every day that goes by without a policy to put a price on carbon emissions from all sources is a day in which the federal government subsidizes energy producers by socializing the long-term health and environmental costs of their products. “My view is the country is better off on having a neutral playing field for all forms of energy,” said Douglas Koplow, founder of Earth Track , a group in Cambridge,

Mass., that studies global energy subsidies. “President Obama defines ‘clean fuels’ as natural gas, coal with carbon capture, nuclear,” Mr. Koplow said. “From my perspective, if you subsidize carbon capture and storage, that’s a big subsidy for coal. Nuclear is massively subsidized through a risk transfer from shareholders to ratepayers. It’s hard to justify these technologies that can’t make it on their own.” “If we’re really concerned about greenhouse gases, we should deal with the problem and cap them,” he added. “Instead, politicians and lobbyists want to carve out policies for their own industries.” Mr. Obama specifically proposes to eliminate roughly $4 billion a year in more than a half-dozen tax exemptions for oil and gas companies and an additional $200 million a year in preferences for coal. The tax breaks for oil have a long history — the so-called percentage depletion allowance for oil and natural gas wells dates to the 1920s — and have withstood repeated efforts to kill them. The president proposed a global end to such subsidies at the Group of 20 meeting in 2009, and while most nations endorsed the idea in theory, little has been done. And Mr. Obama will have a tough fight trying to get even these relatively modest proposals enacted over the objections of the oil and coal industries, who argue that such tax treatment is

necessary to keep drillers drilling and miners mining. “This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s main lobby in Washington. “If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers.” Mr. Gerard noted that there was bipartisan opposition to lifting the tax breaks, adding: “The federal government by no stretch of the imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day.” Michael Levi, an energy and climate change analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said calls for an end to energy subsidies missed a broader point: that embryonic energy technologies will need some government help to gain a foothold against the fossil fuel lobbies. “I’d love to find a quick fix for America’s energy problems just as much as the next guy,” Mr. Levi wrote last week on his blog. “I’d also be delighted to have a reason to cut subsidies, many of which are hugely wasteful,” he added. “But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of traditional fossil fuels against their competitors.”

28

http://www.earthtrack.net/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/solar_energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/heritage_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/01/24/should-we-eliminate-all-energy-subsidies/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/council_on_foreign_relations/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/

http://api.org/Newsroom/api-2011-sotu.cfm

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_20/index.html?inline=nyt-org

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of_the_union_message_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/private_equity/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/k/david-kreutzer

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/biofuels/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per


Link – Constellation – Congress

Congress agrees that NASA does not deserve future fundingDinerman 11(Taylor Dinerman, New York City author and journalist, 4/18/11, “NASA’s continuing problems,” 6/23/11, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1824/1)

Liberty is hardly the only problem NASA is facing today. The agency is lucky that the GOP-controlled House of Representatives

managed to cut only $250 million from its 2011 budget. After all NASA’s leaders have done nothing to convince the Republicans

—or, for that matter, many Democrats—that they can be wise stewards of taxpayer money. They killed the Constellation Moon exploration program using dubious assumptions about future funding. They show no sign of being any better at keeping the costs of major space science programs like the James Webb Space Telescope or the Mars Science Laboratory under control than previous NASA administrators. President Obama’s new plan to freeze annual NASA spending at $18.7 billion per year for the next five years may be the agency’s best case scenario. Instead of the Bush-era Constellation Moon-Mars program, NASA now has Obama’s goal of getting to a near Earth asteroid. Yet the new NASA proposal does not include any money for this specific mission. Last year Congress passed and the President signed a NASA authorization bill that promised the agency $19.5 billion in fiscal year 2012. The same bill ordered that NASA begin work on a new heavy lift vehicle, called the Space Launch

System (SLS), not dissimilar to the Ares 5 launcher that had been under development for the Constellation program. Now the agency’s

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate says that they cannot build the rocket that Congress and the President ordered them to build. This raises the question: when did NASA realize it couldn’t build the SLS? If it was sooner than January’s preliminary report to Congress that contained that conclusion, did NASA’s leadership raise those concerns with the White House and Congress? By taking away the goal of going back to the Moon and building a base there, NASA has eliminated the element of national pride that has always been the most important and unspoken aspect of America’s space program. If NASA is now just another international partner, its funding will reflect the importance most Americans give to passing what Senator, and failed presidential candidate, John Kerry called the “global test”. There is also now no reason for Congress to give NASA’s technology development program more than a billion dollars to do essentially nothing. None of the proposed development programs are sufficiently funded to produce any operational hardware within the foreseeable future. With no goal, except uncertain and ill-defined asteroid and Mars missions that will almost certainly never take off before 2030, NASA’s Chief Technologist reminds one of the title character in the old Beatles song “Nowhere Man.” NASA’s $5-billion science budget is almost certainly going to be cut. Many in Congress are suspicious of its earth science programs since not only do they seem to have little to do with the agency’s core space exploration mission, but the programs are so intertwined with the controversies and political battles over global warming that cutting them or putting them on “pause” would seem logical. At the very least many of the new earth observation satellites will be delayed while Congress examines the role of earth sciences at NASA.

29



Plan unpopular – Obama’s new program has bipartisan support because it solves exploration and funding issuesAmos 10 [Jonathan Amos, Science Correspondent for BBC. BBC News, 11 October 2010: “Obama signs Nasa up to new future” accessed June 22, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11518049]

The US space agency (Nasa) has been given a new direction, one that will seek to put astronauts in orbit using privately-run launch services. The change comes into effect with the signing by President Barack Obama of the Nasa Authorization Act 2010. The legislation, passed by Congress last week, mandates the agency to fly the space station until 2020 and to launch one extra shuttle next year. It also instructs Nasa to start work on a rocket for deep-space exploration. The president's signature on the act brings to an end eight months of fractious debate on Capitol Hill about

the future course of the agency. Nasa's Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters: "Our nation's leaders have come together and endorsed a blueprint for Nasa, one that requires us to think and act boldly as we move our agency into the future. This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for Nasa to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery." The act will mark a sea change in the way Nasa does some of its business, particularly in the realm of human spaceflight. The legislation calls for $1.3bn to be allocated to the development of commercial crew services over the next three years. The money will seed private companies to design and build rockets and capsules capable of delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The legislation also signals a formal end to the Constellation programme begun under President George Bush that sought to return humans to the Moon with a new spaceship called Orion and two new rockets called Ares 1 and Ares 5. Some $9bn was spent on Constellation. Much of its technology and know-how will now be directed into an alternative rocket system big enough to launch a spaceship, or at least some of its elements, on missions that go far beyond the ISS. Atlantis shuttle (Nasa) Nasa will aim to fly one last shuttle to the space station, probably in June or July 2011 These ventures are likely to include asteroids and, eventually, Mars. Legislators want Nasa to receive $11.5bn over the next six years to have the new heavy-lift rocket ready for operation by 31 December 2016. Some critics of the legislation have questioned whether the funding being requested is sufficient for the task, but Florida Senator Bill Nelson who helped build bipartisan support for the legislation said it should be ample. "If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn - if we can't do it for that then we ought to question whether we can build a rocket. " The act authorises $19bn for Nasa in the federal year 2011, a significant increase on 2010. This would allow the agency to expand its activities in a number of areas, including in Earth observation where some missions have been allowed to run past their nominal lifetimes without replacements being ordered up in time to prevent data gaps. Lockheed Martin Work done on

Constellation will now be directed into the new heavy-lift launch system "I think it's wonderful that we're now at this stage," commented Dr Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of a group of experts tasked by President Obama with

reviewing human spaceflight policy when he came into office. "The extensive discussion of the president's budget and the deliberation of the elements of this bill I believe have resulted in legislation that will strengthen Nasa and the space programme." The $19bn is not completely guaranteed. The money still has to be allocated by congressional appropriators, but

Senator Nelson said he thought wide support on Capitol Hill for Nasa would ensure its activities were not denied funding as a result of more general arguments over federal spending and the need to reduce the nation's deficit.

30



Plan unpopular – Obama’s new NASA bill is bipartisan because of funding issues and the economy of the US Space CoastFell 10 [Jacqueline Fell, Reporter for CF 13 News. Central Florida News 13/Bright House Networks, 11 October 2010: “President Obama signs NASA authorization bill” accessed June 22, 2011 from http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/october/160470/President-Obama-signs-NASA-reauthorization-bill]

There’s a new NASA coming, Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said during a live teleconference call Monday. President Barack Obama signed Congress’ revised plan for the space program into law Monday afternoon. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 will add an additional space shuttle flight before the fleet retires, and would extend the life of the International Space Station through at least 2020, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “We now have a way forward for NASA,” said Nelson, one of several NASA and Space Coast leaders who took part in the teleconference. Nelson said the president’s signing of the bill has been a long time coming, and he believes the space program is going to have a very bright future. The bill authorizes $58.4 billion for NASA programs over the next three years, but Nelson said it is going to be a tough legislative session figuring out how and where that money would be spent. Bolden said the bill moves resources away from the space shuttle program and toward the commercial space industry more smoothly. He added that the bill also speeds up the development of heavy-lift rocket, starting in 2011. NASA said the addition of an extra space shuttle flight would help

transfer additional supplies to and from the International Space Station that would not travel well in a Russian Soyuz rocket. Most importantly, said Nelson -- himself a former astronaut -- the additional shuttle mission was designed to help save jobs on the Space Coast, and make for a smoother transition from the 30-year shuttle program to what he called “the new NASA.” “Instead of the workforce dropping off a cliff, it smoothes the transition down, then starts to ramp up the workforce with the building of the new heavy-lift rocket being accelerated, plus commercial rocket activity and the assembling of spacecraft that will ultimately fly on the heavy-lift rocket,” said Nelson. U.S. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, also on the conference call, said the space program is a very important resource for our country, and especially along the Space Coast, where it has been in the DNA of families for generations. “Space exploration here is part of the fabric of the community,” said Kosmas, whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center and northern Brevard County. Nelson and Kosmas, both Democrats, made a point to thank their colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan support of the space program’s future. Also on the conference call was former astronaut Sally Ride , the first American woman to fly into space , who further praised the strong support for NASA from both Democrats and Republicans. Ride s aid she was happy that “we have a bill that’s bipartisan, and one the president and Congress can be excited about.”

Plan unpopular – NASA likes the end of ConstellationBolden 10 [Charles Bolden, NASA administrator – quote reported in article: Jacqueline Fell, Reporter for CF 13 News. Central Florida News 13/Bright House Networks, 11 October 2010: “President Obama signs NASA authorization bill” accessed June 22, 2011 from http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/october/160470/President-Obama-signs-NASA-reauthorization-bill]

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden's statement "Earlier today, President Obama signed into law the N ational A eronautics

and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. It is important bipartisan legislation that charts a new course for space exploration, science, technology development, and aeronautics. We are grateful for the President's forward-thinking plan and the hard work members of Congress put into this framework that will guide us for the coming three years. "This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for NASA to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery. With this direction, we will extend operations on the International Space Station through at least 2020. "We will foster a growing commercial space transportation industry that will allow NASA to focus our efforts on executing direction in the act to start work on a heavy-lift architecture to take astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and to develop a multipurpose crew vehicle for use with our new space launch systems. "Also, we will continue to invest in green aviation and other technologies that make air travel safer and more efficient. " In collaboration with our international partners, industry, and academia , we will build and launch observatories and robotic missions to explore our solar system and peer through new windows into our amazing universe , as well as help us better understand our own home planet with a robust plus-up in our Earth Science program. Our education programs will build on all of this to inspire future generations of scientists, engineers, and explorers . "We have been given a new path in space that will enable our country to develop greater capabilities, transforming the state of the art in aerospace technologies. We will continue to maintain and expand vital partnerships around the world. It will help us retool for the industries and jobs of the future that will be vital for long-term economic growth and national security . "Our workers have been steadfast in their dedication to safety and success through this time of transition, and we salute their hard work and continued professional excellence. They will continue to be our most vital resource as we implement these plans. "As the 2011 appropriations process moves forward, there is still a lot of hard work ahead of us in collaboration with the Congress. We are committed to work together with the continued wide public support for NASA, and the bipartisan backing of Congress. Today's vote of confidence from the president ensures America's space program will remain at the forefront of a bright future for our nation."

31


2 NC DA Outweighs

SKFTA will pass because Obama is using political capital to gain concessions from both Democrats and Republicans. Space policy alienates both groups by shifting the debate to spending. Failure to pass the agreement collapses the alliance and causes Korea war.

Disad outweighs the case. Only Korea Escalates to Nuclear war—US deterrence keyGray 2005[Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies, and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies, at the University of Reading (Spring 2005, Colin S., Parameters, “How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?” http://www.carlisle.army. mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/gray.htm)

6. Interstate war, down but far from out. Logically, the reverse side of the coin which proclaims a trend favoring political violence internal to states, is the claim that

interstate warfare is becoming, or has become, an historical curiosity. Steven Metz and Raymond Millen assure us that “most armed conflicts in coming decades are likely to be internal ones”.21 That is probably a safe prediction, though we might choose to be

troubled by their prudent hedging with the qualifier, “most.” Their plausible claim would look a little different in hindsight were it to prove strictly true, but with the exceptions of one or two interstate nuclear conflicts, say between India and Pakistan, and North Korea and the United States and its allies. The same authors also offer the comforting judgment that “[d]ecisive war between major states is rapidly moving toward history’s dustbin.”22 It is an attractive claim; it is a shame that it is wrong. War, let alone “decisive war,” between major states currently is enjoying an off season for one main reason. So extreme is the imbalance of military power in favor of the United States that potential rivals rule out policies that might lead to hostilities with the superpower. It is fashionable to argue that major interstate war is yesterday’s problem—recall that the yesterday in question is barely fifteen years in the past--because

now there is nothing to fight about and nothing to be gained by armed conflict. Would that those points were true; unfortunately they are not. The menace of major, if not necessarily decisive, interstate war will return to frighten us when great power rivals feel able to challenge American hegemony. If you read your Thucydides, and Donald Kagan, you will be reminded of the deadly and eternal influence of the deadly triad of motives for war, “fear, honor, and interest.”23

We control probability - Tensions increasingStephenson 11(Toronto Sun http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/mercedes_stephenson/2011/01/07/16805271.html)

All eyes will remain on the sabre rattling between the two Koreas. Interesting fact: The Korean war isn’t over. Literally. There’s an armistice, which means they’re not supposed to shoot at each other (North Korea, I am looking at you), but technically it’s still on. No one really thinks the Koreas are

about to break into trench warfare resembling 1951 again at any moment. The presence of nuclear weapons drastically changes the calculus for both sides because the stakes are literally survival and neither side has a death wish. This has not diminished the international

community’s concern, however, that in the heat of the moment, a can’t-take-it-back move could be made and things could rapidly devolve. Not surprising considering Seoul is well within range of a North Korean conventional artillery strike — let alone any need for long-range missiles or nuclear-

tipped weapons. Great Leader Kim Jong-il — the leader previously known as Intelligent Leader and Dear Leader and one can see why, what with the starving of

people to build nukes — will transfer power to his son Kim Jong-un. Expect the aggressive moves and rhetoric to pick up as the family dynasty demonstrates its power and solidarity inside and outside the regime. Last year saw the North build a new and surprisingly sophisticated uranium enrichment plant to fuel the nuclear weapons program. Kim Jong-il torpedoed

and sunk a South Korean warship, killing sailors. Later in the year, he killed South Korean soldiers with a conventional artillery strike. Expect 2011 to bring increasing tension and global attention to the Korean peninsula.

Disad turns case - <Insert cards>

32

***Impacts


NK – SKFTA Solves Korea War

Strong US-ROK relations deters North Korean aggression – and KORUS is keySnyder et al 2010 [adjunct senior fellow for Korea studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum at CSIS (Scott A, June. With Charles L. Pritchard, John H. Tilelli, and the CFR Independent Task Force. “U.S. Policy Toward the Korean Peninsula.” Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force Report No. 64. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Korean_PeninsulaTFR64.pdf)

Strong alliance coordination with South Korea has ensured peninsular stability for more than five decades, initially in

response to North Korea’s conventional threat and now in promoting a coordinated response to North Korea’s efforts to

develop nuclear weapons. While successfully deterring North Korea, the alliance also provided the political stability necessary for South Korea’s economic and political transformation into a leading market economy with a vibrant democratic political system. South Korea’s democratic transformation has allowed a more robust and enduring partnership with the United States that also applies to a growing list of regional and global security, economic, and political issues beyond North Korea.

Presidents Obama and Lee recognized the potential for such cooperation through the adoption of a Joint Vision Statement at their White House meeting in June 2009.43 Citing shared values between the two countries, the statement outlines an agenda for broadened global cooperation on peacekeeping, post conflict stabilization, and development assistance, as well as for addressing a wide range of common challenges to human security, including “terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, organized crime and narcotics, climate change, poverty, infringement on human rights, energy

security, and epidemic disease.”44 The Joint Vision Statement also underscores U.S. commitments to defend South Korea from North Korea’s nuclear challenge by providing extended deterrence to protect South Korea—that is, a pledge to use its nuclear arsenal in response to any

nuclear attack on South Korea—and to transition the role of U.S. forces in South Korea from a leading to a supporting role. It also pledges to strengthen bilateral economic, trade, and investment ties through ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA).

33

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Korean_PeninsulaTFR64.pdf


NK – China Escalation

China gets pulled in on North Korea’s sideISN 1/27 (International Relations and Security Network http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=126468&contextid734=126468&contextid735=126467&tabid=126467)

Similar political realities have undermined another Washington attempt at a concert of powers, the Six Party Talks concerning the North Korean nuclear program. The Korean Peninsula is the strategic key to Manchuria and to China's coastal security. The 1894 Sino-Japanese War was a contest between the two powers for influence in Korea. China's loss led to a weakened Qing position in Manchuria and along the coast that invited further aggression from Japan, Russia and the European powers. In the Korean War in the 1950s, China spent, by some estimates, over a million lives to keep North Korea in existence and in the Sino-Soviet sphere. Beijing is unlikely to

take any action to undermine a regime that acts as a buffer against the United States, South Korea and Japan. Recent events show the opposite. China has boosted its economic aid and investment programs in North Korea, and Beijing has been particularly reluctant to use its considerable leverage over Pyongyang to force concessions on its nuclear weapons program. Indeed, Kim Jong Il's recent visit to China, just as he is working to effect a smooth leadership transition, indicates that Beijing will remain deeply invested in the present North Korean regime.

34

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=126468&contextid734=126468&contextid735=126467&tabid=126467

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=126468&contextid734=126468&contextid735=126467&tabid=126467


NK – CBW Impact

North Korean conflict will involve Biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponsThe Telegraph 2/2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8298427/WikiLeaks-tension-in-the-Middle-East-and-Asia-has-direct-potential-to-lead-to-nuclear-war.html Spencer)

Secret records of a US security briefing at an international non-proliferation summit in 2008 stated that “a nuclear and missile arms race [in South Asia] has the direct potential to lead to nuclear war in the world's most densely populated area and a region of increasing global economic significance”. The same briefing gave warning that development of cruise and ballistic missiles in the Middle East and Asia could enable rogue states to fire weapons of mass destruction into neighbouring regions. The leaked documents also disclose alarming details of the chemical and biological weapons programmes being pursued by rogue states such as Syria and North Korea. Syria - which backs the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah – is believed to be developing chemical weapons using the lethal nerve agents sarin and VX, which shut down the nervous system in under a minute if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. In December 2008, a company connected to the Syrian WMD programme attempted to buy a shipment of glass-lined reactors, heat exchangers and pumps used in weapons manufacturing from two Indian firms, prompting an intervention by the US. Condoleezza Rice, then US Secretary of State, sent a strongly-worded cable classified “secret” to the US embassy in New Delhi instructing diplomats to order the Indian government to block the sale. Threatening sanctions against the firms if they did not comply, Miss Rice urged embassy officials to remind the Indian government of its obligation “to never, under any circumstances, assist anyone in the development of chemical weapons”. The US has made similar interventions to block the sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons materials to North Korea. In

March 2008, US diplomats in Beijing urged the government to investigate a Chinese company which had agreed to sell a deadly chemical to North Korea. The US has also been advised to make flattering overtures to North Korea to prevent the regime from feeling the need to flex its muscles by advancing its nuclear capabilities. South Korean politicians told US diplomats last year that the North had made a show of testing nuclear missiles in the early months of Barack Obama’s presidency because it was “feeling ignored and lonely” and was “trying to draw America’s attention”.

35

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8298427/WikiLeaks-tension-in-the-Middle-East-and-Asia-has-direct-potential-to-lead-to-nuclear-war.html


2NC Asian Leadership

SKFTA is a critical signal of the alliance and US commitments in Asia. Manyin & Cooper 2009 Congressional Research Service, 2009, CAN THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA SING WITHOUT KORUS? THE ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC EFFECTS OF THE KORUS FTA, [Mark; William], p. http://www.keia.org/Publications/JointAcademicStudies/2009/Cooper.pdf

Looking beyond U.S.–South Korea relations magnifies the KORUS FTA’s importance, primarily because the fate of the FTA will be seen as an indicator of broader U.S. policy: it would be harder for the United States to take concrete steps regionally to minimize the negative effects in the event the KORUS FTA is rejected or indefinitely delayed. Additionally, the KORUS FTA has become something of a symbol of the depth of the U.S. commitment to the U.S.–South Korea alliance and to the U.S. forward presence in East Asia. Right or wrong, many Asians believe that the United States is disengaging from the region. If the South Korean National Assembly approves the pact and the FTA is either rejected or not introduced in the United States, many Koreans and Asians may regard this as an additional sign of U.S. disengagement at a time when other great powers like Japan and China are increasing their economic diplomacy.

US dominance in East Asia is key to prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan and ensure regional stabilityBrookes 2008[sr. fellow, National Security Affairs, Heritage, 11/24/ (Brookes, Peter, "Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might,"http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1102.cfm)

Further to the south, what about stability across the Taiwan Strait? We know that China is undergoing a major mil itary buildup, especially involving its power projec tion forces --i.e., air force, navy, and ballistic missile forces, all aimed at Taiwan. Indeed, today Beijing has the world's third largest defense budget and the world's fastest growing peacetime defense budget, growing at over 10 percent per year for over a decade. It increased its defense

budget nearly 18 percent annually over the past two years. I would daresay that military tensions across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and

China would be much greater today if not for an implied commitment on the part of the United States to prevent a change in the political status quo via military means. China hasn't renounced the use of force against its neighbor and rival, Taiwan, a vibrant, free-market democracy.

It is believed by many analysts that absent American military might, China would quickly unite Taiwan with the main land under force of arms. In general, the system of military alliances in Asia that the United States maintains provides the basis for stability in the Pacific, since the region has failed to develop an overarching security architecture such as that found in Europe in NATO.

US China conflict causes ExtinctionStraits Times (Singapore), 2K(“Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan,” June 25, Lexis)

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser

extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The

US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the

use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

36


2NC Regionalism

Asian regional trade is at a crossroads – SKFTA is key to shift towards a US based liberal model and away from Chinese influence. These market based rules are critical to Asian regionalism. Snyder 2010Scott Director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at The Asia Foundation and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korean Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Economic Interdependence, Alliance Cooperation, and Sino-U.S. Complex Interdependence” December 23, 2010 The East Asia Institute Issue Briefing No. MASI 2010-07

Conclusion: Will China’s Economic Rise Result in a Paradigm Shift for the Structure of Security Relations? Both the United States and South Korea face an unanswerable question regarding the impact of China’s rise on the global system that will have a direct impact on both the alliance and the structure of the international community; i.e., will China’s rise reinforce global norms or introduce changes in

the international system that are contrary to U.S./ROK collective interests? The phenomenon of delinking economic interdependence from a purely security-oriented view that has in the past constrained the development of economic relations with non-security partners is both evidence of China’s willingness to embrace the existing international order as a vehicle by which to secure its own economic development and an opportunity to break out of a situation in which overt economic competition in strictly realist terms served only to reinforce national power in a zero-sum fashion that may make conflict inevitable. But the diffusion of economic prosperity across traditional political and security dividing lines also carries with it a certain level of political risk if indeed the international structure that has enabled China’s rise is then used to make new global rules that privilege self-advantage or

compromise efforts to promote a market-based level playing field that has been a hallmark of the post-war international system. The KORUS FTA deepens U.S.-ROK economic integration in ways that might serve to buttress an open trading system on the U.S. model, but such integration is not likely to have a major impact on the U.S.-ROK security alliance. However, it remains to be seen whether China-

centered economic integration may eventually constrain the U.S.-ROK military alliance in other ways, by shifting perceived interest in ways that raise the cost and effectiveness of political military cooperation within the alliance while creating new patterns of interaction and self-interest that weaken the efficacy of alliance ties.

37


2NC Regionalism

Collapse of regionalism collapses ASEAN - results in extinction. Rajaratnam 1992(Distinguished Senior Fellow at Institute of South East Asian Studies and Former Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore “The Way Ahead,” www.aseansec.org/13991.htm)

Should regionalism collapse, then ASEAN too will go the way of earlier regional attempts like SEATO, ASA and MAPHlLlNDO. All that

remains today of these earlier experiments are their bleached bones. Should the new regional efforts collapse, then globalism, the final stage of historical development, will also fall apart. Then we will inevitably enter another Dark Ages and World War III, fought this time not with gun-powder, but with nuclear weapons far more devastating than those exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern technology and science are pushing the world simultaneously in the direction of regionalism and globalism. What is responsible for today's economic disintegration, disorder and violence is the resistance offered by nationalism to the irresistible counter-pressures of regionalism and globalism. As of today, there are only two functioning and highly respected regional organizations in the world. They are, in order of their importance and seniority, the European Community (EC) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first came into being in 1957 and the second in 1967. A mere ten years separates the two. The population of the European Community as at 1990 was 350 million, and that of ASEAN an estimated 323 million. In terms of population, they are not all that unequal. In terms of political and economic dynamism, though, the gap is qualitatively wider. The economic dynamism and the proven political cohesion of ASEAN is nevertheless slowly but steadily narrowing the gap between the European Community and ASEAN. To compare ASEAN with the so-called Little Dragons of Asia is to compare unrelated political species. The Little Dragons are lone wolves

hunting separately. They lack collective strength or awareness. With them it is a case of each wolf for itself. In the case of ASEAN, as integration proceeds, its strength will be the cohesiveness of over 300 million people with far greater resources than any of the lone baby dragons. The most remarkable feature about the two regional organizations is their continuity and coherence despite the persistence and often unmanageable turbulence and tensions that have and still characterize the post-war world. There have been some 100 international, civil, racial and religious conflicts. Far from abating, these are growing in number. By comparison the European Community and ASEAN are the still centres in the eye of the storm. There is apprehension that chaos, not order, is the draft of world politics and economies today. For many, the expectation is that tomorrow will be worse than yesterday and that history has been a

descent from the Golden Age to the Dark Ages. To quote the poet Yeats, though the world is seemingly intact: "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold." Yet the two multi-racial and multi-cultural regional organizations I have mentioned continue to grow in maturity, cohesiveness, and confidence. They believe that regionalism can survive the buffeting winds and storms. The European Community, unlike ASEAN, has had far more experience with regional organization because its founding members, in particular Britain, France, Holland, Belgium and even Germany participated in the creation and management of far-flung complex global empires. Their scientific and technological cultures were many light years ahead of all preceding cultures and civilizations. However eminent and admirable pre-European traditional civilizations were, the 19th and 20th century culture created by the West cannot be surpassed or displaced by invoking ancient creeds. Only Japan has so far demonstrated that the gap between medieval and modern cultures can be narrowed and possibly over taken. Moreover, only Western nations and Japan have demonstrated a capacity for con- structing massive modern empires, though unfortunately, they demonstrated this by their ability to organize and unleash modern wars. No Asian nation, however, has fought, let alone won, wars of comparable magnitude. Saddam Hussein's chest-thumping has the resonance of hollow drums. Western Europeans have over a period of 500 years built a chain of multi-racial and multi-national empires that at their peak stretched from Portugal and Spain to the Pacific shores of Russia, and parts of Asia and Africa. So reconstituting a West European regional community should be child's play for them. But creating and managing, within a brief period of only 25 years, an ASEAN community of six economically and industrially under-developed peoples who had no experience of administering a modern, complex multi-racial regional organization verges, in my view, on the miraculous. The reach of the ancient empires of Greece, Rome, China, India, Persia and Babylon, ruled by allegedly Divine emperors, was ludicrously short and their claims of being rulers of World empires were fanciful exaggerations. The effective extent of their empires did not go beyond the palace and surrounding villages. Modern nationalism, regionalism and globalism are of a different order politically, economically and even psychologically. Nationalism is a 19th century concept. Earlier forms of nationalism were, in fact, imperialism. It united petty principalities, states and clans into nations. These have now outlived their usefulness. But regionalism is based on concepts and aspirations of a higher order. Asian regionalism was first launched on 25 April 1955 at Bandung. It was initially a comprehensive Afro-Asian Conference presided over by Heads of Government. It included legendary figures like Sukarno. Nehru, Zhou Enlai, Kotalawela of what was then Ceylon, Sihanouk and Mohammed Ali, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. However, this regional effort did not last long. Asian and African nationalisms which helped speed up the collapse of Western, and later Japanese imperialisms, did not last long. Within a few years after its founding, not only Afro-Asian solidarity but also the solidarity of individual Asian and African nation states was in disarray. The destruction of nationalism is today being brought about, not by Western imperialism, which had already grown weary. thanks to two world wars, of holding sway over palm and pine, but by Third World nationalism. The economic and political underpinnings of European nationalisms were in fact, even before the start of the 20th century, beginning to crack. In fact, Lord Acton. towards the end of the 19th century, predicted the inevitable collapse of nationalism. I quote his judgement- "Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the state. It will be marked by material and moral ruin." This prophecy is as accurate today as it was when Lord Acton made it in 1862. So was Karl Marx's prophecy about the inevitable collapse of nationalism but for different reasons. He predicted the overthrow of nationalism and capitalism by an international proletariat. So did Lenin and so did Mao with their clarion call of: "Workers of the World unite." Internationalism has a long history. Chinese, Christians, Greeks, Romans and Muslims were never tired of announcing themselves as "World Rulers", However, after World War II, empires went out of fashion. It is today being gradually replaced by a more rational form of political and economic organization. The early years of the 20th century witnessed, for example, experiments with a novel form of regionalism -continental regionalism. It was formed by simply prefixing the word "Pan" to the continents of Europe, Asia and America -Pan-Europa, Pan-America and Pan-Asia, of which Japan, after having in 1905 defeated the Russian fleet in one of the most decisive naval battles ever fought in the Tsushima Straits, became Asia's most persistent publicist. After World War II, Pan-African and Pan-Arab movements were added to the list. However, these early "Pan" movements have since then either collapsed totally or are in the process of violent disintegration because of dissension on grounds of race, religion, language or nation. However, the word "Pan" has recently been revived in East Europe. It is called "Pan-Slavism" and is today being revived with bloody vengeance. The multi-racial and multi-cultural Yugoslav nation that President Tito created during World War 11 and which is today being torn apart is a grim warning

of what can happen to nations possessed by racial and religious demons. The new regionalism that is now emerging out of the ruins of post-World War II nationalism appears to have learnt from the errors of the past. A more sophisticated and realistic form of regionalism is being constructed, not as an end in itself but as the means towards a higher level of political, social and economic organization. I propose to do no more than list the names of some of the new regionalisms now taking shape. Basic to this approach is that there is not going to be any

sudden great leap forward from regionalism to globalism. However, none of the new regionalisms now taking shape are as bold as either the European Community or ASEAN. The latter two are more rationally focussed regionalism. But a word of caution is necessary. We must know how to handle these new regionalisms intelligently. They could be steps towards global peace, progress and cultural development or they could be fuel for World War III. Foremost among the new regional approaches is the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. Among the many other regional concepts waiting in the wings are: the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); the Group of Seven (G7); East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC); Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference (PECC); the amiable Little Dragons of South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan for which no acronym has yet been announced. There are also the distant rumbles of the possible emergence of Big Dragons but as a Chinese saying goes: "There is a lot of noise in the stairways, but nobody has so far entered the room." One fervently hopes that when a Big Dragon turns up, it would be an amiable Great Dragon and one which would know its way around the Spratly and Paracel Islands but without being a Dragon in a China shop. World War II started, it must be remembered, simply because the German and Japanese

Dragons got their maps all wrong. Real regionalism requires a world-view if it is not to lose its way in the global world of modern technology and science. It must also have a rational and deep understanding of the new history which is being shaped not by heroic individuals, but through the co-operative inter-action of some 5 billion people who today live in a vastly shrunken planet and who, thanks to growing literacy and fast-as-light electronic communication, are better informed about the world we live in than earlier generations. Nobody, not even super-computers can predict what will happen when each day the flow of history is cumulatively determined by individual decisions made by 5 billion

human beings who are asserting their right to a decent and just society. Fewer and fewer people today believe that oppression, hunger and injustice is God's will to which they must meekly submit. People today know the difference between "Let us pray" and "Let us prey". The end of the Cold War

and the collapse of communism has, in no way, made for a more peaceful world. Wars have ended in the West- ern world but not so elsewhere. World War III, should it ever be unleashed, would be the last war mankind will ever fight.

38


Asian Regionalism – SKFTA Key

SKFTA failure kills American involvement in Asian regional trade mechanisms. Ratification is key to US engagement – prefer our evidence its reverse causal and comparative. Schott 2009 Jeffrey J. Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Free Trade Agreements and the Future of U.S.-Korean Trade Relations in Navigating Turbulence in Northeast Asia: The Future of the U.S.-ROK Alliance

Whither U.S.-Korea trade relations? The answer depends importantly on what happens with the KORUS FTA. If the U.S. policy inertia of the first year of the Obama administration continues and Congress does not address the KORUS FTA in 2010, then events in Asia will increasingly dominate the Korean policy agenda. In other words, the trend of the past decade, which has recorded a steady decline in the U.S. share of Korean trade, will deepen. In

this scenario, Korea would then pursue closer ties with its Asian partners, especially China and Japan. Korean trade priorities would focus on building a Northeast Asian FTA with China and Japan, as well as harmonizing the pacts that each of them has concluded

with the ASEAN; in other words, the emphasis would be on creating a more substantive “Ten plus Three” arrangement linking Northeast and Southeast Asia instead of engaging with the United States in other trade initiatives in East Asia, including nascent efforts to build a trans-Pacifi

c partnership (TPP). More important, the lack of U.S. follow-through on the KORUS FTA would cast doubts about the overall U.S. commitment to its alliance with Korea. All in all, this scenario means increased tension in U.S.-Korea relations, lost opportunities for

U.S. exporters and investors, and possibly new discrimination across the major markets of Asia. But the bleak scenario of U.S. policy inertia has an equally optimistic counterpart. If the impasse over implementing the KORUS FTA can be broken and the agreement ratified in 2010, then the stage will be set for

expanded bilateral trade ties and broader bilateral cooperation on regional economic integration. Simply put, ratifying the KORUS FTA would refocus attention on how Asian countries engage with the United States and redirect efforts toward Asia-Pacific initiatives.

SKFTA serves as a template for liberal and open East Asian regional trade. Snyder 2010[Scott, Director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at The Asia Foundation and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korean Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Economic Interdependence, Alliance Cooperation, and Sino-U.S. Complex Interdependence” December 23, 2010 The East Asia Institute Issue Briefing No. MASI 2010-07

One significant implication of the KORUS FTA is that is can serve as a template for other FTAs that the United States would like to see in the Asia-Pacific region, thereby providing an essential road map or template for other initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) negotiations or the initiative to establish a Free Trade Area in the AsiaPacific (FTAAP). Moreover, the KORUS agreement clearly served as the benchmark for South Korea’s free trade agreement with the European Union, even if the Korea-EU FTA comes into affect prior to the

ratification of the KORUS FTA. To the extent that the KORUS FTA can contribute to the shaping of an open versus a mercantilistic approach to international trade in East Asia, such developments are in the interest of both countries and set the stage for both regional and multilateral discussions on these issues that can assist in promoting development of a new global standard that is favorable to Korean and U.S. interests. This is a strategic argument that the two countries are able to make on the merits, but it has little impact on the level of security cooperation in the U.S.-ROK alliance relationship.

Failure of SKFTA locks the US out of Asian trade architectures undercutting US leadership on trade and in Asia. Manyin & Cooper 2009 Congressional Research Service, 2009, CAN THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA SING WITHOUT KORUS? THE ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC EFFECTS OF THE KORUS FTA, [Mark; William], p. http://www.keia.org/Publications/JointAcademicStudies/2009/Cooper.pdf

On the economic front, a delay or rejection of the KORUS FTA could have wider implications for U.S. trade policy, which is now in a period of reevaluation. In addition to the KORUS FTA, U.S. FTAs with Colombia and Panama are not likely to receive consideration before the

conclusion of the 110th Congress, leaving it to a new Congress and administration to decide their fates. The Doha Development Agenda round in the WTO is for all

intents and purposes on life support, if not already dead, raising questions in the minds of U.S. policymakers and other experts regarding the future role of the WTO and multilateral negotiations in shaping the international trading framework. KORUS FTA will likely play a role in the reevaluation of trade policy. For better or worse, its rejection or indefinite delay might call into question the viability of FTAs as a serious U.S. tool to strengthen economic ties with major trading partners. The KORUS FTA is the first FTA that the United States has entered into with a major trading

partner since the conclusion of NAFTA. Some might argue that if, for example, the United States cannot accept an FTA with South Korea, how could it hope to achieve an FTA with Japan or the EU, two trading partners with which the United States has even more complex

trade issues, to say nothing of the broader Free Trade Agreement of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) that the Bush administration has proposed. Similarly, the fate of the KORUS FTA could have an impact on U.S. efforts to institutionalize its economic presence in East Asia. The United States

has been using FTAs to try to accomplish this since the initiative with the 21-member Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum has stalled, if not

collapsed. The FTAs are also in response to proposals among East Asian countries to form an East Asian Free Trade Area consisting of the 10

members of ASEAN, Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand but excluding the United States. In addition to the KORUS FTA, the United States has an FTA with Singapore. It has been negotiating with Malaysia and Thailand, but these negotiations have been slow or dormant. In September 2008, the United States announced it would launch negotiations to join the Trans-Pacifi c Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (also called the P-4 agreement), a trade

liberalization arrangement among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. Failure of the KORUS FTA could be viewed as a serious blow to this “competitive liberalization” strategy. With FTAs throughout East Asia proliferating, this would mean that over time the United States could be shut out of important regional economic groupings.

39

http://www.keia.org/Publications/JointAcademicStudies/2009/Cooper.pdf


SKFTA Turns Case – Heg emony

SKFTA is critical to US leadership and stopping balancing. Korea Times 2010[2/1/ -- " US Loses Clout on Korean Economy ", http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/02/123_60075.html]

But its influence in what is now Asia's fourth-largest economy has been diminishing rapidly over the last 10 years, with Korea expanding trade relations with China,

Russia and other emerging economies. Analysts here say that the U.S. could lose more of its economic clout in Korea if the administration of President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress continue to delay the ratification of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (FTA). They say the European Union and China, which compete with the U.S. for global hegemony, will establish closer economic ties with Korea if the U.S. heads toward protectionism and places greater priority on domestic populism than trade. According to the Korea Customs Services (KCS) Monday, Korea's trade dependence on the U.S. stood at 9.7 percent in 2009, down from 24.4 percent in 1991. Korea shipped about 10.36 percent of its total outbound shipments to the world's largest economy, down from 25.8 percent over the same period, while taking 9 percent of its total imports from the U.S., down from 23.18 percent. On the other hand, Korea's trade dependence on China has increased at an explosive pace since the two countries began diplomatic relations in 1992. South Korea's exchange of agricultural and industrial goods with the world's fastest-growing economy reached 20.5 percent last year, up from 2.9 percent in 1991. Korea exported 23.9 percent of its outbound shipments to the neighboring country in 2009, up from 1.4 percent, with 16.8 percent of its imports coming from China, up from 4.2 percent. The U.S. has become less important to Korea

economically over the years, with the latter increasingly relying on China, the European Union and other economies for growth. "Korea is the sixth-largest trading partner of the U.S. and a key Asian economy strategically located in Northeast Asia. American policymakers and businesses should be alert over their diminishing economic influence over Korea," LG Economic Research Institute managing director Oh Moon-suk said. Oh said if the U.S. continues to remain reluctant to sign the free trade pact with Korea, the Asian nation will continue to move closer toward China and the European Union, adding the EU will likely sign a free trade accord with Korea before the U.S. does.

40


SKFTA Turns Case – Competitiveness

SKFTA solves Competitiveness and EconWSJ 2010(Guest Contributor http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/16/guest-contribution-5-reasons-america-needs-korea-free-trade-deal/?mod=WSJ_article_related)

4. America Must Compete for Trade Deals — or Fall Behind. America can get back in the game by implementing the Korea FTA. While we have been on the sidelines, competitors like China, the European Union, India and Japan have aggressively pursued new trade deals to win fairer treatment for their exports. Asia-Pacific countries have been particularly active, and are now considering or negotiating over 75 new trade deals. The EU-Korea FTA should take effect next year and would ultimately provide EU products with a price advantage in Korea averaging 9% over non-FTA products. America must secure similar benefits to assure that our companies can gain new business and keep current sales to Korea. For example, without an FTA, U.S. pork would be priced out of South Korea within a decade, and American pork producers would lose their sixth largest export market and sales of $215 million. 5. China is Not a Fan. The Korea FTA would solidify America’s strategic relationship with South Korea, a key ally. It would bolster stepped-up U.S. efforts to respond to an increasingly assertive China and a belligerent North Korea by building strong trade, diplomatic and security

relationships with South Korea and other Pacific allies. The Agreement would also help America compete and win in Korea’s $1.3 trillion

economy. In recent years, China has muscled aside the United States, and is Korea’s #1 supplier. The FTA’s advantages would help U.S. companies and workers win back business from China and others in this vital Asian market.

41

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/16/guest-contribution-5-reasons-america-needs-korea-free-trade-deal/?mod=WSJ_article_related


SKFTA Turns Case – Econ

SKFTA is a huge boost to the economy – double exports and jobs. EWIRE Informer 2011http://ewireinformer.com/president-obama-to-send-us-korea-trade-agreement-to-congress-341320.html

Bipartisanship is the current name of the game when it comes to the passage of a US trade agreement with Korea, called KORUS or the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. President Obama’s pledge to send this trade agreement to Congress early this year is both applauded and supported by congressional officials. It is

believed that this agreement will help to revitalize the US economy, create jobs and reassert America’s leadership within the global market. The agenda associated with KORUS will potentially double US exports within 5 years, subsequently saving approximately 340,000 US jobs and creating more than 70,000 new ones. This agreement will help American companies to sell their services and goods to Korea, the 12th largest world economy, by doing away with import taxes to Korea.

SKFTA is a new stimulus bill – critical to economic recovery. Bandow 2010[sr. fellow, CATO, (Bandow, Doug, "South Korea Free Trade agreement Key to Prosperiy and Security" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12488)

Washington should be expanding American investment and trade opportunities throughout East Asia. The starting point

should be ratifying the FTA with the Republic of Korea (ROK). South Korea possesses one of the world's largest economies — number 13 at last count — and is among the top dozen trading nations. Total bilateral trade between the U.S. and the ROK ran about $85 billion in 2008. The seventh largest

merchandise trading partner of the U.S., the ROK is a major importer of aircraft, cereals, chemicals, machinery, and plastics. Even a small expansion of U.S.-ROK trade would offer a significant benefit for America's economy. Despite its stunning economic success due in large part to exports, the South has never welcomed international competition. Korean business professor Moon Hwy-chang admits: "Korea has not been a very open economy." The

FTA helps change that. Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics reported: "The U.S.-Korea pact covers more trade than any other U.S. trade agreement except the North American Free Trade Agreement" and "opens up substantial new opportunities for bilateral trade and investment in goods and services." Roughly 95 percent of trade would become duty free within three years and most of the other tariffs would be lifted within a decade. The accord would provide particularly significant benefits for U.S. agriculture, financial services companies, and American firms seeking access to ROK government procurement.

42

http://ewireinformer.com/president-obama-to-send-us-korea-trade-agreement-to-congress-341320.html


SKFTA Turns Case – Innovation

SKFTA turns the competitiveness – trade more important to innovation because export markets are critical to business investment and knowledge cross-pollination. Colvin and Stubbs 2011Jake Colvin is the vice president for the National Foreign Trade Council. John Stubbs is the executive director of the Global Innovation Forum. The Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/139659-a-policy-wish-list-from-americas-innovation-leaders

Innovators identified a series of problems that uniquely affect small businesses. Smaller companies and entrepreneurs continue to face a real credit

crunch that began with the global financial crisis. Even successful companies are finding it difficult to access sufficient capital to grow their businesses, which is limiting overall economic growth. Smaller businesses also find it more difficult to access global markets,

overcome barriers to entry into new countries, and address counterfeiting and piracy abroad. Many companies, big and small, worry about the ability of U.S. companies and workers to compete globally on an uneven playing field. Foreign governments continue to take aim at American jobs through a range of protectionist practices that block American sales to their markets, such as non-transparent standards, price controls, censorship of American content and massive subsidies for local firms. How

Washington Can Encourage U.S. Innovation Happily, these are all issues that can be addressed through smart public policy. Based on the feedback from our conference, Congress should focus on five critical areas to create an enabling environment for America’s innovative businesses and workers in the

global marketplace: 1. Create a more open, rules-based, competitive trading environment through the conclusion and passage of new and innovative trade agreements. These binding commitments with our trading partners create win-win opportunities for economic

growth and development of new innovations to address common global challenges. The pending U.S. trade agreements with Korea, Panama and

Colombia would be excellent places to start. 2. Ensure that value is being delivered back home for U.S. innovation. In particular, lack of protection in foreign markets for U.S. innovation chills investment, reduces opportunities for transnational technology and knowledge collaboration and removes opportunities for exports of American products and services.

43

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/139659-a-policy-wish-list-from-americas-innovation-leaders


SKFTA Turns Case – Warming

SKFTA key to clean energy deployment to stop warmingKim 2010[policy analyst, heritage foundation, ("Time to Build a Clean Energy Future through the KORUS FTA" http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Time-to-Build-a-Clean-Energy-Future-through-the-KORUS-FTA)

The pending Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, known as the KORUS FTA, is a ready-made vehicle for pioneering a clean energy future and ensuring greater prosperity in the two nations. If President Obama is genuinely serious about clean energy and successfully expanding markets for American entrepreneurs, he should submit the KORUS FTA for congressional ratification without further delay, according to the November 2010 timetable he indicated during the recent G-20 summit in Toronto. Freer Trade Is Key to Clean Energy and Protecting the Environment When a country lowers its barriers to trade, it opens its economy to competitive opportunities for greater efficiency and dynamic economic growth. Competition spurs the movement of labor and capital from industries that cannot compete to those that can, enabling a nation to both produce more efficiently and attract new investment. The need to adhere to such a strategy is

no less important today than in previous eras. Free trade expands the base for vibrant innovation and growth. In countries around the world,

trade has been shown to be one of the greatest drivers of technological change. Clean energy technology is no exception. Indeed, the most practical improvements in clean energy technology efficiency and environmental protection over the past decades have not

stemmed from government mandates, but by freer trade and economic freedom. The KORUS FTA: Compelling Case for Advancing Green Growth In 2007, the U.S. and South Korea concluded a free trade pact that in part reflects and in part encourages a virtuous economic relationship between the two nations. The agreement has been characterized as “strong and balanced” and as “an agreement for the 21st century.” Key features of the agreed trade deal include reducing tariff rates on 95 percent of all consumer and industrial products, improving transparency and intellectual property rights protection, and addressing standards and regulations. Indeed, if timely ratified, America firmly stands to gain from the KORUS FTA, particularly given its competitive edge in innovation, commercialization, and

deployment of advanced technologies. South Korea has been heralded as a leader in crafting green growth strategies in recent years. Since 2008, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s long-term vision of “Low Carbon, Green Growth” has driven policy to dramatically expand clean energy

usage. Significant components of the plan aim to attract international partners and foreign technologies. This presents a

tremendous market opportunity for American entrepreneurs. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, most if not all of the targeted economic sectors under the “green growth vision” are in sectors of U.S. competitive strength. Key U.S. exports to those sectors include industrial electronic machinery, auto parts, power generation equipment, and scientific equipment. These exports are all directly or indirectly

related to clean energy technology. Time for Action As America has a comparative advantage over South Korea in commercializing and deploying clean energy technology such as solar, wind, nuclear, and smart grids, the trade pact would capitalize on an existing strength. The U.S. need not fear clean energy competition from South Korea. Business and workers in both countries would benefit.

44

***AFF Answers

http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Time-to-Build-a-Clean-Energy-Future-through-the-KORUS-FTA

http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Time-to-Build-a-Clean-Energy-Future-through-the-KORUS-FTA


SKFTA - No

SKFTA fails-South Korea faces issues with SKFTA People’s Daily Online, June 27, 2011 (“S Korea's Lee, opposition leader fail to close gap over U.S. FTA,” http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7421835.html)

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and the opposition leader failed to settle their differences Monday over a free trade agreement with the United States and other pending issues. Lee held the meeting, the first of its kind in nearly three years, with Sohn Hak-kyu, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, an apparent shot at bridging the yawning gap between the government and the opposition camp on six pressing national issues. The presidential office Choeng Wa Dae said Lee called for "active support" of the opposition for ratifying the two-way free trade pact with Washington, while Sohn, considered the strongest opposition presidential aspirant, insisted on renegotiation of what he sees as a lopsided deal favoring Washington. The trade accord, originally signed in 2007, has been awaiting legislative approval both in Seoul and Washington due to differences over auto trade imbalances and U.S. beef imports. The two countries reached supplementary agreements last December, but opposition lawmakers here believe Seoul made too much concession in negotiations. Lee and Sohn also discussed lowering college tuition fees amid ongoing student protests, but they only agreed in principle that tuition should be cut and colleges need reforms, according to Cheong Wa Dae. Also on the table were household debts, job creation, a scandal involving local savings bank and a supplementary budget. Lee refused to draw up an extra budget the opposition demands.

SKFTA will not passFelicia Sonmez, June 30, 2011. (Felicia Sonmez is a congressional reporter for the Washington Post, The Washington Post Company, “Hatch: Congress may not pass trade deals,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/hatch-congress-may-not-pass-trade-deals/2011/06/30/AGf0AFsH_blog.html)

Ahead of the Senate Finance Committee’s first hearing on three pending trade deals, all 11 Republicans on the panel issued a letter to President Obama Thursday outlining their opposition to the administration’s inclusion of a program aimed at aiding workers who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing. “We are concerned about last minute attempts to include provisions expanding Trade Adjustment Assistance in the South Korea FTA implementing bill,” the 11 Republicans wrote in the letter. “We believe such actions are beyond the scope of TPA authority and unduly infringe on the rights of Members of the Senate to carefully weigh and debate the merits of TAA.” The letter follows a warning Thursday morning from the panel’s leading Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), that the inclusion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in the South Korea deal could imperil passage of the trade pacts. “This action abuses long-standing rules, procedures and precedents governing the delegation of trade negotiating authority from the Congress to the President and puts a successful vote on the South Korean FTA — the largest trade pact negotiated in more than a decade — at risk,” Hatch’s office said in the memo. The statements are the strongest warning to date that the deal announced Tuesday by the White House and congressional negotiators on the Colombia, Panama and South Korea trade deals may face a bumpy road to congressional approval. The Senate Finance Committee is slated to meet at 3 p.m. Thursday to begin working its way through the dozens of amendments to the deals submitted my members of both parties. The House Ways and Means Committee will likely hold a meeting on the trade pacts next week at the earliest, after the House returns from recess. Republicans in both chambers had been urging Obama to submit the deals to Congress, but after Tuesday’s announcement, GOP leaders charged that the attachment of a three-year renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to the South Korea deal was a “highly partisan” move. “Including unrelated and highly controversial provisions, like the TAA spending program, into the Korean trade agreement violates the letter and spirit of this law,” Hatch’s office said Thursday. The White House and Democrats have defended the deals. “The addition of Trade Adjustment Assistance to the Korea Free Trade Agreement is entirely consistent with precedent,” a Senate Finance Committee Democratic aide said Thursday. “As you may recall, Trade Adjustment Assistance was added to the implementing language of the NAFTA agreement — a trade agreement many of the current members of the Senate supported in the past.” Meanwhile, some Democrats are also expressing opposition to the deals. House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (Conn.) on Thursday announced that he would not back the Colombia deal over concerns on labor rights.

45

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/hatch-congress-may-not-pass-trade-deals/2011/06/30/AGf0AFsH_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/hatch-congress-may-not-pass-trade-deals/2011/06/30/AGf0AFsH_blog.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7421835.html

http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=3a2e56a0-7a3d-4242-984e-8f05e1b51764

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/report-congressional-negotiators-strike-deal-on-trade-pacts/2011/06/28/AGk2EHpH_blog.html


SKFTA - No

Boycott delays SKFTA passageNew York Times, June 30, 2011. (“Republicans Boycott a Hearing on Trade,” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/business/01trade.html?_r=1 )

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans boycotted a preliminary hearing Thursday on free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, instead staging a simultaneous press conference and bringing the stop-and-go process to yet another halt. In an upside-down pair of performances, Democratic senators filled half a hearing room to declare their support for trade deals opposed by much of their party’s political base, while Republican senators stood before television cameras to declare that they would not allow a hearing on legislation that much of their own base strongly supports. Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said Republicans were responding to a decision by the White House to include in the free trade legislation the expansion of a benefits program for workers who lose jobs to foreign competition. “We made it clear time and time and time again that we would not stomach attaching a big government spending program onto these agreements,” Mr. Hatch said. “The president knew where we stood, and he decided to ignore those who don’t agree with him.” Democrats, in turn, said Republicans were blocking legislation that would help the economy. “They want the country to be in as bad shape as possible because that might help them electorally,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. The breakdown came less than 48 hours after the Obama administration announced a deal with House Republicans and Senate Democrats over the terms of the benefits program. An expansion passed by Democrats in 2009 lapsed at the beginning of this year. The agreement would reinstate about 60 percent of the lapsed financing for an additional two years. Democrats had demanded the deal as a condition of their support for the trade agreements. House Republicans agreed reluctantly, after several weeks of negotiations. The agreement, however, did not include Senate Republicans. Mere minutes before the Senate Finance Committee convened Thursday afternoon to consider the legislative package, the Republican members invoked Senate rules to prevent the meeting. “That’s it,” said a frustrated Senator Max Baucus, the committee’s chairman. “We’re waiting.” Then, after all the Democrats spoke, they got up and left. The three free trade agreements, which would eliminate tariffs on cross-border transactions, would expand annual exports of American goods by about $12 billion, according to estimates by the United States International Trade Commission. It would also create new opportunities for American service providers to compete in the three countries. The pacts were negotiated by the Bush administration and are strongly backed by the United States Chamber of Commerce and other business trade groups. For most of the intervening years, Republicans pressed for a vote on the pacts while Democrats resisted. The Obama administration, which is focused on expanding trade to invigorate growth, changed that dynamic. It has sought to win Democratic support for the deals through measures to protect American workers from negative consequences. The compromise reached this week would provide $964 million in additional financing for the benefits program, almost all of which would be spent by 2013. The Obama administration plans to submit that deal as part of the pact with South Korea, to give Democrats the assurance that it will rise or fall with the pacts. House Republicans say they will hold separate votes on the trade pact and the benefits program. Senate Republicans, many of whom oppose any additional financing for the benefits program, and who lack the power to set the terms of debate, said that their actions Thursday were an assertion of the rights of the minority party to be heard and respected. “We tried everything in our power to work with the majority to find a resolution,” Mr. Hatch said. Republicans cannot prevent the legislation from leaving the committee, but they can delay it. Democrats said that continuing to do so would hurt the economy. “This boycott means the opportunity to pass important job-creation legislation is now delayed,” Mr. Baucus said. “American workers — and our economy — simply can’t afford to wait any longer.”

SKFTA won’t pass – TAA battles, partisanship, and 2012 electionsWall Street Journal 5/28 (Elizabeth Williamson is a staff writer for WSJ, 5/28/11, “Dispute Threatens Key Deals on Trade” accessed 6/10/11 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576349832361669832.html)

The centerpiece of the American trade agenda—a trio of international trade pacts worth $13 billion in new U.S. exports—is in peril as Democrats and Republicans battle over a program that provides aid to U.S. workers. The dispute over the future of the 50-year-old Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides benefits to American workers displaced by foreign competition, is putting pending free-trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in jeopardy by pulling them into the contentious debate over federal spending. The Obama administration and

Democrats in Congress want the TAA program renewed. Some Republicans question its value and say it should be scaled back to

narrow the deficit. The delay caused by the congressional sparring means it is now virtually impossible to pass the South Korea agreement before a trade pact between Korea and the European Union takes effect July 1. That will put a wide range of U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage. Just a few weeks ago, the administration saw the TAA battle as surmountable. Now, unless lawmakers reach consensus soon, the trade pacts won't pass before the August recess, congressional aides say. After that, chances of passage grow slimmer as the 2012 election nears and lawmakers avoid controversial votes. "We're fighting like hell because if the vote doesn't happen by the recess, we risk it not happening in the fall," said Christopher Wenk, senior director for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On Thursday, scores of business leaders visited all 100 senators to lobby for the agreements, and they plan to call on each House member in coming days.

46

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/business/01trade.html?_r=1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576349832361669832.html


SKFTA – No

SKFTA won’t pass – procedure and TAA debateBelgum 6/23[Deborah Belgum Senior Editor, June 23, 2011 http://www.apparelnews.net/news/international/062411-South-Korea-Colombia-Panama-Free-Trade-Agreements-in-Doubt/page3]

Passage of free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama had been expected to be approved by Congress before recessing for

summer vacation Aug. 8. But now that is in doubt. Several factors are clouding quick passage of the three free-trade pacts, which have been

languishing for several years over cantankerous issues that range from beef and auto imports to labor concerns. Even though most of these

concerns have been resolved, one major hurdle is passage of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, a $1 billion retraining program

for U.S. workers who may lose their jobs because of these new free-trade agreements. The Obama administration is pushing hard to reinstate this retraining program, which expired in February, before the free-trade agreements move forward. But Republicans have shied away from the retraining program’s expensive price tag, especially during a time of pinched budgets and debate over the nation’s debt ceiling. “The only thing that is hanging them up [from] moving everything forward is the TAA [Trade Adjustment Assistance],” said Cass Johnson, president of the National Council of Textile Organizations, a trade group in Washington, D.C. “But reports have been positive in the last week that it is close to being resolved.” Once a retraining program is back on firm ground, the free-trade pacts will be sent to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, where final adjustments are to be made in a process called mock markups. These are committee debates, usually taking one week, on any changes that need to be made to the agreements. “If any member of Congress has an idea about what should be tweaked, this is their chance to do it,” said Brenda Jacobs, a trade-law and

policy expert at law firm Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. The free-trade agreements would then be sent to the White House, which would probably introduce them as a package to the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote, meaning there would be no further debate on them. At the earliest, introduction could be made sometime in early July, but the Senate is on break July 4–10, and the House is in recess July 18–24. Still, some are optimistic that something can be done by the end of July. “I think there is enough time to get them passed by the August recess,” noted Nicole Bivens Collinson, president of trade and legislative affairs at the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg. “I may be a lone ranger, but I believe it is still possible.”

SKFTA wont Pass – Obama won’t budge on TAA and he need Republican supportJoonAng Daily 6/20[Jun 20 2011, “[Viewpoint] Is KORUS FTA in Trouble in DC”(http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937745)TT

TAA, which was introduced in legislation in 1974, essentially amounts to a bribe to labor unions unhappy with free trade deals. It provides workers the opportunity to apply for 156 weeks of financial aid if they can demonstrate that they lost their jobs or some income because of foreign competition. Union workers have always been best organized and instructed on how to collect TAA and the Democratic-controlled Congress put a generous amount of TAA funding in the

stimulus package at the request of the union bosses in 2009. That funding runs out in February 2011 and the unions are demanding that more TAA funding be approved before the administration submits the Korus and the other free trade agreements for ratification. Republicans are adamantly opposed to this TAA condition and have now upped the ante by threatening to hold off confirmation hearings for Commerce Secretary-nominee John Bryson until the administration submits Korus and the other two trade pacts without any strings attached. Republicans oppose TAA because they do not believe the government owes extended compensation because of competition in the market place, particularly since the determination of damages is so imprecise and exploitable by the 6.9 percent of private sector workers in unions. More important still is the huge battle between the Republican House

and the White House over legislation needed to raise the debt ceiling so that the Treasury Department can borrow more money to keep the government running. Republicans are insisting that there be substantive budget cuts as a condition for approving an increase in the debt ceiling, and an increase in TAA funding runs completely counter to that demand. At the end of the day, as important as Korus is politically in Washington, it pales in comparison with the show-down over the national debt, which will be one of the central issues of the 2012 presidential campaign. The U.S. business community is probably more amenable to accepting TAA as a

condition for passing Korus and may prevail on the Republican Congress to accept a token increase. On the other hand, if Obama stands firm on the demand for TAA, he may win the battle of convincing unions to organize for him in the 2012 election, but he will risk losing the larger war with Republicans over who is better able to create new economic growth and jobs. He will also put at risk the White House claim that the United States is “back in Asia” - not to mention the ability of the United States to negotiate future trade agreements. In terms of political, strategic and economic interests, therefore, the burden is on the administration to find a way forward on the Korus FTA

SKFTA won’t pass- Republican opposition Tapper 6/7[Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, 6/07/2011, GOP Calls Obama’s Trade Policy "Schizophrenic", http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/gop-calls-obamas-trade-policy-schizophrenic-.html, 6/25/11 JB]

Senate Republicans continued to press the White House today to send to Congress the trade deals for South Korea, Columbia and Panama, criticizing President Obama’s trade policy as “schizophrenic.” “This schizophrenic trade policy is doing nothing but hurting American workers and undermining our recovery,” U.S. Senator

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said on the Senate floor today. “Under no circumstance should these trade agreements be held up.” The Obama administration has indicated that they will not submit legislation on these trade agreements until a deal is reached on the TAA – the Trade Adjustment Assistance, a now-retired jobs program for laid-off workers. “At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, they actually want to hold off on these known job-creating agreements in exchange for a green light to spend more money," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, “It's

astonishing.” Republicans are calling for these two issues –the trade deals and the TAA -- to be dealt with “separately and independently,” in order to move ahead with the long-stalled trade deals. Republicans warned that the time is of the essence, suggesting that as the 2012 campaign season picks up the desire and ability to tackle these trade agreements will decrease even more. "I'm

convinced that the window for the administration to submit these agreements will soon pass," Hatch said, "Given the upcoming election season, I'm afraid that if these agreements aren't submitted this summer, they never will be."

47

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937745)TT

http://www.apparelnews.net/news/international/062411-South-Korea-Colombia-Panama-Free-Trade-Agreements-in-Doubt/page3

http://www.apparelnews.net/news/international/062411-South-Korea-Colombia-Panama-Free-Trade-Agreements-in-Doubt/page3


SKFTA – No: Public Opposition

Won’t pass – public oppositionBybee 6/3[Roger Bybee, 6/3/2011, freelance writer and progressive publicity consultant, South Korea ‘Free Trade’ Deal: Another Funnel for Exploitation, http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7377/south_korea_free_trade_deal_opens_wide_funnel_for_more_exploitation/, 6/24/11 JB

KORUS is based on the NAFTA model, the outstanding achievement of which was managing to lower living conditions for the majority of citizens in three nations (United States, Mexico, and Canada) simultaneiously. KORUS has the enthusiastic support of President Barack Obama despite the fact his winning presidential campaign heavily depended on stirring up anti-NAFTA and anti-"offshoring" sentiment in Midwestern industrial states. Along with South Korea, Obama is also seeking to consummate “free trade” deals with Panama, distinguished by its role as a tax-avoidance haven and money-laundering center, and Colombia, whose

elite has presided (see here andhere) over the killings of some 2,100 trade unionists in the past two decades. These trade deals are unlikely to be greeted with enhtusiam by the American public, 44% of whom believe that economic conditions are growing worse, according to an April poll. Continuing job losses to offshore subsidiaries of U.S. firms—the Wall St. Journal reporting that U.S. firms created 2.4 million jobs outside the

United States while eliminating 2.9 million American jobs since 2000—have discredited "free trade" with nearly nine out of 10 Americans. 86 percent of Americans are convinced that the offshoring of jobs is a significant factor undermining America’s economic situation.

48


SKFTA – No: Vote Count

Won’t pass – vote countDrajem 5/26[MARK DRAJEM, 5/26/11, is a reporter for Bloomberg News, Trade Votes Needed in U.S. Congress by August, Hatch Says, http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/trade-votes-needed-in-u-s-congress-by-august-hatch-says/]

Pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea must be voted on in Congress quickly, or risk never being approved, said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican. “If we do not have an opportunity to vote on these agreements this summer, I am afraid we never will,” Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said today at a hearing on the Korean deal. Hatch and Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, are split on the issue now delaying these pacts: renewing trade adjustment assistance for workers who lose their jobs because of overseas competition. Baucus said aid for service workers, which was put in place in 2009 and expired in February, must be extended as part of a package of measures to approve the trade pacts. “Either they all pass, or none of them pass,” Baucus, the panel’s chairman, said today. SenatorRon Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said he wants the worker aid approved by Congress and signed into law before any votes on the free-trade pacts. Hatch questioned the worker aid, adding that the merits aside, “we don’t have the votes to do this.” “One of the reasons I don’t think this will pass, is they want $7.2 billion at a time when this country is basically broke,” Hatch said. “Why hold up three agreements that are beneficial to the American worker?” Meanwhile, senators such as Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry said that delaying approval of the South Korean accord may give competitors on Europe a leg up on U.S. exporters. “The longer we delay the harder it is to retain our competitive advantage,” Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis said.

49

http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/trade-votes-needed-in-u-s-congress-by-august-hatch-says/

http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/trade-votes-needed-in-u-s-congress-by-august-hatch-says/


SKFTA – No: TAA

SKFTA won’t pass— TAA debate fractures GOP supportGreen 6/25(Michael Green, senior advisor and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., 6/20/11, “Is Korus FTA in trouble in D.C.?,” 6/25/11, http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2937745, MLK)

The Republicans easily have the votes to pass the Korus FTA even if the White House cannot muster a majority of Democrats in the House. That is essentially how Bill Clinton passed Nafta in 1993 - with Republican help. But now the White House is balking at submitting Korus for ratification. Why? Because its Democratic allies in Congress are insisting that the Republicans also agree to Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as a condition for moving forward with KORUS.

TAA fight kills the agreementSoutherton May 28, 2011[Don Southerton,CEO Bridging Culture Worldwide Korea coach at Hyundai MOBIS Korea coach at Kia Motors America CEO at Bridging Culture Worldwide, May 28, 2011, June 24, 2011,AR.]

The dispute over the future of the 50-year-old Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides benefits to American workers

displaced by foreign competition, is putting pending free-trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in jeopardy by pulling them into the contentious debate over federal spending. The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress want the TAA program renewed. Some Republicans question its value and say it should be scaled back to narrow the deficit. The delay caused by the congressional sparring means it is now virtually impossible to pass the South Korea agreement before a trade pact between Korea and the European Union takes effect July 1. That will put a wide range

of U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage. Just a few weeks ago, the administration saw the TAA battle as surmountable. Now, unless lawmakers reach consensus soon, the trade pacts won’t pass before the August recess, congressional aides say. After that, chances of passage grow slimmer as the 2012 election nears and lawmakers avoid controversial votes.

50


SKFTA – No: Korea

Wont Pass In Korea – DNP opposesJoonAng Daily 6/23 [“Guess who didn’t come to lunch with Lee Democratic Party lawmakers boycott event meant to promote FTA with U.S.”(http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/print.asp)TT

After signing the FTA in 2007, Seoul and Washington concluded additional negotiations in December to meet U.S. concerns over auto trade, the biggest hurdle to approval. Calling the pact the United States’ most commercially significant trade agreement in more than 16 years, the Obama administration has stepped up its pressure on Congress to ratify the deal. The political timetable of the two countries’ legislatures indicates that passage in August is crucial. The September session of

the National Assembly will be devoted to budget reviews, and lawmakers are unlikely to make an attempt to ratify the agreement during that sensitive session. The opposition Democratic Party has complained that the revised FTA is unfavorable to Korean businesses and have demanded another round of negotiation. U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk reiterated earlier this week the Obama administration’s commitment to send

the agreement to Congress “fairly soon,” but the White House said it requires time to resolve one last step before sending the FTA to Congress. The U.S. still needs to secure the legislature’s support of trade adjustment assistance intended to provide assistance to workers who have lost jobs as a result of increased imports or shifts in production outside the U.S. the White House said Monday.

Won’t Pass In Korea – DNP Boycotted Meeting for RatificationJoonAng Daily 6/23 [“Guess who didn’t come to lunch with Lee Democratic Party lawmakers boycott event meant to promote FTA with U.S.”(http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/print.asp)TT

Opposition lawmakers yesterday boycotted a Blue House luncheon designed to urge the legislature’s approval of the Korea-U.S. FTA, while President Lee Myung-bak dined with the ruling party lawmakers and his aides and discussed the issue. Lee invited lawmakers on the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee and senior government officials, but representatives of the Democratic Party and

Liberty Forward Party were a no-show. The committee has 28 members and 18 of them, including its head, Nam Kyung-pil, are Grand Nationals. Sixteen GNP lawmakers attended the luncheon. Trade Minister Kim Jong-hoon, Blue House chief of staff Yim Tae-hee and Lee’s political, foreign, economic and public affairs senior secretaries accompanied the president at the luncheon. According to DP spokesman Lee Yong-sup, DP lawmakers decided to turn down Lee’s invitation because they thought the meeting was unnecessary since

the president will meet with their leader, Sohn Hak-kyu, on Monday. The passage of the Korea-U.S. FTA was one of the main agendas to be discussed at the summit. The DP said its lawmakers will also turn down Lee’s other invitation for a luncheon with members of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee, scheduled for today. The meeting is intended to push defense reform measures.

SKFTA won’t pass in korea – the DP will demand renegotiation.Bernama.com 6-13[Ruling Party To Introduce South Korea-US Free, Trade Agreement Before Parliament In June http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=593602]

The ruling Grand National Party (GNP) will try to introduce the long-pending free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States to the National Assembly this month to seek parliamentary approval of the deal, a lawmaker said Monday. The move will set in motion what is expected to be a contentious process to ratify the trade pact that was signed in 2007 and supplemented last December. Opposition parties are against endorsing the accord, claiming it favours the US, Yonhap News Agency reported. The US Congress has not yet ratified the pact either. "There are many opinions that an FTA ratification bill should be introduced during this extraordinary session," Rep Yoo Ki-june, a GNP leader on the parliamentary foreign affairs and trade committee, told Yonhap. "We will push actively to bring up the bill in this extraordinary session," he said. The parliamentary committee plans to hold a public hearing session on Thursday to discuss safeguard measures for local industries before approving the pact, Yoo said. The GNP will also form a consultation body composed of ruling and opposition party legislators as well as government officials, including ministers of foreign affairs, trade and finance, to discuss further measures,

party officials said. The planned bill is expected to encounter tough resistance, as the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) and other opposition groups claim that the pact is unbalanced in favor of the U.S. The DP has been calling for a renegotiation of the agreement. "There should first be a renegotiation" before bringing the pact before parliament, said Rep Kim Dong-chul, who is the DP's leader on the parliamentary committee.

51

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=593602

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/print.asp)TT

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/print.asp)TT


SKFTA – No: Korea

Won’t pass in South Korea- the Democratic Party will block unless there are renegotiationsKorea Times 6/27 [“Crippled KORUS FTA” 6/27/2011; http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/06/137_89716.html]

The ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) at the National Assembly has found itself in uncharted waters as the leader of the opposition demanded its renegotiation. In a rare meeting Monday with President Lee Myung-bak, Sohn Hak-kyu, chairman of the largest opposition Democratic Party, made it clear that his party would boycott the ratification. He said the ratification will be possible only when the deal becomes at least equitable to Seoul and Washington and not disadvantageous to Korea through a renegotiation. He was apparently referring to a revision of the original contract, allowing more favorable access of American cars to Korea. He rebuffed President Lee’s bipartisan support for the ratification.

Won’t pass on either side- its hasn’t even been introduced in South Korea and Job Training blocks it in the US Arirang 6/23 [“Ratification Process of KORUS FTA May Take Longer in Seoul” JUN 23, 2011; Arirang News; http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=117376&code=Ne2&category=2 ]

Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan has admitted that it may take Seoul longer than Washington to ratify the Korea-US free trade agreement.The minister, who is currently in New York, told reporters on Wednesday local time, that the FTA has made no progress as it has not even been introduced to the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Unification Committee at the National Assembly.Kim said that officials in Korea may be holding up the deal to approve it at the same time as Washington.However, not much headway has been made in Washington either, as the officials there are divided over the renewal of a job training program designed to help US workers.

It won’t get ratified in KoreaKorea Times 6/29/11 (“EU free trade pact sparks debate on KORUS FTA”, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/06/116_89863.html)

“To be honest, the problems both in the National Assembly here and the U.S. Congress are far more political than economic,” he noted. In Korea, the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) teamed up with three other minor parties to stop the ratification of the KORUS FTA which is pending at the National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee. These opposition parties demanded that negotiators of the two countries need to sit down again to fix what they called

“hazardous clauses” that will negatively affect the job security of farmers and service sector workers. This week, President Lee Myung-bak had a two-hour meeting with DP leader Sohn Hak-kyu, which highlighted the deep divide between the two sides.

52

http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=117376&code=Ne2&category=2


SKFTA – No: Obama Not Pushing

Obama is not pushing SKFTA to appease big labor.Manning 6/8[Rick Manning 6-8-11 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/165329-is-obama-sacrificing-us-workers-on-big-labors-altar]

On Dec. 5, 2010, USA Today quoted President Obama as urging congressional approval of the trade deal with South Korea by saying, "We have to do more to

accelerate the economic recovery and create jobs for the millions of Americans who are still looking for work." One problem: It is now June 8, 2011, and the South Korea trade deal has not even been submitted by President Obama to Congress. That’s December, January, February, March, April, May and now June — six full months — half a year — since Obama made his bold statement. For some reason, the president has not gotten around to sending the agreement to the U.S. Senate for approval. Is it because the employment situation has improved so dramatically in the U.S. that we don’t need the new jobs that the president claims will be created? Is it because our economic recovery is so astoundingly out of control that the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to cool it off? No? The only reason that the president is not submitting HIS free trade agreement with South Korea is because his labor union allies are demanding the expansion of a government program to provide billions of

dollars to their members for retraining. Either the agreement that Obama negotiated and signed is good for the economy or it isn’t. His failure to submit the South Korea Free Trade Agreement to the U.S. Senate for ratification is either an indication that he was not telling the truth when he boldly proclaimed that the trade pact was good for American jobs, or we have to conclude that he cares more about his labor union campaign funders than the American worker.

Obama Isn’t Pushing – Afraid to spend Political CapitalTrust About Trade Tech. 3/23[“Will or won’t the administration lead on trade”(http://www.truthabouttrade.org/blog/22-blog/17586-will-or-wont-the-administration-lead-on-trade) TT]

When referring to the pending free trade deals, the administration deftly keeps using language to make is sound like the deals are or haven’t been finished, need more time, and perhaps aren’t ready. Aside from some items the current administration says they wanted renegotiated, the deals were completed years ago and have simply been aging in the bureaucratic world of DC. That’s what so many have found frustrating - the political stall tactics, which is due in great part to labor unions dislike of trade agreements and the “e-word”...elections. As Oppenheimer said, until

Obama is ready to spend political capital the deals will remain in political purgatory.

53

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/165329-is-obama-sacrificing-us-workers-on-big-labors-altar


Aff – SPS – Plan Popular

Plan has strong congressional and interest group supportNSSO 2007 [National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf]

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP is an idea that appears to generate significant interest and support across a broad variety of sectors. Compared to other ideas either for space exploration or alternative energy, Space-Based Solar Power is presently not a publicly well-known idea, in part because it has no organizational advocate within government, and has not received any substantial funding or public attention for a significant period of time. Nevertheless, DoD review team leaders were virtually overwhelmed by the interest in Space-Based Solar Power that they discovered. What began as a small e-mail group became unmanageable as the social network & map-of-expertise expanded and word spread. To cope, study leaders were forced to move to an on-line collaborative group with nearly daily requests for new account access, ultimately growing to over 170 aerospace and policy experts all contributing pro-bono. This group became so large, and the need to more closely examine certain questions so acute, that the group had to be split into four additional groups. As word spread and enthusiasm grew in the space advocacy community, study leaders were invited to further expand to an open web log in

collaboration with the Space Frontier Foundation. The amount of media interest was substantial. Activity was so intense that total e-mail traffic for the study

leads could be as high as 200 SBSP-related e-mails a day, and the sources of interest were very diverse. There was clear interest from potential military ground customers—the Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental-impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional “big aerospace,” and the entrepreneurial space community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and contributed. The subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry group. Study leaders were made aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace companies and several major energy and construction companies both in and outside of United States. As the study progressed the study team was invited to brief in various policy circles and think tanks, including the Marshall Institute, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Energy Consensus Group, the National Defense Industry Association, the Defense Science Board, the Department of

Commerce’s Office of Commercial Space, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. There is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current

space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%). How does one account for such significant interest? Perhaps it is because SBSP lies “at the intersection of missionary and mercenary”—appealing both to man’s idealism and pragmatism, the United States’ special mission in the world and her citizens’ faith in business and technology. As an ambitious and optimistic project, it excites the imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting America’s previous projects, and opening new frontiers. Such interest goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, “The aerospace industry has always been a reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a sector of pioneers drawn to the challenge of new frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering. For this nation to maintain its present proud heritage and leadership in the global arena, we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry. A healthy and vigorous aerospace industry also holds a promise for the future, by kindling a passion within our youth that beckons them to reach for the stars and thereby assure our nation’s destiny.”

Military Lobbies Love The PlanCho 2007 [Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From Space,” October 11, 2007]

Washington, DC A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology . Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then

beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions."We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul

54


Aff – SPS – Plan Popular

Space Lobbies Love The Plan Because It Coordinates Our Efforts In SpaceBoyle, 2007 [Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, “Power From Space?,” October 12, 2007]

"I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air Force Col . Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on

Thursday. Space advocacy groups immediately seized on the idea and formed a new alliance to push the plan.

Plan Popular & could be done by 2012 – Pentagon MSNBC '07 (MSNBC, Oct. 12, 2007, Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/page/2/) Herm

A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth. The military itself could become the “anchor tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study

says. The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012.

55


AFF – Constellation – Link – Congress Supports

Funding Constellation has broad Congressional supportArmstrong 11 (Neil, First Man on the Moon and Former NASA Astronaut, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan, Former Apollo Mission Commanders, “Is Obama Grounding JFK’s Space Legacy?”, USA Today, 5-24, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-24-Obama-grounding-JFK-space-legacy_n.htm)

By 2005, in keeping with President Kennedy's intent and America's resolve, NASA was developing the Constellation program , focusing on a return to the moon while simultaneously developing the plans and techniques to venture beyond, and eventually to Mars. The program enjoyed near-unanimous support , being approved and endorsed by the Bush administration and by both Democratic and Republican Congresses . However, due to its congressionally authorized funding falling victim to Office of Management and Budget cuts, earmarks and other unexpected financial diversions, Constellation fell behind schedule. An administration-appointed review committee concluded the Constellation program was "not viable" due to inadequate funding.

Plan’s massively popular --- all of Congress supports itDinerman 10 (Taylor, Consultant – Department of Defense and Reporter – Space Review, “The Collapse of NASA?”, Hudson New York, 6-9, http://www.hudson-ny.org/1366/the-collapse-of-nasa)

The resistance to Obama's program on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is fierce . NASA Administrator Bolden has literally had to beg his own employees for support. Meanwhile, supporters and skeptics are at each others throats. The damage this is doing to personal and professional relationships inside the space industry is real and lasting. Ever since it was created by President Eisenhower in 1958, NASA has had a powerful grip on the American imagination. As Tom Wolfe put it: " The 'space race' became a fateful test and presage of the entire Cold War conflict between the 'superpowers' the Soviet Union and the United Startes. Surveys showed that people throughout the world looked upon the competition… as a preliminary contest proving final and irresistible power to destroy." After a rough start, the Apollo Moon landing in 1969 ended the first phase of the space race with a decisive American victory. The pictures of astronauts standing next to the flag became a permanent part of America's global image. So much so, in fact, that US enemies almost always subscribe to the belief that the Moon landings were faked. After Apollo, it became commonplace to say that NASA lost its way. On the contrary, the agency has, with remarkable tenacity, pursued an human space exploration agenda that has provided the framework for almost everything it does. First, they pursued a low-cost, safe,reliable Earth to Orbit transportation system, The Shuttle, which was supposed to provide; but due to cost-cutting by the Nixon administration and Congressional Democrats, led by Edward Kennedy and Walter Mondale in the early 1970s, it failed to live up to its potential. The agency also wanted a Space Station as a stepping stone to the Solar System. The existing International Space Station (ISS) may not be in the ideal orbit for interplanetary exploration, but it does exist and this alone is a tribute to NASA's powerful institutional will. A permanent base on the Moon, and eventually a manned landing on Mars, were the ultimate goals of the US space agency. President George W. Bush's Science Advisor, John Marbuger, explained what the end result would be during a speech in March 2006: "As I see it, questions about the the (NASA) Vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere or not." The proposal to replace the shuttle with a commercial taxi service has gotten a lot of attention. The concept is not new. During the Bush administration, NASA set up the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contracts, the of which were to provide cargo services to the Space Station. It was hoped that later ones would be able to carry astronauts. Sadly, the firms involved have found that they needed a lot more time and money than originally planned. Whether Bolden said it or not, there is a better than even chance that at some point they will need to be bailed out. At one time, the US-manned space program was something that the overwhelming majority of Americans could be proud of; with a few exceptions, it enjoyed strong bipartisan and popular support. It has so much visibility that many people believe it gets as much as 20 percent of the federal budget, instead of the the real number which is a little more than one-half of one percent. Now it is the object of a nasty political squabble -- mostly between the White House and Congress as a whole , rather than between Republicans and Democrats . While a few leaders in Washington are seeking a compromise, the fight over Constellation has been getting nasty. Senator Richard Shelby (R Al.), the most eager supporter of the Moon Mission, may attach an amendment forbidding NASA to cancel the Constellation to a "must pass" military appropriations bill. This would insure the programs survival at least until 2012.

56

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/NASA


AFF – Constellation – Link – Bipart Support

Broad, bipartisan support exists for funding ConstellationDinerman 10 (Taylor, Consultant – Department of Defense and Reporter – Space Review, “Will NASA’s Embrace Kill NewSpace?”, Space Review, 2-15, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1564/1)

Whatever her motives were, when Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) destroyed the George H.W. Bush Space Exploration Initiative in 1992, she

demonstrated how a single powerful senator could wreck any president’s proposals, especially on a seemingly marginal issue like civil space policy. She went through the NASA budget and zeroed out anything that even remotely resembled funding for SEI. It took NASA many years to recover from those drastic cuts to the human space exploration technology program. The resentment aimed at SEI is nothing compared to what the NewSpace industry now faces on Capitol Hill. The cancellation of the Constellation program proposed in

the 2011 budget is facing a bipartisan firestorm in Congress . It is doubtful that the President will want to make a special effort to support the new NASA program. His threat to veto the 2010 defense budget if it included money for the alternative F-35 engine turned out to be empty. The thousands of jobs and the irreplaceable expertise that this new plan throws away are far more important to

the members of Congress, especially in the current economic climate, than are the arguments and promises from the new team at NASA. In spite of its flaws—and if anyone says there is such a thing as a flawless government program ask them what they’ve been smoking—Constellation balanced the technological, political, and legal realities of today’s government environment. The new program is the product of a philosophy that, while it may be promising in the very long term, is simply not ready for prime time. If the Moon program could be described as belonging to the 20th century, the NewSpace industry is beginning to look as if they belong to the 18th century. Like French courtiers wandering the halls of Versailles looking for a favor from the King, individuals who used to be regarded as brave entrepreneurs will now haunt the corridors of power looking for a subsidy or an earmark. They will prove their technical expertise by writing proposals that are perfectly adapted to the prevailing bureaucratic winds. It may be good business, but it does not have much to do with 21st century market capitalism. Now that the NewSpace industry is in a direct fight with the powerful members of Congress they may find that in spite of support from NASA’s leadership, they lack the political strength overcome the opposition. If the men and women who sit on the appropriations committees feel their interests and even their political survival are threatened, they will strike back, and strike back hard. Some firms that have no government contracts will be immune to this backlash, but others, particularly the small and medium-sized ones that depend on SBIRs, will be vulnerable to the appropriators’ scalpel. The poster child for NewSpace, SpaceX, which once had a number of military launch deals, may find them harder to come by at least in the near future. Since the USAF switched the TacSat missions away from the Hawthorne, California, firm, probably due to the delay’s involved with Falcon, it is hard to see them giving the company more business until it has a much better track record than it does now. It will also be fairly easy to paint NewSpace CEOs as “rent seekers”. Elon Musk’s ability at another company, Tesla, to collect government subsidies for selling very expensive luxury cars to millionaires should raise more than a few eyebrows. The claim that one type of government contractor represents “free enterprise” and another group somehow represents “big government” is ludicrous. It’s all taxpayers money; the only difference is that the big aerospace firms long ago paid back (or lost) the money their founders invested in them. The Obama Administration’s attempt to buy off the opposition by spreading around $50 million in contracts under the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program is as transparent as their effort to defuse opposition to their health care bill by offering goodies to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Giving a few million to everyone from the giant ULA to the tiny Sierra Nevada may seem like a smart move, but it will do nothing to stop the broad public recognition that abandoning the Moon mission is a humiliating national defeat. The president’s political foes will not let this pass. The bitterness and anger that so many Americans feel over the end (or the proposed end) of Moon program will only grow. This fall, as the final shuttle flights take place and the mid-term elections loom, they will

pull out all the stops. In some places the rhetoric will get white hot. Constellation was an all-too-rare US Government program with deep bipartisan support. Throwing it on the ash heap is a sign of just how little this administration really values the idea of working across party lines.

57


Link Turns - General

Space policies popular despite fiscal pressuresRaju and Bresnahan, 11 (4/20/11, Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Politico, “Shooting for the moon amid cuts,” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html)

For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASA’s space mission remains sacred in Congress. A handful of powerful lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon — or even Mars — that they effectively mandated NASA to spend “not less than” $3 billion for a new rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by

the president last week. NASA has repeatedly raised concerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket — but the new law expresses Congress’s will for the space agency to make a massive “heavy-lift” rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo. Congressional approval of the plan — all while $38 billion is being cut elsewhere in the federal government — reflects not only the power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in those states .

NASA policies don’t require political capital- bipartisan support ensures popularity SpacePolitics.com, 5/25/2011, “Congressional support for NASA’s MPCV decision”, http://www.spacepolitics.com/category/congress/page/2/

The “key decision” that NASA announced Tuesday regarding the agency’s space exploration plans was not too surprising, and perhaps a bit underwhelming: NASA is transitioning its existing work on the Orion spacecraft to the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). In the NASA statement and media teleconference later that day, NASA indicated there would be effectively no major modifications to Orion to become MPCV, but offered little in the way of specifics on the cost of the MPCV or when it would be ready to begin flights. The MPCV was included in the NASA authorization act last year with a specific requirement to “continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.” There was, then, an expectation that NASA would do what it announced yesterday, and transition its existing Orion contract to the MPCV; there was also some frustration in Congress that NASA was taking a long time to make that decision. Now, though, that NASA has done just that, members of Congress are expressing their support for that move, while pressing NASA to also make a decision soon on the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lifter. “This is a good thing,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said in a statement. The decision “shows real progress towards the goal of exploring deep space” and also helps Florida, he added, since hundreds will be employed at the Kennedy Space Center to process the MPCV for launch. The release also notes that NASA administrator Charles Bolden called Nelson personally to inform him of the decision. In that call, Bolden told the senator that soon “NASA will be making further decisions with regard to the ‘transportation architecture’ of a big deep space rocket.” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) also supported the decision. “After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, NASA has come to the same conclusion that it reached years ago — Orion is the vehicle that will advance our human exploration in space,” she said in a statement (not yet posted online.) She reminded NASA, though, that it “must continue to follow law” and announce plans for the SLS. “NASA needs to follow this important step by quickly finalizing and announcing the heavy lift launch vehicle configuration so that work can accelerate and the requirements of the law can be met.” “This was the only fiscally and technologically prudent decision that NASA could make,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) said in a statement. “With this decision NASA can continue to build on current projects and investments rather than further delay with unnecessary procurements.” NASA’s decision means that Lockheed Martin’s contract to work on Orion/MPCV will continue, and that’s a relief for people in Colorado, where much of that work is taking place. In a joint statement, Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) noted the decision protects over 1,000 aerospace jobs, and nearly 4,000 total jobs, in the state, which to them appeared to be just as important as the MPCV’s role in future human space exploration. “With the Space Shuttle Endeavor’s [sic] final launch, Orion represents the next frontier in human space exploration and has the potential to stir the imagination of a new generation of young scientists while giving our economy a much needed boost,” Bennet said.

58

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html


Winners Win

WINNERS WIN. Singer 9 (Jonathan -- senior writer and editor for MyDD. Singer is perhaps best known for his various interviews with prominent politicians. His interviews have included John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tom Vilsack. He has also also interviewed dozens of senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial candidates all around the country. In his writing, Singer primarily covers all aspects of campaigns and elections, from polling and fundraising to opposition research and insider rumors. He has been quoted or cited in this capacity by Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, The Politico, and others. My Direct Democracy, 3-3-09, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)

From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said

Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-

unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent

blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.

VICTORIES INCREASE CAPITAL.Lee 5 (Andrew, Claremont McKenna College, “Invest or Spend? Political Capital and Statements of Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” Georgia Political Science Association Conference Proceedings, http://a-s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf)

To accrue political capital, the president may support a particular lawmaker’s legislation by issuing an SAP urging support, thereby giving that legislator more pull in the Congress and at home. The president may also receive capital from Congress by winning larger legislative majorities. For example, the president’s successful

efforts at increasing Republican representation in the Senate and House would constitute an increase in political capital. The president may also receive political capital from increased job favorability numbers, following through with purported policy agendas, and defeating opposing party leaders (Lindberg 2004). Because political capital diminishes, a president can invest in policy and legislative victories to maintain or increase it. For example, President George W. Bush invests his political capital in tax cuts which he

hopes will yield returns to the economy and his favorability numbers. By investing political capital, the president assumes a return on investment.

WINNERS WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL POLICIES.Ornstein 1 (Norman, American Enterprise Institute, “How is Bush Governing?” May 15, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.281/transcript.asp)

The best plan is to pick two significant priorities, things that can move relatively quickly. And in an ideal world, one of them is going to be a little bit tough, where it's a battle, where you've got to fight, but then your victory is all the sweeter. The other matters but you can sweep through fairly quickly with a broad base of support and show that you're a winner and can accomplish something. Bush did just that, picking one, education, where there was a fairly strong chance. Something he campaigned on, people care about, and a pretty strong chance that he could get a bill through with 80, 85 percent support of both houses of Congress and both parties. And the other that he picked, and there were other choices, but he picked the tax cuts.

What flows from that as well is, use every bit of political capital you have to achieve early victories that will both establish you as a winner, because the key to political power is not the formal power that you have. Your ability to coerce people to do what they otherwise would not do. Presidents don't have a lot of that formal power. It's as much psychological as it is real. If you're a winner and people think you're a winner, and that issues come up and they’re tough but somehow you're going to prevail, they will act in anticipation of that. Winners win. If it looks like you can't get things

done, then you have a steeply higher hill to climb with what follows. And as you use your political capital, you have to recognize that for presidents, political capital is a perishable quality, that it evaporates if it isn't used . That's a lesson, by the

way, George W. Bush learned firsthand from his father. That if you use it and you succeed, it's a gamble, to be sure, you'll get it back with a very healthy premium.

59


Winners Win

Winners winHalloran 10 (Liz, Reporter – NPR, “For Obama, What A Difference A Week Made”, National Public Radio, 4-6, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125594396)

Amazing what a win in a major legislative battle will do for a president's spirit. (Turmoil over spending and leadership at the Republican National Committee over the past week, and the release Tuesday of a major new and largely sympathetic book about the president by New Yorker editor David Remnick, also haven't hurt White House efforts to drive its own, new narrative.) Obama's Story Though the president's national job approval ratings failed to get a boost by the passage of the health care overhaul — his numbers have remained steady this year at just

under 50 percent — he has earned grudging respect even from those who don't agree with his policies . "He's achieved something that virtually everyone in Washington thought he couldn't," says Henry Olsen, vice president and director of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute's National Research Initiative. "And that's given him confidence ." The protracted health care battle looks to have taught the White House something about power, says presidential historian Gil Troy — a lesson that will inform Obama's pursuit of his

initiatives going forward. "I think that Obama realizes that presidential power is a muscle , and the more you exercise it, the stronger it gets," Troy says. "He exercised that power and had a success with health care passage, and now he wants to make sure people realize it's not just a blip on the map." The White House now has an opportunity, he says, to change the narrative that had been looming — that the Democrats would lose big in the fall midterm elections, and that Obama was looking more like one-term President Jimmy Carter than two-termer Ronald Reagan, who also managed a difficult first-term legislative win and survived his party's bad showing in the midterms. Approval Ratings Obama is exuding confidence since the health care bill passed, but his approval ratings as of April 1 remain unchanged from the beginning of the year, according to Pollster.com. What's more, just as many people disapprove of Obama's health care policy now as did so at the beginning of the year. According to the most recent numbers: Forty-eight percent of all Americans approve of Obama, and 47 disapprove. Fifty-two percent disapprove of Obama's health care policy, compared with 43 percent who approve. Stepping Back From A Precipice Those watching the re-emergent president in recent days say it's difficult to imagine that it was only weeks ago that Obama's domestic agenda had been given last rites, and pundits were preparing their pieces on a failed presidency. Obama himself had framed the health care debate as a referendum on his presidency. A loss would have "ruined the rest of his presidential term," says Darrell West, director of governance studies at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "It would have made it difficult to address other issues and emboldened his critics to claim he was a failed president." The conventional wisdom in Washington after the Democrats lost their supermajority in the U.S. Senate when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat long held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was that Obama would scale back his health care ambitions to get something passed. "I thought he was going to do what most presidents would have done — take two-thirds of a loaf and declare victory," says the AEI's Olsen. "But he doubled down and made it a vote of confidence on his presidency, parliamentary-style." "You've got to be impressed with an achievement like that," Olsen says. But Olsen is among those who argue that, long-term, Obama and his party would have been better served politically by an incremental approach to reworking the nation's health care system, something that may have been more palatable to independent voters Democrats will need in the fall. "He would have been able to show he was listening more, that he heard their concerns about the size and scope of

this," Olsen says. Muscling out a win on a sweeping health care package may have invigorated the president and provided evidence of leadership, but, his critics say, it remains to be seen whether Obama and his party can reverse what the polls now suggest is a losing issue for them.

60


Political Capital Not Key

Political capital does not affect passage/Dickinson 9 (Matthew, Professor of Political Science – Middlebury College and Former Professor – Harvard University, “Sotomayor, Obama, and Presidential Power”, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, 5-26, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/

As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings , the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the

moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in

the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate

debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.

61


Political Capital Not Key Ext.

CAPITAL NOT KEY TO THE AGENDA – LIMITED IMPACT. SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former Director of the Center for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, “Hard Fought Legacy: Obama, congressional democrats, and the struggle for comprehensive health reform” Russell Sage Foundation -- October]

Although presidential power is widely credited with dictating public policy, the truth is that presidential influence over domestic law making is quite limited. Presidential speeches (as in the case of Obama‘s nationally televised

September address to restart health reform) can influence the agenda of issues for DC insiders and all Americans. But Constitutional checks and balances prevent any president from having his way with Congress – and this situation

was exacerbated in 2009 and 2010 by Republican obstructionist tactics. In practice, Obama and his aides were often little more than frustrated witnesses to Congressional maneuvers and delays.

POLITICAL CAPITAL IS IRRELEVANT -- EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. Bond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996. "The President in Legislation”]

In sum, the evidence presented in this chapter provides little support for the theory that the president's perceived leadership, skills are associated with success on roll call votes in Congress. Presidents reputed as highly skilled do not win consistently more often than should be expected. Even the effects of the partisan balanced Congress, the

president's popularity, and, the cycle of decreasing influence over the course of his term. Presidents reputed as unskilled do not win consistently less often relative to. More over, skilled presidents do not win significantly more often than unskilled presidents on either important votes or close votes, in which skills have the greatest potential to affect the outcome. Because of the difficulty of establishing a definitive test of the skills theory, some may argue that it is premature to reject this explanation of presidential success based on the tests reported in this chapter. It might be argued that these findings by themselves do not deny that leadership skill is an important component of presidential-congressional relations. Failure to find systematic effects in general does not necessarily refute the anecdotes and case studies demonstrating the importance of skills.

PRESIDENTIAL CAPITAL ISN’T SIGNIFICANT – PARTY SUPPORT AND DIVISIONS ARE KEYBond & Fleisher 96. [Jon R. and Richard, professor in Political Science - Texas A&M and Professor in Political Science. Fordham - 1996. "The President in Legislation”]

Neustadt is correct that weak political parties in American politics do not bridge the gap created by the constitutional separation of powers. We would add: neither does skilled presidential leadership or popularity with the public. In fact, the forces that Neustadt stressed as the antidote for weak parties are even less successful in linking the president and Congress than are weak parties. Our findings indicate that members of Congress provide levels of support for the President that are generally consistent with their partisan and ideological predispositions. Because party and ideology are relatively stable, facing a Congress made up of more members predisposed to support the president does increase the likelihood of success on the floor. There is, however, considerable variation in the behavior of the party factions. As expected, cross-

pressured members are typically divided, and when they unify, they unify against about as often as they unify for the president. Even members of the party bases who have reinforcing partisan and ideological predispositions frequently fail to unify for or against the president's position. Our analysis of party and committee leaders in Congress reveals that support from congressional leaders is associated with unity of the party factions. The party bases are likely to unify only if the party and committee leader of a party take the same position. But party and committee leaders within each party take opposing stands on a significant proportion of presidential roll calls. Because members of the party factions and their leaders frequently fail to unify around a party position, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the outcome of presidential roll calls.

62


IMPACT D: US-SK RELATIONS (General)

US SOUTH KOREA RELATIONS ARE RESILIENT – ONE ISSUE CAN’T WRECK IT. TARGETED NEWS SERVICE 9. [“From allies, past and present” Sept 14 -- lexis]

In a conversation in front of a capacity crowd at the forum, the two diplomats reflected on the historical strength of the alliance and

what issues might put it at risk. Both agreed it would take a lot to shake a political relationship that dates back to the 19th century, and one that was forged in steel by the Korean War. It is an alliance "less brittle and far more resilient than it ever has been," said Stephens. Han, who in 1984 earned a Harvard Ph.D. in economics, called the U.S.-South Korea alliance the foundation of his

nation's "economic growth, prosperity, and security." It remains so firm and mutual today, he added, that it could be an international model of cooperation -- "the exemplar alliance relationship of the future." Moderating the public conversation between ambassadors was Graham Allison, a terrorism scholar who has studied the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea. He is Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Skeptical and probing, Allison prompted the two diplomats to imagine a near future in which the traditional alliance enjoyed by the United States and South Korea goes sour. In sum, he asked, what could go wrong and what issues need attending to? Neither of the ambassadors budged much. In fact, said Han, "there is a very, very fundamental notion that U.S.-Korea relations cannot be swayed by one or two events." It is and has been an alliance, he said, that has never been "underestimated or disregarded. It was always central." But it is true, Han added, that the two nations share a set of 21st century problems -- global issues that include terrorism, piracy, climate change, and the challenges of development and trade. U.S.-South Korea relations are resilient and strong, said Stephens, but three areas deserve a measure of vigilance: economic crisis, North Korea, and the continued presence of 26,000 American military personnel on Korean soil. "We need to be good neighbors, good friends" on the issue of that presence, she said.

EMPIRICALLY DENIED – SKFTA HAS BEEN STALLED IN THE SENATE SINCE 2007 – RELATIONS HAVEN’T COLLAPSE.

ALT CAUS --- ANTI-AMERICANISM, POLICY DIFFERENCES. Bandow 3 (Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute and Robert A. Taft Fellow – American Conservative Defense Alliance, “Ending the Anachronistic Korean Commitment”, Parameters, 33, Summer, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/03summer/bandow%20.pdf)

The United States established a permanent troop presence in the Korean peninsula with the onset of the Korean War. But changing perceptions of the threat posed by the North, combined with increasing national self-confidence in South Korea, are challenging bilateral relations. South Korean frustrations are not new, but they have gained greater force than ever before. Explains Kim Sung-han of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security, “Anti-Americanism is getting intense. It used to be widespread and not so deep. Now it’s getting widespread and deep.”9 Although polls show that a majority of South Koreans still supports the US troop presence, a majority also pronounces its dislike of America. Some Americans hope that the sentiments will recede and everything will go back to normal. However, the generation grateful for American aid in the Korean War is passing from the scene. Younger people associate the United States more with US support for various military regimes and the

indignities (and tragedies) of a foreign troop presence. Policy differences between Seoul and Washington also will likely worsen as the nuclear crisis proceeds. In late January, President Kim Dae-jung offered veiled criticism of the United States: “Sometimes we need to talk to the other party, even if we dislike the other party.”10 At the same time, Washington was pushing the issue toward the UN Security Council, which, in Seoul’s view, would short-circuit the diplomatic process. Shortly thereafter the Bush Administration pointedly observed that military action remained an option, generating a near hysterical response from Seoul. Indeed, Roh Moo-hyun, who once called for the withdrawal of US forces, ran on an explicit peace platform that sharply diverged from US policy: “We have to choose between war and peace,” he told one rally.11 He owes his narrow election victory to rising popular antagonism against the United States and particularly the presence of American troops. Of course, he later tried to moderate his position and called for strengthening the alliance. Yet he complained that “so far, all changes in the size of US troop strength here have been determined by the United States based on its strategic consideration, without South Korea’s consent.”12 Moreover, proposed “reforms” of the relationship —adjusting the Status of Forces Agreement, moving America’s Yongsan base out of Seoul, withdrawing a small unit or two, changing the joint command (which envisions an American general commanding Korean troops in war)—are mere Band-Aids. President Roh has called for a more “equal” relationship and promised not to “kowtow” to Washington. 13 But the relationship between the two countries will never be equal so long as South Korea is dependent on Washington for its defense. The United States cannot be expected to risk war on another nation’s terms.

63


RELAT’S D: AT – CHINESE AGGRESSION

ALLIANCE DOESN’T BALANCE CHINAKang 9 (David, Associate Professor of Government – Dartmouth College, “Between Balancing and Bandwagoning: South Korea's Response to China”, Journal of East Asian Studies, 1-1, Lexis)

Yet South Korea has drawn closer to China over the past two decades, not farther away. Furthermore, South Korea has had increasing friction with Japan, a capitalist democracy that shares an alliance with the United States. Indeed,

South Korea appears more worried about potential Japanese militarization than it is worried about actual Chinese militarization . Although the US-ROK alliance remains strong, the key point for this article is that the alliance is not a balancing alliance against China, and the recent adjustments in the alliance were neither aimed at nor the result of China. In sum,

there is little evidence that South Korea will attempt to balance China, and even less evidence that South Korea fears China.

WON’T STOP CHINA’S RISEKang 9 (David, Associate Professor of Government – Dartmouth College, “Between Balancing and Bandwagoning: South Korea's Response to China”, Journal of East Asian Studies, 1-1, Lexis)

However, the US-ROK alliance is directed more fundamentally to the North and to other contingencies, and the alliance is not a balancing exercise against China . Furthermore, there appears little evidence that the alliance has changed to accommodate rising Chinese power, and agreements on out-of-area operations do not appear to relate to China. The military aspect of the alliance has undergone fairly major changes in the past few years; but this was driven by US out-of-area needs (particularly the "war on terror") and South Korean domestic considerations, not China. The two allies signed a base-restructuring agreement that includes the return of over sixty US camps to the South Koreans, as well as the relocation of the US Army headquarters from downtown Seoul to the countryside. By 2012, wartime operational control will return to South Korea, and the United States is reducing its South Korean deployments from 37,000 to 25,000 troops (US Department of Defense 2000). US power on the peninsula is thus actually decreasing, and as a result, it has been noted that "the U.S. will emphasize the ROK's primary leading role in defending itself. Physically, the U.S. seems not to have sufficient augmentation forces, especially ground troops" (Choi and Park 2007, 18).

64


RELAT’S D: AT -- SK ECON

US NOT KEY TRADING PARTNER – CHINA IS. GAULIER 7. [Guillaume, PhD on economic integration and real convergences, research associate with the CEPII “China’s Integration in East Asia: Production Sharing, FDI & High-Tech Trade,” http://www.economieinternationale.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2005/wp05-09.pdf]

Since 1980, China’s economy has grown at the rate of 9% a year and its foreign trade has expanded at the pace of almost 15% a year. Its share in world trade rose from less than 1% to about 5% in 20023. The emergence of China as a great economic and trade power is bringing far reaching changes in the world economy and in international economic relations. China’s now holds large world market shares in traditional industries (accounting for about one third of world exports in leather and shoes, one fifth in clothing), but is also rapidly enlarging its shares in electrical and electronic exports, the fastest growing segments of world trade. In 2002 China recorded one fifth of world exports of consumer electronics and of domestic appliance. For East Asian countries, China has become a major partner, their first partner in the region. In

2003, for Japan, China was the second export market, behind the US, and its first supplier. For South- Korea, China was the first export market and its second supplier behind the US. In 2003 and 2004, the accelerated increase of China’s import demand (+40% and 37% respectively) has been the engine of economic growth in East Asia. The aim of the paper is to help understand how China has achieved such outstanding trade performance and to bring to the fore the factors underlying China’s competitiveness in world markets. It shows China’s involvement in the international segmentation of production processes and its integration in Asian production networks are at the core of its rapid trade expansion.

65


IMPACT D: AT -- ECON IMPACT

South Korea isn’t key to the U.S. economyCarpenter and Bandow 4 (Ted Galen, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies – Cato Institute, and Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute, The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea, p. 126)

America's cultural and economic ties with South Korea are valuable, but not critical. For instance, two-way trade in

2003 exceeded $60 billion (it peaked at almost $ 67 billion in 2000), real money but small change for Amer ica's $10 trillion economy.26 Moreover, notes Stephen W. Bosworth, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, "The relative weights of the United States and South Korea in the increasingly global economic interests of the other are shrinking in relative terms."27

No impact – even in the worst-case scenarioBandow 92 (Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute, The U.S.-South Korean Alliance, p. 4)

The belief that the Republic of Korea (ROK) is vital to America's security is more a product of obsolete Cold War assumptions combined with an emotional commitment resulting from the sacrifice of American blood and treasure during the Korean War than

it is a rational assessment of current U.S. security interests or requirements. Neither South Korea's economic nor strategic impor-tance to the United States is sufficient to justify the costs and risks entailed by Washington's security commitment, especially the con-

tinued presence of U.S. forces on the peninsula. True, the ROK is a significant trading partner; U.S.–South Korean trade came to

nearly $32 billion in 1988.5 Disruption of that commerce would be costly and unpleasant, but even a worst-case scenario involving the total loss of trade with South Korea would hardly devastate America's $5.5 trillion-a-year economy.

SKFTA IS IRRELEVANT -- NO CHANCE OF COMPLETE TRADE DISRUPTIONBandow 96 (Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute and Robert A. Taft Fellow – American Conservative Defense Alliance, Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, p. 57)

Although economic ties are among the strongest aspects of the existing relationship between America and the ROK, Washington's security promise provides the United States with no tangible economic advantages. After all, U.S.-South Korean trade is valuable but not critical, accounting for about 3 percent of America's total trade and only a bit more than one-half a percent of its gross domestic product. Bilateral trade would be affected by the removal of U.S. troops only if the ROK was overrun, an exceedingly unlikely pros pect for a nation so much more advanced than its adversary.

66


AT: Trade

KORUS not key to trade – economic recovery will boost liberalizationDrum, 6/16/11 – Kevin, political blogger, Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/why-im-not-worried-about-free-trade)

Dan continues to be worried. I continue to yawn. Why? Partly because of that first bolded statement: when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were pandering to anti-NAFTA sentiment before the Ohio primary in 2008, it was obvious even at the time that they weren't serious about it. As I said at the time, "The fact that Obama and Clinton jacked up the anti-NAFTA rhetoric just in time for the Ohio

primary and will almost certainly abandon it on Wednesday is all the evidence I think we need." It was, namely, evidence that this was just political posturing and neither one of them was really anti-trade. For the same reason, I don't take seriously the lack of trade boosterism among the Republican candidates this year. Are they going to stick their necks out in favor of trade agreements when the economy is still in shock and registered voters everywhere are worried about their jobs being offshored? Of course not. They aren't suicidal, after all. Frankly, I'm surprised that Senate Republicans are even going so far as to

use pending trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama as hostages for some of Obama's executive branch nominees. That's more support than I would have expected. If you're a trade liberalization fan, there's not much to be happy about right now. But let's be honest: during a massive economic downturn that features epic levels of unemployment, mere lack of progress isn't bad. Of course no progress is likely to be made right now. But the fact that no serious ground has been lost either

just goes to show how permanently free trade has become the default position of virtually everyone on both the left and the right. When the economy picks up, support for trade liberalization will pick up right alongside it.

Trade wars don't escalate Bearce ‘3 (David, Associate Prof. Pol. Sci. @ U. Pittsburgh, International Studies Quarterly, “Grasping the Commercial Institutional Peace”, 47:3, Blackwell-Synergy)

Even as we accept that such trade dispute settlement mechanisms help resolve economic conflict, it is not clear that this finding should have any strong application to the dependent variable of inter-state military conflict. On this point , it is important to distinguish between different types of inter-state conflict—economic versus military (McMillan, 1997:39)— and recognize that disputes about banana tariffs, for example, are not likely to escalate into military confrontations. While military conflict often has economic antecedents, there is little evidence that trade wars ever become shooting wars. In terms of inter-state disagreements with real potential for military conflict, scholars highlight territorial disputes (Vasquez, 1993; Hensel, 2000; Huth, 2000). The trade dispute settlement mechanisms embedded in regional commercial institutions simply have no jurisdiction or power to resolve highly contentious territorial disagreements.

67


AT: Alliance

FTA not key to the alliance—fundamental interests ensure cooperation Cooper et al 10 [William, Mark Manyin, Remy Jurenas, Michaela Platzer, Specialists in Trade + Asian Affairs @ Congressional Research Affairs, "The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications," 11-12, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34330.pdf]

The United States and South Korea negotiated the KORUS FTA in part as a means to restore the health of a critical foreign policy and national security alliance. 158 While the talks were ongoing, the KORUS FTA sometimes was discussed as a possible counterweight to the bilateral friction that was occurring over issues such as how to manage relations with North Korea and the repositioning of U.S. troops in

South Korea. These tensions decreased markedly in 2007, following the Bush Administration’s decision to place greater emphasis on engagement and negotiations with North Korea. The election of Lee, who has stressed the importance of rebuilding U.S.-South Korean ties has improved relations further. Thus, with the alliance apparently on firmer ground, the KORUS FTA no longer appears as an exceptional area of bilateral cooperation. Although the FTA’s utility as an acute salve for the alliance has been reduced, some argue it could help to boost the alliance, over the medium and longer term, by deepening bilateral economic and political ties. Entering into an FTA, some argue, is a way to help reorient the alliance to adapt to the changes on the Korean Peninsula and in East Asia. However, in concrete terms, it is difficult to see how the KORUS FTA would make a significant difference in the strategic relationship, as it is unlikely to alter either country’s fundamental interests on the Peninsula or in Northeast Asia.

68


AT: Korean War

No risk of Korean warEdwards 10 [Michael, Reporter – ABC News, “Full-scale War on Korean Peninsula 'Unlikely'”, ABC News, 11-25, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/24/3075727.htm]

Experts say full-scale war on the Korean Peninsula is unlikely. But they do say that it remains an alarming possibility. An expert on North Korea, Professor Peter Hayes from RMIT University, says yesterday's attack is evidence there is a new sense of confidence in Pyongyang. "I think the reason, at least in part, is that [North Korea] feels it has a both compellent and deterrent capacity," he said. "A compellent capacity in the sense that it can undertake conventional and nuclear operations to force South Korea to change its policies of hostility towards North Korea, which have come about in the last few years under the current president in South Korea, and deterrent in respect to the United States. "In other words it can put a lid on any escalation that might come about because of its use of conventional force, because it is simply too dangerous to escalate for everyone, because you might end up in a nuclear war and now they have nuclear weapons which they didn't have." Professor Hayes says North Korea's unveiling of its

uranium enrichment plant has changed the dynamic on the Korean peninsula. He says war could happen, but South Korea is likely to resist a full-scale military response for the time being. "I actually think that they can absorb a lot of provocation because the risk of war," he

said. "Given that Seoul, which represents roughly 80 per cent of their economy, is within striking distance of artillery and rockets

from North Korea means that we would have to see a lot more violence at this point before the South will be willing to actually conduct military operations against the North." Professor Hayes does expect North Korea's main ally China to intervene

No escalation – South Korea would dominateMeyer 3 [Carlton, U.S. Marine Corps, “The Mythical North Korean Threat,” http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm]

Even if North Korea employs a few crude nuclear weapons, using them would be suicidal since it would invite instant retaliation from the United States. North Korea lacks the technical know-how to build an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, despite the hopes and lies from the National Missile Defense proponents in the USA. North Korea's industrial production is almost zero, over two million people have starved in recent years, and millions of homeless nomads threaten internal revolution. The US military ignores this reality and retains old plans for the deployment of 450,000 GIs to help defend South Korea, even though the superior South Korean military can halt any North Korean offensive without help from a single American soldier. American forces are not even required for a counter-offensive. A North Korean attack would stall after a few intense days and South Korean forces would soon be in position to overrun North Korea. American air and naval power along with logistical and intelligence support would ensure the rapid collapse of the North Korean army.

69


AT: Contain China

No risk of Chinese power – economic leadership not key to hegemony Lukin ’10 (Artyom Lukin, Associate Professor, School of International and Regional Studies, Far Eastern National University, International Political Science Association, “Balance of Power in Northeast Asia: A Case for Stability”, 2010, Azizi)

Meanwhile, America’s economic presence in the region has significantly decreased, although it is still quite noticeable . The

United States remains a key export market for Northeast Asian countries and a major source of vital technologies. Washington is seeking to promote

its own neoliberal version of regional integration, which, so far not very successfully, attempts to challenge China-centered regionalism in East Asia. America’s strategy is, in particular, based on the recently launched Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as bilateral FTAs, the most substantial one being Korea – US FTA. However, even if the United States were ultimately to lose competition in economic regionalism to China, that would not automatically entail the advent of Sino-centric political institutions in the region. Economic integration does not necessarily result in stronger intergovernmental or supranational

arrangements of political nature. Indeed, when integration makes great progress in economic area, member-states may deliberately constrain it in other , especially political, spheres, so as not to put their national sovereignty at risk. Even the European

Union’s experience testifies to such a hedging strategy (Busygina and Filippov 2010).East Asian countries, including Japan and both Koreas, are well aware of the risks inherent in their high economic dependence on China. Therefore they are seeking to offset such risks by maintaining political and strategic ties to the actors capable of balancing a rising China, especially the United States. Both Tokyo and Seoul have no intention of abandoning their alliances with Washington. Indeed, they are even

strengthening strategic cooperation with America in some areas. There are reasons to believe that even North Korea is wary of growing China’s might and is interested in the United States acting as a balancing force .Russia, although its regional clout is much less than America’s, can be seen as another independent player, performing a balancing function. That is probably why in 2003 Pyongyang insisted on Moscow having a seat at the Six-Party talks. In other words, the Six-Party process, and a prospective institutionalized mechanism with full American and Russian membership, might be viewed as a means to maintain balance of power and prevent Chinese dominance in Northeast Asia. Economic triangle of Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul could be transformed into a political bloc, only if full-fledged China’s hegemony arrives, similar to what happened following the Second World War, when the United States used its overwhelming predominance to build and manage Western institutional architecture. Economic leadership alone is not enough for successful hegemony. Two other requirements are military-strategic primacy and the recognition of hegemony as legitimate from the lesser states (Alagappa 2003:53-4). It is clear that China does not meet these requirements as yet. Its military capabilities are still no match to America’s. And in terms of moral and political legitimacy, neither Korea, nor especially Japan, appear ready to recognize Chinese primacy. To be sure, one can not rule out the emergence of Beijing’s hegemony in the future. However, at present it seems unlikely.

70


AT: Economy

SKFTA doesn’t cause job growthChan 10 (Sewell, Washington Correspondent – New York Times, “Few New Jobs Expected Soon From Free-Trade Agreement With South Korea,” New York Times, 12-7, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/business/global/08korea.html)

The revised free-trade agreement with South Korea announced on Friday by the Obama administration has gotten acclaim from corporate leaders and Congressional Republicans. Praising the deal reached by his trade negotiators, President Obama said on Monday that the accord would “boost our annual exports to South Korea by $11 billion” and “support at least 70,000 American jobs.” The Obama administration has been careful to use the verb “support,” not “create.” In fact, the effect of the agreement on aggregate output and employment in the United States “would likely be negligible,” according to a federal study, largely because the United States economy is so much larger than that of South Korea. Indeed, the study found, the country’s overall trade deficit with the rest of the world is likely to grow slightly as a result of the agreement.

71


AT: Clean Tech

US is already leading in clean tech – no one is closeWalsh 11 (Bryan, Staff Writer, Cites Eric Levi, Energy Expert – Council on Foreign Relations, “Tilting at Wind Turbines,” Time, 1-21, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01/21/politics-should-we-stop-freaking-out-about-china-and-clean-tech/)

But nothing is ever that simple between China and the U.S. Even as he is arranging research partnerships in Beijing, Chu is warning that the U.S. faces a "Sputnik moment" on clean tech, with China investing heavily in solar, wind and other renewables with an eye towards cornering the market for what could be the next big global industry. The United Steelworkers union has accused China of illegally subsidizing its clean tech industry at the expense of American workers, and according to the AFL-CIO, the American trade deficit with China on clean energy products cost the U.S. 8,000 jobs in 2010. It's rare to find anything that most Americans appear to agree on any longer—the NFL playoffs, maybe—but it seems to be a fairly universal opinion that China is eating our lunch when it comes to clean tech. Michael Levi, though, has his doubts. The energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations has a piece in Foreign Policy questioning whether China really is leaping past the U.S. on clean tech. He doubts it, arguing that the perception is fueled by a misunderstanding of the way the Chinese economic and research system really works—and by an underappreciation of American strengths: Yes, China spent more money buying wind turbines and solar panels than any other country last year. But consumption does not necessarily translate into technological leadership -- if it did, the United States would have little to worry about in most product categories. Massive deployment of clean energy will give the Chinese government leverage with foreign firms (because Beijing will be able to demand concessions in exchange for market access) and provide opportunities for incremental innovation. But the cutting edge is, in most cases, far away: The Chinese innovation system still has enormous difficulty moving ideas from the laboratory to commercial application... The purported Chinese dominance in high-tech exports, meanwhile, is the product of statistical sleight of hand. Chu's figures describe the total value of Chinese exports. That gives China credit for the full price tag of every product it exports -- even if it's only responsible for its final assembly. (If China imported a Mercedes and painted it green, it would rack up tens of thousands of export dollars.) A careful analysis would focus instead on value added, which is what drives profits and wages. And on that score, the United States is still firmly in the lead.

72


AT: Democracy

Democracy doesn’t solve war Schwartz and Skinner ‘1 (Thomas and Kiron K (Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, associate professor of history and political science at Carnegie Mellon University); December 22, 2001; “The Myth of Democratic Peace”; JAI Press; ORBIS)

Here we show that neither the historical record nor the theoretical arguments advanced for the purpose provide any support for democratic pacifism. It does not matter how high or low one sets the bar of democracy. Set it high enough to

avoid major exceptions and you find few, if any, democracies until the Cold War era. Then there were no wars between them, of course. But that fact is better explained by NATO and bipolarity than by any shared form of government. Worse, the peace

among the high-bar democracies of that era was part of a larger pacific pattern: peace among all nations of the First and Second Worlds. As for theoretical arguments, those we have seen rest on implausible premises. Why, then, is the belief that democracies are mutually pacific so widespread and fervent? The explanation rests on an old American tendency to slip and slide unawares between two uses of the word "democracy": as an objective description of regimes, and as a term of praise--a label to

distinguish friend from foe. Because a democracy (term of praise) can do no wrong--or so the thinking seems to run--at least one side in any war cannot be a democracy (regime description). There lies the source of much potential mischief in foreign policy. The Historical Problem Democratic pacifism combines an empirical generalization with a causal attribution: democracies do not fight each other, and that is because they are democracies. Proponents often present the former as a plain fact. Yet regimes that were comparatively democratic for their times and regions have fought each other comparatively often--bearing in mind, for the purpose of comparison, that most states do not fight most states most of the time. The wars below are either counter-examples to democratic pacifism or borderline cases. Each is listed with the year it started and those combatants that have some claim to the democratic label. American Revolutionary War, 1775 (Great Britain vs. U.S.) Wars of French Revolution (democratic period), esp. 1793, 1795 (France vs. Great Britain) Quasi War, 1798 (U.S. vs. France) War of 1812 (U.S. vs. Great Britain) Texas War of Independence, 1835 (Texas vs. Mexico) Mexican War, 1846 (U.S. vs. Mexico) Roman Republic vs. France, 1849 American Civil War, 1861 (Northern Union vs. Southern Confederacy) Ecuador-Columbia War, 1863 Franco-Prussian War, 1870 War of the Pacific, 1879 (Chile vs. Peru and Bolivia) Indian Wars, much of nineteenth century (U.S. vs. various Indian nations) Spanish-American War, 1898 Boer War, 1899 (Great Britain vs. Transvaal and Orange Free State) World War I, 1914 (Germany vs. Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, and U.S.) Chaco War, 1932 (Chile vs. Argentina) Ecuador-Peru, 1941 Palestine War, 1948 (Israel vs. Lebanon) Dominican Invasion, 1967 (U.S. vs. Dominican Republic) Cyprus Invasion, 1974 (Turkey vs. Cyprus) Ecuador-Peru, 1981 Nagorno-Karabakh, 1989 (Armenia vs. Azerbaijan) Yugoslav Wars, 1991 (Serbia and Bosnian-Serb Republic vs. Croatia and Bosnia; sometimes Croatia vs. Bosnia) Georgia-Ossetia, 1991 (Georgia vs. South Ossetia) Georgia-Abkhazia, 1992 (Georgia vs. Abkhazia and allegedly Russia) Moldova-Dnestr Republic, 1992 (Moldova vs. Dnestr Republic and allegedly Russia) Chechen War of Independence, 1994 (Russia vs. Chechnya) Ecuador-Peru, 1995 NATO-Yugoslavia, 1999 India-Pakistan, 1999

73

politics disadvantage - skfta

Documents

stony brook

government

trade promotion

trade adjustment

health care

health care

amcham chief

adjunct senior