Politics December 10

Stefan Bauschard
December 10 Politics TPA Release
TPA DA 1NC......................................................................................2
UFast Track Now............................................................................5
U Obama Pushing..........................................................................6
U Top of the Docket.......................................................................7
IL -- Bipart Key to TPA.......................................................................8
IL -- Democrats Key to TPA.............................................................10
IL -- Obama (PC) Key to TPA...........................................................11
Asia War Impact.............................................................................12
TPA Solves Global Trade.................................................................14
Trade Key to Economy....................................................................17
Trade Solves Hotspot Escalation....................................................18
A2: No Asia War.............................................................................20
TPA Key to TPP...............................................................................23
TPP Critical to Resolve Asian Power Conflicts.................................24
TPP Russia Scenario.......................................................................27
TPP Solves Mexico Relations..........................................................29
U TPA At the Top of the Docet......................................................46
January Agenda Answers...................................................................47
Health Care, Tax Reform, Immigration Reform Answers.................48
TPA Answers...................................................................................49
TPA/TPP Answers -- NU...................................................................51
TTP Answers...................................................................................53
TTIP Answers..................................................................................54
Other Lame Duck..............................................................................55
Tax Extenders in Lame Duck..........................................................56
Tax Extenders U.............................................................................57
AUMF Lame Duck Answer..............................................................58
Stefan Bauschard
TPA DA 1NC
Obama pushing TPA, will pass now and its key to
relations with China
Reuters, 12-3-14, UPDATE 1-Obama says will make strong push for fasttrack trade authority Factiva. DOA: 12-10-14
U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday committed to urge
lawmakers to back a bill giving trade deals a fast track through
Congress, an effort some think could break a logjam on the
issue and help secure major agreements under negotiation.
Speaking to business leaders, he acknowledged differences within his own Democratic Party on
free trade agreements that he supports and said he would also make the case to unions that
trade brought benefits for workers. A bill to give the Obama administration so-called fast-track
power, which would allow only yes-or-no votes on trade deals in Congress without
amendments, has been stuck all year. Obama said he planned to speak to
congressional leaders on both sides to make "a strong case on

the merits of why this has to get done." Trade experts said
personal intervention by the president would boost support for
trade promotion authority, or TPA, in Congress, where there is
opposition from some Republicans as well as Democrats. "It
should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade
wavering Democrats that supporting it is the right thing to do
and because it will demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to wade into the
fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said. Analysts say fast-track
authority would persuade other countries to make their best offers during negotiations, secure
in the knowledge that any pact could not be reopened by Congress. Obama said free trade is
"tough politics" among some lawmakers because many Americans feel their wages and income
have stagnated as a result of foreign trade. He said his argument to U.S. labor unions and
environmental groups concerned about the impact of free-trade agreements is that new trade
deals, such as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership, will help raise labor and environmental
standards. Part of my argument to Democrats is: don't fight the last war," Obama told the
Business Roundtable, noting that companies wanting to move offshore for cheaper labor had
probably already done so. Fifty percent of Americans think trade destroys jobs and 45 percent
think it lowers wages, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center. Obama said anti-trade
sentiment had also increased among Republicans. Unions were disappointed by the comments,
but the incoming head of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Orrin Hatch, said
Obama's "long overdue" support would be vital to pass TPA in Congress. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce said Obama should meet with and telephone members of Congress to make the
case for TPA. It's vital to make this a broad, bipartisan vote," said
Myron Brilliant, the group's head of international affairs.
Plan burns capital (insert)

Political capital key to TPA, which will strengthen
relations with China
Stefan Bauschard
CQ Weekly, December 4, 2014, GOP Could Open Doors to Beijing,

DOA: 12-9-14
A lame duck president with a legacy on his mind and an opposition
party eager to prove its governing ability could be the unlikely
combination needed to advance U.S.-China relations. During the
Bejing-sponsored Asia-Pacific Economic Summit last month, President
Barack Obama told his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, that he
wanted to take America's relationship with China "to a new
level." He re-emphasized this point during a meeting with U.S. business leaders on
Wednesday. "I think we have to be cautious and clear-eyed about our relationship with China,
but there's no reason why we should not be able to manage that relationship in a way that is
productive for us and productive for the world," the president said.
The same could be true for the White House and Congress. At least that's what policy experts
and some lawmakers are hoping. "If you think about the impact of having a Republican
majority in the Senate in the incoming Congress for U.S.-China relations and the U.S. position
in Asia, it's actually very significant," says Kenneth Lieberthal, director of the John L. Thornton
China Center at the Brookings Institution. "At the top of the list of benefits would be on trade
agreements -- here we can see the administration and the Republicans come together and
make some real headway." The economic relationship between the two countries has grown
markedly over the past three decades with total trade increasing from $2 billion in 1979 to
$562 billion in 2013. The United States counts China as its second-largest trading partner,
third-largest export market and largest source of imports. Obama addressed his
commitment to further expanding trade ties with nations in

the region, including Beijing, and his willingness to work with Republicans to do so during
Wednesday's Business Roundtable meeting. "Those who oppose these trade deals ironically
are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers," the president said.
"There are folks in my own party and in my own constituency that have legitimate complaints
about some of the trend lines of inequality, but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to
opposing [the Trans-Pacific Partnership], and I'm going to have to make that argument."
Republican proponents of trade expansion include incoming

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Speaker
John A. Boehner of Ohio. "Send us some trade agreements," McConnell said he told Obama in
a phone call after his party dominated the midterm elections. Rep. Paul D. Ryan of
Wisconsin, the incoming chairman of the powerful Ways and

Means Committee, signed a letter to U.S. Trade Representative
Michael Froman in July backing the administration's push for passage
of trade promotion authority (TPA) -- informally known as fast-track -- that would
allow the president to submit the proposed TPP and other trade agreements to Congress for
straight up-or-down votes without amendment. Other China-related issues may also arise
before the committee, including an examination of U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty
negotiations. "We are ready and willing to work closely with our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle and in the House and Senate," Ryan and the 22 other Republicans on the committee
wrote to Froman. "We look forward to working closely with the administration to ensure the
successful enactment of TPA and the subsequent successful conclusion of TPP." Last January,
bipartisan fast-track legislation hit a roadblock when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a
Nevada Democrat, declared his opposition. But next year, with McConnell's support and Utah
Republican Orrin Hatch at the helm of the Senate Finance Committee, the measure is likely to
come up for consideration. The Finance Committee's jurisdiction includes trade agreements,
customs and import quotas. The committee also vets nominees for key trade posts in the
Treasury and Commerce departments and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Louisiana Republican Charles Boustany Jr., co-chairman of both the bipartisan U.S.-China
Working Group and the Friends of Trans-Pacific Partnership caucus, hopes to become the next
head of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, which would allow him to push for a
number of measures that could benefit trade with the Chinese. "We have to continue to make
Stefan Bauschard
the case that our trade relationship with China is vitally important. We need to continue to
work through market barriers and get to a point where we can clear up a whole host of issues,
including property theft and so forth," says Boustany, who led an eight-member delegation
from the Working Group to China in March. "At the same time, I think it's vitally important that
we move forward on TPP. We need to continue to press on these economic reforms so that
China will ultimately come on board." Pressure Points for Reform Some continue to see the TPP
as an opportunity for the U.S. to rebalance its position in the region and contain China, which is
not among the 12 countries participating in the negotiations. But others, like Boustany, don't
expect Beijing to opt out of membership forever. While they will not be one of the founding
members, I have heard Chinese leaders at high levels talk about using the agreement as an
external pressure point to encourage internal changes," Lieberthal says. "We saw them behave
the same way with the WTO." Lieberthal is referring to China's decision to join the World Trade
Organization in 2001 after initially using the country's outsider status as a means to overcome
obstacles to domestic reform and reduce subsidies, tariffs, price controls and other elements of
its state-led economy. "They want to use accession negotiations to the
TPP the way they used accession to the WTO -- to help give
them the capability to make changes at home, which are ultimately going to be in
America's interest," Lieberthal adds. Obama said Wednesday that he believes an "ancillary benefit" of TPP "is to create high standards in the
region that then China has to adapt to, as opposed to a race to the bottom where there's no IP protection, for example ..." An even greater
step toward strengthening the relationship would be progress on a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), something Obama said on
Wednesday that Xi is interested in seeing come to fruition. "That could be significant because it could help to change the environment in which
you are able to invest in China without being discriminated against relative to domestic firms," the president told business leaders, adding:
"We've got a lot of work to do on that, but that's a work stream that we've set up." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will be led
next year by Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee, will vet the investment treaty once it's completed. Corker, like Hatch, has been a consistent
supporter of free trade, including opposing legislation the Senate passed in 2011 to penalize China if it was found to be improperly
manipulating its currency for economic advantage. "If the Chinese were to come forward with an ambitious good offer in early 2015, I think
you will see the business community most definitely ready to work actively to lay the groundwork for approval of the agreement but also to
help with that more active engagement with members of Congress on passage," says Erin Ennis, vice president of the U.S.-China Business
Council. An October letter organized by the council and signed by 51 American CEOs who back the investment treaty said: "There are few
other commercial outcomes that would gain as much support from business leaders in both the United States and China." The long-running
talks got a boost in 2013 when China agreed that the treaty should cover all phases of investment and include all commercial sectors except
those specifically excluded on a "negative list." In their letter, the CEOs urged Obama to press Xi for a negative list that excludes as few
sectors as possible. "Investment barriers are market access barriers, plain and simple," the group said. "If China can significantly reduce its
negative list and open markets to American manufacturers, agriculture producers, and service providers, you will find the business community
fully engaged and supportive of your leadership to gain Senate approval of the treaty."
Washington Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen, co-chairman of the U.S.-China Working Group, says he's confident the Chinese will edit down their
list. "China has agreed to come back to the table and they wouldn't come back to the table unless they had something to negotiate with,"
Larsen said. "I've had this discussion with Chinese leaders when I was in China last March." A USTR spokesman for Froman says a "high-quality
'negative list' will be critical to the success of these negotiations."
But experts say the clock is ticking. "There's a small window of time before the 2016 presidential election sucks up all the oxygen in the room,"
"So the real question is whether the president is willing

to expend considerable political capital to make trade a real
priority in early 2015." One signal that the White House is
prioritizing the agenda is a "breakthrough" agreement
announced during the president's visit to Beijing that would
eliminate tariffs on high-tech products in 54 countries,
including the United States and China. "The idea is to move [a
fast-track] bill as quickly as possible, which is why the president's swing
Lieberthal says.
through China and the region was so aggressive. He wants to move quickly. The high-tech deal
was a start," according to a spokesman in the trade representative's office. Successful
congressional movement on fast-tracking sends a strong signal

to leaders in Beijing considering the next step in the
investment treaty negotiations. "If we get TPA, it shows that at
least on the international economic side, this is not a situation
where whatever the president proposes, the Congress just
won't let him have it," Lieberthal says. "And if the Chinese see us moving,
they will have an incentive to move more rapidly too. Otherwise, they'll run into succession
problems of their own, which could push the BIT off until 2018. And a lot of bad things can
happen between now and then."
Stefan Bauschard
Nuclear conflict with China is an EXISTENTIAL risk causes

nuclear winter
Wittner 11 (11/30/11 Dr. Lawrence, Prof of History
Emeritus at SUNY Albany, Is a Nuclear War with China
Possible?)
But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese
nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10
million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while
leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation
poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far
higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive
wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear
explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear
winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating
worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.
Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be
far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear
arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its
number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S.
government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
"modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities
over the next decade.
Stefan Bauschard
UFast Track Now

Fast-track passage likely
Lee Hamilton, 12-9, 14 Hamilton directs the Center on Congress at
Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives for 34 years, USA Today, Congress, President should
cooperation on the small stuff,
http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/09/c
ongress-president-cooperate-small-stuff/20162399/ DOA: 12-9-14
Lee Hamilton directs the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He
was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years. On
the other hand, Congress can probably manage to avoid a
government shutdown, and it faces decent prospects of
expanding and protecting our energy boom, promoting fasttrack trade authority, and funding key infrastructure needs. Defense
spending will not be further reduced.
TPA likely to pass, Democrats are key

Winnipeg Free Press, 12-8, 14, Bipartisanship May Not Be Dead in
U.S., http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/OtherOpinion-Bipartisanship-may-not-be-dead-in-US-285105031.html DOA:
12-9-14
Foralltheheathestakingoverotherissues,fromforeignpolicytoFerguson,Mo.,PresidentObama
deservesmorecreditfortheeconomyssoftlandingaftertheGreatRecession,evenifhehastoshareit
withtheFedandtheboomindomesticenergyproduction.HisremarksinameetingwiththeBusiness
Roundtablelastweekshowedthathehasatleastacoupleofrealisticideasforhowheandthenew
RepublicancontrolledCongresscanhelpconsolidatetherecoveryin2015.Specifically,Obama
emphasizedtheprospectsforabipartisanagreementsontaxreformandinternationaltrade.Neither
ofthosewillbeeasy,butthelatterisprobablymoreachievableintheshorttermespeciallyif
Obamafollowsthroughonhispledgetotakeon"folksinmyownpartyandinmyown
constituency"whoopposeit.RepublicansalreadybacklegislationthatwouldpermitCongressto
considerproposedfreetradepactswiththeEuropeanUnionand11PacificRimnationsonanexpedited
basis,onceObamasteamfinishesnegotiatingthem.Thisbill,knownastradepromotionauthority(TPA),
wouldmakeiteasierforU.S.negotiatorstocompletethedealsbecauseitgivestheothernations
involvedgreaterassurancethatCongresscannotunderminewhatthepresidentagreesto.Yetuntilnow,
SenateMajorityLeaderHarryM.Reid,DNev.,alongtimetradeskeptic,hasslowwalkedTPA.By
contrast,Reidssoontobesuccessor,RepublicanMitchMcConnellofKentucky,isaTPAenthusiast.
Thatmakessensegenerallyandespeciallywithregardtothesetwoproposedtradedeals,which
involvemainlyhighwage,environmentallyconscioustradingpartnerssuchasEurope,Japan,
AustraliaandSingapore.Inaseparatemeetingwithbusinessleaders,McConnellexpressedtheviewthat
"theresapotentialforagreement"ontrade.Still,TPAwouldtake60votestocleartheSenate.If
McConnelliswillingtodelivermostorallofhisSenateRepublicanmajoritysvotesforthislong
Stefan Bauschard
postponedObamaadministrationpolicyobjective,andifObamareciprocatesbypushingDemocrats
tojoin,Americanswillseegrowthenhancingproofthatbipartisanshipisnotdead.
Stefan Bauschard
U Obama Pushing
Obama will push TPA
Inside US Trade, 12-5-14, IN TWO SPEECHES, OBAMA SAYS HE WILL
MAKE CASE FOR TPA TO CONGRESS
President Obama this week told business groups on two
separate occasions that he will reach out to Democratic and
Republican leaders in the House and Senate about the need to
pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), but said it will be
challenging to achieve passage because many Americans
mistakenly attribute the stagnation of their wages and incomes to
trade agreements. In a Dec. 3 speech to the Business Roundtable
(BRT), Obama said he will be "making a strong case on the
merits as to why [TPA] has to get done" to Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA).
Here & Now, 12-8-14, President Wants Congressional Fast Track For 2
Trade Deals, http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/12/08/congressionalfast-track DOA: 12-10-14
President Obama is stepping up a campaign to get fast-track
authority from Congress for two big trade deals. The TransPacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership would open more trade between Asia and Europe.
The deals could be a boon to American farmers, packagers and
shipping companies. There are even signs the president could get the
support he needs from the incoming Republican Congress.
But some members of Obamas base union members and his Tea
Party critics are trying to drum up opposition to both agreements.
Union reps are expected to protest today outside the Office of the
United States Trade Representative.
Stefan Bauschard
U Top of the Docket

TPA within first 3 months, capital key
Vicki Needham, 10-30, 14, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/222261no-fast-track-in-lame-duck The Hill, No Fast-Track in the Lame Duck
DOA: 12-10-14
Lame-duck approval of trade promotion authority, which would make it
easier to negotiate trade deals by making them subject to an up-ordown vote in the Senate, had long been a dream for the groups. Now it
appears the best chance for moving forward with the
legislation would be next year particularly if Republicans take
over the Senate.
Sen.OrrinHatch(RUtah),whoislinetobecomechairmanoftheSenateFinanceCommitteeundera
Republicantakeover,hassaidmovingthelegislationwouldbeatoppriority.
EzellsaidthataRepublicanCongresscouldproduceaTPAbillwithinthefirstthreemonthsofnext
year.
ButaSenateaidesuggestedthattheWhiteHouseandtheOfficeoftheU.S.TradeRepresentative
wouldneedtodooutreachtolawmakersinbothpartiestoensurepassage.
MostHouseDemocratsareopposedtofasttrackauthority,andcouldbeevenlesslikelytosupportitifits
drawnupbyaRepublicanCongressforalameduckDemocraticpresident.
Stefan Bauschard
10
IL -- Bipart Key to TPA

Bipartisanship key to fast-track
CQ Executive Briefings, 12-5-14, Boehner Chides President over Fast-Track
Authority
Boehner said getting fast-track through the House would
require GOP and Democratic votes. The president would have to
work on building that kind of support, the speaker noted. "I've made
clear that not only [does] the president have to ask for it, but
he has to work to build bipartisan support to get it passed,"
Boehner said.
Bipart key to the TPA solves the TPP

Barfield 2014 Claude, former consultant to the office of the US Trade Representative and a
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Its do or die for the TPP 13 August 2014
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/08/13/its-do-or-die-for-the-tpp/
Heading into the fifth year of intense negotiations (with twenty-odd formal sessions and countless informal
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will almost certainly

succeed or fail over the next six months. President Obama has set the
side meetings),
November APEC leaders meeting as his personal deadline for the broad outlines of a deal encompassing
and overcoming the major challenges in this purported twenty-first century trade pact. The 12 TPP
member nations have previously blown past similar deadlines in 2012 and 2013; but this time the political
calendar and negotiating weariness dictate that a continuing stalemate at years end will deal a crippling
blow to a successful outcome. With regard to the negotiating dynamic, failure to achieve major substantive
breakthroughs by early 2015 will evoke the dreaded Doha syndrome image. The WTOs multilateral Doha
Round of trade negotiations has dragged on for 12 years. Currently, a desperate search for compromise on
a small fraction of negotiating issues seems to have failed. Whatever the outcome of this tail-end effort,
the WTO experience will provide ammunition for TPP sceptics who will cite Doha as the rueful model for
Turning to the
political calendar and a shifting political balance of forces, as is often the
biting off more than you can chew in trade negotiations with predictable results.
case,
the United States remains the central factor to any agreement
on the TPP . First, though it is less an iron rule than sometimes portrayed, the 2016
presidential campaign will increasingly intrude upon all policy issues and
particularly upon the divisive trade agenda. This reality dictates a push for at
least broad agreement on key TPP compromises by January or February.
Assuming solid advances in the TPP negotiating framework, what are the political pathways and political
snares to US ratification of the agreement?
divided on trade policy
The Democratic Party remains deeply
in general
and on the TPP specifically . President
Obama, on the other hand, has elevated the TPP as a single goal for his
second term; and while there are signs of lame-duck erosion, having a Democratic
president solidly behind a trade negotiation still will make, at least, a
marginal difference. The House of Representatives will be key. House Republicans can still deliver
at least three-quarters of the Republican majority in favour of the TPP. The Tea Partys 2011
votes on the Panama, Colombia and South Korea FTAs suggest that they
will also support the TPP despite any animosity toward President Obama. As for the
Senate, once again it is likely that the basics will prevail: a sizeable
Stefan Bauschard
11
majority of Republicans will combine with a minority of Democrats

to produce a TPP majority . Beyond these basics, the near-term political calendar is dicey.
First, there is the problem of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by Congress to
expedite an up-or-down vote on trade agreements within a certain time. Major political complications have
stymied efforts to pass a bipartisan bill. Last week, Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee
notified the administration that they would demand a vote on a TPA bill before TPP negotiations were
completed. Looking to the future, there are a number of possible scenarios that could play out. But most
will depend on the outcome of the midterm election and who holds the majority in Congress. If Republicans
win the senate, they may put off TPA until January and the new congress. The role that the US Congress
could play is premised on the assumption that the substantive negotiations produce an acceptable set of
the TPP has been

touted as a twenty-first century agreement, meaning that it will stake
out new territory in liberalising behind-border barriers to trade in
service sectors, state-owned enterprises, health and safety measures,
meaningful regulatory reform and convergence, intellectual property, and
investment arbitration, among others. But alongside these new issues loom old fights on twentieth
compromises by years end. What are the dynamics of such a result? First,
century issues relating to industrial and agricultural tariffs and subsidies in sectors such as textiles,
clothing shoes, sugar, cotton, rice and grains. Japan is demanding special treatment (that is, protection) for
five sacred items rice, wheat and barley, pork and beef, dairy and sugar and it is locked in a line-byline battle with the United States to thwart liberalisation in these sectors. Currently, it looks as if Japan will
concede something in each sector particularly pork, beef and dairy but will not be forced to go to zero
tariffs in all five areas. Both sides have promised key announcements in October at the latest. An
acceptable compromise on the old, twentieth century issues is tied directly to other negotiations on insidethe-border issues. For instance, Vietnam has told the US that it is not prepared to make concessions in
investment without concessions on textiles and shoes. Australias trade minister openly stated that
Australias opposition to an independent investor arbitration body and some US demands on intellectual
property might ease if a better deal emerged on lamb and beef products. Other TPP countries have
signalled openness to similar trade-offs. It is going to take both luck and skill to bring off this high-wire act
But much is riding on a successful outcome for the

US: the TPP has become the single most important symbol of future
US leadership in Asia . Failure will have not only economic but also
debilitating diplomatic and security consequences. Within the United States, two
over the next six months.
are imperatives: hands-on presidential leadership (admittedly not a normal Obama strength) and
responsible initiatives from congressional Republicans who have provided the bedrock majorities for
FTAs for the past two decades.
Stefan Bauschard
12
IL -- Democrats Key to TPA

Democratic votes needed to pass TPA
Inside U.S. Trade, 12-5-14, BROWN SEEKS TO INCLUDE TRADE REMEDY
BILL IN TPA, HINTS AT ACTION BY MID-2015
Trade lobbyists on both sides of the debate, meanwhile, have
also said that even though Republicans will control Congress
beginning next year, they are unlikely to completely jettison
Democratic priorities from a TPA bill because they will still
have to rely on Democratic support to some degree to pass the
legislation. At the CFR event, Brown seemed to lend credence
to the notion that Republicans will need to rely on some
Democratic votes to pass a TPA bill given that some members
of the GOP caucus are likely to oppose such legislation.
Stefan Bauschard
13
IL -- Obama (PC) Key to TPA

Obama influence key to TPA
Inside U.S. Trade, 12-5-14, HATCH SAYS OBAMA WANTS TPA, BUT HOPES
HE WILL MAKE STRONGER CASE
Earlier in the day, Hatch said that Obama's remarks means the
president recognized the importance of TPA. "Today, the President
rightly acknowledged TPA is critical to advancing his trade
agenda and creating prosperity for American job-creators and
workers," he said in a Dec. 3 statement. "The President's
influence, particularly among members of his own party, will
be a vital component to congressional efforts."
Capital key to TPA

Vicki Needham, 10-30, 14, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/222261no-fast-track-in-lame-duck The Hill, No Fast-Track in the Lame Duck
FasttrackhasneverbeenaneasyliftforCongressandthosehopingforalameduckdealcouldbe
accusedofwishfulthinking.Thelastbill,signedintolawin2002byPresidentGeorgeW.Bush,
squeakedthroughtheHousebyjusttwovotesafteramassivelobbyingcampaign.
Stefan Bauschard
14
Asia War Impact

Asia war goes nuclear
Hiatt 2/10/13 (Fred, editorial page editor of The Post. He writes editorials for the newspaper and
a biweekly column that appears on Mondays. He also contributes to the PostPartisan blog. Hiatt has been
with The Post since 1981. Earlier, he worked as a reporter for the Atlanta Journal and the Washington Star.
At The Post, he covered government, politics, development and other issues in Fairfax County and
statewide in Virginia, and later military and national security affairs on the newspapers national staff. From
1987 to 1990, he and his wife were co-bureau chiefs of The Posts Tokyo bureau, and from 1991 to 1995
they served as correspondents and co-bureau chiefs in Moscow. He joined the editorial board in 1996 and
became editorial page editor in 2000. He is the author of The Secret Sun: A Novel of Japan, which was
published in 1992, as well as two books for children, If I Were Queen of the World (1997) and Baby Talk
(1999). Asian tensions add urgency to Obamas pivot http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0210/opinions/37026174_1_kim-jong-eun-diaoyu-islands-young-leader)
Obama ponders his second-term foreign policy, he faces jihadists spreading

across North Africa, Syria dissolving into chaos, Israelis and
Palestinians further apart than ever, Iraq trending toward civil war,
Afghanistan mired in corruption and Iran relentlessly accelerating its
nuclear program. That may turn out to be the easy stuff . In Asia, things
could get really scary. Since he entered the White House, Obama has wanted to shift attention
and resources to the Pacific. The biggest opportunities are there: economic growth,
innovation, potential for cross-border investment and trade. That the 21st century will be
a Pacific century has become a cliche. The cliche may still prove out .
But rather suddenly, the region of economic miracles has become a zone of
As President
frightening confrontation . The North Koreans are turning out videos

depicting New York in flames. Chinese warships have fixed their
weapon-targeting radar on a Japanese ship and helicopter. Quarrels have
intensified between South Korea and Japan, North Korea and South
Korea, China and the Philippines, India and China. Taiwan is always a
possible flashpoint. Any one of these could drag the U nited S tates
in. The scariest development may be in North Korea, the worlds only hereditary prison camp,
where the young leader the third-generation Kim seems determined to
expand and improve his nuclear arsenal until he becomes a genuine
threat not only to South Korea and Japan but to the U nited S tates as
well. Chinese officials are said to be alarmed by his intransigence but unwilling to try
to rein him in, fearing even more the instability that might result. Obama in his first
term adopted a reasonable policy of ignoring North Korea as much as possible, while making clear that he
would reciprocate if it became more accommodating. Kim Jong Eun, who is thought to be in his late 20s,
Chinas increasing
assertiveness discomfits neighbors throughout Southeast and East
could find ways to make that stance untenable. Meanwhile,
Asia . China has claimed pretty much the whole South China Sea, though
its coastline is farther from much of it than that of Vietnam, Malaysia or the Philippines . It has sent
planes and ships to challenge Japan over a few rocky outcroppings
that Japan calls the Senkakus and China the Diaoyu Islands. It has been steadily
increasing the size and capability of its military forces; for the first time in
many years, a neighbor, Japan, is following suit . If all this seems decidedly last
century, maybe its because new leaders in every key country are second- or third-generation, bearing the
burdens of their past. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is the grandson of a leader of imperial Japan
including in occupied China who remade himself as a pro-American prime minister after World War II.
Stefan Bauschard
15
South Koreas president-elect, Park Geun-hye, is the daughter of a longtime president; her mother was
killed by a devotee of North Korea. (The bullet was intended for her father, who was later assassinated by
his intelligence chief.) Xi Jinping, Chinas new president, is the son of a revolutionary colleague of Mao
Tsetung who helped battle the Japanese during World War II. North Koreas Kim Jong Eun is the grandson of
Kim Il-sung, who according to North Korean mythology fought the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s and
Its intriguing to speculate on the

ghostly whisperings these leaders may hear. It may be more useful, though,
to focus on the national weaknesses that may propel them to act.
North Korea is a failed and hungry state for which blackmail and bluster
have long been the only survival strategy . China is a rising power and
the Americans and South Koreans in the 1950s.
a growing economy but
led by a one-party regime that may be tempted to
use nationalism to distract a restive population from domestic

troubles. Japan has discarded one prime minister after another, pretty
much on an annual basis, for most of the past decade, an instability that leaves
it punching below its economic and military weight. All of this
makes the region hungry for U.S. presence and leadership , which
Obama understood with his first-term promise of a pivot to Asia.
Regional leaders hope he can make good on that promise in a second term but wonder whether U.S.
policy, too, will be shaped by political weakness. They notice when the Navy announces that it is, again,
reducing its planned number of ships or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta orders an aircraft carrier kept in
port because of budgetary constraints. They wonder who will inherit the Asia focus of former secretary of
They see the

dangers, from Mali to Kandahar, that pull Obamas attention. They hope it
state Hillary Rodham Clinton and departing assistant secretary Kurt Campbell.
wont take a more dangerous crisis in their region to make the

pivot a reality.
Stefan Bauschard
16
TPA Solves Global Trade

Solves global trade collapse
Kati Suominen 14, Visiting Assistant Adjunct Professor at UCLA
Anderson School of Management, Adjunct Fellow at CSIS, Ph.D. Political
Economy from UC San Diego, Aug 4 2014, Coming Apart: WTO fiasco
highlights urgency for the U.S. to lead the global trading system,
katisuominen.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/coming-apart
threats are
disintegration of the trading system
the WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals require unanimity
making any
player
a veto.
Two
emerging. The first is
. The core of the system until the mid-
1990s,
cantankerous
like India
among 160 members,
Aligning interests has been impossible, turning all action in global trade policymaking to free trade agreements
(FTAs), first kicked off by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. By now, 400 FTAs are in place or under negotiation. FTAs have been good cholesterol for trade, but the overlapping deals and
rules also complicate life for U.S. companies doing global business. One single deal among all countries would be much preferable to the spaghetti bowl of FTAs, but it is but a pie in the sky. So is deeper
liberalization by protectionist countries like India.
The U.S.-led talks for mega-regional agreements

TTIP) and
TPP), are the best
Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (
with
Trans-Pacific Partnership (
solution yet to these problems . They free trade and create uniform
rules among
America. Yet
countries making up
two-thirds of the world economy
. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in
both hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass
Trade Promotion Authority (
TPA
), the key piece of legislation for approving the mega-deals, now stuck in a bitter political fight as several Democrats and Tea Party line up in opposition.
the
TPA is
key for the Obama administration to conclude TPP and TTIP talks
Europeans and Asians are unwilling to negotiate the thorniest

topics before they know TPA is in place
to constrain U.S. Congress to voting up or down on these deals, rather than amending
freshly negotiated texts. The second threat in world trade is the absence of common rules of the game for the 21st century global digital economy. As 3D printing, Internet of Things, and cross-border ecommerce,
and other disruptive technologies expand trade in digital goods and services, intellectual property will be fair game why couldnt a company around the world simply replicate 3D printable products and designs
Made in the USA? Another problem is
data protectionism
rules on access and transport of data across borders. Europeans are imposing limits on companies access to
consumer data, complicating U.S. businesses customer service and marketing; emerging markets such as Brazil and Vietnam are forcing foreign IT companies to locate servers and build data centers as a condition
for market access, measure that costs companies millions in inefficiencies. A growing number of countries claim limits on access to data on the grounds of national security and public safety, familiar code words
for protectionism.
Digital protectionism risks balkanizing the global virtual
economy
just as tariffs siloed national markets in the 19th century when countries set out to collect revenue and promote infant industries a self-defeating approach that took well over a
digital
Trade policymakers
lag far behind todays
trade, which requires sophisticated rules
The mega-regionals, especially the TTIP, are a perfect
to start this
. Disintegration of trade policies risk disintegrating
century to undo, and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of
protectionism are American small businesses and consumers leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart
phones to buy and sell goods and services around the planet.
however
on IP, piracy, copyrights, patents and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows, virtual
currencies, and dispute settlement.
venue
process
world markets
. Just as after World War II,
the global trading system rests in Americas
hands
approval of TPA
to finalize TPP and TTIP
. Three things are needed.
The first is the
, which
unshackles U.S. negotiators
. Most interesting for U.S. exporters, TPP and TTIP almost de facto merge into a superdeal: the United States and EU already have bilateral
FTAs with several common partners belonging in TPP Peru, Colombia, Chile, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. Whats more, gatekeepers to markets with two-thirds of global spending power,
TPP and TTIP will be giant magnetic docking stations to outsiders;

China and Brazil
are interested
the TTIP-TPP
superdeal will cover 80 percent of worlds output and approximate a
, aiming to revive sagging growth,
multilateral agreement
. Once this happens,
and have cutting-edge common trade rules that could never be agreed in one Big Bang at the WTO.
Stefan Bauschard
17
TPA vital for the economy and global trade

Mark Kennedy, Director, Graduate School of Politicla Management,
George Washington University, and Mack McLarty, former White House
Chief of Staff, Expand Trade, Improve Economy, USA TODAY, 212
14, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/12/trade-promotionauthority-obama-economic-growth-column/5340989/, accessed 6-1314.
After struggling with anemic growth for the last six years, the nation
now finds itself with an opportunity to renew its vitality through the
most powerful economic elixir : expanded trade. This benefit cannot
be achieved without giving our partners the confidence that the
United States is negotiating in good faith, free from last minute
changes and additions. This requires giving President Obama Trade
Promotion Authority (commonly known as TPA or "fast track") to
present trade agreements for an up or down vote in Congress. Passing
TPA is distasteful to both Republicans who do not the trust the
president and Democrats who believe the benefits of free trade are
overstated. Yet before they added cherry flavors, many medicines with
powerful cures had a bitter flavor. For the sake of America's
economic health , Congress must come together in a bipartisan
fashion to give President Obama fast track authority, a power granted
to every chief executive since 1974. The Obama Administration, led
ably by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman,
has engaged the European Union and nations in the Pacific in serious
negotiations for high standard trade agreements. These two accords

would increase ties with historic allies, make us more competitive,
increase job opportunities, enhance incomes and allow American
businesses to effectively sell to the fast growing Asian region. Critics
would have you believe that somehow these agreements would
weaken environmental and labor standards, but most partner countries
in question are already high-income nations that embrace strong
worker and environmental protections. Ambassador Froman attempted
to assuage those fears saying, "We have made clear that we're
committed to negotiating a high-standard, ambitious comprehensive
deal." The TPA bill introduced by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, already incorporates new protections to ensure that all
partner countries meet rigorous guidelines. As President Clinton's chief
of staff when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was
passed and one of the deciding votes the last time Congress granted
Fast Track authority, we know how hard it is to move a significant trade
accord. We also know how the dire predictions of skeptics are often
shown to be illusory. The only sucking sound induced by NAFTA was
the gasps of trade skeptics whose economic chimeras failed to
materialize. NAFTA has instead exceeded expectations. It launched
Stefan Bauschard
18
Mexico on a path to strengthen its democratic institutions and

progressively open its economy. A more democratic and competitive
Mexico, along with a more tightly integrated supply chain between the
three North American economies, makes each member of the NAFTA
trio more competitive in world markets. Similar benefits await if we
proceed with the proposed Asian and European accords. Passing TPA
will require significant attention and effort from President Obama
and Congress. Over 500 advocacy groups have written to lawmakers

urging a vote against it. To date, 49 more House Democrats are on
record opposing fast track than supported NAFTA in 1994. Advocating
for free trade will require the president to stand up to members of
his own party to further his economic agenda. It will take courage to
forcefully advocate for an issue that splits one's party , but the
benefits to the nation will far outweigh any intra-party strife. That is
what presidential leadership is all about. There has never been an
economic golden age without trade. It has been the driving force
behind new innovation. Its expansion has allowed countless people
the chance to achieve financial prosperity and advance civilization .
Trade has a wonderful history, but we believe its best days are still
ahead. Every trade liberalization advance has enhanced the well
being of mankind. The United States has arrived at a monumental
opportunity to craft landmark trade agreements with the world. Let us
not fail to build accords that will spark economic growth , create a
better future for our children and launch a new golden era of trade .
Stefan Bauschard
19
Trade Key to Economy

New trade deals key to the global economy
Schoen 10/8/14 (Doug, longtime political strategist, Fox News
contributor and author of several books, It's Time For President
Obama To Begin Legacy Shopping On Trade Issues,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2014/10/08/its-time-forpresident-obama-to-begin-legacy-shopping-on-trade-issues/)
Without question, President Obamas second term will ultimately be defined on how he rallies the American people to protect our national
security interests, both here at home and overseas. The rise of ISIS and other crises in the Middle East, have rightfully demanded the
presidents attention and political leadership that by most accounts has fallen by the wayside. While diplomatic and security concerns must
international economic issues that will have a direct

and long-lasting impact on millions of Americans . We are currently
negotiating two massive trade agreements with the Asia-Pacific region and the European Union,
which have the potential to expand the global economy , providing jobs for
always take priority, there are other
American workers and new customers for American businesses. But we must also deal on a daily basis with countries like India and China who
routinely flout their trade obligations to the detriment of American investment, innovation, and opportunities. Its a lot for one president to
handle, especially when factoring domestic economic and political issues that have contributed to President Obamas popularity being at its
lowest point in his two terms. For a soon-to-be lame duck commander-in-chief, its time to start thinking about the legacy question. Beyond
political infighting and a health care law that remains a work in progress at best, how does President Obama want to be remembered five or
ten years from now, and what is he going to do to shape that legacy between now and January 2017? For better or worse, the president
owns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. But apart from his historic election six years ago,
theres not much more that Mr.
Obama can stake a claim to as far as signature accomplishments. After November, Obama heads into
if the GOP somehow wins control of the Senate , he will
the lame-duck phase of his presidency, and
have to find a way to work with or around Congress to make progress on his
agenda. Granted, theres not much the president can control when it comes to world events or a hostile Congress. Fortunately,
there is some low-hanging fruit thats ready to be picked on
issues with broad Congressional support. At the beginning of his second term, Mr. Obama
announced a renewed emphasis on expanding U.S. trading partnerships and finalizing the agreements that the U.S. is currently negotiating.
One of those free trade agreements is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), between the U.S. and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region,
including Canada and Japan. But there are significant barriers that remain before the deal can be finalized, including lack of access to the
Japanese market for U.S. agricultural products and automobiles, as well as disputes over intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals.
Trade deals like TPP and its European counterpart, the TTIP, present opportunities, but they are contingent
upon the U.S. securing the best possible outcome, and for that to
happen Mr. Obama needs to play a much stronger leadership
role. While TPP could certainly be a feather in the presidents
cap, a weak deal would set our economy back for years to come .
Whether or not he would like to admit it, Mr. Obamas inability to finalize these deals will inevitably tarnish his legacy. Immediately
after this years mid-term elections, he must capitalize on the lame duck Congress
and demand T rade P romotion A uthority, or fast-track powers so that he can complete
pending trade agreements and win a major victory for his Administration. The TPP, in particular, has
vast upside potential for the American economy, unlocking new
markets that our industries have been shut out of for a long
time. Provided market access, intellectual property and regulatory transparency issues are resolved in favor of the U.S., the TPP
will set a new standard for how trade agreements are
approached in the future and provide a solution for the
ineptitude and impotence of the W orld T rade O rganization. In short, while a strong TPP
would be a capstone for the presidents legacy, a weak agreement on a deal of this magnitude will severely
hamstring the next president, setting a dangerous precedent by leaving the U.S.
Stefan Bauschard
20
vulnerable to the whims of other countries that refuse to play

by the rules. Ultimately, whether or not Mr. Obama succeeds or fails on TPP will come down to whether he has the political
capital and the political will to secure the strongest possible deal and work with both parties in Congress on ratification. Given the
dismal outlook for many of his priorities over the next two years, a renewed
commitment to Americas trade agenda may be one of the few winnable
pieces
that can contribute to his final legacy. All politics aside, the clock is ticking.
Stefan Bauschard
21
Trade Solves Hotspot Escalation

Causes global hotspot escalation---trade is key to solve
Miriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and
Development program at Brookings, former Deputy US Trade
Representative, former Director of European Affairs at the National
Security Council, Why Trade Matters, September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why
%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States.
International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is
With that context in mind, this paper assesses the

implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations
underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and
important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security.
ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on mega-regional trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a
catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders
to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade
dire developments are threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners
In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been
overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the IsraeliPalestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with
Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic
rivalries and disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by
policy when
in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe.
Chinas aggressive moves in the S outh C hina S ea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines.
Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are
struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and
destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people
fearful of increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and
defer less urgent issuessuch as forging new disciplines for international tradeto another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would
be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for
advancing trade liberalization
now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic
can help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the
United States and its partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help
reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic
prosperity. Such initiatives
cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and
people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japans economy.
A key element of the Marshall

was to revive trade
Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today,
by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the
United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern
European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy. There have been subsequent calls for a Marshall Plan for other parts of the world,2 although the
confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the
valuable role
economic development can play in defusing tensions , and how opening markets can
hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down
as head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that
security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on military strength.3 Where people have opportunities for
themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During his confirmation
hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point
also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He asserted
Every
day, he said, that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot
forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead , is a day in which we weaken
rightly sothat more than ever foreign policy is economic policy, particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets.
our nation itself.4 Strengthening Americas economic security by cementing
its
economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative . A strong nation needs a strong economy that can generate
growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much
as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time
Stefan Bauschard
to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A
security and place
22
failure to act now could undermine
stability in key regions
in further jeopardy.
international
Stefan Bauschard
23
A2: No Asia War

War probable otherwisemultiple triggers
Kurt M. Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, Nirav Patel & Vikram J. Singh, The Power of Balance,
Center for a New American Century, 608,
www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_J
une08.pdf, accessed 7-5-14.
We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of
iAsia to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of
fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the
world. Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a
period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is:
Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic interdependence and a
flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange,
and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the worlds
most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start
taking the lead in everything from finance to nanotech to green tech.
Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human
capital at unprecedented rates. But the continent remains plagued by:
Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military
investments along with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial
and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From
environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs,
people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about.Inequality:
Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than
anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in countries like
India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within
countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as
Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia
will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests
and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the
Chinese government, along with other Asian financial players, injected
billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill
Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese
investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new
markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of
global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of
worlds available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to
oil are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up
commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other
Western capitals. Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average,
between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to conflict,
and suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent
Stefan Bauschard
24
harbors every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is

a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable global appetite for energy;
the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of
global climate change; the primary source of nuclear proliferation; and
the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and
even a nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the
ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like terrorism, and
traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of
miscalculation or poor decision-making.
No defensewill go nuclear
C. Raja Mohan, distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation,
Emerging Geopolitical Trends and Security in the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, the Peoples Republic of China, and India
(ACI) Region, Asia Development Bank Institute Study on the Role of
Emerging Economies, n. 412, 313,
www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2013/10737.pdf, accessed 7-3-14.
Three broad types of conventional conflict confront Asia. The first is the
prospect of war between great powers. Until a rising PRC grabbed the
attention of the region, there had been little fear of great power rivalry
in the region. The fact that all major powers interested in Asia are armed
with nuclear weapons, and the fact that there is growing economic
interdependence between them, has led many to argue that great
power conflict is not likely to occur. Economic interdependence, as
historians might say by citing the experience of the First World War, is
not a guarantee for peace in Asia. Europe saw great power conflict
despite growing interdependence in the first half of the 20th century.
Nuclear weapons are surely a larger inhibitor of great power wars. Yet
we have seen military tensions build up between the PRC and the US in
the waters of the Western Pacific in recent years. The contradiction
between the PRCs efforts to limit and constrain the presence of other
powers in its maritime periphery and the US commitment to maintain a
presence in the Western Pacific is real and can only deepen over
time.29 We also know from the Cold War that while nuclear weapons did
help to reduce the impulses for a conventional war between great
powers, they did not prevent geopolitical competition. Great power
rivalry expressed itself in two other forms of conflict during the Cold
War: inter-state wars and intra-state conflict. If the outcomes in these
conflicts are seen as threatening to one or other great power, they are
likely to influence the outcome. This can be done either through support
for one of the parties in the inter-state conflicts or civil wars. When a
great power decides to become directly involved in a conflict the stakes
are often very high. In the coming years, it is possible to envisage
conflicts of all these types in the ACI region. Asia has barely begun the
Stefan Bauschard
25
work of creating an institutional framework to resolve regional security

challenges. Asia has traditionally been averse to involving the United
Nations (UN) in regional security arrangements. Major powers like the
PRC and India are not interested in internationalizing their security
problemswhether Tibet; Taipei,China; the South China Sea; or
Kashmirand give other powers a handle. Even lesser powers have
had a tradition of rejecting UN interference in their conflicts. North
Korea, for example, prefers dealing with the United States directly
rather than resolve its nuclear issues through the International Atomic
Energy Agency and the UN. Since its founding, the involvement of the
UN in regional security problems has been rare and occasional. The
burden of securing Asia, then, falls squarely on the region itself. There
are three broad ways in which a security system in Asia might evolve:
collective security, a concert of major powers, and a balance of power
system.30 Collective security involves a system where all stand for one
and each stands for all, in the event of an aggression. While collective
security systems are the best in a normative sense, achieving them in
the real world has always been difficult. A more achievable goal is
cooperative security that seeks to develop mechanisms for reducing
mutual suspicion, building confidence, promoting transparency, and
mitigating if not resolving the sources of conflict. The ARF and EAS
were largely conceived within this framework, but the former has
disappointed while the latter has yet to demonstrate its full potential.
A second, quite different, approach emphasizes the importance of
power, especially military power, to deter ones adversaries and the
building of countervailing coalitions against a threatening state. A
balance of power system, as many critics of the idea point out, promotes
arms races, is inherently unstable, and breaks down frequently leading to
systemic wars. There is growing concern in Asia that amidst the rise of
Chinese military power and the perception of American decline, many

large and small states are stepping up their expenditure on acquiring
advanced weapons systems. Some analysts see this as a structural
condition of the new Asia that must be addressed through deliberate
diplomatic action. 31 A third approach involves cooperation among the
great powers to act in concert to enforce a broad set of normsfalling
in between the idealistic notions of collective security and the atavistic
forms of balance of power. However, acting in concert involves a
minimum level of understanding between the major powers. The
greatest example of a concert is the one formed by major European
powers in the early 18th century through the Congress of Vienna after
the defeat of Napoleonic France. The problem of adapting such a
system to Asia is the fact that there are many medium-sized powers
who would resent any attempt by a few great powers to impose order
in the region.32 In the end, the system that emerges in Asia is likely to
have elements of all the three models. In the interim, though, there are
Stefan Bauschard
26
substantive disputes on the geographic scope and the normative basis

for a future security order in Asia.
Stefan Bauschard
27
TPA Key to TPP

Lack of TPA killing TPP
Reuters, 10-29, 14
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/141029/usbusiness-calls-push-fast-track-trade-authority
The TPP is a 12-nation trade deal covering 40 percent of the world
economy, which seeks to set common standards in areas like labor and
intellectual property as well as break down trade barriers. Trade
experts say the lack of TPA is one of the hurdles in finalizing
the TPP, as trade partners could be unwilling to put up their
best offers if Congress later seeks to change terms of the deal
TPA critical to TPP

Money News, 10-29, 14,
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Businesses-Fast-track-TradeAuthority/2014/10/29/id/604005/
TradeexpertssaythelackofatradepromotionauthorityisoneofthehurdlesinfinalizingtheTPP,
sincetradepartnersmayfearCongresswouldlaterseektoamendthedeal.InanarticleinForeignPolicy
Magazineearlierthismonth,U.S.TradeRepresentativeMichaelFromansaidTPAwouldgive"U.S.
tradingpartnersthenecessaryconfidencetoputtheirbestandfinaloffersonthetable."
Stefan Bauschard
28
TPP Critical to Resolve Asian Power Conflicts

Thats key to dampen Asian power competition
Scott Miller, Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Paul Nadeau, program manager
and research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, 1/31/14, TPP Is
More than a Trade Agreement, csis.org/publication/tpp-more-tradeagreement
The White House needs TPA because the TPP is the pivot to Asia. The
military realignment is important, but the repositioning is mostly relative, driven
by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and economic
realignment that aims to improve cooperation and integration among the
United States and East Asia. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this explicitly in her Foreign
Policy article, Americas Pacific Century, when she wrote [O]pen markets in Asia
provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for
investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our
economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of
American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of
Asia. Military presence was only one out of the six courses of action
that Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the TPP is arguably the key
ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships with rising
powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions;
expanding trade and investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing health care reform
were President Obamas key domestic policy victories, then the Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where
he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too nascent to
determine how far reaching they will become).
there are tensions among Asias large powers , and the United States is
likely the single entity that can influence the situation . The United States and
Asia need each other and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally,
economically, and politically help bind them together. The Members of
Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into
legislation. Trade negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But
TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many in Asia are already concerned that the Pivot
was only superficial and that United States is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain
framed as a trade issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that,
the Administration risks putting TPP on ice for 2014.
Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the
TPP as a strategic goal that will be the cornerstone of the Asia Pivot .
This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics who
argue that the Pivot lacks substance. Moreover, it would give the President an
Today,
achievable goal in advance of his April trip to Asia.
Asia power competition is the most likely scenario for nuclear war
Campbell et al 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr.
Campbell served in several capacities in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief
Stefan Bauschard
29
Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of
the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and was
the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding
CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A.
Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in
International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international
relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and International
Institute for Strategic Studies, The Power of Balance: America in iAsia June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_i
Asia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the
world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion
in foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting
to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing
industrial giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its
once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. Chinas Lenovo
bought IBMs personal computer
We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of
iAsia to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of
fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the
world. Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a
period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is:
Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic interdependence and a
flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange,
and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the worlds
most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start
taking the lead in everything from finance to nanotech to green tech.
Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human
capital at unprecedented rates. But the continent remains plagued
by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military

investments along with historic suspicions and contemporary
territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible . Instability:
From environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking
in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry
about. Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia
is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished
minorities in countries like India and China, and the gap in
governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as
Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique challenges. A
traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to

both protect American interests and help iAsia realize its potential and
avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other
Asian financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S.
investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime
mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional
industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global
products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of global consumption
Stefan Bauschard
30
of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of worlds available

concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil are being used
by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices
and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals.
Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50
people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and suspicions
rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors
every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a
cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and
extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable global appetite
for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse
effects of global climate change; the primary source of nuclear
proliferation; and the most likely theater on Earth for a major
conventional confrontation and even a nuclear conflict . Coexisting with the
optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, nontraditional threats like terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict,
which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor
decision-making .
Stefan Bauschard
31
TPP Russia Scenario

TPP Solves Russia aggression
Stephen DeMaura, 4/5/14, Time to Counter Russia with Trade
Expansion,
townhall.com/columnists/stephendemaura/2014/04/05/time-to-counterrussia-with-trade-expansion-n1818946/page/full
Obama returned from a major overseas trip last week where he met with
at a moment when Russia continues to flex
its muscle in the region, recently sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on a high-profile
visit to the newly-annexed territory in Crimea. Its clear that the need for seamless
cooperation between the US and the Europe Union is paramount . And theres
no better way to shore up the transatlantic alliance than by
strengthening our economic ties. Already, trade between the United States and the EU
President
many of our European Union (EU) allies
accounts for more than 30 percent of trade around the world and generates nearly $3 billion every day. An
agreement currently under negotiation between the US and the EU the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) would remove even more trade barriers and foster closer trade ties
between the two continents. The President reiterated his support for this agreement in Brussels last week;
unfortunately, he has yet to publicly stand up to some of his biggest political allies who are working to hold
In order to get TTIP and other pending trade

agreements moving, the President must be granted Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA) by an act of Congress. TPA has been granted to every president since the 1930s, until it expired in
up TTIP here at home.
2007. Congress now has a unique opportunity now to pass a retooled TPA for the 21st Century, and
bringing the EU and US closer to counter Russian expansionism only makes that aim more important.
Democrats in Congress are some of the most vocal voices in opposition to TPA and trade expansion in
general. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this year that everyone would be well-advised not
to push this right now. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi went even further, calling pending TPA
legislation out of the question. Why would Congressional Democrats seek to slow-track or shoot down
legislation that would increase trade with some of our closest allies and create new jobs? One reason is the
strong-arm tactics of Big Labor. Union bosses believe their position will be weakened by expanded
international trade and they are holding Democratic politicians beholden to their wishes. Just recently,
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka
criticized pending trade agreements with the EU and Asia in a speech at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress (CAP), daring to claim that TPA has failed to evolve with our complex and dynamic
global economy. In fact, the bipartisan TPA legislation currently before Congress aims to bring our trade
We
cannot allow petty politics to sabotage a crucial geopolitical
moment. We need to send an unequivocal message to Vladimir Putin
and the Russian oligarchs that the United States and the European Union
are more committed than ever to our transatlantic alliance. Fostering
closer trade ties a clear path to doing just that , as well as stimulating our economy and
policies into the 21stCentury and its Big Labors archaic protectionism that belongs to the past.
creating new and better jobs along the way. Its time for Democrats in Congress to see beyond their next
Passing TPA means more American jobs, solidifying

our position as the worlds trade leader and sends a very important message
to the Russians, which are goals we can all get behind.
election and stand up to Big Labor bosses.
Russian aggression causes nuclear war

Blank 9 Dr. Stephen Blank is a Research Professor of National
Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War
College, March 2009, Russia And Arms Control: Are There
Opportunities For The Obama Administration?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub908.pdf
Stefan Bauschard
32
Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter
regional or intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of
retaliation.168 Given a multipolar world structure with little
ideological rivalry among major powers , it is unlikely that they will
go to war with each other . Rather, like Russia , they will strive for
exclusive hegemony in their own sphere of influence and use
nuclear instruments towards that end . However, wars may well
break out between major powers and weaker peripheral states or between
peripheral and semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic

legitimacy, the absence of the means of crisis prevention, the visible
absence of crisis management mechanisms, and their strategic
calculation that asymmetric wars might give them the victory or
respite they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of periphery and
semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political maneuvering.
Since war remains a political option, these states may find it convenient to exercise their military
power as a means for achieving political objectives. Thus international crises may
increase in number . This has two important implications for the use of
WMD . First, they may be used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or
in Russias case , to achieve intra-war escalation control author170) to the
striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances in military capabilities are significant ;
and second, crises increase the possibilities of inadvertent or
accidental wars involving WMD .171 Obviously nuclear proliferators
or states that are expanding their nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon
world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing consensus and use their weapons not as
defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought, but as offensive
weapons to threaten other states and deter nuclear powers. Their decision to go
either for cooperative security and strengthened international militarypolitical norms of action, or for individual national egotism will
critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if they drift
away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security],
the consequences could be profound . At the very least, the effective
functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order , such as the
special responsibility of the great powers in the management of
the interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under
the aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired .
Armed with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial
costs in blood or money on an intervening force or the populaces of the
nations marshaling that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to
collective security operations , undermine the credibility of alliance
commitments by the great powers , [undermine guarantees of
extended deterrence by them to threatened nations and states] extend
Stefan Bauschard
alliances of their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on their
neighbors or their own people .172
33
Stefan Bauschard
34
TPP Solves Mexico Relations

TPP solves Mexico economic stability and US-Mexico partnership
Alberto Esenaro, Mexican Law Blog, 4/21/14, What Would the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) Mean for Mexico?, mexicanlawblog.com/whatwould-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-mean-for-mexico/
In 2012, the nine countries comprising the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP) embraced Mexico as
a tenth member before Canada and Japan. U.S. officials commented that all members United States,
Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei jointly accepted Mexicos
acceptance of Mexico within the TPP was one of the big

achievements of former President Felipe Calderon during his six-year presidential term. As a
member of the TPP, Mexico now has a role in the global supply chains for
both the U.S. and Asia Pacific markets. Calderon said, This is one of the free trade
application. The
initiatives thats most ambitious in the world and would foster integration of the Asia Pacific region, one of
the regions with the greatest dynamism in the world. In addition,
Mexico will get the
chance to diversity its exports. Within a year from being accepted into the TPP, the
countrys major exports were electronics (38%), cars and auto parts (17%), and oil (12%). This is a long
way from the low value maquila operations Mexico first started with. By offering lower production costs
Mexico has quickly grown into an export hub that

As a result of these outcomes and the strategies implemented by
the current Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto, Mexicos economy grew. The Mexican
and cheaper experienced labor,
competes with the likes of China.
Ministry of Finance estimates that the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the fourth quarter and reached 1.3
percent in 2013. This was the result of the increase in demand for Mexican goods as well as the reforms
With a
stronger economy, Mexico expects its higher job retention rates, rising
living standards, and a lower percentage of poverty. A third advantage of joining
the TPP is strengthening the countrys relationship with its neighbour
in the north. Though Mexico has already partnered with the U.S. in the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it was the U.S. that invited the Latin
American country to join the negotiations of the TPP. U.S. Trade
President Pea Nieto made to open the oil industry to private and foreign investors.
Representative Ron Kirk released a statement after U.S. President Barack Obama and President Calderon
met at the Group of 20 summit announcing the news. We are delighted to invite Mexico, our neighbour
and second largest export market, to join the TPP negotiations. Mexicos interest in the TPP reflects its
recognition that the TPP presents the most promising pathway to boosting trade across the Asia Pacific and
to encouraging regional trade integration. We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress
This was part of a broader U.S. strategy

to link its economy to fast growing markets. For Mexico, this would allow the country to
strengthen its synergies and deepen the natural integrations of its
exports in the U.S. market. Prior to joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Mexicos total trade
and domestic stakeholders as we move forward.
with the nine TPP countries had reached $466 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, the countrys exports to the U.S.
were $280 billion. From February 17 to 25, 2014, Commerce Ministers and Chief Negotiators met at
If Mexico succeeds on those

negotiations and deep reforms, it will become an international trade
and investment platform.
Singapore for an additional round of negotiation.
Stefan Bauschard
35
A2: Trade Hurts the Environment

New trade deals come with environmental and labor
protections
Wisconsin Register, 12-8-14, Editorial: Give Obama Fast Track on
Trade
http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/opinion/editorial/a
rticle_1a43a434-d6bc-552f-b5a4-978e7ca2fe29.html DOA: 12-10-14
America needs one person not 535 members of Congress
negotiating big trade deals with Europe and a dozen Pacific
nations.
Congress should give Democratic President Barack Obama the
fast-track authority his administration needs to get these important
agreements done.
Congress would still get a final vote on anything Obama and his trading
partners come up with. But Congress wouldnt be allowed to amend
trade deals to death, a prospect that discourages other nations from
making their best offers.
Fast-track authority, granted by Congress, would allow the Obama
administration to negotiate with confidence. The Obama
administration is pursuing a Trans-Pacific Partnership with
such nations as Japan, Vietnam and Brunei. Obama also hopes
to seal a deal with the European Union.
Free-trade zones across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would
lower tariffs and smooth commerce for all while encouraging
higher environmental and labor standards.
Protectionists hope to unravel the agreements. They fear American
jobs could be lost.
But free trade, while disruptive, has lifted prosperity for our state and
nation. As U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from La Crosse, notes: The
United States is running a trade surplus in manufacturing, agriculture
and services with the 20 countries it has bilateral agreements with.
Kinds New Democrat Coalition will be a key force for getting deals
done. Unfortunately, the extremes of both political parties the
progressives on the left, and the tea party on the right fear the
realities of global competition.
Wisconsin and America cant afford to sit on the sidelines of emerging
markets. The big partnerships with European, Asian and Pacific
countries would encompass 70 percent of the global marketplace. If
America doesnt lead on the issue, China surely will.
Obama last week made the strong case for expanding trade at the
Business Roundtable in Washington, D.C. Those companies that could
Stefan Bauschard
36
benefit by moving jobs and factories overseas have already done so,
Obama said.
Dont fight the last war, the president told fellow Democrats. Those
who oppose these trade deals, ironically, are accepting a status quo
that is more damaging to American workers.
Hes right.
Wisconsin will be able to sell more agricultural and dairy products in
places such as Japan if trade barriers are lowered. Wisconsin
manufacturers and technology companies will be able to find more
customers for their equipment and innovations.
That will mean more jobs here at home, despite more competition from
abroad.
Right now, Obama said, there are no labor rights in
Vietnam. I dont know how its good for labor for us to tank a
deal that would require Vietnam to improve its laws around
labor organization and safety.
On the environmental front, I havent looked carefully at the
environmental laws in Malaysia recently, but I suspect theyre
not as strong as they are here, Obama said. Its not a bad
thing for us to nudge them in a better direction.
Automation has impacted American jobs more than offshoring, Obama
said.
So I think that there are folks in my own party and in my own
constituency that have legitimate complaints about some of the trend
lines of inequality, but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to
opposing trade deals.
Congress should give the president the flexibility he needs.
Stefan Bauschard
37
China-US Relations Solve Stability

Relations are key to a genuine cooperative strategy,
solves global peace and stability
Bendsten, Senior Political Analyst for the Lantern, 13
(Daniel, October 28th, United States-China relations key to peace and

stability, http://thelantern.com/2013/10/us-china-relations-key-peacestability/, accessed 7/8/14, LLM)
As the relationship between China and the U.S. evolves, how
the two will work together on a global scale is becoming
increasingly important. As we look to the future, the key
question is Can the U.S. and China work together to solve the
worlds important challenges despite different economic systems
and divergent views on such matters as democracy, religious freedom,
civil liberties and the rule of law? former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright said during an event about the U.S.-China relationship Monday.
In my view, this is certainly possible, so long as we recognize
our disagreements and core differences with maturity,
confront our challenges directly, and have leaders on both
sides that are committed to this relationship. The seventh
annual China Town Hall, during which Ohio State and 65 other venues
hosted local speakers Monday in a two-hour event, featured a webcast
discussion on the subject of U.S.-China relations between Albright in
Washington, D.C., and Stephen Orlins, president of the National
Committee on U.S.-China Relations. U.S.-China relations are the
defining relationship of the 21st century, and getting that
relationship right is the key to peace and stability throughout
the world, Orlins said.
Relations are key to global stability- international system

are unsustainable and inevitably going to collapse in the
Status Quo
Xiaoyu, Analyst for the China Institute of International
Studies, 2014
(LI, January 13th, China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future

http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-01/13/content_6606656.htm,
accessed 7/2/14, LLM)
The global future is likely to be increasingly volatile and
uncertain. The rate of change is increasing, driven by the accelerating pace
of technological development, unprecedented urbanization and growth of
the global middle class, and a wide range of challenges
beyond the control of any one country but potentially affecting
the prosperity and security of all countries. Disruptive change in one
geographic or functional area will spread quickly.. No country, and certainly not
Stefan Bauschard
38
those with the largest populations and largest economies, will

be immune. Global challenges like climate change, food and water
shortages, and resource scarcities will shape the strategic
context for all nations and require reconsideration of traditional national concerns such as
sovereignty and maximizing the ability of national leaders to control
their countrys destiny. What China and the United States do,
individually and together , will have a major impact on the
future of the global system . As importantly, our individual
fates will be inextricably linked to how that future plays out . The
three illustrative scenarios sketched out below underscore how critical the future of the US-China
relationship is to each country and to the world. Global Drift and Erosion (the present world trajectory):
In a world in which nations fail to resolve global problems and

strengthen mechanisms of global cooperation, governments
gradually turn inward. Each nation seeks to protect and advance
its own narrow national interests or to preserve an
unsustainable status quo that is rapidly changing in ways that
erode the international order. The international communitys lack of ability
to cooperate to meet global challenges leads to international
crises and instability. Zero-Sum World: Unsustainable drift leads to a world of
predominantly zero-sum competition and conflict in the face of severe
resource constraints. The result is economic crises and internal
instability as well as interstate confrontation. There is risk of
military conflict between major powers, which increases global
mistrust and uncertainty and fosters an each nation for
itself mentality that further undermines the ability of states to
cooperate in the face of growing common challenges. Global
Revitalization and Cooperation: To escape the perils of drift or zero-sum competition,
leaders in countries with the most to lose work together to manage and take advantage of global
Cooperation makes it possible to achieve winwin outcomes that avoid or mitigate negative consequences of
increased demand for resources and the impact of climate
change as well as to harness new technologies to improve
living conditions through sustainable development.
Cooperation creates and utilizes new transnational institutions to
prevent conflict and enhance security for all. China and the United
States become more prosperous as we work together. The possible
challenges and megatrends.
futures sketched out above (and developed at greater length below) are intended to stimulate thinking
about how current trends and uncertainties could lead to very different global and national outcomes. For
the United States and China will have greater ability

and incentives than other countries to cooperate in determining and
shaping developments over the next two decades. Indeed, it is very difficult to imagine
a pathway to global revitalization and cooperation in which
many reasons,
China and the United States do not cooperate and provide

critical international leadership. Many factors will shape the
future, some of which are beyond the control of any nation state, but China and the
Stefan Bauschard
United States and the character of the

will be critical.
39
US-China
relationship
Stefan Bauschard
40
China-US Relations Solve Iran Prolif
Strong US-Sino relations key to prevent Iran Proliferation

Tisdall, Guardian Assistant Editor, 5
[Simon, Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a
foreign affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for
the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor,
based in Washington DC. He was the Observer's foreign editor from
1996-98, September 20, The Gaurdian, The Sino-US pincer,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/21/tisdallbriefing.northkor
ea,accessed July 8, 2014, EK]
North Korea's unexpected pledge this week to abandon its
nuclear weapons appears to be the result of a highly unusual
diplomatic pincer movement by the US and China. The
manoeuvre has potentially positive implications for resolving
the nuclear stalemate with another so-called axis of evil state,
Iran. The deal forged at the six-party talks hosted by China in Beijing
remains highly fragile, as yesterday's renewed demands from
Pyongyang show. But if made to stick, diplomats believe that it may
come to be seen as a landmark in Sino-US strategic security
cooperation and a paradigm for ending the west's dispute with
Tehran. After two years of fruitless talks, the turning point seems to
have come not in Beijing but in New York, at a private meeting last
week at the UN between George Bush and the Chinese leader, Hu
Jintao. The US president is said to have warned his counterpart that in
the absence of progress, the US may step up pressure on North Korea's
weak and inherently unstable regime - with unpredictable
consequences. "If the talks had failed again, it would have harmed
China's credibility," said an Asian diplomat familiar with the Beijing
talks. But China had more powerful motives, too. As its economy and
international standing have grown, its broader interests in solving the
dispute have increasingly fallen into line with Washington's. "China has
its own security and economic concerns. It sees North Korea as a
destabilising factor in the region. It wants to keep it as a buffer state,
to keep the status quo. It doesn't want the Korean peninsula to be
nuclearised or destroyed," the diplomat said. Beijing also feared
Pyongyang's nuclear arms could lead its regional rival, Japan, and
South Korea to acquire similar weapons while encouraging a
heightened US military presence. The US decision to offer security
guarantees, aid and technology to North Korea, having long refused to
do so, also reflects a more consensual perspective in Washington. That
change is attributed in part to Condoleezza Rice's appointment as
America's top diplomat and the reassignment to the UN of John Bolton,
the former arms control chief whose abrasive style antagonised
Pyongyang. But preoccupations with Iraq, growing worries
Stefan Bauschard
41
about Iran, plus Japanese and South Korean concerns about

escalation have also helped persuade the White House that
China's insistence on engagement, rather than confrontation,
may best serve its interests. The US eschewed bilateral contacts
after the 2002 rupture that led North Korea to quit the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Now its chief negotiator, Christopher Hill,hailing the
deal as a "turning point", may visit Pyongyang. The contradictions
between this new US approach and its policy towards Iran may
become increasingly difficult to justify internationally. Mohamed
ElBaradei, the UN nuclear agency chief, made the comparison this
week while warning against American (and Iranian) "brinkmanship".
Iranian officials say privately that Washington's refusal to meet
bilaterally, indirect threats of military coercion, and economic
sanctions all hinder progress on the nuclear issue. Beijing seems
to agree. With its UN veto in its pocket, it has opposed punitive
measures against Iran, an important oil and gas exporter, while
insisting engagement is the best path forward. Ironically, it may be
China, Washington's new-found "strategic partner" in the
east, which also holds the key to the west's Iranian impasse .
US-Sino Relations Solve Iran Prolif

Kan, Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, 14
[Shirley A., January 3, Congressional Research Service, China and
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy
Issues, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL31555.pdf, accessed July 8,
2014, EK]
Congress has long been concerned about whether U.S. policy
advances the national interest in reducing the role of the
Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles that could
deliver them. Recipients of Chinas technology reportedly included
Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. This CRS Report, updated as
warranted, discusses the security problem of Chinas role in
weapons proliferation and issues related to the U.S. policy
response since the mid-1990s. China has taken some steps to
mollify U.S. and other foreign concerns about its role in
weapons proliferation. Nonetheless, supplies from China have
aggravated trends that result in ambiguous technical aid, more
indigenous capabilities, longer-range missiles, and secondary
(retransferred) proliferation. Unclassified intelligence reports told
Congress that China was a key supplier of technology, particularly
with PRC entities providing nuclear and missile-related technology to
Pakistan and missile-related technology to Iran. Policy approaches in
Stefan Bauschard
42
seeking PRC cooperation have concerned summits, sanctions, and

satellite exports. PRC proliferation activities have continued to
raise questions about Chinas commitment to nonproliferation
and the need for U.S. sanctions. The United States has imposed
sanctions on various PRC entities (including state-owned entities) for
troublesome transfers related to missiles and chemical weapons to
Pakistan, Iran, or perhaps another country, including repeated
sanctions on some serial proliferators. Since 2009, the Obama
Administration has imposed sanctions on 16 occasions on multiple
entities in China for weapons proliferation.
Strong US-China relations key to prevent Iran

Proliferation
DeSutter, Department of State, 3
[Paula A., United States Assistant Secretary of State for Verification,
Compliance, and Implementation from 2002 to 2009, staff of the
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[3] There she
was the staff liaison to Senator Jon Kyl and was responsible for
legislation and oversight of intelligence collection, analysis and
activities related to proliferation, terrorism, arms control, the Persian
Gulf States, India, Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan, July 24, China 's
Record of Proliferation Activities,
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclearweapons/issues/proliferation/china/state-department-proliferationactivities.htm, accessed July 8, 2014, EK]
Let me begin by stating the obvious: China is a key to achieving
the Administration's goal of stopping the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction technology throughout the world.
Chinese officials at every level have said both publicly and
privately to us that China recognizes the importance of this
issue, and expressed their hope that nonproliferation can be
an area of cooperation rather than contention between our two
countries. While we too share this desire, I must report to you today
that we continue to see problems in the proliferant behavior of certain
Chinese entities and remain deeply concerned about the Chinese
government's often narrow interpretation of nonproliferation
commitments and lack of enforcement of nonproliferation
regulations. The government of China has not done enough to ensure
that all Chinese entities abide by the nonproliferation commitments the
Chinese government has made. This has an impact on our
bilateral relationship. As Secretary Powell said last year, " China's
fulfillment of its nonproliferation commitments would be crucial to
determining the quality of the United States -- China relationship."
While there are many buyers in the market for WMD [weapons
Stefan Bauschard
43
of mass destruction] and missiles, there are only a handful of

states with the capability to be dealers in that market. China's
sophistication with many of these technologies has made it
possible for Chinese entities to become key exporters of WMD
and missile technology. Unfortunately, Chinese entities' record of
transferring these technologies -- and the record of the Chinese
government's enforcement of its own laws and regulations to stem
these transfers -- have for the most part been poor.
Strong US-Sino Relations key to check Sino-Iran relations

and Iran Prolif
Wuthnow, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, 13
[Joel, an Asia analyst in the China Security Affairs Group. His research
interests include Chinese foreign and security policy, U.S.-China
relations, and Chinese domestic politics. He is the author of a book,
Chinese Diplomacy and the United Nations Security Council
(Routledge, 2012) and several articles in East Asia-related academic
journals. Prior to joining CNA, Wuthnow held fellowships in the China &
the World Program at Princeton University and at the Brookings
Institution. He received an A.B., summa cum laude, in Public and
International Affairs from Princeton University, an M.Phil. in Modern
Chinese Studies from Oxford University, and a Ph.D. in Political Science
from Columbia University. He has also spent nearly two years studying
and conducting research in China, June 6, U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC and
SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, Testimony before the U.S.-China
Security and Economic Review Commission: Hearing on China and the
Middle East, http://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/WUTHNOW_final
%20testimony.pdf, accessed July 8, 2014, EK]
On the opposite side of the ledger, Chinas partnership with Iran
has been limited by Beijings need to maintain positive
relations with the United States. John Garver concludes that
Chinas ties with Iran are a second-order relationship,
surpassed in importance by its primary relations with the
United States. As evidence, Garver chronicles how Chinas broader
goals of economic and political cooperation with the United
States led Beijing to eliminate formal cooperation in nuclear
and missile programs with Iran in the mid-1990s, even though
concerns remained about illicit cooperation between the two in these
areas.10 More recently, the influence of the United States was
apparent in Chinas decisions to support UN Security Council
sanctions against Iran in 2010.11 This episode is worth
recounting because it illustrates that sustained high-level
Stefan Bauschard
44
diplomacy by the United States can contribute to changes in

Beijings decision-making with respect to Iran . After
international negotiations on Irans nuclear program stalled in 2009,
the United States opted to pursue a fourth round of UN Security
Council sanctions. This measure was intended to pressure Tehran to
comply with International Atomic Energy Agency verification
requirements. In late 2009, U.S. officials began a diplomatic push
for Chinese support at the UN. The argument of officials such as
Kurt Campbell, Jeffrey Bader, and Hillary Clinton, was that China should
agree to sanctions due to Irans continued violation of IAEA
requirements, the threat to regional stability posed by Irans
ongoing nuclear program, and the desire by many within the
region for stronger international pressure against Tehran.
Without containment, Iran Proliferation is inevitable

Goldberg, The Atlantic National Correspondent, 12
[Jeffrey, Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic
and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting. Author of
the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, Goldberg also
writes the magazine's advice column. MORE Before joining The Atlantic
in 2007, Goldberg was a Middle East correspondent, and the
Washington correspondent, for The New Yorker. Previously, he served
as a correspondent for The New York Times Magazine and New York
magazine. He has also written for the Jewish Daily Forward, and was a
columnist for The Jerusalem Post., March 2, The Atlantic, Obama to
Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff',
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-toiran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/,
accessed July 8, 2014, EK]
GOLDBERG: Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an
issue? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don't
think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very
intentional. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won't name the
countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the
Middle East who say, "We are going to start a program, and we
will have nuclear weapons." And at that point, the prospect for
miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is
profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and
Pakistan fivefold or tenfold. GOLDBERG: With everybody pointing at
everybody else. PRESIDENT OBAMA: With everybody pointing at
everybody else.
Stefan Bauschard
45
China-US Relations Solve NK

Relations are key to solve North Koreas Nukes
United States Institute for Peace, 14
[United States Institute for Peace, 4/10/2014, United States Institute of
Peace, Chinas Ambassador Says Ties with U.S. Are No Longer 'ZeroSum Game', http://www.usip.org/publications/china-s-ambassadorsays-ties-us-are-no-longer-zero-sum-game, accessed 7/8/2014 CK]
Hadley also asked the ambassador about China's influence over
North Korea's nuclear ambitions and stability, commenting
that many in the U.S. believe that North Korea could be a
potentially divisive topic between the U.S. and China. The
ambassador responded that China was deeply concerned about
the nuclear capability of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (DPRK) and about the risks of another war or armed
conflict as that would directly impact China's national
security interests. China has always stood for the
denuclearization of the entire peninsula, he said. Stressing
that this problem cannot be solved by China alone, Cui called
for an intensified effort to move forward with the six-party
talks.
Sino-American Relations key to check North Korea

stability
Nanto, Manyin, Specialist in Industry and trade, Specialist
in Asian Affairs, 10(Dick Mark, 12/28/10, Congressional Research
Service, "China-North Korea
Relations",fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41043.pdf,7/8/14,AW)
The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) plays a key role in U.S.
policy toward the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
(DPRK or North Korea). The PRC is North Koreas closest ally,
largest provider of food, fuel, and industrial machinery, and
arguably the country most able to wield influence in
Pyongyang. China also is the host of the Six-Party Talks
(involving the United States, China, North Korea, South Korea,
Japan, and Russia) over North Koreas nuclear program. The
close PRC-DPRK relationship is of interest to U.S. policymakers
because China plays a pivotal role in the success of U.S. efforts
to halt the DPRKs nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
programs, to prevent nuclear proliferation, to enforce
economic sanctions, and to ensure that North Korean refugees
that cross into China receive humane treatment. Since late 2008,
China has been not just the largest, but also the dominant, provider of
aid and partner in trade with North Korea. This report provides a brief
survey of China-North Korea relations, assesses PRC objectives and
Stefan Bauschard
46
actions, and raises policy issues for the United States. While Beijing
still maintains its military alliance and continues its substantial
economic assistance to Pyongyang, in recent years many PRC and
North Korean interests and goals appear to have grown increasingly
incompatible. Increasingly, many Chinese officials and scholars appear
to regard North Korea as more of a burden than a benefit. However,
Beijings shared interest with Pyongyang in preserving North Korean
stability generally has trumped these other considerations. The Obama
Administrations public statements have emphasized common interests
rather than differences in its policy toward China regarding North
Korea. The United States also has been encouraging China to
use its influence in Pyongyang to rein in the more provocative
actions by North Korea. Chinas interests both overlap and coincide
with those of the United States, but Chinas primary interest of stability
on the Korean peninsula is often at odds with U.S. interest in
denuclearization and the provision of basic human rights for the North
Korean people. Moreover, North Korean leaders appear to have used
this interest to neutralize their countrys growing economic
dependence on China; the greater North Koreas dependency, the
more fearful Chinese leaders may be that a sharp withdrawal
of PRC economic support could destabilize North Korea. Since
the late 1990s, as long as North Korea has been able to
convince Beijings senior leadership that regime stability is
synonymous with North Koreas overall stability, the Kim
government has been able to count on a minimum level of Chinas
economic and diplomatic support, as well as some cooperation
along their border region to ensure that the number and
activities of North Korean border-crossers do not spiral out of
control
U.S-China Coop keeps North Korea from escalating

Tiezzi, Associate editor for the Diplomat,14(shannon,3/25/14,
The Diplomat,"obama, Xi at nuclear Security
Summit",thediplomat.com/2014/03/obama-xi-meet-at-nuclear-securitysummit/,7/8/14)
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping
met on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The
Hague, Netherlands this week. In his remarks, Obama said that the
U.S. and China have made incredible strides over these past
several decades. However, Obama also noted frictions that
exist in our relations, notably around the issues of human
rights and the maritime disputes in the East and South China
Sea. For his part, Xi said that China is firmly committed to
building a new model of major country relations. Xi added
that China will adopt a more positive attitude and more
vigorous actions to strengthen cooperation with the United
Stefan Bauschard
47
States. According to Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes,

Obama and Xi touched on a number of hot button issues in
their talk, including climate change, North Koreas nuclear
program, the P5+1 talks with Iran, cybersecurity, and mil-to-mil
relations. While Obama and Xi praised cooperation on issues like
climate change and the negotiations with Iran, on several of these
issues, the U.S. and Chinese leaders continue to push opposite
agendas. On the issue of North Korea, Rhodes said that Obama
underscored the need for close coordination in sending a
clear message that there needs to be denuclearization on the
Korean Peninsula. Obama also repeated the U.S. position that
a potential resumption of the Six-Party Talks would be based
upon actions taken by North Korea, which has not yet
demonstrated its willingness to come to the table seriously.
China, meanwhile, has been pushing for a resumption of the Six-Party
Talks without any preconditions, showing a clear discrepancy between
Beijing and Washingtons positions. As for cybersecurity, Obama might
have been better served to let that subject lie, as earlier this week the
New York Times reported that the National Security Agency has hacked
into the servers of Chinese tech firm Huawei. The Times report, based
on leaks from Edward Snowden, said the NSA breached Huaweis
servers seeking evidence of direct connections between the company
and the PLA, but also to ensure the NSA easy access to Huaweis
networks in other countries. Monday, Foreign Ministry Spokesman
Hong Lei told the press that China was seriously concerned with the
reports. We require the American side to give a clear explanation and
stop such behaviors, Hong added. Xi raised concerns about the NSAs
snooping in his meeting with Obama, according to Rhodes. In
response, Obama tried to distinguish between Chinese and American
cyber activities using the White Houses rhetorical separation between
legitimate intelligence activities and illegal cyber spying aimed at
stealing commercial secrets. Accordingly, Obama stressed that the
United States does not engage in espionage to gain a commercial
advantage. Xi is not likely to be mollified by such distinctions. The
maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas, fast becoming one
of the major issues in U.S.-China relations, also came up at the ObamaXi meeting. Obama repeated U.S. concerns over the East China Sea air
defense identification zone that China announced last November.
Obama also highlighted U.S. support for handling the disputes through
dialogue, based on international law. However, in a clear sign of U.S.
interests, Obama reiterated his support for the security of our allies,
Japan and the Philippinestwo countries that have had especially
tense standoffs with China over disputed territories. Xi Jinping told
Obama that he should adopt an objective and fair attitude towards
the disputes, as China disapproves of strong U.S. support for its allies
in the disputes. The two leaders also spent time discussing the
Stefan Bauschard
48
situation in Crimea. Rhodes called it a good discussion in which Xi

said that the principle of the independence and sovereignty of nations
was fundamental to their approach. However, Rhodes also set a low
bar for what he would consider Chinese cooperation on the issue,
noting that China generally does not engage in sanctions. I think we
would find it as a constructive step for them to continue to refrain from
supporting Russias action, Rhodes said. Interestingly, one topic that
apparently was not under discussion between Xi and Obama was
nuclear security, the theme of the summit that brought the two men
together in the first place. Earlier in his presidency, when U.S.-Russia
relations were a bit more cordial, Obama successfully pushed for
nuclear reductions between the two powers. In 2010, he signed the
New START treaty with then-President of Russia Dmitri Medvedev. But
there have been no serious efforts to engage with China in a policy
aimed at reducing nuclear stockpilesin part because Chinas
stockpile is already much smaller than those of the U.S. and Russia
(who between them possess almost 90 percent of the worlds nuclear
weapons). Still, as Putin in particular has been reluctant to pursue
further reductions without buy-in from other so-called second tier
nuclear powers, it may be difficult for future nuclear drawdowns to
progress without Chinese cooperation. To engage in serious
discussions, however, would require more clarity than Beijing has been
willing to give regarding its nuclear stockpiles. China believes that this
very uncertainty is a key part of its nuclear deterrent strategy, and is
unlikely to embrace transparency. Beijing also says the U.S. and Russia
must undergo much more drastic reductions in their nuclear inventory
before it would be appropriate for China to join a multilateral
discussion.
Chinese American coop needed to denuclearize North

Korea
haenle, 14,(paul, 5/8/14, Carnegie-tsinghua center for global policy,
"U.S.-China relations: Moivng Beyond the
script",carnegietsinghua.org/2014/04/08/cisr-2013-u.s.-china-relationsmoving-beyond-script/h7m6,7/8/14,AW)
The U.S. and China have made a great deal of progress over
the past 34 years of official relations to expand and enhance
cooperation and understanding between the leaders and
people, and develop the bilateral relationship. But in the past,
both countries have focused for the most part on bilateral issues
(issues that have only dealt with the two countries), and not included
major global issues on the bilateral agenda. Today, however, U.S. and
Chinese strategic interests are becoming increasingly global.
As Xi has identified, both countries are at a turning point in
cooperation because China is growing in economic power and
international influence, and is more influential on global
Stefan Bauschard
49
issues. In the future, the major challenges and opportunities

for the U.S.-China relationship will come in working together to
address critical global challenges. The list of these global
challenges is long, and getting longer. Today, it includes addressing
critical nonproliferation challenges, including most urgently, the
denuclearization and non-proliferation in Iran and North Korea;
cybersecurity; working together to resolve major global and regional
security crises such as Syria; working together to bring stability and
growth to the international economic system; addressing climate
change and other environmental challenges; ensuring adequate and
secure supplies of energy; transnational crime; and counter-piracy
efforts. These common global issues cannot be solved without the U.S.
and China working together to make meaningful progress (in ways that
benefit the U.S. and China). Progress and cooperation has been elusive
because of mistrust and lack of open communication. China must be
more proactive in identifying areas and forming concrete proposals on
global issues. Within a new framework aimed at increasing
understanding and trust, both countries can begin to make progress on
consequential global issues and score victories. When this happens,
both leaders will be in a much stronger position to convey to
their people that the U.S. and China are working together for
the better of global good.
Stefan Bauschard
50
China-US Relations Solve Warming

Warming is coming now and will be catastrophic, what we
know now is good enough even if there are uncertainties,
US and China cooperation is THE ONLY way to solveinnovation and production capacities
Paulson, chairman of the Paulson Institute at the
University of Chicago, 6-23-14
Henry M., Jr., Climate crisis calls for action, the Paulson Institute is a
think tank that studies global environmental protection and sustainable
economic growth in the United States and China, while analyzing the
interdependency between the two countries,
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=264315271&c=y, accessed
7/6/14, LLM)
There is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if theres one thing Ive learned
through my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems
become too big to manage. For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses
building up in the nations financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was
Were making the same mistake today

with climate change. Were staring down a climate bubble that
poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy.
devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.
The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked. This is a crisis we cant
afford to ignore. We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of
my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. Theyre
But we must not lose sight of the

profound economic risks of doing nothing. The solution can be
a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the
marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting
right to consider the economic implications.
a price on emissions of carbon dioxide a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this
potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create
Its true that the United

States cant solve this problem alone. But were not going to
persuade other big carbon polluters to take the urgent action
thats needed if were not doing everything we can to slow our
carbon emissions. I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think its
incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.
fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-solving. Looking back at the
dark days of 2008, it is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge
we now face.
We are building up excesses (debt in 2008, greenhouse gas emissions
that are trapping heat now). Our government policies are flawed (incentivizing us
to borrow too much to finance homes then, and encouraging the overuse of carbon-based fuels now).
Our experts (financial experts then, climate scientists now) try to understand what
they see and to model possible futures. And the outsize risks
have the potential to be tremendously damaging (to a
globalized economy then, and the global climate now). Back then,
we narrowly avoided an economic catastrophe at the last minute by rescuing a
collapsing financial system through government action. But climate change is more
intractable. The carbon dioxide were sending into the atmosphere remains there for centuries,
heating up the planet. That means the decisions were making today
Stefan Bauschard
51
to continue along a path thats almost entirely carbondependent are locking us in for long-term consequences that we
will not be able change but only adapt to, at enormous cost. To protect New York City from
rising seas and storm surges is expected to cost at least $20 billion initially, and eventually far more. And
thats just one coastal city. When I worry about risks, I worry about the biggest ones, particularly those that
are difficult to predict the ones I call small but deep holes. While odds are you will avoid them, if you do
fall in one, its a long way down and nearly impossible to claw your way out. Scientists have identified a
number of these holes potential thresholds that, once crossed, could cause sweeping, irreversible
changes. They dont know exactly when we would reach them. But they know we should do everything we
can to avoid them. Already, observations are catching up with years of scientific models, and the trends
are not in our favor. Fewer than 10 years ago, the best analysis projected that melting Arctic sea ice would
mean nearly ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century. Now the ice is melting so rapidly that
virtually ice-free Arctic summers could be here in the next decade or two. The lack of reflective ice will
mean that more of the suns heat will be absorbed by the oceans, accelerating warming of both the oceans
and the atmosphere, and ultimately raising sea levels. Even worse, in May, two separate studies
discovered that one of the biggest thresholds has already been reached. The West Antarctic ice sheet has
begun to melt, a process that scientists estimate may take centuries but that could eventually raise sea
Now that this process has begun, there is

nothing we can do to undo the underlying dynamics, which
scientists say are baked in. It is true that there is uncertainty about the timing and
magnitude of these risks and many others. But those who claim the science is
levels by as much as 14 feet.
unsettled or action is too costly are simply trying to ignore the

problem. The nature of a crisis is its unpredictability . And as we all
witnessed during the financial crisis, a chain reaction of cascading failures ensued from one intertwined
Its not so easy to

calculate the resulting domino effect. That sort of contagion
nearly took down the global financial system. With that experience
indelibly affecting my perspective, viewing climate change in terms of risk
assessment and risk management makes clear to me that
taking a cautiously conservative stance that is, waiting for
more information before acting is actually taking a very
radical risk. Well never know enough to resolve all of the
uncertainties. But we know enough to recognize that we must
act now. Im a businessman, not a climatologist. But Ive spent a considerable amount of time with
part of the system to the next. Its easy to see a single part in motion.
climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no debate
among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible. Farseeing
business leaders are already involved in this issue. Its time for more to weigh in. To add reliable financial
data to the science, Ive joined with the former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, and the retired
hedge fund manager Tom Steyer on an economic analysis of the costs of inaction across key regions and
economic sectors. Our goal for the Risky Business project starting with a new study that will be released
We need to craft
national policy that uses market forces to provide incentives
for the technological advances required to address climate
change. As Ive said, we can do this by placing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Many respected
this week is to influence business and investor decisionmaking worldwide.
economists, of all ideological persuasions, support this approach. We can debate the appropriate pricing
and policy design and how to use the money generated. But a price on carbon would change the behavior
of both individuals and businesses. At the same time, all fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidies
should be phased out. Renewable energy can outcompete dirty fuels once pollution costs are accounted
for. Some members of my political party worry that pricing carbon is a big government intervention. In
fact, it will reduce the role of government, which, on our present course, increasingly will be called on to
help communities and regions affected by climate-related disasters like floods, drought-related crop
failures, and extreme weather like tornadoes, hurricanes and other violent storms. Well all be paying those
costs. Not once, but many times over. In a future with more severe storms, deeper droughts, longer fire
seasons and rising seas that imperil coastal cities, public funding to pay for adaptations and disaster relief
will add significantly to our fiscal deficit and threaten our long-term economic security. So it is perverse
that those who want limited government and rail against bailouts would put the economy at risk by
Stefan Bauschard
52
There is a tendency, particularly in government

and politics, to avoid focusing on difficult problems until they
balloon into crisis. We would be fools to wait for that to
ignoring climate change.
happen to our climate.
When you run a company, you want to hand it off in better shape
than you found it. Just as we shouldnt leave our grandchildren with mountains of national debt and
unsustainable entitlement programs, we shouldnt leave them with the economic and environmental costs
of climate change. Republicans must not shrink from this issue. Risk management is a conservative
principle, as is preserving our natural environment for future generations. We are, after all, the party of
This problem cant be solved without strong

leadership from the developing world. The key is cooperation
Teddy Roosevelt.
between the United States and China the two biggest

economies, the two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and the
two biggest consumers of energy. When it comes to developing
new technologies, no country can innovate like America. And
no country can test new technologies and roll them out at
scale quicker than China. The two nations must come together
on climate . The Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago, a think-and-do tank I founded to
help strengthen the economic and environmental relationship between these two countries, is focused on
We already have a head start on the technologies

we need. The costs of the policies necessary to make the
transition to an economy powered by clean energy are real,
but modest relative to the risks.
bridging this gap.
Stefan Bauschard
53
U TPA At the Top of the Docet

Republican control of the Senate makes TPA more likely,
puts it at the top of the docket
American Metal Market, 11-26-14, GOP-led Senate may act on free trade: AIIS
Republican control of the U.S. Senate could trigger renewed
action on free-trade issues and boost Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
legislation, which would ease international trade negotiations,
according to the American Institute for International Steel (AIIS).
Control of the House and the Senate by Republican lawmakers,
who appear more favorable to pro-free trade policies, will have
a "profound effect" on trade negotiations, AIIS executive director
Richard Chriss told AMM. "We will see a significant new focus in
Washington on free-trade policy."
TPA legislation will be a top item on the political agenda for
the next several months, according to Chriss. The mandate limits
Congress' ability to interfere with trade agreements, allowing
expedited presidential consideration of trade deals.
"TPA is vitally important in the context of the 12-country Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations and E.U.-U.S. trade negotiations," Chriss said,
noting that the AIIS is already working with key congressional staff to
speed up the passage of TPA legislation. If successful, TPA legislation
would indicate "unity of purpose" between the legislative and
executive branches of the U.S. government, he said. "It signals to our
negotiating partners that serious concessions can be put on the table,
since with TPA in place it's highly unlikely that the terms of the deal are
going to be rewritten by Congress." Congress' previous failure to
ratify or implement trade deals caused serious embarrassment
and setbacks to the United States in the international arena,
according to Chriss. "Some people have doubted the significance or
relevance of fast-track authority and now the TPA over the years, but
the history of TPA shows strong bipartisan agreement for the necessity
of it."
Chriss' remarks echoed those by Charlotte, N.C.-based steelmaker
Nucor Corp., which said prior to the Nov. 4 elections that a Republican
victory would move trade authority legislation. U.S. Trade
Representative Michael B. Froman told Congress in April that his office
backed an "update" of the TPA. The Obama administration has noted
that fresh trade authority "ensures our trading partners know U.S.
negotiators have the support of Congress." The United States has
negotiated free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama, Peru and South
Korea since the TPA authority expired in 2007. Some Democrats in the
past have opposed renewing trade authority for the President, arguing
Stefan Bauschard
that Congress must have a meaningful role in developing free-trade

agreements.
54
Stefan Bauschard
January Agenda Answers
55
Stefan Bauschard
56
Health Care, Tax Reform, Immigration Reform

Answers
Non-starters: Health care repeal, tax reform, immigration
reform
Lee Hamilton, 12-9, 14 Hamilton directs the Center on Congress at
Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives for 34 years, USA Today, Congress, President should
cooperation on the small stuff,
http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/12/09/c
ongress-president-cooperate-small-stuff/20162399/ DOA: 12-9-14
In the end, 2015 will see a mix of small steps forward and backward.
Theres little chance of a minimum wage increase and its
unlikely the budget will be passed in an orderly and traditional manner.
Similarly, significant and difficult issues like major entitlement
and tax reform will prove hard to budge, and comprehensive
immigration reform is a near impossibility. There will be no
knockdown punch on Obamacare, but well see plenty of efforts to
chip away at it.
Stefan Bauschard
57
TPA Answers
Many TPP barriers
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, 12-8, 14, DeLauro Statement On Trans-Pacific
Partnership Negotiations; Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) News Release,
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=1770:delauro-statement-on-transpacific-partnership-negotiations&catid=2&Itemid=21 DOA: 12-9-14
"Significant, unresolved issues remain, and congressional approval of
either the TPP or Trade Promotion Authority is far from certain. There are
still no currency provisions in this agreement. Countries that undervalue
their currency do so to make their goods cheaper, giving them an unfair
trade advantage and accelerating the export of our jobs overseas. Large
bipartisan groups in both chambers of Congress have made it clear that
there will be no deal without a strong, enforceable currency chapter."
Obama not pushing TPA, Congress wont act

Authority
Lawmakers kept trade off the agenda for the lame-duck
session and may not be rushing to take it up in the new
Congress in January. Fast-Track Timetable Elusive. Speaker John A.
Boehner seemed to indicate at a Thursday press conference that the
House may not rush to take up trade promotion authority, also
known as fast-track authority. When a reporter asked if it would be a
priority in the 114th Congress, Boehner replied, "I've been trying to
do trade promotion for three years. But it's hard to do when the
president won't even stand up and ask for it."
Republicans and Democrats oppose fast-track

Authority
Fast-track authority allows the Obama administration to take trade
agreements to Congress only for approval or rejection. Lawmakers
Stefan Bauschard
58
could not make major revisions. Some Republicans may have cooled to
giving the president the authority because of Obama's November
executive order to provide temporary legal status for up to 5 million
illegal immigrants who meet the conditions. There's also a block of
Democrats who oppose fast-track authority because they
would be unable to change what they view as inadequate labor
and environmental protections. Obama has said he would like
the authority, but he hasn't made the request to Congress.
Ryan not committed to moving TPA

Inside US Trade, 12-5-14, RYAN TREADS LIGHTLY IN FIRST TRADE
COMMENTS AS INCOMING WAYS & MEANS CHAIR
Incoming House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)
on Dec. 2 tread cautiously in his first comments on trade since being
tapped to lead the panel in the next Congress, reiterating his support
for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and repeatedly calling for a strong
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. But Ryan, who spoke at the
Wall Street Journal CEO Council, gave no details on how or when
he intends to move TPA in the next Congress. He also stopped
short of explicitly demanding that TPA be in place before the
TPP negotiations are concluded -- the position he took with all
Ways & Means Republicans in a July letter to President Obama.
Stefan Bauschard
59
TPA/TPP Answers -- NU
No TPA or TPP
Feldman, 14 --- partner at BakerHostetler LLP, his international
practice concentrates on all forms of trade disputes (6/23/2014, Elliot
J., The pivot to Asia and the inevitable failure of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64175cf7-25864b5a-bb59-49fe3bf5e3f1)
TPP negotiations are unlikely to produce an
international agreement regardless whether Japan or South Korea
are parties. There are too many fundamental disagreements among the twelve countries in the
The Status Of Negotiations
talks, and the American attempt to infuse the region with American values and American legalities is
transparent. Despite the secrecy of negotiations, documents have leaked. Some have included full draft
texts, as for an environmental chapter. Mostly, they have exposed the lack of international progress.
Following the November 2013 Round of Negotiations in Salt Lake City, the internal commentary of one
participating government contained, in no particular order of importance, numerous observations.
According to the leaked document, notwithstanding that the U.S. is exerting great pressure to close as
many issues as possible this week, The results are mediocre. The meeting, this commentary reported,
served to confirm the large differences that continue in most areas of the [IP] chapter. For medicines, the
United States resubmitted a text that had been strongly rejected in the past. The United States, as in
previous rounds, has shown no flexibility on its proposal [for investment] . . . Only the U.S. and Japan
support the proposal. The chapter on State-Owned Enterprises is very far from closed. There was very
little progress on Rules of Origin, and the negotiations over textiles were in a major crisis. The
Meeting on the environment was interrupted because we could not get past the second issue [on] the
definition of environmental law. There was inadequate progress on financial services: The positions are
still paralysed. United States shows zero flexibility. The United States had been aiming to close the entire
deal by the end of 2013 and get it before Congress before the summer election campaign. Historically, the
United States has had its way in international negotiations most when forging bilateral agreements
because it has always been the dominant player. Other countries typically want to draw the United States
into multilateral negotiations because they can band together to dilute American power and influence.
Here, the United States has been drawn into a multilateral negotiation that it has tried to treat as a
collection of bilaterals (an opportunity to dismantle Canadas supply management; Japans agricultural
protectionism; Vietnams textile preferences; and so forth). Yet, even were the United States somehow
successful internationally in the negotiations, Congress probably for the wrong reasons would not close
The United States strategy for negotiation and ratification has

been complicated and backwards. The process, as it has evolved,
has been to place the initial burden on Japan and to present
Congress with a deal it could not refuse. Congress, nonetheless,
whatever it is Republican or Democrat will refuse it, for at least
three reasons. First, a Republican Congress will not give President
Obama a signature foreign policy success in trade. Republicans
consider international trade their domain (the history of trade commitments to the
contrary notwithstanding), and the current Republican Party is obstructionist
regarding all Obama initiatives. Second, the Presidents own Party
does not support the Agreement, suspicious about labor, the
environment, banks, pharmaceutical companies. And third, most of
Congress feels betrayed by the alleged secrecy in making the deal.
the deal.
Had Obama followed the historical process, in which TPA precedes TPP, he may have been more
successful, or he would have known sooner that the objective could not be reached. Now he is presented
with the risk of failure where American credibility throughout Asia is at stake. It would have been better to
The President
needs to complete a very attractive TPP in order to persuade
Congress to vote it up or down, requiring prior TPA legislation. His
know earlier, or to have lowered expectations. Those options are gone. Conclusion
Stefan Bauschard
60
international partners, however, are not making their best and final
offers without TPA coming first. Prime Minister Abe, for example, does not want to take
on his whole agricultural sector in order to make a deal that could fail in the United States Congress. There
seem to be almost daily reports that Japan will not give up its protection of five sacred agricultural
TPP cant be completed

successfully without TPA, and TPA cannot be passed without a
completed and attractive TPP. At first, China seemed to interpret the TPP as a U.S.-led
products, a position guaranteed to crater the deal. So,
attempt at containment. Over time, China seemed to recognize fatal problems with the negotiations and
worried less. At one point, a year ago, China called the U.S bluff that it might be included in the talks,
whether because China was genuinely interested, or because China wanted to expose the real purpose of
Today, Chinas public discord with the United States is

concentrated on the American engagement as an ally of Japan in
sovereignty disputes. Trade disputes principally American complaints about state owned
the TPP.
enterprises and Chinese state support for exported merchandise continue unabated in the friendly
confines of government investigating agencies and dispute panels of the WTO, and seem reminiscent of
Even as trade
disagreements sometimes take on the appearance of a trade war,
security issues have replaced them in prominence and have induced
President Obama to insist again on the American acceptance of Chinas
rise as a major power. One last word for our European friends, who have been as seduced by
the American confrontations with Japan during the 1980s, in the days of the GATT.
TTIP as our Asian friends have been drawn into one protracted negotiation round after another for TPP. The
Administration has made TPA dependent on TPP instead of the other way around. Consequently, it
perceives TPA as a one-off on behalf of TPP. Even were it possible to imagine that this strategy could
at least for the life of this

presidency, TTIP is even deader than TPP.
succeed once, it could not succeed twice. Therefore,
Agriculture dispute blocks TPP

The Hill, 10-30, 14, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/222261-no-fasttrack-in-lame-duck
IntheTPP,aprotractedstalematebetweentheU.S.andJapanoverautoandagriculturalmarketaccess
issuesisjustoneofthemainreasonswhyadealhasyettobeinked
Stefan Bauschard
61
TTP Answers
TPA Doesnt mean TTP
Phil Levy, 11-4, 14, Will the Midterms Thaw Americas Frozen Trade
Agenda? Foreign Policy,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/11/04/will_the_midterms_th
aw_obamas_frozen_trade_deals
Finally,theprolongeddebateoverTPAcanmakeitseemasthoughthatauthorityisthemainbarrierto
successfullycompleteddeals.Infact,TPAwassupposedtobetheeasyprerequisite.Itisnecessaryfor
tradeliberalization,butleavesmostofthehardbargainingstilltobedone.
OnTPP,therearequestionsaboutwhethertheUnitedStatesiswillingtomakepoliticallysensitive
concessionsonautosandsugarinordertowinconcessionsfromtheJapaneseonagricultureorthe
Australiansonintellectualpropertyrights.Therearedifficultissuessuchasrulesgoverningstate
ownedenterprises,regulation,andcurrency(thelastararetopicthatunitestheCongress,butthat
dividestheUnitedStatesfromallofitsTPPnegotiatingpartners).
TPA doesnt mean TTIP

TheTTIPnegotiationsarenoeasier.Theadministrationnowhastonegotiatewithabrandnew
EuropeanCommission,havingfailedtoconcludetalksundertheoldone.Theagendaconsistsalmost
entirelyofdifficultissues,suchasfinancialregulation,agriculture,dataprivacy,andinvestorstate
disputesettlement.NoneofthisistobelittletheimportanceofTPAwithoutit,nothingseriouswill
happen.ButevenifitwerepassedandsignedinJanuarynextyear,thatwouldleaverelativelylittle
timebeforeatraditional"deadperiod"inAmericanpoliticsfortacklingmajortradeagreements,
thepresidentialelectionseason.
Stefan Bauschard
62
TTIP Answers
TPA doesnt mean TTIP
TheTTIPnegotiationsarenoeasier.Theadministrationnowhastonegotiatewithabrandnew
EuropeanCommission,havingfailedtoconcludetalksundertheoldone.Theagendaconsistsalmost
entirelyofdifficultissues,suchasfinancialregulation,agriculture,dataprivacy,andinvestorstate
disputesettlement.NoneofthisistobelittletheimportanceofTPAwithoutit,nothingseriouswill
happen.ButevenifitwerepassedandsignedinJanuarynextyear,thatwouldleaverelativelylittle
timebeforeatraditional"deadperiod"inAmericanpoliticsfortacklingmajortradeagreements,
thepresidentialelectionseason.
Stefan Bauschard
Other Lame Duck
63
Stefan Bauschard
64
Tax Extenders in Lame Duck

David Epso, 12-9, 14, AP, Congressional Lawmakers OK $1.1 trillion
spending bill to avoid shutdown,
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/congressional-lawmakers-ok-1-1trillion-spending-bill-to-avoid-shutdown-1.318303 DOA: 12-9-14
"The federal government's going to run out of money in two days. ...
We've been trying to work with Republican leaders to avoid a
shutdown," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at
midafternoon as final negotiations dragged on.
Speaker John Boehner said he hoped for a vote on the measure
Thursday, and officials expressed confidence they could
overcome opposition from tea party-backed Republicans and
avoid a government shutdown. Senate approval would then be
required to send it to Obama one of the final acts of a twoyear Congress far better known for gridlock than for accomplishment.
Not only a two-year Congress, but also a political era was drawing to a
close as the lights burned late inside the Capitol on a December night.
For the first time in eight years, Republicans will have a Senate
majority in January after their hugely successful midterm election, and
newly elected GOP senators-elect participated in closed-door strategy
sessions during the day. Before time runs out on his majority,
Reid said he wanted to assure confirmation of nine more of
Obama's judicial nominees and approve the appointment of
Vivek Murthy as surgeon general. Also on Congress' must-do
list is legislation to renew a series of expiring tax breaks, and
a bill to authorize the Pentagon to train and equip Syrian
rebels to fight Islamic State forces in the Middle East.
Stefan Bauschard
65
Tax Extenders U
Tax extenders are likely to pass now
Brandon Roman, 12-8, 14, Lawmakers Near Deal on Tax Extenders,
Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=34a33213c55c-4e5f-aed8-466f39434b95 DOA 9-18-14
Afteranearlyyearlongprocess,onWednesday,December3,theHousevoted37846toapproveH.R.
5771,theTaxIncreasePreventionActof2014a$41.6billiontaxextenderspackage.Atthesametime,
theHousealsopassedH.R.647,theAchievingaBetterLifeExperienceActof2014(ABLEAct),whichis
apopularbillthatwouldallowindividualswithdisabilitiestousesection529savingsaccountsforliving
expensessuchashousingandeducation.TheHousecombineditstaxextenderspackagewiththeABLE
ActandsentthebillstotheSenateinhopesofensuringanexpedientvoteonthelegislationwith
bipartisansupport.TheHousestaxextendersbillwouldprovideaoneyearretroactiveextensionof
approximately50taxextenders,meaningthetaxextenderswouldexpireafterDecember31,2014.Priorto
passingH.R.5771,lawmakersinboththeHouseandSenatehadbeenworkingtogetheronabroader
bipartisantaxextendersdealthatwouldhaveprovidedmorecertaintytotaxpayersbyextendingmost
provisionsfortwoyearsandmakingcertainprovisionsliketheResearchandDevelopment(R&D)Tax
Creditpermanent.However,followingavetothreatfromPresidentObama,lawmakersabandonedthis
approachinfavorofthecurrentproposalforaoneyearretroactiveextension,whichevenWaysandMeans
CommitteeChairmanDaveCamp(RMI)hascalledlesseffective.Initially,followingthereleaseofthe
Housesbill,FinanceCommitteeChairmanRonWyden(DOR)andotherSenateDemocratssuggested
theywouldstillseektopassanacrosstheboardtwoyearextensionforexpiredtaxextenders.Suchan
approachwouldhaveappliedretroactivelyforoneyearandprospectivelyforoneyear,thuseffectively
extendingtheexpiredtaxprovisionsthroughDecember31,2015.However,giventheshortamountoftime
availabletonegotiateadealwithHouseRepublicansbeforeCongressadjourns,alongwiththeimpending
filingseason,ChairmanWydenacknowledgedthattheredoesntappeartobeaproceduralpathforward
fortheSenateapproachandsuggestedtheSenatewouldultimatelysupporttheHousebill.President
Obamahasalsoindicatedthatheiswillingtosupportatemporaryrenewaloftheexpiredtax
provisionstoensurethatU.S.businessesareabletoengageinbasictaxplanningefforts.Assuch,
despitecomplaintsfromvariouslawmakersthataoneyearextensionwouldbefutile,weexpectthe
SenatewilltakeupandpasstheHouseversionoftaxextenderslegislationthisweek,whichPresident
Obamawilllikelysignintolawshortlythereafter.Notably,becausethesetaxprovisionswillexpireat
theendoftheyear,lawmakersinthe114thCongresswillagainhavetotackletheissue.Accordingto
incomingFinanceCommitteeChairmanOrrinHatch(RUT),addressingtaxextenderswillbeapriority
earlyonin2015.Moreover,incomingWaysandMeansCommitteeChairmanPaulRyan(RWI)has
indicatedthatRepublicansmayrevisittheirefforttomakecertaintaxextenderspermanentwhentheHouse
againtakesuptheissueunderhisChairmanship.
Stefan Bauschard
66
AUMF Lame Duck Answer

AUMF wont pass in the lame duck
Deb Reichman, 12-9, 14, St. Louis Tribune, New Flexible War Powers
Needed to Fight IS, http://www.sltrib.com/home/1929204155/story.html DOA: 12-9-14
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., says he doesnt want Congress to go home for
the holidays while there are U.S. service men and women fighting
overseas and risking their lives, and wants to Congress vote to put its
imprint on the conflict. "We are at war," Kaine said, adding, "Congress
has been silent about this." Menendez said he would call for a
committee vote on a new authorization later this week. Still,
few expect that Congress will approve new war powers before
the end of the lame-duck session this year. In January,
Republicans will control both the Senate and the House.
"Whatever passes out of committee this week is not going to
become law," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the incoming chairman
of the committee. He said the committee also wants to hear from
intelligence and defense officials.

Politics December 10

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Politics December 10

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Stefan Bauschard

December 10 Politics TPA Release

congressional leaders on both sides to make "a strong case on

Myron Brilliant, the group's head of international affairs.

Plan burns capital (insert)

CQ Weekly, December 4, 2014, GOP Could Open Doors to Beijing,

commitment to further expanding trade ties with nations in

Republican proponents of trade expansion include incoming

Wisconsin, the incoming chairman of the powerful Ways and

"So the real question is whether the president is willing

congressional movement on fast-tracking sends a strong signal

Nuclear conflict with China is an EXISTENTIAL risk causes

UFast Track Now

TPA likely to pass, Democrats are key

U Top of the Docket

IL -- Bipart Key to TPA

Bipart key to the TPA solves the TPP

the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will almost certainly

the United States remains the central factor to any agreement

divided on trade policy

The Democratic Party remains deeply

and on the TPP specifically . President

majority of Republicans will combine with a minority of Democrats

the TPP has been

But much is riding on a successful outcome for the

IL -- Democrats Key to TPA

IL -- Obama (PC) Key to TPA

Capital key to TPA

Asia War Impact

Obama ponders his second-term foreign policy, he faces jihadists spreading

frightening confrontation . The North Koreans are turning out videos

Its intriguing to speculate on the

a growing economy but

led by a one-party regime that may be tempted to

use nationalism to distract a restive population from domestic

They see the

wont take a more dangerous crisis in their region to make the

TPA Solves Global Trade

emerging. The first is

. The core of the system until the mid-

among 160 members,

The U.S.-led talks for mega-regional agreements

two-thirds of the world economy

. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in

both hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass

Trade Promotion Authority (

Europeans and Asians are unwilling to negotiate the thorniest

Digital protectionism risks balkanizing the global virtual

currencies, and dispute settlement.

. Just as after World War II,

the global trading system rests in Americas

The first is the

unshackles U.S. negotiators

TPP and TTIP will be giant magnetic docking stations to outsiders;

. Once this happens,

TPA vital for the economy and global trade

negotiations for high standard trade agreements. These two accords

Mexico on a path to strengthen its democratic institutions and

and Congress. Over 500 advocacy groups have written to lawmakers

Trade Key to Economy

international economic issues that will have a direct

the lame-duck phase of his presidency, and

vulnerable to the whims of other countries that refuse to play

Trade Solves Hotspot Escalation