Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17


The United States federal government should increase
diplomatic and economic engagement with The Peoples
Republic of China that invites them to join the Trans-Pacific
Partnership making clear to the Chinese government that they
are not excluded, can meet standards, and are encouraged to
apply for membership.

Contention 1 Containment
China is not in the Trans-Pacific Partnership now
Wang 2/10 (Fei-Ling, 2016, Professor of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, China and the TransPacific Partnership: Significant Challenges and Profound Opportunities,
Several countries around the Pacific like Russia and North Korea are not in the TPP. South Korea insisted that it was already in via its
free trade treaty with the U.S. and later asked to join the TPP formally. (4) A few others in or near the region such as Bangladesh,
Colombia, India, Laos, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand have also expressed interest in joining the TPP. Most conspicuous and

TPP does not include China, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), which is
a genuine Pacific nation and also worlds largest exporter. Other than some wishful murmurs, there is
no sign that the PRC will be a part of the TPP anytime soon.
intriguing, however, is that the

Anti-China rhetoric promoting TPP alienates China

Ye 15 (Min, 5/15, assistant professor of international relations at Boston University, China
Liked TPP Until U.S. Officials Opened Their Mouths,
After a brief but frightening setback for proponents, U.S. congressional leaders looked set on May 13 to pass
legislation for an eventual up-or-down (fast-track) vote on what would be one of the worlds largest trade accords,

(TPP). The accord, a project behind which U.S. President Barack Obama has
thrown his full support, would originally join together 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean.
Significantly, China isnt on that list; in fact, in the months leading up to fast-track
voting, U.S. officials have been selling the pact internationally and domestically as a
deal to counter Chinese influence. But whether TPP becomes reality or not, China has already moved
on. And the anti-China rhetoric the United States has deployed has ultimately done
more harm than good. TPP is more than just a trade agreement, at least to hear the Obama administration
tell it. In recent months, U.S. officials seeking to win domestic support among skeptical
Democrats have promoted it as a geostrategic cudgel to fend off a rising China. In an
interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 27, President Barack Obama asserted, If we do not
write the rules, China will write the rules out in that region, meaning the Asia-Pacific. We will be shut
out. When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met President Obama to discuss TPP,
their explicit and implicit messages were all about China, according to Patrick L. Smith, a
long-time correspondent in Tokyo. By continuing and intensifying the anti-China rhetoric in
TPP discourse, administration officials have only made it more likely that the trade
regime, if it becomes reality, will alienate China.
the U.S-led Trans-Pacific Partnership

China explicitly sees TPP as an element of containment Take

them at their word
Aneja 2/6 (Atul, staff @ The Hindu, Indian newspaper, Dont politicise TPP: China to
U.S., http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/dont-politicise-tpp-china-tous/article8203670.ece)

China has warned the United States not to politicise international trade following comments by
President Barack Obama as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a U.S.-led free trade deal in the Asia-Pacific that
excludes Beijing, was signed. Chinas Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang on Friday urged
relevant countries and governments not to politicise economic and trade issues, and avoid leading
people to the conclusion that the U.S. has been promoting the TPP out of certain

political consideration. Mr. Lu was responding to remarks by President Obama on

Thursday as the TPP was signed by 12 countries in Auckland that TPP allows America and not
countries like China to write the rules of the road in the 21st century. Mr. Lu said such comments were
interesting. After several years of negotiations, the TPP has emerged as a controversial
document, both within the U.S. and beyond. Trade is a good thing. But trade has got to be fair. And the TPP is
anything but fair, said Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the
Democratic Partys presidential nomination. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said the deal could add $100
billion a year to U.S. growth. However, critics say that the pact would export U.S. jobs to other member states. The
TPP is also being strongly criticised for threatening to extend restrictive U.S. intellectual property (IP) laws globally.
The BBC is reporting that, The

U.S.-led initiative is a key part of Mr. Obamas so-called pivot to Asia

widely seen by Beijing as President Obamas double-edged doctrine of Chinas military and
economic containment.

Scenario 1: War
Conflicting signals undermine relations; inviting China ensures
small problems dont escalate to major conflict & ruin overall
Posen 14 (Adam, president of Peterson Institute for International Economics, 6/13, A
Win-Win-Win Solution for the TPP, http://english.caixin.com/2014-06-13/100690432.html)
The security tensions between China and the United States are spilling over rapidly into economic ones. Some

outreach from both sides is required, not just to try to keep things from unnecessarily
escalating, but to maintain the mutual benefits of the economic relationship. A potential
key to serving both goals would be to integrate China into the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) negotiations. The economic benefits are clear. According to Peterson Institute calculations, a
TPP that included the current members negotiating plus China would increase national income by 4.7 percent over
a decade for China, 1.6 percent over 10 years for the United States and 4.4 percent over the same period for Japan.

It would be a win, win, win. And this underestimates the ongoing productivity
benefits to China, of making the requisite high-standard trade commitments advances the
proposed domestic reforms. Furthermore, the interests of all the major countries involved are only served by
having the TPP proceed. On our estimates, were the TPP to be concluded without China joining quickly, trade
diversion from China would be only one-tenth as large as the potential gain (minus 0.5 percent of income over 10
years), so there is no threat to China from the TPP to trumpet , just an opportunity to miss. The
gains for Japan would be nearly halved to 2.4 percent of GDP and the gains for the United States would be cut by
two-thirds to 0.5 percent of GDP, so they both gain by TPP either way, but gain far more with China. This fits with
the basic logic of economic integration among large economies.

There are hesitations on both sides of

the Pacific about having China

part of the TPP. Some in the United States wish the prospective trade
pact to be a supplement to a broader alliance and therefore include the democracies on China's coast without
including China. Others who bear China no ill will fear its entry to the talks might give it the opportunity to
intentionally slow them down or water down their content. On China's side, those fears are shared but an additional
concern crops up. Some in the country view the process of World Trade Organization and permanent normal trade
relations accession of the 1990s as embarrassing. They do not want China to go cap in hand. They feel it should be

those groups are missing the

point. TPP officially and in fact is an example of open regionalism. Anyone in the region who is
ready to negotiate in good faith to a high standard agreement will be admitted. This is not a fake. As noted, it is
in every country in the region's interest to have China be part of this potentially
high-quality agreement. It also makes the agreement that much more likely to be
accepted and meaningful if it bridges the United States, China and Japan. More
involved in setting of any new trade standards from the start. Both of

importantly, some Chinese observers' concern about repeating the accession experience, and some American
observers' concern about utilizing trade as a means of exclusion, hurt their own countries' interests for mere
imagery. Trade negotiations, like all international negotiations, are best conducted in a spirit of compromise and for
that matter mutual discovery. Neither side should let egotism or the current suspicion interfere with the peaceful

A TPP that takes China into account, and gets it on a path to a

would serve both U.S. foreign policy and economic true interests.
Even if China cannot join immediately because of other countries' legitimate concerns about
state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, or intellectual property rights , knowing it was en
route to joining would give it significant voice in the talks and the standards being set. And over
co-development that should occur.
deeper Asian integration,

the coming years, having protections for Chinese developed intellectual property and restrictions on subsidized

practical step would be for the United States to explicitly and publicly invite China to
join the TPP talks at the upcoming Strategic & Economic Dialogue. As preparation for that participation, China
competition from SOEs in Southeast Asia, will be in an increasingly wealthy China's own self-interest. Therefore,

and the United States should agree on the proposal for an official observer status for Chinese trade negotiators in
the current negotiations. There will of course be fears on both sides, but particularly in the United States, that such
an observer from China would take confidential negotiating positions and possibly use them to interfere with the

by giving China an explicit and open

observer status in TPP, the Chinese government would find its own self-interest to
play fairly and respectfully with all the negotiating partners. The underlying suspicions and actual disputes
progress of TPP or pursue side bargains. I believe that

between China and the United States will not be solved by trade alone, let alone a future-oriented trade agreement.
There is no automatic link between expanding trade relations and good relations and broader relations overall. If
there was, the trillions of dollars of Chinese goods purchased by the United States over the last three decades

deeper economic integration

can act as a counterweight to escalating overreaction to and spillover of what should be
manageable tensions. More importantly, an economically reformed and open China serves both
Chinese reform and American interest. Let us move this forward.
would have assured mutual bliss. In the absence of outright conflict, however,

Conflicting signals of containment cause war

Kroeber 15 (Arthur, managing director of GaveKal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly,
What Will the TPP Mean for China?, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnershipobama-us-trade-xi/)

The TPP illustrates a dilemma for U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific. On one side, Washington seeks to
counterbalance Chinas rising power by strengthening its military relationships with its regional allies,
tilting in favor of southeast Asian countries in their maritime disputes with China, discouraging its friends from
participating in Chinese initiatives such as the AIIB, and pursuing a massive trade agreement that leaves out the

On the other side, American leaders reiterate

that they have no desire to contain China (rightly seeing such a strategy would fail), and argue that
deeper engagement, rather than confrontation, is the right way forward in U.S.-China relations. This stance is
borderline incoherent, and its understandable why many Chinese see it as duplicitous.
Washingtons words are all about constructive engagement, but its deeds mostly
smack of containment. At the root is a deep ambivalence about whether or not the
United States should accept China as an equal. If it does, then it must also accept that China will build
regions and the worlds biggest trading nation.

a sphere of influence and regional arrangements that exclude the United States. If it does not, then it must accept

containment. Such a strategy heightens the risk

of armed conflict. For the moment, China and the United States still mostly conduct
their relations on a basis of economic pragmatism rather than strategic rivalry. But the
ground is rapidly shifting. The completion of the TPP sharpens the question of how the
United States and China will share power in the Asia-Pacific, but provides no answer.
that in fact if not in name it is pursuing a strategy of

Perception of containment is a self-fulfilling prophecy that

undermines U.S. economic leadership & the TPP; diplomatic
negotiation over the TPP is the best starting point for
challenging anti-China perceptions
Blair 15 (Amanda, 11/23, Analyst for The St Andrews Foreign Affairs Review, intern Project on International
Peace and Security (PIPS), China, Trade, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is Americas Economy Bound to Lead?,
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, the United States has taken the lead in several key initiatives to strengthen the
international economic system. Washington has worked to expand global trade through multilateral free trade agreements, such as
the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) currently under consideration by Congress, in an effort to spur
recovery and promote growth. Although some Americans are wary of trade liberalization for fear that processes of globalization have
rendered the American economy increasingly vulnerable, protectionist policies will only serve to do more harm than good.

discrimination against perceived rivals to the U.S. economic hegemonymost notably Chinawill
not guarantee a preservation of American influence over global economic issues. Rather, rejecting China
from initiatives to improve the health of the global economy will present a missed opportunity for the
United States to continue in its position of dominance. As the worlds fastest-growing economy, China

will be difficultif not impossibleto ignore in efforts to expand global trade. Encouraging Beijings participation in
multilateral FTAs such as the TPP will promote both domestic and global economic growth, while also ensuring U.S. economic
supremacy. As of now, China has stood on the sidelines of TPP negotiations, preferring to ignore TPP in favor of advocating the Free
Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Beijing has not been particularly inclined to participate in TPP, especially because the terms
presently on the table seem unfavorable to a self-proclaimed developing nation such as China. Furthermore, Chinese policy-makers
and intellectuals are concerned that the TPP may be an attempt to undermine Beijings influence in the Asia-Pacific region, and

Obama insisted that we have to make sure

America writes the rules of the global economy. And we should do it today, while our economy is in the position of
global strength. Because if we dont write the rules for trade around the worldguess whatChina will. Consistent
with the belief that Washington hopes to contain Chinas rise, Beijing remains wary of Americas intentions
understandably so. In recent remarks, President Barack

in pursuing the TPP. The Obama Administration should be careful not to marginalize China in this way, not least because FTAAP
provides an alternative path to free trade for the whole of the Asia-Pacific region.

Excluding Beijing from regional trade

agreements will only serve to escalate tensions and exacerbate balance-of-power politics . Facing
a self-help world, in which the winner-takes-all, China can be expected to play the same game, but by its own rules. And considering
Chinas burgeoning capabilities,

such an approach could potentially jeopardize Americas

current role in the global economy. The China Threat could become a self-fulfilling
prophecy: if Beijing continues to be portrayed as a rival, it is more likely to become
one. So far, Chinas economyranking number two in its share of global GDPmay compete with that of the United States in
purely numerical terms, but has fallen short of the extent of influence projected by America since the end of WWII. Until now, the
Communist Party of China has been largely dependent upon existing international trade agreements to achieve growth. Yet, China is
not the same developing country that it was 15 years ago. Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, Chinas economy has
become more robust and increasingly resilient. The Chinese government is beginning to realize the importance of its contributions to
the WTO, and the immense role that it can play in other similar institutions. China is now capable of building its own sphere of
economic influence, and is attempting to do so through recent initiatives such as the New Silk Road and the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB). Beijing is no longer limited to economic growth that is altogether dependent upon a Western framework.

Although some Chinese officials have expressed their favor for the economic possibilities promised
by the TPP, denied the opportunity to partake in negotiations , the CCP may abandon
seemingly futile attempts to join an exclusionary global economic system, at minimum the
regional FTAAP. Moreover, the CCP recognizes that high levels of growth must be sustained in order for the regime to maintain
legitimacy in the eyes of its domestic audience. High internal pressures may provide a strong incentive for the Chinese government

Washington must consider the strategic

benefits of accommodating China, which will certainly outweigh the costs of excluding Beijing from the TPP.
Better to include China now, at a time in which the payoffs of participation may still appear favorable to the CCP,
than to wait until Beijing develops economic institutions intended only to serve its
own national interests. Proponents of the China Threat theory have pointed to Beijings recent bilateral trade
to draw upon its own capacity to achieve the growth it needs.

agreements with neighbors such as Australia and South Korea to justify a pivot to Asia that aims to undermine Chinas growing
influence, rather than one that will take advantage of Chinas expanding economic power capabilities. However, the United States

Although trade agreements such as the TPP may

appear appealing as means to increase leverage over China through strengthened partnerships and
improved relations with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such an approach would actually be
counterintuitive, providing further reason for uncooperative and confrontational
behavior on Chinas part. Threatened by shifting economic alliances in the region, and increasingly excluded from
opportunities to partake in multilateral forums, the CCP will be more inclined to reject the status quo .
should not attempt to directly encroach on Beijings sphere of influence.

Instead, Washington should focus on helping Beijing adapt to the existing global economic system so that China is not forced to
create institutions that do not align with those that already exist. The nature of an increasingly globalized world has fundamentally
changed the way that a state may exert its power capabilities.

We need to look past the tenets of

traditional security dynamics. We can stop worrying about whether or not the United States has lost ground as an
economic hegemon, or if China will be the state to fill the vacuum left in the wake of Americas decline. The United States can
feasibly maintain its position of economic supremacy by modifying its realist
approach towards reaching its economic and strategic goals. Washington can encourage Beijing to
cooperate, and take all that it can from the resulting arrangement. Engaging an otherwise belligerent non-participant will at
the very least enable the United States to continue exerting substantial influence over the global economy. The alternative
is to isolate that same country, and lose out on what we must. Allowing China to act alone will
likely restrict U.S. influence and also hamper opportunities for global economic progress.

Integrated within the current system, China is less likely to challenge Americas global economic
dominance. Regional trade pacts such as the TPP must remain open to Beijing if American
leaders hope to mitigate a rising China, rather than provoke it . The Obama Administration should
be especially mindful that Beijing is not discouraged by the perceivably high standards that the TPP may impose. In the coming

it will be absolutely critical to reassure Beijing that the terms of membership are
not unachievable, nor are they a superfluous measure deliberately designed to dissuade China from joining the dialogue.
The United States can pull from the strength of its soft power resources to draw China towards
cooperation. Washington should demonstrate the appeal of diplomatic negotiation to
Beijing, by making clear that the terms of the TPP will be beneficial for all involved. The United

States needs to show how the strict labor, environmental, and intellectual property protection standards imposed are not intended
to pointedly exclude Beijing. According to the Brookings Institution, it is important that Chinasee the new trade agenda a deal not
unlike its accession to the WTO: while hefty commitments are to be expected, the accompanying domestic reforms will pay off
handsomely in terms of improved economic performance. Otherwise, how can we expect China to even begin making concessions
related to trade and open markets if Washington will not even afford Beijing that opportunity? Forums such as the U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which recently convened for its annual meeting this June, are meant to foster economic
cooperation, but have only managed to draw very low expectations for improvements in relations between the two countries.


TPP is a great place to begin demonstrating to Beijing that the U nited States is steadfast and
honest in its pursuit of a stronger global economy . Convinced of Americas
commitment towards mutual benefit, China may be more inclined to comply with a
liberalized approach to expanding international trade, which in turn may eventually pave the way for
real progress in terms of dialogue. Encouraging Beijings participation in multilateral economic institutions, under
Washingtons close guidance and possible scrutiny, the United States may hope to gradually alter Chinas world
outlook. Isolating China, on the other hand, may drive Beijing to establish its own economic forums created only to suit the
CCPs interests. The TPP has the potential to further the economic interests of both states, while also serving to benefit the global

Pulling China into, rather than alienating it from, the current global economic
system will also allow the United States to more effectively champion its national values of
liberalization and international trade.
economy as a whole.

Current US containment strategy leads to nuclear war with

Walsh 16 John V., 2016, (writer for RT), US military strategy could culminate in nuclear conflict,
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/349414-us-russia-china-war/, July 4th, 2016
German Minister for Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier's recent criticism of NATO behavior is that of a man watching a tidal
wave of destruction gathering force, similar to ones that have engulfed his country twice before in the 20th century. What we
shouldnt do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering... Whoever believes that a symbolic tank
parade on the alliances eastern border will bring security is mistaken We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old
confrontation [It would be] fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence. German Foreign Minister FrankWalter Steinmeier,commenting on NATOs recent military exercises in Poland and the Baltics. His dread is not to be dismissed since
it comes from a man who is in a position to know what the US is up to. His words reflect the fears of ever more people across all of

Under the euphemism of containment, the US is

relentlessly advancing its new Cold War on Russia and China. Its instrument in the West is NATO, and in the East,
Japan, and whatever other worthies can be sharked up. It is a Cold War that grows increasingly hotter, with proxy wars
now raging in Eastern Ukraine and Syria and with confrontations in the South China
Sea. There is an ever-growing likelihood that these points of tension will flare up into
an all-out military conflict. In the West, this conflict will begin in Eastern Europe and Russia, but it will not
stop there. All the European NATO countries would be on the front lines. In the East, the conflict will take place in the
Western Pacific in the region of Chinas coast and in the peninsulas and island countries in
the region, including Japan, the Philippines, and Indochina. In each case the US will be an ocean away, leading from behind,
as Barack Obama would put it, or engaged in offshore balancing as some foreign policy experts might term it. No matter
the victors - all of Eurasia, from France in the West to Japan in the East - would be devastated. No
matter the outcome, the US could escape unscathed and win in this sense. And all Eurasian nations would lose. It would be
Eurasia, from France in the West to Japan in the East.

World War II redux. One can get a sense of what this means in the case of economic conflict by looking at the minimal
economic warfare now being waged on Russia in the form of sanctions. Those sanctions are hurting both Russia and the rest of
Europe. The US is untouched. The same is also true for military conflict. Want to know what it would look like? Look at Eastern
Ukraine. All of Eurasia could come to resemble that sorry nation in the event of a military conflict pitting the US and its allies against
Russia and China. Eurasia, be forewarned!

The goal of the US foreign policy elite would clearly be for Russia

and China to lose, but even if they won, they would be brought low, leaving the US as the worlds greatest economic
and military power as it was in 1945. Europe is beginning to awaken to this. We have Steinmeiers plea above. But it is not only
Germany that is worried. The French Senate wants an end to the sanctions imposed on Russia. Business people in many Western
European countries, most notably in Germany and Italy, European farmers who export to Russia and tourist entrepreneurs like those
in Turkey and Bulgaria, also want an end to sanctions and military exercises. Parties of the Right want an end to domination by NATO

All these nations are

growing increasingly aware of the fate that awaits them if overt conflict erupts with
and Brussels, both controlled by the US. The Brexit is just one rumbling of such discontent.

Russia. The people of Germany want none of it. Likewise, the people of Japan are stirring against the US effort to goad Japan into
fighting China. All remember the devastation of WWII. Lets recall the casualty figures, i.e., deaths, among the principal
combatants of WWII: Soviet Union 27,000,000 (14 percent of the population); China 17,000,000 (3.5 percent); Germany
7,000,000 (8.5 percent); Japan 2,800,000 (4 percent). By comparison, for the US, safely far offshore, the number was 419,000
(0.32 percent)! And for a few other countries that got in the way of the major adversaries: Yugoslavia 1,500,000 (9 percent)
Poland 6,000,000 (17 percent) French Indochina 1,600,000 (6.11 percent) Philippines 527,000 (3.29 percent) One wonders what
the leaders of Poland or the Philippines or some elements in Vietnam are thinking when they take a belligerent attitude to Russia or

The problem with this US strategy is that it could easily spill

over into a nuclear conflict. Then the US too would be reduced to radioactive rubble. The Western policy
elite must be betting that Russia and China would not respond to a conventional war
with a nuclear response. However, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that in any war with the West, the US will feel the
China in order to please the US.

impact at once. The neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite must be betting that Putin is bluffing and that he would never

that assumption is a
dangerous one. Russia and China might respond with a conventional weapons attack on
US cities. In WWII, Germany was able to wreak considerable devastation using conventional bombs on England delivered by
use nuclear weapons. So, the US is safe and the suffering will be confined to Europe and Asia. But

airplanes and V-2 rockets. Similarly, the US was able to do enormous damage to Germany and to Japan with conventional weapons,
especially firebombing as in Tokyo and Dresden. Today, technology has advanced greatly, and US cities have nuclear power plants
nearby. What is the likely outcome of a conventional war waged against US cities? Do we wish to find out? And once it begins, where
is the firewall against an all-out nuclear exchange? Where are the neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite taking us?
Certainly, the damage will begin with Eurasia, but Americans would do well to worry that great swarms of chickens might come

For some, the scenario above

might seem unduly alarmist. They might doubt that the US elite would be capable of consciously unleashing such a
vast bloodletting. For those, it is useful to recall the words of President Harry S. Truman,
who said in 1941, when he was still a Senator and before the US had entered WWII: If we see that Germany is
winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to
help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible Is that not what
home to roost in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. This is not the 20th Century.

happened? People of Eurasia, beware.

Trade & security are fundamentally linked Exclusive trade

agreements undermine critical security cooperation
Acharya 1/24 (Amitav, 2016, UNESCO chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance and
professor of international relations at the School of International Service, American University,
Building Asian security, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/01/24/building-asian-security/)

security pluralism can be likened to an ecosystem. The components

support each other and the loss or weakening of one would damage the others and
endanger overall stability. For instance, economic interdependence acts as a check
on security competition, contributes to state consolidation and regime legitimation,
as well as encourages strategic and ideological accommodation. Interdependence also
necessitates and supports regional institutions, which not only help to manage frictions,
but also dampen great power rivalry. Contrary to a popular understanding, ecosystems are not selfsustaining. Their stability requires careful and cooperative management. The following
The architecture of

suggestions, though not exhaustive, deserve consideration as a source of policy ideas, from which specific

it is essential to maintain the openness and

inclusiveness of regional economic arrangements. More specifically, this means ensuring
that the AIIB and TPP do not undermine economic interdependence and engender
conflict. A forum of economics and security officials under the auspices of the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the
recommendations can be derived. First,

AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation which would include the United States could be useful for this purpose.

Contention 2: Trade

Scenario 1: War
China sees TPP as a constraint & pursues aggressive
regionalization as a result
Mitchell 15 (Tom, staff @ Financial Times, China lays out countermeasures to offset
exclusion from TPP, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e81ab8c-763c-11e5-a95a27d368e1ddf7.html#axzz47uiteo1h)

China has countermeasures that it can take to offset the negative economic impact of
the countrys exclusion from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, its National
Bureau of Statistics said on Monday. Sheng Laiyun, NBS spokesman, waded into a growing debate in
Beijing about the costs of being left out of the TPP, the US-led pact also referred to by some as the anyone but
China deal. The debate began just days after the US reached a TPP agreement with 11 trading partners, when

Peoples Bank of China economist estimated that lost trading opportunities could
initially knock 0.5 percentage points off the countrys annual economic growth. Mr Sheng said that
potential countermeasures include bilateral free trade agreements and President Xi
Jinpings effort to construct a New Silk Road, officially known as the One Belt One Road plan, linking
China and Europe. TPP will have some impact but it wont be significant in the short-term, he said. Bilateral trade
agreements, One Belt One Road and new free trade zones [in China] could cushion the impact. However, Mr

Sheng said that we must attach great importance to TPP,

especially as the pacts 12

potential founding members account for almost 40 per cent of global economic output. If

the TPP

agreement is finally implemented, zero tariffs will be imposed on close to 20,000 kinds of products,
he said. That will create some pressure on our foreign trade.

The result is a deal that hurts the economy & undermines

global trade
Economist 15 (Global news magazine, Into the home stretch, 7/25,

for TPP to really make a mark, it has to be bigger. Leaving out China is an
expedient to get the deal done but, if kept that way, it would be a huge gap. China is the worlds biggest
manufacturer. Any Asian trade zone without it faces one of two sorry fates. Either,
because of Chinas centrality to Asian supply chains, the deal is so riddled with exemptions that it
becomes worthless. Or, if the zone gains traction, the effect is to divert trade away from
the most efficient Chinese companies and hurt the global economy. The TPP is likely to

face both problems. In textiles, for instance, Vietnamese and Malaysian mills expect to be allowed to continue to
source fabric from countries such as China or India that those inside the trade zone cannot produce. This exemption
may be vast. Meanwhile, Vietnamese and Malaysian garment makers admit the exclusion of Chinese finished goods
will help shelter them from their toughest competitionhardly the ideal of free trade. In other areas, though, TPP

Rules to protect labour rights, strengthen environmental safeguards and limit

subsidies to state-owned companies should go further than any previous trade deal. Officials
in China, who previously viewed TPP as a gambit to isolate it, now drop hints about
wanting to join the club. It wont be the gold-standard deal theyve been talking about, and
they will be lucky to get a silver. Perhaps it will be a bronze, says Jayant Menon of the Asian Development
Bank. With other ambitious trade talks gathering dust , however, even a bronze would
could make waves of a good kind.

That causes a trade war but Chinese inclusion solves & theyll
agree if theyre invited
Subramanian 14 (Dr. Arvind, Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development,
Trade and Flag: The Changing Balance of Power in the Multilateral Trading System, IISS
Conference 6 8 April, 2014)
Now, China can respond in a number of ways. It can offset its own disadvantage relative to American competition in
Asia-Pacific markets by negotiating free trade agreements of its own with these countries. Indeed, that is what it is
doing. China has negotiated agreements with four countries already and the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) between ASEAN and six other countries (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Korea, India and China)
is aimed at widening this circle of free trade agreements to parry similar American efforts. But such agreements
negotiated by China also impose a cost on American and European firms because in Chinese markets they are now

TPP and TTIP combined with Chinese responses to

to an elaborate trade war by proxy. How will this war end? A lot will
depend on China. If it chafes under this strategy of containment, it could prolong the war by
targeting the US, for example, by negotiating trade agreements with Korea and Japan that would create even
more discrimination against American business. On the other hand, Chinese pragmatism might prevail.
Seeking to avoid the impact of TPP and TTIP on its own exports and economic trajectory, China could come
to the negotiating table. The early evidence relates to the fact that Japanese entry to the TPP
negotiations may have altered Chinas approach to the TPP. China quickly recognised the economic
losses it would suffer as a result and hence became much more forthcoming about its own market opening . This
changed approach is manifest in Chinas willingness to negotiate a BIT agreement with
the US, seeking to join the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) negotiations in Geneva, adopting a
more nuanced approach (and less obstructionist) to the ITA-2 agreement in Geneva, willing to
join negotiations on environmental trade, and even desire/willingness to join the TPP
disadvantaged relative to Asian firms. De facto,



itself. Especially if China wants to liberalise for domestic reasons (and there are increasing signs pointing in that
direction), China might want to do what Premier Zhu Rongji did in getting China to join the WTO more than a decade

By negotiating with its larger trading partners, China could seek to extract concessions for
its own liberalisation actions that it might want to undertake in any case.

That causes war

Brownstein 3/30

(Barry, Pf. Emeritus of Econ @ Baltimore U., Why Do the

Candidates Want War with China?, 2016, https://fee.org/articles/why-do-the-candidateswant-war-with-china/)
Financial analyst Robert Prechter points out that

a common cause underlying wars

and bear markets


a negative collective social mood.

A negative social mood is based on fear. As fear increases,

politicians seek to harness that fear for their personal advantage. They blame other countries for domestic
problems. They threaten and then institute trade barriers .

As trade barriers increase, the economic

situation further deteriorates, both in their own country and around the world, further increasing
fear. Eventually, demagogic politicians provoke wars. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, columnist
Andrew Browne explained the economic rift growing between the old industrial part of China and its booming coast.
Chinas economic slow lane is choked with state-owned industrial firms in sectors linked to real estate steel,
cement, coal and construction equipment. They are zombies in a phantom economy. Zipping along in the
economic fast lane are private companies producing goods and services for a burgeoning consumer market that has
taken over from manufacturing as the engine of Chinas growth. The result of increasing tariffs on Chinese goods
will be a declining Chinese economy. Chinese leaders will feel the pressure when fast-lane
companies cant absorb displaced workers from the state-owned firms. Increasing fear among Americans has
already produced the Trump phenomenon.

Imagine what countries with authoritarian traditions

will produce if the global economy deteriorates due to trade wars. If trade wars

begin, economic tensions will mount. To divert attention from the economy, Chinese
politicians could escalate tensions over Taiwan or North Korea. Or, perhaps, they could direct their
efforts farther abroad. Will American fears of a cyberattack on our electrical grid prove prophetic? A
prosperous world dramatically reduces the odds of such catastrophic events. Economically
illiterate politicians who promote trade wars threaten human cooperation, international
harmony, and general prosperity. They threaten peace. Good intentions are
meaningless if your trade policies lead to war.

Contention 3 Solvency
The plan cements relations
Mendis & Balazs 4/26 (Patrick, Rajawali senior fellow of the Kennedy School of
Governments Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University, Daniel,
Tongji University, When the TPP and One Belt, One Road meet,

Although China is excluded from the TPP at the moment, Beijings bilateral
economic agenda shows striking convergence with the US-led trade package.

has signed bilateral investment treaties with several TPP members, including Australia and South Korea, and there
are on-going trade negotiations with Japan. A USChina bilateral investment treaty is also in the making, while the
forward-looking, newly-established Shanghai Free Trade Zone attempts to make the Hong Kong financial district
history. From a strictly commercial point of view, Chinas entrance into the TPP would be an act with mutual

Beijing would significantly increase the gains of the TPP through technology
proliferation while also providing advantages in the US market for Chinese exports
and investment opportunities. This could be a decisive factor in favour of
cooperation if both China and the US choose to prioritise commerce above political
complications. Certainly, the history of hegemonic shifts in international relations projects gloomy times ahead
for SinoAmerican relations. It would be naive to expect China and the United States to
avoid collision out of pure benevolence. Yet it may not be inherently conflictual for the two countries
to act according to their self-interest, if these interests lie in economic growth. If we add the growth of
commercial bonds between the United States and China to the international trade puzzle, it
becomes plausible that political ideologies will be trumped in favour of commercial
prosperity. Given the commercial interdependence of China and the United States, and their national

commitments to economic growth, the TPP and OBOR are likely to be drawn under a common scheme for mutually
assured prosperity.

In such a scheme, cooperative growth will matter more than the

political ideologies of the past.

Spills over to general cooperation; relations are tense now

Zhou 15 (Steve, journalist based in Toronto. He is a regular contributor to The American
Conservative, Muftah and Ricochet media, among other outlets. He is also a columnist and
an associate editor at The Islamic Monthly, 11/6, The TPP risks making US-China relations
worse, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/11/the-tpp-risks-making-us-chinarelations-worse.html)
Much discussion regarding the TPP has focused on the absence from the pact of China, the largest economy in the

Obama has portrayed the exclusion as an attempt by the

U.S. and its allies to write the rules in the region before China does. But this kind of
antagonism does nothing to push U.S.-China relations perhaps the most important bilateral
relationship in the world toward anything productive. The increasing anti-China rhetoric that
has accompanied the Obama administrations Asian pivot will result in fewer opportunities to partner on
major global initiatives and hurt both nations economically. While the U.S. and China
have cooperated on a number of important issues, including a notable recent agreement on climate change,
geopolitical tensions persist. President Xi Jinping, who has led China since 2012, has pushed for
a new brand of nationalism that emphasizes the projection of Chinese power in Asia. This
has gotten China into territorial disputes with its neighbors, which in turn have looked to the U.S. for
Asia-Pacific region. President Barack

help. Chinas periodic alignment with Syria, Iran and Russia has set it at odds with the Obama administrations
strategy in the Middle East. Finally, Washington has serious concerns about Chinese cyberattacks on U.S.

Diplomatic negotiations over TPP mistrust spillover into

broader strategic relations managing an array of critical coop
Zhou 14 (Andi, translating Piin-Fen Kok, Dir. Of the China, East Asia, & U.S. program @ The EastWest Inst., Piin-Fen Kok Discusses U.S.-China Cooperation, http://www.eastwest.ngo/idea/pii-fenkok-discusses-us-china-cooperation)

Kok stated that China and the U.S. must first build strategic trust in order to develop
cooperation in a number of areas. In recent years, China has been suspicious of the
U.S. pivot towards Asia, and the two U.S. initiatives of strategic rebalancing in the
Asia-Pacific and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). China views these policies as
methods to contain Chinas rise. On the other hand, the U.S. sees China as taking
an assertive stance on its maritime disputes, especially through military activity
seemingly aimed toward U.S. allies. This aggression, coupled with recent unusually
close encounters between U.S. and Chinese military planes, has left the U.S. unable
to decipher Chinas intentions. Despite the latters proposal for a new major-power
relationship without conflict and confrontation, Chinas behavior is perceived by the
U.S. as raising the risk of conflict. Kok suggests that if the two countries can sit
down for honest discussions and agree that the parties are not engaged in a zerosum game and that peaceful cooperation can clear confusions about the others
true intentions, then the two powers could reach consensus on a number of issues.
After all, the U.S. has affirmed that it has no intention to contain China, and China
has declared it will not push the U.S. out of the Asia-Pacific region. From this
foundation, the two sides could cooperate on a common strategic vision for the
Asia-Pacific, and honestly raise their respective concerns. There is a wide range of
issues the U.S. and China can work together to address, such as the North Korea
nuclear issue, climate change, counter-terrorism and infectious disease control and
prevention. Their recent collaboration in training young Afghan diplomats was a
good start, and demonstrated that the two sides can find common ground about
how to solve bilateral and regional problems. If both sides can maintain that spirit to
establish mutual trust, it would be a blessing for the people of Asia, and the Pacific
will become more peaceful.

China is looking to join the TPP

World Trade Online 5/26 (World Trade Online is a product of Inside Washington
Publishers, which for over 30 years has provided exclusive, relevant news about the federal
policymaking process, to professionals who have a need to know about the process. It has groups of
news services covering environment, defense, international trade, health care, and energy. USCBC
Leader Says China Is Exploring Possibility Of Joining TPP http://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/uscbcleader-says-china-exploring-possibility-joining-tpp, May 26, 2016, Vol. 34, No. 21)

There is very clearly a rigorous internal debate going on in China about the progression of its economic
foreign trade," Ennis said at a May 20 conference hosted by the Global Business
Dialogue in Washington. "And in quite frank conversations with both government officials and
with those who influence government officials in China [that I had], they are very clear
that they look at TPP and what will it take ... to join ." The U.S. publicly has not laid out any specific conditions
for China to join the TPP, but has said more broadly that it would have to live up to the agreement's high standards. The U.S. message on
China's potential TPP membership is politically restrained as it is trying to portray passage of

reforms and how open it wants to be to

the TPP as a way to curtail China's economic influence in the region . The issue of new participants
is far off for TPP members, who are focused on TPP ratification and have not yet set clear criteria for new members, according to Kumihiko Kawazu, the
economic minister at the Japanese embassy, speaking at the same event. But he added that TPP ministers at their meeting in Peru last week discussed
the eligibility criteria for new members and said they would be drawn up in a "more accurate way" in the future.