1NC

Obamas all in on TPP, but PC key to bring deal itself across congressional finish
line its the mother of all trade fights because its perceived as setting the new
framework for ALL FUTURE TRADE DEALS
Vinik, 15 -- Danny Vinik is a staff writer at The New Republic, New Republic, 4/8/15,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121476/trans-pacific-partnership-foundation-all-futuretrade-deals
A theme runs through these four disagreements: They're overrated. The actual effects of the TPP are exaggerated. Labor

unions warn
about mass job losses and the Obama Administration touts the significant labor provisions in the law, but
the academic evidence largely points to small job losses or gains. The left demands a chapter on currency manipulation
while knowing that the 11 other TPP countries will never accept one without significant restrictions on the
Federal Reserve. Even for Washington, a town where every policy

decisions becomes a massive lobbying free-for-all, the TPP

seems overblown. Until, that is, you consider whats really at stake with the
TPP . "I think its larger importance is trying to establish a new framework
under which global trade deals will be done, said Hanson. Now that the
[World Trade Organization] seems to be pretty much ineffective as a form for negotiating new trade deals,
we need a new rubric." Looked at through that lens, it makes sense why both the

unions and the Obama administration have spent so much

political capital on the TPP. If the TPP sets the framework for future
trade deals , it could be a long time before unions have the leverage
again to push for a crackdown on currency manipulation. They understand, as the
Obama Administration and many interest groups do , what much of the media
doesn't: The TPP isn't just a 12-country trade deal. It's much bigger
than that. When I shared this theory with Jared Bernstein, he began to rethink his position. When you put it that way, I kind of feel
myself being pulled back into the initial title of my post, he said. In other words, if this is the last big trade
deal , then perhaps the absence of a currency chapter is a bigger deal than I thought. If the TPP
could determine the course of global trade for decades to come ,
then each interest group has a huge incentive to fight for every
last policy concession . It explains why labor and business
groups are putting huge amounts of money into this fight. That
money and the accompanying rhetoric has only made it harder
for policy journalists to

cut through these complex debates. It may take decades before we really understand the

stakes of the TPP.

Impact is multiple scenarios for conflict throughout asia and east asia impact D
and thumpers dont apply TPP is necessary AND sufficient condition, accesses every
structural check 11 reasons
-

Pivot
Institutions and Rules that moderate and constrain Territorial disputes and escalation

US regional leadership
Perception and credibility of US regional commitment
Perception and Regional credibility of US-Japan alliance effectiveness
Economy
Trade
Economic interdependence
Peaceful china rise and transition
Rule of law
Outweighs US military shift

Economist 14. [11-15-14 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797america-needs-push-free-trade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet]

Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts

TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it central to

Americas pivot to Asia , a chance to show the countrys commitment

to creating institutions that moderate territorial disputes , and an
opportunity to show emerging economies (meaning China) what economic rules the global
economy should follow . At a time when there is uncertainty about the
direction of the global trading system , TPP can play a central role in
setting rules of the road for a critical region in flux, he says. The flipside of this is
that failure becomes an even bigger risk , which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort
to prod a somnolent, introspective Congress into action, he makes the dramatic claim that failure could mean America
would forfeit its seat at the centre of the global economy.
Many pundits in Washington agree that American leadership in Asia is on the table .
Michael Green of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure would undermine the
impression of the United States as a Pacific power and look
like an abdication of leadership . It would also take pressure off Japan and China to
reform their economies. Mireya Sols, a Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be a
devastating blow to the United States credibility . Those views are
echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in Singapore says TPP failure would be a disaster: If the
domestic issues of these two countries cannot be resolved, there is no sense that the US-

Japan alliance can provide any kind of steerage for the

region. Deborah Elms, head of the Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre, suggests that so far the American pivot has manifested itself
mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in Australia. Without TPP, all the pivot amounts to
is a few extra boots on the ground in Darwin, she says. Even members of Americas
armed forces are worried . As one senior serving officer in the Pacific puts it, the TPP
unites countries that are committed to a trade-based future,
transparency and the rule of law. It is the model that the United States and
Europe have advanced versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to move the arc of
Chinese development, or identify it as a non-participant.

Nuclear war
Landay 00 (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight
Ridder/Tribune News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight.

even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global
economy and even start a nuclear war . India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North
But

Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped
keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships

fragile , said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think
tank. We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no
institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster. In
so

an effort to cool the regions tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all
will hopscotch Asias capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia

committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the

U nited S tates would instantly

become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no
defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear
weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable
Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous
U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the
Commerce Department.

Uniqueness/Internals TPP Mechanics

Yes Pass/A2: U Overwhelms

Obama PC key to TPP post fast track fight over deal itself is the decisive last
round and will be a HUGE political battle passage likely now, but not guaranteed
Benen, 6/25 Steve, MSNBC political contributor, Producer Rachel Maddow Show,
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obamas-trade-agenda-back-the-brink
Obamas trade agenda, back from the brink For those engaged in the debate over trade, the last six weeks
have been a roller coaster unlike anything the political world has

seen in a while . Opponents of President Obamas trade agenda were winning, the supporters
were winning. Then opponents reclaimed the advantage, only to see supporters take it right back. As of
late yesterday, however, it appears the White House and its unusual set
of allies are going to get exactly what they want . NBC News reported last night:
A critical aspect of President Barack Obamas economic legacy got a boost on Wednesday when the Senate voted to
approve giving him fast-track authority to negotiate a sweeping 12-nation trade pact without the threat
of Congress adding amendments or filibustering the final deal. The vote was 60-38. The measure now heads to the
presidents desk for signature. The final roll call on the Senate vote is online here. Note, Congress passed Trade Promotion Authority better
known as fast-track without the labor-friendly Trade Adjustment Assistance, but that will soon change. Under the plan hatched by the
president and Republican leaders, TAA will be on its way to the Oval Office by tomorrow. Indeed, it passed the Senate late yesterday on a voice
vote and is expected to clear the House with relative ease. House Democrats originally blocked TAA, which they support, in the hopes of
derailing the larger trade agenda, but now that fast-track has already passed, the Democratic minority no longer has an incentive to oppose the
policy they like. Several

House Dems who oppose the trade agenda acknowledged yesterday that the fight

is over. Thats largely true, though theres likely to be one

more round. By passing fast-track, Congress has made it easier for Obama and
his team to negotiate a massive trade accord the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP which is
nearing completion . In fact, the debate surrounding the trade deal

is likely to change quite a bit very soon as part of the fast-track legislation,
the public will be able to read and scrutinize the deal long before an agreement is formally reached. For
quite a while, critics

have raised concerns about the secrecy surrounding the trade negotiations, but this will

soon fade. The fight will focus more on the TPPs merits, less on its process. All of
which leads us to the last fight of the dispute . The White House now has

the tools it sought, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not yet

a done deal . Opponents and supporters of the policy will still have an opportunity to
push lawmakers to agree with them when Congress takes up the agreement
itself , and its a safe bet those arguments will be fierce . But for now,
Obama is right where he wants to be, having won a Capitol Hill
fight many expected him to lose . Its still a strange image, though the president has all kinds of
impressive accomplishments, but this

to Republican support.

is the first time in the Obama era the White House agenda advanced thanks

PC and congressional relations key TPA vote proves it works on trade, Obama
will use it, its finite and spills over TPP is brutal political fight and passage not
guaranteed
Baker, 6/24 -- Peter, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent
for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, Prior to joining The New
York Times in 2008, Baker was a reporter for 20 years at The Washington Post, where he also covered the White
House during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/obama-bolsters-his-leverage-with-trade-victory-but-at-a-cost.html?
_r=0

Obama Bolsters His Leverage With Trade Victory, but at a Cost

WASHINGTON

success in rescuing his high-priority trade legislation

from a rebellion by fellow Democrats strengthens his hand
internationally and paves the way for completion of the most expansive

President Obamas

economic agreement in generations. While the turbulent process was embarrassing for the president and deeply confusing for
foreign negotiating partners, Mr. Obama now has the leverage he sought to force the final

concessions needed to wrap up a free-trade pact bringing together 12

nations along the Pacific Rim. Talks should resume soon, and American officials hope for a deal in
short orde r. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, called trade promotion
authority the most important bill well do this year.Trade Authority Bill Wins Final Approval in SenateJUNE 24, 2015 Today is a very big
vote, declared Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader.Trade Accord, Once Blocked, Nears PassageJUNE 23, 2015 Soon-tobe citizens at a naturalization ceremony in New York. One Republican sought a provision to prohibit future trade deals from loosening
immigration laws.Republicans Tie Their Favorite Causes to the Trade AgreementJUNE 10, 2015 But

the victory on

Capitol Hill , orchestrated mainly by the same Republican leaders Mr. Obama has battled over the
last six years, came at a cost. The open warfare within his own party
was searing and may be slow to heal . Democratic lawmakers said an
already fraught relationship with the president had soured further , and
some vowed to keep fighting the trade pact, called the TransPacific Partnership, foreshadowing another bruising battle. Mr.
Obama faces the question of how he will move forward with Congress in
the time he has left in office. Given the alliance with Republican leaders on a shared priority, can he capitalize on
the momentum to achieve further bipartisan accords? Or is this a one-time convergence of interests that does not carry over to other major issues
like the budget? Hes had a collaboration across the aisle that gave him maybe the strongest legacy of his presidency, said Carla Hills, who
served as the United States trade representative under the first President George Bush and went on to found a consulting firm advising businesses
on expanding international trade. Now hes got 15 months left. Whats he going to do with it? Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. Obama has found
common ground with Republicans several times in the six months since they took control of the Senate and added to their House majority. He
signed a bipartisan measure imposing new restrictions on national security surveillance, and, after initially threatening a veto, accepted bipartisan
legislation giving Congress a role in evaluating any nuclear deal with Iran. White House officials see room for further consensus with
Republicans on a large public works program of road, bridge and other construction projects, as well as legislation to overhaul the criminal justice
system to address what both parties see as excessive incarceration. While they would not say so out loud, White House officials

found it easier to work with Congress on trade now that

Republicans control of both houses. Mr. Obama and his team saw Senator Harry Reid of Nevada,
the Democratic leader, as challenging to work with when he was in the majority, and his opposition could have made it impossible to pass the
trade authority measure last year. By contrast, Obama aides have privately praised Republicans like Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the
majority leader; Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio; and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,

invested more energy

in lobbying for trade authority, which would grant him enhanced negotiating power, than he had in

saying they were straightforward and professional during the trade debate. And Mr. Obama

perhaps any initiative since Democrats lost the House in 2010. The last six months, working on
this, theyve really shown a willingness for the first time to work
across the aisle , and because of that, this key economic measure has been salvaged, said former
Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a Republican who is president of the Business Roundtable. It would have been catastrophic if it had been
defeated. White House officials argued that Mr. Obamas

efforts were crucial because he delivered enough

Democrats to put the measure over the top . Yet he delivered relatively few Democratic votes and had
to be saved by Republicans after House Democrats blocked his trade package. Democratic opponents of the trade legislation
bristled at what they saw as the presidents belittling their concerns and accusing them of making up arguments.
The legislation sent to Mr. Obama allows him to submit trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes
without amendments. But that means his Democratic critics will have another

shot at defeating the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it is

completed and sent to Congress for approval . Representative Peter A. DeFazio, an
Oregon Democrat

who was a leading critic of the trade legislation, said t he president should listen to his party and
the agreement. If not, he said, Democrats

address concerns about the labor and environmental standards and investor protections in

will fight him again.

might find that we

It is so bad, and we will have so much time to simply explain that to the American people that you

could fuel a very substantial grass-roots revolt , Mr. DeFazio said.

TPP Passage likely, but not guaranteed fast track was necessary, but only a first
step its key to success of Asia pivot
Kehoe, 6/24 John, John Kehoe is the United States correspondent for The Australian Financial Review, , John
reports on the economy, politics, and business, John began his career at the Australian Treasury as a policy analyst,
after studying economics and politics at Monash University in Melbourne.Australian, Financial Review, 6/24/14,
http://www.afr.com/news/economy/trade/obamas-pacific-trade-deal-close-as-congress-reverses-block-20150623ghvyt4

Obamas Pacific trade deal close as Congress reverses block President Barack Obama and the US Congress
cleared a major hurdle for a proposed Pacific Rim free trade and investment agreement, paving the way for the
12 participating countries, including Australia and Japan, to finalise negotiations on a deal. After the President copped an
embarrassing rejection from his own union-beholden Democratic party 11 days earlier, a majority of US Senators supported advancing legislation
that would give Mr Obama the power to set the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 60-37 vote in the Senate on Tuesday to prevent a
filibuster debate on the so-called trade promotion authority (TPA) bill, sets up a final vote in for senators on Wednesday to grant the President the
fast-track power. The TPA measure is widely expected to attract the 51 votes required, after the House of Representative approved mirroring
legislation last week. The TPA or fast-track power, which prevents Congress from changing the details of the TPP and limits

lawmakers to a simple yes or no vote on the final pact , is vital for other countries to sign the free trade and investment
agreement. Luis Miguel Castilla, the ambassador of Peru to the United States, said the TPP negotiations were stalled until other countries had
assurance the President had secured TPA. "There
negotiating table [between TPP countries], but

are still some critical issues pending at the

this is an essential first tool to proceed

forward ," he said at the Atlantic Council in Washington. The TPP is a major proposed multilateral accord,
covering more than 40 per cent of the world's economy and will set sweeping new rules for trade,
investment, intellectual property, labour and the environment. As well as promising big economic benefits
for countries to plug in to the fast growing Asia region, the TPP is considered a vital economic
element

to President Obama's strategic rebalance to Asia to offset the rise of rival China. The 12 TPP
countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.
Participating countries yet to remove trade barriers, such as agriculture tariffs and quotas in Japan and Canada, have been holding back their best
and final offers until they have confidence that the US Trade Representative can keep its word without meddling from the US Congress. Trade
unions and many Democrats have waged a furious campaign

against the TPP , claiming that a free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada earlier triggered

the shifting of thousands of blue collar jobs to lower cost countries and only benefited big corporations. In the end, President
Obama relied on mainly Republican support, combined with a handful of Democrats, after the House initially rejected TPA legislation this month.
Mr Obama, who was criticised for belatedly lobbying Congress on the benefits of TPP, has said the deal is vital to ensure the US helps set the
trade rules in Asia, instead of China. Trade Minister Andrew Robb, who was in India, has said getting trade ministers together to conclude a
negoitation was dependent on a successful US outcome on TPA. Pro-free trade Republicans hailed Tuesday's breakthrough in the Senate. "This
has been a long and rather twisted path to where we are today but it's a very, very important accomplishment for the country," said Senate

Despite optimism that the

Washington roadblock is now almost cleared, there remain key sticking points
majority leader and Republican Mitch McConnell, who helped steer the vote.

to
overcome between countries. Chile's amabassador to the US, Juan Gabriel Valds, said other countries faced similar challenges gaining domestic
political support in their own legislatures to conclude the TPP. "We have political cycles, we have political circumstances and this is a debate that

"There is a tendency to indicate that

a mere approval of TPA has solved all the matters pending in the
discussions. This is simply not true ."
is going to be a tough debate in our own congress," he said.

passage on course, but not certain despite fast track - its top Obama priority and
PC still key - opponents are regrouping and huge political fight remains
Geewax, 6/23 -- Marilyn, Senior Editor and national economics correspondent, NPR, 6/23/15,
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/23/416854805/senate-votes-to-advance-the-white-house-tradeagenda

Senate Votes To Advance The White House Trade Agenda The Senate voted 60-37 Tuesday to advance President Obama's trade
agenda setting up a big victory for the White House and a painful loss for labor unions. This latest Senate
vote clears away procedural hurdles for legislation granting Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to Obama. That power allows the president to negotiate trade pacts and
then put them on a so-called fast track through Congress. With

TPA in place, Congress would take a simple yes-or-no vote on

any trade deal, with no room for amendments. For decades, presidents have asked Congress for this power, saying that other countries don't want to approve
agreements with the United States unless they know any package is final. This trade-negotiation power has expired, and Obama wanted it renewed so
that he could complete a deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is
still being worked out. Its progress has been slowed by Obama's lack of fast-track authority. But now, Obama is on

course to get that power so he can complete TPP. The Senate still needs to take a final vote on TPA, but passage now requires just
a simple majority. Given Tuesday's 60 votes in favor of clearing procedural hurdles, passage seems virtually certain when the Senate votes probably on Wednesday.
The House has already approved fast-track authority. So barring some amazing turnaround, Congress will send TPA legislation to Obama shortly, and he will sign it

have been putting up a fierce fight to stop TPA, which they say leads to secretive trade
deals that benefit corporations but harm workers. After the vote, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a union supporter, took to the Senate floor
into law. Unions

to say the vote was "shameful" because it would open the door to more trade deals. In contrast, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised the vote and

Even though TPA seems a virtual certainty,

there's still a bit more drama to play out . It involves trade-related legislation that Democrats

said, "America is back in the trade business."

support. To win Democratic votes for TPA, Republican leaders in the House and Senate have pledged to allow votes on legislation renewing Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), a program to help displaced workers, as well as a bill to extend trade preferences to sub-Saharan African nations. McConnell also promised to
move quickly to complete legislation that would step up enforcement of trade laws. Those bills, supported by the White House and by the great majority of

Moving forward
with a full trade agenda has been a key goal for the White
House . But the battle to do so has created a lot of hurt feelings between the Obama

Democrats, have been stalled amid procedural maneuvering to get TPA done. It now appears they will move forward.

administration and trade opponents, who include union members, environmentalists and consumer
advocates. Those opponents are now regrouping for the next fight .

Once fast-track authority is in place , Obama will be able to complete

negotiations for TPP . Then Congress will have to vote on it, likely this
fall . Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, put out a statement
saying that once "people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their

representatives in Washington to vote that deal down ."

Fast track makes TPP passage likely, but not guaranteed still a big fight key to
asia pivot biggest fight in house = no filibuster is irrelevant
Werner, 6/24 Erica, Reporter @ Associated Press, Boston Herald, 6/24/15,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2015/06/senate_vote_moves_obamas_trade_agenda_to_brink_
of_enactment

With Obama within reach of major trade victory, opponents vow to fight individual

treaties Senate vote moves Obama's trade agenda to brink of enactment President Barack Obama's longpursued trade agenda took a giant step toward becoming law on Tuesday, and opponents
grudgingly conceded they now must fight on less-favorable
terrain . A key Senate vote greatly brightened Obama's hopes for a 12-nation Pacific-rim trade
agreement, a keystone of his effort to expand U.S. influence in Asia. The trade pact would be a
high point in a foreign policy that has otherwise been consumed by crisis management , and would give Obama a rare
legislative achievement in the Republican-controlled Congress. The Senate voted 60-37 to advance his bid for "fast track" negotiating authority. That was the
minimum number of votes needed on the procedural question. But final passage, expected no later than Wednesday, needs only a simple majority, which would let
Obama sign fast track into law. The president also wants to continue a retraining program for workers displaced by international trade. House and Senate support
appears adequate, but even if that measure stumbles, the long-coveted fast track bill will be on Obama's desk. "This is a very important day for our country," Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. In

the strange-bedfellows politics of trade, he was among the Republican congressional

big majority of Democrats,

especially in the House, oppose free-trade agreements , as do the

leaders vital in pushing the agenda forward, with only modest help from Democrats. The

labor unions that play important roles in Democratic primaries. They say free-trade agreements ship U.S.
jobs overseas. Obama, major corporate groups, GOP leaders and others say U.S. products must reach
more global markets. They say anti-trade forces have exaggerated the harm done by the 1994 North America Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Previous
presidents have enjoyed fast track authority. It lets them propose trade pacts that Congress can reject or ratify, but not change or filibuster. Obama
wants to complete negotiations for the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Members include Japan, Mexico and Canada. He
would ask Congress to ratify it, following weeks or months of

public scrutiny that will give opponents another shot. Several

such organizations said they will regroup and fight on. The liberal group
MoveOn.org said fast track "puts the interests of massive, multinational corporations over those of American workers, consumers, and voters." When

the
Pacific-rim proposal becomes public, the group said, "MoveOn members and our allies nationwide will hold our
elected officials accountable and urge them to vote down any deal that's bad for the
American economy."

passage likely, but not guaranteed Obama PC still key, its his top priority and hes
pushing hard TPA vote only motivates opposition and shifts fight onto TPP
Davis, 6/24 -- Susan, USA Today, 6/24/15,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/24/trade-fast-trackquestions/29214127/
fast track." Passage of the legislation on Wednesday is a
huge win for President Obama and Republicans, who formed a rare alliance to enact it over the opposition of the majority of Democrats. Here is a primer on the latest in the trade
For the first time since 2007, Congress has approved the renewal of trade promotion authority (TPA), known as "

debate: Q: Why does Obama want fast track authority? A: Fast track creates an expedited legislative process for presidents to get trade bills through Congress. The authority expired in 2007, and

It allows the president to submit to Congress trade pacts

that can only be approved or rejected, not amended, after a period of review. TPA therefore enhances
Obama is the only president in the modern era who has not had fast track at his disposal.

the president's hand to finalize negotiations in trade talks. The new fast-track authority is good for six years and may be
used to consider potential agreements from several ongoing trade negotiations. Chief among

them is the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP) , a 12-nation pact with Asia-Pacific nations that is one of the largest trade agreements ever
negotiated. TPP is a cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy agenda with
Asia and a top policy priority in his remaining 18 months in office .
Obama says it will provide the U.S. a stronger foothold in emerging markets and provide an economic
counterbalance to China in the region. Q: But if it's a top Obama priority , why are

Democrats so opposed? A: TPA sparked a rare moment of disunity for Obama and congressional Democrats, in part because the
party's base has soured on trade and its effects on the U.S. economy. Every major labor union opposed TPA, as did
the majority of Democrats in Congress. Just 28 of the of 188 House Democrats voted for TPA as did just 14 of 46 Senate Democrats, which includes two independents. Obama took on his party's

Democrats have
historically been more skeptical of trade agreements, and a lagging U.S. economy

base on this, sparring publicly with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and touting renewed TPA as the most progressive fast-track agreement in history.

and slow wage growth for American workers made it an ever harder sell in the

current political climate . Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, a top House Democrat on trade issues, has
also said Democrats worry the pending trade agreements will
undermine human rights and environmental standards, among
other concerns . Q: So who are the winners? A: It's a victory for Obama, as well as a number of congressional
Republicans who worked with the administration to get it passed, including Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, House Ways and Means
Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as well as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who helped devise a legislative gambit to get fast track
through Congress after an initial rebellion by House Democrats. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden was also a critical Democratic player in crafting TPA. While the White House may view Wyden as a

And the losers? A: House

Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took a lot of lumps in the debate after they defied the White House and voted down a trade adjustment assistance (TAA)
winner, he also sparked the ire of Democratic activists who are threatening a primary challenge in his reelection bid next year. Q:

bill in a poorly executed strategy to slow down or change TPA. The move extracted no changes and did not slow the process in any substantial way, leaving Democrats empty-handed and backed

Pelosi announced Wednesday she would vote for TAA this time
because "it can open the door to a full debate on TPP." Labor unions, who
into a corner to support trade adjustment assistance when it returns to the floor this week.

worked hard to keep Democrats in line to defeat TPA, also take a hit with its passage.
However, union leaders say it will only serve to motivate union voters at the ballot box. Q: When will
TPP come up for a vote? A: There are no votes scheduled yet on TPP. Assuming the negotiations are finalized, fast track
requires a 60-day public review period before Congress can vote on it. Realistically, The Asia-Pacific trade agreement is unlikely to come
up for a vote before the fall as Congress confronts pressing legislation to fund the nation's highways and grapples with a log jam over the annual spending bills. TPP opponents are
pessimistic about their chances to defeat the trade bill once it comes up for a vote,
as the vote for fast track indicates that there is majority support in

Congress for the trade pact .

TPP passage likely not guaranteed, despite fast track approval PC still key, It
Obamas top priority and still a tough political battle
Washington Post, 6/23 -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/key-issues-and-what-liesahead-for-obamas-trade-agenda/2015/06/23/5a00d810-19d5-11e5-bed8-1093ee58dad0_story.html

Key issues, and what lies ahead, for Obamas trade agenda
an alphabetical mix on trade that requires an explanation. The

TPA, TAA, TPP Its

bottom line is President Barack Obamas trade agenda, a top

priority of his last two years in office, is back on track . Trade Promotion Authority, also known as fast
track, appears on its way to final Senate passage and President Barack Obamas signature. Enjoyed by previous presidents, it lets the
administration negotiate trade agreements that Congress can reject or ratify , but not
change or filibuster. WHY IS TPA IMPORTANT? All parties agree that negotiating nations are unwilling to make
their best offers to the United States if they feel Congress is well-positioned to kill the deals. That

doesnt mean congressional approval is automatic. WHAT

COMES NEXT? Obama will urge completion of negotiations for the 12-nation TransPacific Partnership, or TPP. He would ask Congress to ratify it , following a period of public
scrutiny certain to stir debate among unions, environmental groups, businesses, farmers
and others. WHAT COUNTRIES ARE IN THE TPP? The United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New
Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. ___ WILL OTHER TRADE AGREEMENTS FOLLOW? Quite likely. For example, the United States has
been negotiating with several European countries, pursuing the Trans-Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership, or TTIP. ___ WHAT ELSE
REMAINS ON CONGRESS TRADE AGENDA? Three more trade-related bills await Senate action. The most important would extend trade
adjustment assistance, or TAA. Usually a union and liberal priority, it provides aid and retraining to workers displaced by international trade. The
House also would have to pass TAA if its to become law. WHAT ARE THE CHIEF ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST FREE-TRADE
AGREEMENTS? Unions and many liberal groups say free-trade pacts ship U.S. jobs abroad and reward

countries with poor environmental and workplace standards . Obama and others say U.S. products must reach more markets
in the global economy.

Congressional TPP passage not guaranteed Obama pushing but it will be a tough
political fight, despite fast track
Lopez, 6/24 Laura Barron-Lopez, covers Congress for The Huffington Post. Previously,
she reported for The Hill and E&E Publishing's Greenwire, Huffington Post, 6/24/15,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/pelosi-backs-taa_n_7654954.html
Im disappointed that the TAA bill isnt nearly as robust as it should be in light of a trade agreement that encompasses 40 percent of the global
economy," Pelosi wrote in a Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. "While we may not all vote in the

same manner on TAA, I will support its passage because it can open the door to a full

debate on TPP

." Obama is currently negotiating the TPP with 11 Pacific nations. The TPP and two other large
trade deals that the administration is working on, together encompass over half of the world's economy. The passage of the agreements depends
on Congress granting him fast-track powers. Pelosi

and a majority of House Democrats oppose fast-track, as well

as the massive trade deals that the administration is pushing.

They argue that such deals fail to protect workers at home, lack sufficiently robust environmental standards and financial regulations, and do
nothing to stop unfair currency manipulation. "My standard for any trade agreement is that it must create good-paying 21st century jobs, increase
the paychecks of American workers, and it must do so recognizing the relationship between commerce and climate," Pelosi wrote. With fast-

track legislation expected to reach Obama's desk Wednesday evening and be signed into law, the public will have only two months to
read and understand deals such as the TPP after they are negotiated and before the president signs them. Congress will have to approve the deals
as quickly as one month after that, with no changes allowed. "While

we have not all voted in the same manner, we all

recognize that the next debate will be over Trans-Pacific

Partnership itself and all Members -- on both sides of this
debate -- will shine a bright light on the provisions of TPP, " Pelosi
wrote. Pelosi's announcement of support comes after weeks of intense lobbying by the White
House, including personal meetings between the president and House Democrats. When all of that failed, however, Obama
hunkered down with Republicans, cutting Democrats who opposed fast-track out of the dealmaking process. The

battle over Obama's trade agenda has left Capitol Hill in chaos over the past
month, and is one of the few issues on which a majority of Democrats have found
themselves fighting the president.
Passage of trade bills just shifts the focus to fight over TPP itself passage not
guaranteed, obama must overcome intense political resistance
Babington, 6/25 -- Charles, covers Congress and national politics for Associated Press. Prior to joining AP in
2007, he worked at The Washington Post, where he covered politics, Congress and the White House, Star Tribune,
6/25/15, http://www.startribune.com/senate-and-house-prepare-to-complete-obama-s-trade-agenda/309734341/

With Congress set to finish Obama's trade bills, eyes turn to proposed pacts in

Asia

, beyond Congress is wrapping up President Barack Obama's trade agenda, one day after handing him the big prize of
"fast track" negotiating authority. Lawmakers appear ready on Thursday to approve a jobs retraining program for workers displaced by
international trade. Usually a Democratic priority, it briefly became hostage to Democrats' failed efforts to block fast track. Also on tap are
measures to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act and to enact various customs provisions. Passage

of the bills will let

Obama and his trade opponents shift their focus to proposed

trade agreements under negotiation for years. The first involves the
United States, Japan, Canada and nine other Pacific-rim nations . The fast-track law allows Congress to
ratify or reject such agreements, but not change or filibuster them. Passage of the trade bills mark a huge
win for the president, and one paradoxically spearheaded by Republicans. While clearly a setback for
liberal Democrats, some say they will focus on details of the Pacific pact and other
administration is expected to propose soon . The resurrection of
Obama's once-imperiled trade package is a stinging defeat for the AFL-CIO and other unions and
environmental groups that fiercely opposed it. They say free-trade agreements kill U.S. jobs and help
countries with poor environmental and workplace standards. Some have vowed to punish the relatively
small number of congressional Democrats who opposed them. But Obama much like the last Democratic
president, Bill Clinton portrays expanded trade as crucial in a global, high-tech economy. Most Republicans agree, but
multination trade agreements the

most congressional Democrats, especially in the House, do

not. Trade has opened the most striking breach between a Democratic president and the
lawmakers who overwhelmingly backed him on health care and other hard-fought issues. House Democrats dealt Obama a
humiliating rebuke on June 12, when they derailed his trade package only hours after he traveled to the Capitol to personally ask
for their help. Republican leaders, with White House support, restructured the legislative package and
passed its key elements with big GOP margins, plus modest Democratic support .

TPP passage likely post-fast track, but congressional approval isnt a done deal PC
Key, vital to Asia Pivot and Econ
Hughes, 6/24 Krista, Trade Correspondent @ Reuters, 6/24/15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/24/us-usa-trade-idUSKBN0P40BJ20150624
Obama's Pacific trade pact nears finish in U.S. Congress President Barack Obama's bid to
boost U.S. economic ties with Asia neared approval on Wednesday, when a six-week congressional
battle will culminate in a decisive Senate vote on legislation needed to seal his hallmark Pacific Rim
trade deal. After two brushes with failure, some fancy legislative footwork and myriad
backroom deals to keep the legislation alive, lawmakers are expected to grant Obama the
power to negotiate trade deals and send them on a fast track through Congress. Passage could push the 12nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a central part of Obama's foreign policy pivot

to Asia , over the finish line in time to get it through Congress

before year-end. The deal, potentially a legacy-defining achievement for Obama, would create a free-trade zone stretching

comprising 40 percent of the world economy and

raising annual global economic output by nearly $300 billion. The Senate voted 60-37

from Japan to Chile,

on Tuesday to clear a procedural path for a final vote on passage of fast-track authority, which would

let lawmakers set

negotiating goals for trade deals, including TPP, but restrict them to yes-or-no votes on final agreements. The fasttrack legislation itself now only needs a majority of votes to pass, a hurdle it cleared easily more than a month ago on its first run through the
Senate. RESISTANCE EBBS The last congressional hurdle to the trade package also appears to be disintegrating. Fast-track was forced back to
the Senate floor after a revolt by House of Representatives Democrats resulted in fast-track being split from a companion measure extending a

program to help workers hurt by trade. That bill faces a separate vote in the Senate, as early as Wednesday, and another in the House. Many

Democrats who opposed it last week now plan to support it, including House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. "I will support its
passage because it can open the door to a full debate on TPP ," she said in a letter to
colleagues. The top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, Sander Levin, said he expects the "vast
majority" of Democrats to vote "yes." Republicans hope to pass both measures this week and send them to Obama for approval,
before going on a week-long break. The bruising congressional battle has pitted

Obama against many in his own party , including Pelosi, and prompted
blood-letting among Republicans after party leaders lashed out at conservatives who refused to back the trade agenda.
Although opinion polls show a majority of Americans support trade in general, congressional approval has been a tough
slog because labor unions and activists have campaigned against fast-track, warning of job losses and
vowing to retaliate against Democrats who break ranks to support trade. The front runner for the party's presidential

Democratic critics had legitimate concerns

but has so far reserved judgment on the TPP . The TPP would be the

nomination in 2016, Hillary Clinton, said

biggest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement 20 years ago between the United States, Canada and
Mexico.

TPP passage likely post TPA, but not guaranteed Obama has enough PC to deliver
the votes now, but congressional politics still key its vital to trade and asia stability
Baker, 6/24 -- Peter, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent
for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, Prior to joining The New
York Times in 2008, Baker was a reporter for 20 years at The Washington Post, where he also covered the White
House during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/obama-bolsters-his-leverage-with-trade-victory-but-at-a-cost.html?
_r=0

In the near term, though, Mr. Obama is emerging with a more potent hand on the
world stage, having avoided a defeat that would have made him look like a lame

duck . The trade talks have come as he is at a critical stage in two other international negotiations, one with Iran to curb its nuclear program,
the other with Cuba to restore diplomatic relations. Mr. Obamas

trade representative, Michael B. Froman, will now renew

negotiations with individual countries seeking to join the trade pact to work on outstanding issues. After
that, the chief negotiators of all 12 countries will gather in hopes of pushing through the final disputes.

Other nations have held off backing down on the toughest

issues to see whether Mr. Obama would have the ability to
deliver congressional approval. With the congressional votes behind him, Mr.
Froman will be in a position to press Japan to make concessions on its rice
market, for example, or Vietnam on stronger workplace standards. Congress has made
clear what it expects in terms of high-standard trade agreements, Mr. Froman said in an interview.
With this guidance, weve been granted the direction and authority to move forward with our negotiations. That does not
mean it will be easy . The negotiators have a pretty good sense of where the landing zone is,
but now some key political decisions have to be made , said Susan Schwab, the
trade representative under President George W. Bush. Victor Cha, another former Bush adviser, who now directs
Asian studies at Georgetown University, said that sealing the Pacific trade

agreement would transform economic rules across a fastgrowing region. If he gets this , Mr. Cha said of the president,

historians will record it as the most important new institution

in Asia.
Passage likely but Not a done deal presidential politics and bipartisan
congressional support still key for TPP success
Werner, 6/24 Erica, Reporter @ Associated Press, Boston Herald, 6/24/15,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2015/06/senate_vote_moves_obam
as_trade_agenda_to_brink_of_enactment
The Senate vote "is an important step towards revitalizing our economy, creating more good American
jobs, and reasserting our country's global economic leadership," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. The
Senate was poised to give final passage to fast track on Wednesday or possibly late Tuesday and then address three other trade-related bills. The most important
would extend trade adjustment assistance, which provides aid and retraining to workers displaced by international trade. The House also would have to endorse the
program for it to become law. The retraining program is usually a union and liberal priority. But House Democrats this month voted against it in hopes of scuttling fast
track, which was part of the same measure. Obama's trade allies rescued the agenda by decoupling the items and passing fast track, by itself, in the Senate on Tuesday.
Some House Democrats still talk of blocking the retraining program, because Obama has insisted on signing it along with fast track. Others, however, say they've lost
their legislative leverage and ending the program for displaced workers would be counterproductive.

Presidential politics threw a

brief scare

into pro-trade senators early Tuesday. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, a presidential hopeful, flipped his vote from support
in May to opposition, saying the issue had become "enmeshed in corporate backroom deal-making ."
The only other senator to change positions was Ben Cardin, D-Md. He voted in favor of fast track in May, but voted to block it Tuesday. For all the

bitter politics over trade , many economists say new trade agreements might affect the U.S. economy only modestly. Jobs lost
to trade might be roughly offset by jobs created, they say. Still, Obama and others say greater

U.S. assertiveness on world trade will

lessen China's influence in Asia and elsewhere. Obama says China could eventually join the Pacific-rim pact,
but China would have to abide by its environmental, economic and workplace rules. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters,
"our work on trade is not finished ." "With bipartisan support from

Congress ," he said, fast track "will help America write the rules of the road and ensure that our new global economy will be
constructed to allow more hardworking Americans to compete and win."

Fast track increased chances of congressional TPP passage, but still not guaranteed
fierce dem opposition
AFP, 6/24 -- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/601496/tpp-chances-advance-in-uscongress
TPP chances advance in US Congress President Barack Obama inched
closer Tuesday to gaining a powerful tool as he tries to seal a trans-Pacific trade deal designed to counter
the economic might of China. The tool is called fast-track authority, under which once the United States signs a
trade deal with other countries, the president submits it to Congress for a yes-or-no vote . Lawmakers can
debate such an accord but not amend it. They have to vote yes or no, treating the accord as a whole rather than being
able to tweak a piece of it; they must in essence take it or leave it. A vote on giving Obama this authority will probably come Wednesday.
Negotiations on the trade deal itself continue. What happened Tuesday to help Obama was strictly a procedural matter, in the

Most
Democrats in both chambers of Congress oppose the Pacific
free-trade accord, saying among things it will cause Americans to lose jobs because of cheap

Senate. It was a vote on whether to shorten debate leading up to the definitive, final vote on granting Obama fast-track authority.

labor in Asia. So on this issue, Obama and the Republicans who control both chambers have become odd
bedfellows. In Tuesday's vote, most Senate Democrats tried to make life difficult for Obama by voting against
letting the fast-track bill move closer to a definitive vote. It was their final attempt to delay the process, and it failed. The final
numbers in the vote were 60-37. Of those voting in favor, 13 were Democrats who sided with the
Republicans. Gaining fast-track authority would mark a triumph for Obama in a saga that has torn his
Democratic Party apart in recent weeks. The vote will let the United States "negotiate and enforce strong, high-standard trade agreements

that are good for our economy and good for our workers," White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote. The

House passed the bill last

week despite a nearly all-out rebellion by the Democrats. The bill will force an up-or-down vote on trade
not just this time but on any future trade bill negotiated by the US president. For the past 40 years, all US presidents
have enjoyed fast-track authority, such as with Mexico and Canada in the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement. - Looking
ahead to EU deal? - With the new bill, Obama and whoever succeeds him will have such leeway until 2018, with a possible extension until
2021. That should help a free-trade accord in the works with the European Union. But first comes the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
billed as the biggest trade accord in history. Obama wants to sign it before he leaves office in January 2017. The agreement
under negotiation, comprising an estimated 40 percent of global trade, is a sweeping pact among 12
countries including Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan and Vietnam. It would create a free-trade area to counter the
economic might of China in the Asia-Pacific region. Tuesday's vote will send a message to US allies that we understand they
are "somewhat wary about Chinese commercial and potentially military domination and that we intend to still be deeply involved in the Pacific,"
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. Environmental groups opposed to the trade bill fear the application of a

private arbitration system which they say will allow companies to sue states over environmental or labor
laws that violate the terms of the Pacific trade deal. "The Senate vote today illustrates the raw power of wealthy campaign
contributors, Wall Street financiers, Big Oil and other corporate polluters to put the will of corporations in front of people and the environment,"
said the president of Friends of the Earth, Erich Pica. Tuesday's vote went ahead only after Republican leaders made a

concession: they agreed to pass, by the end of the week, a law aimed at helping workers who lost their jobs because of
previous free trade accords. The few Democrats who agreed to side with the Republicans had demanded this and
called it non-negotiable.

PC Key/A2: U Overwhelms harder than TPA

PC Key and passage not guaranteed Despite fast track authority, TPP will be an
even tougher political battle than TPA
Peterson, 6/12 -- Kristina, covers Congress from the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau, WSJ,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-trade-agenda-faces-crucial-votes-in-house-1434101402

Obama Makes Capitol Hill Plea to Democrats on Trade Agenda Votes on fast-track authority, workers aid expected amid
struggle between President, fellow Democrats President Barack Obama made an impassioned plea Friday to House Democrats in an 11th-hour
bid to shore up support for his trade agenda ahead of a series of crucial votes. In a rare visit to Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama delivered
his closing argument to a Democratic caucus sharply divided over whether to support legislation that would grant the president fast-track
authority for a Pacific trade dealand extend aid to U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of foreign trade. The House was expected to begin
voting midday Friday on two contentious measures, with both expected to face razor-thin margins as a week of last-minute negotiations wound
down. Mr. Obama grounded his message in personal experience, telling lawmakers that his actions were aimed at lifting up American workers.
But many Democrats remained opposed to the fast-track bill Friday morning, and some said Mr. Obamas argument relied on simply trusting him.
The president said, I know steelworkers in the South Side of Chicago who lost their jobs and everything I do is for them. Well, I was born and
raised in Detroit and I represent Minneapolis, so I dont really think his emotional tie to displaced workers is greater than mine or anybody
elses, said Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, who plans to oppose both key trade measures Friday. I
really disagree with him on this more and more. Lawmakers said Mr. Obama boiled down his argument to play it straight and not use
legislative gambits to bring down a complicated package of trade bills He made a very powerful statement. It was about Democrats voting
according to their own conscience and doing the right thing, said Rep. Michael Honda (D., Calif.), who opposes the trade package. Passage

of the trade legislation would deliver a rare, second-term political gift from a GOP-controlled Congress to
Mr. Obamawho squared off against labor groups in a bruising Democratic battleas well as to
business groups and Republican leaders who put aside their suspicion of the White House to advocate for
the trade legislation. The presidents excursion to Capitol Hill comes after a surprise appearance Thursday night at the congressional baseball
game. There, he made a personal pitch to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) Approval of fast track would give Mr.
Obama the power to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendments , as
previous presidents have done. Such power would ease passage of the Trans-Pacific

Partnership,

a near-final deal between the U.S. and 11 other nations around the Pacific Ocean that would cover nearly 40%
of the world economy. The Senate approved trade legislation late last month, but its fate remained in jeopardy in the House as Democrats
Thursday night raised late concerns over the bill, which many in the party oppose. In the latest twist, many Democrats were expected
to oppose a measure extending a workers assistance program long championed by their party. Democrats had balked at a provision in the Senate
bill that pays for the program with cuts to Medicare providers. In a deal painstakingly negotiated and refined this week by Mrs. Pelosi and
Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), the program, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, would be funded by a different source. But some
Democrats still had qualms because the fix would be made through a separate piece of legislation, and they worried the structure of the deal could
open them up to political attacks over the Medicare cuts. The House will hold two fast-track votes Friday, one on the portion of the Senate bill
that deals with worker aid legislation andif that passesone on the part of the bill providing fast-track powers to Mr. Obama. The two issues
were split up in a procedural maneuver known as dividing the question to allow conservatives opposed to the workers aid to vote against it. The
chamber will also vote on altering and passing a customs and enforcement bill already passed by the Senate. Lawmakers said Mr. Obama
entreated them not to sink the workers aid program just to derail the fast-track provisions. The workers assistance program expires at the end of
September and many Democrats worried that this is their best opportunity to extend it. For us as a party to threaten to bring [TAA] down and
face the risk that we will lose it in its entirety in the future because the other side wont bring it up again, we would own that then as a party, said
Rep. Ron Kind (D., Wis.), chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of more centrist, business-friendly Democrats. We would have to
go home and look into the faces of those workers who arent caught up in all the political squabbles of Washington and wondering why were not
there to help them get back on their feet again. But Democrats

who vote for the trade legislation could face

political repercussions

heading into next years elections. Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for
America, a progressive political-action committee, warned Democrats against supporting either the workers aid program or the fast-track
measure. We will not lift a finger or raise a penny to protect you when youre attacked in 2016, we will encourage our progressive allies to join
us in leaving you to rot, and we will actively search for opportunities to primary you with a real Democrat, Mr. Dean said in a statement Friday.
The notion of fast-tracking a

trade bill has also met with resistance from

conservative Republicans , many of them hesitant to help a president they have

clashed with over health care, immigration and other issues. House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan (R. Wis.), an influential conservative, has put much of his own political capital on the line as he has sought to build support
for the trade legislation. A yes vote would be a huge win for conservatives, free-market principles and American leadership, Mr. Ryan wrote in
an editorial published late Thursday in the Washington Examiner. Many of the presidents critics are rightly concerned that he too often keeps
Congress in the dark. But [the fast-track measure] will turn on the lights. Passage of both measures would send fast-track legislation straight to

Mr. Obamas desk, ending the uncertain congressional support that is seen as crucial to completing the Pacific trade deal. If

fast track
becomes law, the trading partnersincluding Japan and Vietnamcould wrap up the TPP in coming weeks. Still,
complicated bureaucratic requirements mean the TPP is unlikely to come to a final up-or-down vote in Congress before the end of the year, and

Even if fast track passes, the later fight on the

Pacific trade deal could turn out to be longer and more
politically divisive if it occurs in the spotlight of the 2016 election
cycle, officials and trade experts say . Besides the TPP, the fast-track legislation could expedite

could come well into next year.

potential trade deals with the European Union and other trading partners for the next six years. Failure of the trade legislation Friday would mark
a decisive victory for unions, who launched an aggressive campaign to defeat the legislation in final weeks, including releasing ads attacking

To counter that , Mr. Obama has

indicated he will lend his support to lawmakers who backed
him on trade. Rep. Scott Peters (D., Calif.), who Thursday hadnt decided yet how he would vote, said Mr. Obama had called

individual lawmakers and threatening to take revenge in future elections.

him two or three times to discuss the topic. Hes generally said that hell have the back of people who support him on this so Ill find out what
that means if I vote yes, said Mr. Peters. Its a tough vote for me because my districts very trade-dependent, but theres a lot of fear about
what happens if we vote for TPA.

PC key, passage not guaranteed congressional opposition to TPP is uniquely

intense - its an even tougher fight than TPA - requires arm twisting and political
horsetrading, even if approval of other deals is inevitable
Kane, 6/23 -- Paul Kane covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, Washington
Post, 6/23/15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/didnt-obamas-trade-bill-already-die-5questions-on-tpa-taa-tpp-/2015/06/22/cda4639a-1921-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html
Didnt Obamas trade bill already die? 5 questions on TPA, TAA, TPP ... Congress is set to take up another set of votes on legislation to advance
President Obamas trade agenda, which if five different roll calls go his way could finally conclude by Friday with a major victory for the
White House. Its

been a several-month saga for Obama, with his bid to first win fast-track

authority so that he can then pass a massive 12-nation trade deal bobbing and weaving at

various points

, seemingly dead in the legislative waters, only to bounce back to keep advancing. Heres a
rundown of the key issues. Wait, didnt Obama already suffer a humiliating defeat on this? Yes, no, kind of, basically. On June 12, the House
upended Obamas push to win fast-track powers, known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), but it happened not on the centerpiece of the
legislation and instead on a side measure designed to provide funds for worker training to help those who have lost jobs because of global
competition. Even though almost every Democrat supports that worker program, more than 75 percent of House Democrats decided to oppose
that piece of the legislative package because of the unusual rule that Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) used to try to pass the trade initiatives

Fiercely opposed to
expanded trade deals, particularly the emerging Trans-Pacific
Partnership the president is closing in on, labor unions encouraged liberal

split into two major parts, each measure needed to win a majority or else the entire agenda stalled.

Democrats to oppose the program that their members have benefited from over the years because it meant stalling the overall
agenda. Republicans delivered far more votes (86) for the training program, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), than they had ever expected,
but with just 40 Democrats backing Obama on that vote, he lost in a rout. That came after an unusual level of personal pleas
by the president, who has been widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers for not developing close
bonds with anyone on Capitol Hill. Before this vote he attended the annual Congressional Baseball Game for a few innings and
trekked to the Capitol before the vote. It was a very unusual moment for a presidents own party to so overwhelmingly reject his work. So,
how is this possible that the president still might win on trade? Rather than sulk, Obama
and his top advisers spent the next few days figuring out how to get around the

Democratic blockade

. They knew they had a super-majority of senators supporting fast-track powers 48

Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for the entire trade package in late May. And they knew a slim majority supported TPA in the House, where
the main issue won on a narrow vote moments after Democrats delivered the blow on the worker program. Working the phones with
Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the

president agreed to a new plan that would peel off the

fast-track powers for trade deals and move that as its own stand-alone bill. They werent abandoning the other pieces of the trade
puzzle, but they decided that if everyone who already voted for fast-track would do so again, then TPA could be sent to the
presidents desk and there would be no need to hold other trade-related provisions hostage . The first step came
Thursday, six days after the initial defeat, when the House approved the fast-track-only bill on a similar vote, with the same 28 Democrats joining
with 190 Republicans to advance what Obama considers one of his most important final pieces of his presidency. On Tuesday, the Senate faces a
key test vote on the TPA stand-alone bill, needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from liberal opponents of the legislation. Most of the 14 protrade Democratic senators have signaled they will go along with the plan, despite previous demands that any vote for fast-track come attached
with the worker retraining funds. If Tuesdays roll call crests 60 votes, that sets up a final passage for trade authority on Wednesday and would
send the legislation to Obama to be signed into law. But what about worker training and the acronym trade programs? Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (RUtah), chairman

of the Finance Committee and a key negotiator on trade issues, has famously declared that
the worker retraining funds are the quid pro quo that is required to get Democratic votes for trade deals.
So, despite the apparent victory on expanded trade powers, Boehner and McConnell have pledged to Obama and other supportive Democrats that
they are also ready and willing to get the other pieces to the White House. And they have a handy vehicle to accomplish this. Rep. Paul Ryan (RWis.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, tinkered with a third trade bill, boosting African trade. That sent the African trade bill
back to the Senate, after receiving nearly 400 votes in House. McConnell has taken that already popular bill and set it up to be amended to
include TAA and also a program to make U.S. steel manufacturers more competitive on the global markets. McConnell believes that the vote for
this package will resemble a test vote held last month that would have gutted TAA, but instead, 46 Democrats and 16 Republicans supported the
program. If that coalition holds together and clears the filibuster hurdle, slated for Wednesday evening, a final vote would come Thursday and
then send the African trade bill and its new parts to the House. Wont House Democrats still block TAA just like two weeks ago? Thats hard to
say, but White House officials and their pro-trade allies in the Capitol believe that this new plan will leave liberal opponents of Obamas trade
agenda with no choice but to approve the newly assembled combination. After initially citing many different reasons, most House Democrats
eventually said their opposition to TAAs worker funds was done solely to block fast-track. Now that the TPA bill will already be at

the White House, the incentive to vote against a collection of three bills that most Democrats otherwise
support might fade. Supporters of Obamas trade agenda believe dozens of members of the Congressional
Black Caucus and the Steel Caucus will now support the plan , and other Democrats have privately suggested they might
now vote for the package if it does nothing to stop the centerpiece of the original bundle TPA from getting signed into law. That vote
could happen Friday in the House. Is that all? Whats next? No, theres a lot

left to come. Even if each of those dominoes falls in Obamas

direction , he now has to go negotiate the final pieces of the TPP, the Pacific Rim trade deal that represents 40
percent of the global economy. Once thats finished, the president must send
the deal to Congress for a pair of up-or-down votes under
strict timelines and no ability to amend the text. If it reaches
that stage, it will be a far bigger debate, probably with even
more twists and turns.
TPP is obamas top priority but not guaranteed despite fast track Obama PC and
congressional relations key - presidential primary season makes vote even harder
than TPA, Obama will need ability to give political and legislative favors and extended
congressional delay derails it anyway
Steinhauer, 6/17 Jennifer, Jennifer Steinhauer is an American reporter for The New
York Times who has covered the United States Congress since February 2010, NYT,
6/17/15,
Trade Bills Fate Rests on Whats Been Missing in Congress: Trust The fate of President Obamas trade
bill hinges on a complex brew of congressional relationships ,
procedural rigmarole and several leaps of faith across party lines. On Thursday, the House will take up a bill that would give Mr. Obama
accelerated negotiating authority to pursue a sweeping, legacy-building trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations, essentially the same bill it
narrowly passed last week. Republicans and a handful of Democrats who support trade deals are expected to again give it the nod. Speaker John
A. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, said in a statement Thursday that both were committed to getting the fast-track
authority bill to the presidents desk. But that is only half of the solution that both sides are trying to work out. The trade authority is linked to a
program to help workers displaced by global trade accords, a measure that House Democrats rejected last week, despite supporting it for 40 years,

and that Republicans voted for even though they consider it a giveaway to organized labor. Pro-trade Democrats in the Senate now find
themselves in a place of both power and panic as they weigh whether to help Republicans retaliate against House Democrats, all the while
trusting those same Republicans to help pass the worker assistance program. Among the nearly 30 Democrats in the House

and
the 14 in the Senate with a record of supporting trade deals, the political motivations for strategizing with
the White House and Republicans at the same time are clear. Having already voted for the bill that would
give the president accelerated power to negotiate the broader Trans-Pacific Partnership, many are
already feeling the heat emanating from their left flank . In 18
months, if attack ads from labor ensue as promised, the incumbents will need a policy

victory that they believe benefits their states to boast about in

response . I will do anything to pass trade, said Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, in a blunt assessment of his desires. The
Trans-Pacific Partnership, Explained The Deal This is the most ambitious trade deal since the North
American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s. The Politics The deal has become a cornerstone of
President Obamas trade policy in his final term. The Upshot Who would win? American service industries. Who would lose?
Manufacturing workers. There is such a plan. Senate Republicans are hoping to persuade Democrats to pass the trade promotion measure again,
trusting Republican leaders to then tuck the worker assistance components they care about into a noncontentious trade preference bill related to
Africa, and send it back to the House for final passage. That would allow all sides, including Mr. Obama, to claim victory. The only legislative
strategy that the president will support is a strategy that will result in both T.P.A. and T.A.A. coming to his desk, said Josh Earnest, a spokesman
for Mr. Obama, referring to trade promotion authority (fast track) and trade adjustment assistance (workers assistance). He added, We also know
that for any of those strategies to succeed, it will require the support of Democrats in the House and Senate. Some Democrats are not so sure of
the strategy. There are a lot of ways that could be thwarted, warned Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington.

the White House

It is up to both

to bring them along

and other Democrats

. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama met with
Democratic lawmakers at the White House, and Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who has been leading efforts to reach a bipartisan
accord on trade, has also organized a series of additional meetings with the group. The calculation for Democrats is essentially this: Do they trust
Mr. McConnell to lead fellow Republicans to vote for the noncontentious trade bill that includes the worker protection piece many in their party
dislike? They also want to make sure that Mr. Boehner will bring up that measure once the Senate is done with it most likely at the end of next
week. Mr. Obama and Democrats aligned with him on trade have to support Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner, basically saying, Trust us that we
trust them. Senate Democrats will also have to gamble that House Democrats will not once again vote against the measure. For their part, Mr.
Boehner and Mr. McConnell have to use their leverage within their own conference to make sure that Republicans who reluctantly voted for the
worker assistance do so again. They also have to ensure that House Republicans some of whom have taken a

beating from the far right for giving the president too much authority with their trade vote stick with
them, and perhaps even convince a few more Republicans to come along in case too many Democrats
balk. Taken together, the moves engage bipartisan muscles that have not been flexed in
a while. But Republicans may not be the biggest problem. Last month, 16 Republicans voted against an amendment that sought to strip trade
assistance from fast track. And some Republicans, especially those up for re-election, care about the worker assistance. I think it makes sense to

delay could
spell bad news for the presidents ultimate prize, the TransPacific Partnership , a deal that affects 40 percent of the global economy. Under the terms of

do it this way if we can get T.P.A. done, said Senator Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania. However, all this

the trade promotion legislation, Mr. Obama cannot even sign a completed Pacific trade deal for two months after negotiations
conclude. Then the final accord must be made public for review and comment for two additional months before
Congress can take it up. That means even if Congress can complete the

fast track bill before its July 4 recess, the actual trade accord could come before Congress
late this fall at the earliest, when the presidential primary season will no doubt
affect the debate. The politics of trade will only get more
fierce then .

PC Key to TPP its a tougher political fight than TPA, passage far from
guaranteed, TPA only keeps it a possibility success vital to Asia pivot and swamps
alt causes
Panda, 15 -- Ankit, foreign affairs analyst, writer, and editor with expertise in international relations, political
economy, international security, and crisis diplomacy. editor at The Diplomat since 2013. Researcher on Wikistrats
Asia-Pacific and South Asia desks. Former Research Specialist at Princeton University where he worked on
international crisis diplomacy, international security, technology policy, and geopolitics. Panda received his A.B.,
cum laude, in Public and International Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
at Princeton University, The Diplomat, 4/17, http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/is-this-the-congressionalbreakthrough-the-trans-pacific-partnership-needed/

Is This the Congressional Breakthrough the Trans-Pacific Partnership Needed?

Bipartisan legislation granting the U.S. president trade promotion authority was introduced on Thursday.
Will it save the TPP?
Ending months of uncertainty over the future of the economic leg of the U.S. rebalance to Asia, U.S.
congressional leaders agreed on Thursday evening to open the way for President Barack Obama to
take the lead on negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on a fast track. The U.S.

Senates Finance Committee introduced bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority legislation, known
as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015), that
sets a range of constraints within which the president must pursue a final TPP agreement, but
unencumbers the executive branch from any congressional interference before a final deal is reached with

the assent of the 11 other nations involved in the negotiating processa group comprising
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam, in addition to the United States. TPA-2015 will affect future U.S. administrations and
sets a general set of principles for all trade negotiations carried out by the executive branch, not
just the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Under TPA-2015, all future trade agreements that the United States will sign on to must adhere to strict
standards on environmental protections, labor, and human rights . The last provision, according to the

New York Times reporting, was added as a Republican concession to satisfy the Senate Finance
committees ranking Democrat, Senator Ron Wyden. In the months leading up to this moment,
weve witnessed an odd partisan alignment where Congressional Republicans have backed a Democratic
presidents appeal for trade promotion authority (with the exception of some recalcitrant

Republicans who, as a matter of principle, would like to yield as little authority as possible to the
current administration). Liberal congressional Democrats, for the most part, have been a thorn in

the administrations side over the TPP, raising concerns about the agreements
potential to suppress U.S. wages among other issues. As The Diplomat reported in late 2013, 151
House Democrats wrote the White House expressing their opposition to the

TPP as a whole and any new TPA, sending signs that the trade agreement might be entirely
politically unfeasible for the administration.
An important point worth stressing is that while the TPA will simplify the
negotiation process, and increase the credibility of the United States Trade Representative and the
president in their interactions with foreign leaders, Congress has reserved the

capacity to have a final say in the passage of the deal . Under TPA2015, the Obama administration would be obliged to make the final text of a TPP agreement public at
least four months before Congress votes on it. (TPP negotiations have faced public and bipartisan
Congressional criticism for their opaqueness.) Congress retains its power, but
without TPA-2015, there would be no TPPthat much was a

certainty. With this legislation, the TPP, while still a distant light at the end
of a long tunnel of negotiations, remains a possibility.
The other 11 parties to the TPP negotiations will have taken note of todays announcement and
will read the development as an unambiguously positive development. Some states, such as
Vietnam, may balk at the human rights provisionan odd constraint for trade negotiations. The
timing of TPA-2015 will be particularly welcomed by the administration given that Japanese
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is scheduled to visit the United States later this month. Japan and the
United States represent the two largest economies among the TPP group of 12 who together
comprise approximately 40 percent of world GDP.
The TPP is the economic crown jewel of the United States Pivotor Rebalanceto Asia.
Asia-Pacific states would see a concluded agreement as a guarantee

that the United States was committing itself to long-term

economic integration in Asia . The U.S. defense secretary, Ashton Carter, likened the
agreements strategic importance to that of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier. With Congress imprimatur
in hand, Obama now needs to set out on finding an agreement that will not only satisfy

Congress but the economic interests of the other 11 states negotiating the TPP. With 19
months left in office, Obama may come to terms with the harsh reality that TPA
wasnt the hardest part of getting to the finish line on the TPP
after all.
Still, the TPA saga is far from over. TPA-2015 still has to gather the necessary votes to come into
law.

Obama PC key to TPP even with TPA politics more difficult going forward, fast
approval vital to political support congressional docket crowd out link
independently derails
Behsudi, 15 -- Adam, Trade reporter for POLITICO Pro, Prior to joining POLITICO, he covered international trade
policy for Inside U.S. Trade, where he tracked down the latest news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Politico, 1/2/15,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/trade-outlook-2015-113793.html?hp=t3_r
Trade's big breakout Could 2015 be the year of trillion-dollar deals? The new Republican

majority in Congress could turn 2015

into the year of the trade deal. Republicans and President Barack Obama are both eager to act on a massive
Asia-Pacific deal, an even bigger agreement with the European Union and legislation that would fast-track their approval by Congress
all of which have a shot of moving next year. So while many in Washington are bracing for stalemates on issues as wide-ranging as health care to
immigration, the climate could be just right to move the kind of bipartisan trade agreements not seen since

NAFTA 20 years ago. And with trillions of dollars at stake for both the domestic and global economies,
trade could become a signature issue for both Republicans and the president as they look to
claim significant political victories. The temperature is rising , and I think, at least now, we have
President Obama making very direct comments to support the

trade agenda in a way that I hadnt seen in a long while , said Mireya
Solis, a senior fellow and Japan expert at the Brookings Institution. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement, which would cover about 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic product and about a third of global trade, is expected to
get a huge boost from the GOP takeover of the Senate, with Republicans eager to pass legislation that would expedite
congressional approval of that and several other pacts. But the trade promotion authority legislation, which would allow Obama to send the
agreement to lawmakers for an up-or-down vote with no amendments, could also serve as a legislative vehicle for a slew of other trade bills that
have been waiting in the wings, including measures to renew tariff cuts for developing nations, sub-Saharan Africa and U.S. manufacturers, and
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The last time Washington saw even a piece of this kind of trade action was in 2011, when Congress
approved the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade deals in rapid succession. The United States is also expected to finish negotiations on

major expansion of an Information Technology Agreement with nearly 80 countries that account for about 90 percent of world technology trade.
The deal, which would eliminate duties on a long list of tech products, came within a hairs breadth of concluding this month, but talks broke
down after China refused to meet other countries demands for concessions on what goods to make duty-free. The White House will also press
forward with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union, a deal even bigger than the
TPP, with European Union leaders earlier this month calling for the talks to finish up by the end of 2015. If all of that isnt enough, the U.S. is
also pushing a new Environmental Goods Agreement with 13 other members of the World Trade Organization including China and the EU
that compose about 86 percent of global trade. Talks on a new global services agreement and a bilateral investment treaty with China also will
proceed. Not all of those will get done in 2015, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. But we hope its a very productive year both
in terms of negotiations and the legislative agenda. Before the biggest trade deals can get done, Obama will need to get lawmakers to give him
the legislative authority to expedite their debate and passage. Also known as fast-track legislation, the Obama-backed TPA bill failed to advance
earlier this year after outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to take it up out of concern that a vote on the bill before the
midterm elections would put Democrats in the politically hazardous position of possibly damaging their support from labor and environmental
groups. Even with the GOP majority in the Senate, the bill will still need Democratic support to get through Congress, political observers say.

critical item here is the extent to which the president manages

what Ive characterized as intraparty politics for Democrats,

The

said Scott Miller, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I think everybody has
concluded, including myself, that

this needs to be a bipartisan effort.

House Speaker John

Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the

White House needs to rally support from at least 50 House Democrats to get the bill through the
easy task given the post-election decline in the number of trade-friendly Democrats.
Underscoring the difficulties the administration could face from intransigent Democrats, the White
Houses legislative abilities were tested just this month when countering Democratic opposition to the massive
lower chamber no

even if the votes on a fasttrack bill can be had, this years stalled effort to get the legislation underway has
left little time to spare , especially given that Democratic
support could again grow more scarce once the presidential campaign kicks
into full gear toward the beginning of 2016. The point isnt lost on congressional trade
leaders . Incoming Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said trade will top the committees agenda in early 2015. Sen. John
spending package, which barely squeaked through to passage, Miller said. And

Thune (R-S.D.), a Finance committee member and No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership as Republican Conference chairman, said the bill would
likely be one of the first pieces of legislation that emerges from the panel, which has jurisdiction over trade. Trade supporters consider the bill
vital to ushering the Asia-Pacific trade talks toward their conclusion because it would give other countries the confidence to resolve major
outstanding issues such as access to medicines in developing nations, environmental protections and Japanese agricultural and U.S. auto tariffs
without having to worry that any hard-won concessions could be picked apart by congressional amendment. Bilateral talks between the U.S.
and Japan on the tariffs issue have proved particularly troublesome for the larger deal. In a breakthrough last month, Tokyo proposed more
meaningful tariff cuts on U.S. beef, pork and dairy products, but the negotiations have since stalled again over the United States refusal
to meet Japans demands for lower auto parts tariffs. Theyre kind of stuck because nobodys sure where the United States bottom lines are,
Miller said. I think thats the reason to get TPA, so all our trading partners know where the Congress bottom line is, and at that

point you conclude pretty quickly. The first six months of the year will be a critical window for finishing up the talks given the
tight timeline, officials from the TPP countries have said. Even if the pact gets signed, it will still have to go through a
legal scrubbing and translation before a bill to ratify the deal can be introduced. That could mean that the
implementing legislation would have to be drafted over the August recess with a view to getting the bill to
a vote before Thanksgiving, a former Senate Democratic aide speculated. If people are motivated to
finish, they could do it really, really quickly assuming they got the

votes , the former aide said, adding that the timing that the administration and others are talking about
strikes me as incredibly aggressive, but maybe not impossible. In
2011, the House and Senate were able to pass bills ratifying the deals with South Korea, Colombia and
Panama in a single day, the aide noted. But those agreements had been concluded in 2006 and 2007 under
President George W. Bushs administration and had a number of provisions renegotiated before the Obama
administration brought them to Congress for a vote.

PC Key - General
PC key to congressional passage of TPP deal itself it will be biggest political fight of
obamas presidency
Vinik, 15 -- Danny Vinik is a staff writer at The New Republic, New Republic, 4/8/15,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121476/trans-pacific-partnership-foundation-all-futuretrade-deals
Why Obama Is Spurning Liberals With a Massive Trade Deal Elizabeth Warren and labor unions hate it, but
are their worries justified? Last month, at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., AFL-CIO President
Richard Trumka gave a 29-minute speech in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive 12-country trade
agreement that the Obama Administration hopes to complete this year. At the end of the day, the partisan battles are really just so much noise,
he said. For me, its all got to come back to one simple question: Is our trade policy working for Americas workers and for our nation as a
whole? And the simple answer to that question is it isnt. In their debate afterward, Trumka and Adam Posen, the president of the host institute
and a supporter of the TPP, sometimes couldn't even agree on basic facts, like how many manufacturing jobs Germany has lost in the past 20
years. Often they resorted to generalizations instead: At one point in the largely cordial conversation, Trumka said to Posen, I know you are a
dyed-in-the-wool free trader. If I cut you open, little NAFTA balls would fall out of you. The crowd laughed, but the remark represents what
makes trade agreements so impossible for policy journalists to understand. Opponents of the TPP like Trumka insist that its supporters think just
about any free trade agreement will be good for the United States, regardless of its details. On the other side, supporters of the TPP insist theyve
learned from the failures of NAFTA; this time, they say, the trade agreements will benefit American workers. Who is right? I don't knowand
Im not the only one. Writing at Vox, Ezra Klein said he was in the undecided camp, while Matt Yglesias called the TPP one of the most
frustrating things to cover in my career. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman came out against the deal, while

wondering why the president is spending so much political capital

trying to pass it; David Wessel, writing for the Wall Street Journal, recently wondered why labor unions
are working so hard to block it . If anything is clear about the TPP, its that no one
knows exactly why everyone cares so much . But talk to the key players in
the debate , and it becomes clear that the TPP is the most
important economic fight happening in Congress this year and
one of the most important of Obamas presidency . For once, it's not a partisan
debate. Many

on the right, including Representative Paul Ryan, support the deal, while the White House has faced the
most intense criticism from members in its own party. The intraparty party

fight often resembles the Trumka-Posen debate: high on rhetoric, short on substance. But it's possible to cut
through the noise and discover the real issues at play. Here are the four most contentious parts of the
trade pact: This Is Not About U.S. Jobs It's been more than two decades since President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and the left still disagrees significantly on how NAFTA affected U.S. workers. Many liberals, for instance, blame NAFTA
for the 29 percent decline in manufacturing jobs since 1994, while acknowledging that other factors, like globalization and technological change,
have contributed to job losses and wage stagnation, too. That complaint about NAFTA, whatever its merits, is informing much of the liberal
opposition to the TPP. It shouldn't: Supporters and opponents of the TPP largely agree that its direct effect on the U.S. economy will be minor.
There are going to be very few jobs that will be affected, said Robert Scott, the director of trade and manufacturing research at the left-leaning
Economic Policy Institute, who opposes the deal. Jared Bernstein, formerly the top economist for Vice President Joe Biden, who hasnt
formulated a final position on the TPP, agreed. "I think most economists who understand these dynamics and even have modeled them will argue
that theres not much of a jobs impact from these kinds of deals, he said. "I would largely discount the large job loss estimates as well as the
large job gain estimates." I don't think we're talking about an enormous impact on the U.S. economy, said Gordon Hanson, an economist at the
University of California, San Diego, who focuses on international economics and supports the TPP. Of course, there has to be some impact. The
trade deal will directly affect American workers in two ways. First, it will reduce tariffs in the Pacific region, particularly in the services industry
where the U.S. has a competitive advantage. (While some services, like a plumber or a barista, obviously cannot be traded between countries,
others are increasingly tradable in our globalized economyfinancial analysts, lawyers, and consultants, to name a new.) Existing trade
agreements don't deal very well with services, said Hanson. This trade agreement gives an opportunity to put the major sectors of the economy
on equal footing. Since the U.S. is a very open economy, its tariffs are currently lower than those in the TPP countries. In other words, U.S.
exporters face higher barriers to trade than TPP exporters face to trade with the United States. Reducing those barriers benefits U.S. workers.
Second, the TPP also includes enforceable labor standards. These rules will require foreign countries to strengthen their laws including
implementing a minimum wage, setting maximum work place hours and granting workers the right to collectively bargain. All of these things
will raise the cost of foreign labor, giving U.S. companies fewer economic incentives to ship jobs overseas. We have learned from one
generation of agreements to the next how best to shape globalization, Froman said. Labor groups and progressive economists are not convinced
that these standards will actually do much to help U.S. workers. The agreement may have a formal mechanism for enforcement, they say, but it

doesnt mean the U.S. will actually use it. The left also rejects the Obama administration's argument that without the TPP, China will set the labor
standards in the region through a trade agreement it is currently negotiating. "I don't think China setting the rules with these other countries is
going to have such a big impact on the United States as some would suggest," Scott said. Still, it's hard to imagine any way that the TPP's labor
standards would actually make U.S. workers worse off. I ask people, 'Why would you block us from raising workers' standards in Vietnam?
Froman said. Through TPP were on the verge of historic labor progress, and that will bring a better life to people in other countries and a more
level playing field for our workers. Why Won't the U.S. Address the Trade Deficit? Economists across the political spectrum believe that
the U.S.s large trade deficitthe difference between its imports and exports, which was $505 billion last yearcauses significant damage to the
economy. Think about it this way: When Americans buy foreign goods and services, they are supporting jobs in foreign countries. The more that
imports exceed exports, the more U.S. trade is helping to support foreign jobs.1 But reducing the trade deficit is easier said than done. Ideally, the
TPP would restrict countries from artificially lowering the value of their currency to boost their own exports and hurt U.S. exports, but there's no
chance of such a provision in the TPP. Much of the world thinks that the Federal Reserve manipulated the dollar through its quantitative easing
programs, so any chapter on currency manipulation that could possibly receive approval from the 11 other TPP countries would have
to put restrictions on the Fedsomething the Obama administration would never agree to, rightfully. Liberal economists understand these
dynamics, but many are sick of the Obama administrationand prior administrationsrefusing to address the trade deficit. In December,
Bernstein authored a blog post titled, Without a currency chapter, the TPP should not be ratified. When I asked him about it, he said, My
position has softened since then. I think Ive been moved by administration arguments that a currency chapter would queer the deal and I think
thats a pretty strong argument. But he still had a major problem with the White House's stance. What I view as unacceptable, he said, is the
position that we cant do anything in the TPP and we cant do anything out of the TPP and therefore we just have to live with the status quo.
What Elizabeth Warren Hates About the TPP No part of the TPP has invoked such over-the-top rhetoric than the section
on Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS). Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt

the playing field in the

United States further in favor of big multilateral corporations, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote in a Washington Post
op-ed. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. Warren overstates the risk. ISDS is a mechanism for multinational
corporations to seek redress from an international tribunal if they believe a country has unjustly expropriated their investments. In other words, if
Malaysia unfairly seizes a U.S. companys factory, the company can challenge Malaysia through an international tribunal and receive
compensation. But the opposite is true too: Foreign companies can challenge the U.S. through these tribunals if they believe the U.S. has
expropriated their investment. Liberals have a number of problems with ISDS . We consider it inappropriate to elevate an
individual investor or company to equal status with a nation state to privately enforce a public treaty between two sovereign countries, Lori
Wallach, the director of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch, said, adding, [ISDS] gives extraordinary new privileges and powers and rights to
just one interest. Foreign investors are privileged vis-a-vis domestic companies, vis-a-vis the government of a country, [and] vis-a-vis other
private sector interests. Wallach is right that foreign investors will have an avenue separate from domestic companies to seek redress from
expropriation. But ISDS supporters see that as a good thing, for two reasons: it reduces the risk foreign companies face in investing in certain
countries with weak judicial systems; and second, it prevents commercial disputes between a country and a company from becoming international
political disputes between two countries. The U.S. has won all 13 cases that have reached completion before an ISDS tribunal. During the same
period, foreign companies brought hundreds of thousands of cases against the U.S. in domestic courts. It's not that people don't sue us on these
claims, Froman said. It's that they use the courts, because through the courts in the U.S., you can get a rule overturned, you can get a law
overturned. You can't do that through ISDS. But other developed nations have not been as successful as the U.S. has. Australia, for instance, has
been sued by American tobacco companies over regulations on cigarette packages. Not coincidentally, Australia is balking at the inclusion of the
ISDS in the TPP. As far as U.S. courtsyes, they have a robust caseload, Wallach wrote in an email. But this does not negate the basic reality
of ISDS: it provides foreign investors alone access to non-U.S. courts to pursue claims against the U.S. government on the basis of broader
substantive rights than U.S. firms are afforded under U.S. law. When Should Copyrights and Patents Expire? To promote the arts and
sciences, the federal government grants artists and inventors a temporary monopoly over their work in the form of copyrights and patents,
respectively. Without intellectual property law, artists would have little ability to profit from their creative output and pharmaceutical companies
would have little incentive to invest in new drugs. The limited monopoly creates that incentivebut one that the state must balance with the
interests of society. Right now, many believe that the balance has swung too far in the direction of artists and inventors. Currently,

copyrights dont expire until 70 years after the death of the author. While liberals are looking to roll back
these laws, the Obama Administration is exporting them to other countries through the TPP, making
even supporters of the deal uneasy .

PC key to congressional approval of TPP must avoid PC drain or extended

congressional fights on unrelated issues they trade off
Nakamura, 15 -- David, White House Reporter @ Washington Post, 4/15,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-on-trade-will-put-him-at-warwith-his-party/2015/04/15/dabd42f4-ccc8-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
Obama had other priorities in January 2009. The fight over his economic
stimulus package and his health-care law dominated the
agenda . In the meantime, Obama put U.S. trade efforts on pause as his first trade

representative, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk (D), conducted a policy review. Kirk,

who had supported NAFTA, was greeted

skeptically by Democrats in Washington. I remember the president saying, Kirk, Ive got to tell you that if you lived in some of these states youd be
angry about trade, too, he recalled in an interview. He said, Weve got to get over these false choices that any agreement is good or all trade is bad. We have to do
it differently. The United States had initially engaged the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks during the waning years of the George W. Bush administration. Asias
economy was growing rapidly, China was emerging as an economic powerhouse, and U.S. officials feared the country would fall behind in fast-developing markets.
When Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore approached the United States to join their small-scale trade talks, the Bush administration agreed, with the caveat
that the talks include modern sectors such as telecommunications, insurance services and banking. Sections also were added on intellectual property and resolving
disputes between nations and international corporations. By the time Bush left office, the TPP negotiations had expanded to eight nations. But Bush officials werent

the ugly trade politics of the Democratic primary, said Susan

Schwab, the U.S. trade representative from 2006 to 2009. The trading partners were very anxious. Obama aides were initially doubtful about
whether the economic benefits would justify the level of political capital and
certain whether Obama would support the project considering

presidential attention that would be necessary to complete the

deal . But the TPP increasingly came to be viewed inside the West Wing as having broader strategic
significance as a cornerstone of the administrations Asia pivot, a rebalancing of U.S. foreign policy
attention to confront an ascendant China. The trade deal would offset the Pentagons military buildup, White House advisers believed, and
reassure the region of the administrations intentions. The argument was: This is an important leadership moment for the United States, said former national security
adviser Thomas E. Donilon, who left in 2013. If the U.S. pushed hard and indicated its commitment to the trade agreement, it would have a magnetic effect and draw
in other countries. In December 2009 a month after Obamas first visit to Asia, during which he called himself Americas first Pacific president Kirk notified
Congress that the administration would engage in the TPP negotiations. To build confidence on Capitol Hill, the administration in 2010 reopened three smaller trade
deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that had been signed by Bush but not yet approved by lawmakers. After Obama aides negotiated new provisions
to each including worker protections with Colombia and better access to Koreas automotive market Congress approved all three deals on the same day in
October 2011. The following month, Obama flew to an international economic summit in Hawaii, where he touted the TPP as part of renewed U.S. leadership in Asia
and challenged then-Chinese President Hu Jintao to start playing by the rules of the emerging regional order. Over the next two years, Mexico, Canada and Japan
entered the talks, making good, administration officials said, on Obamas campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA. The 12-nation pact now covers countries that

Tough sell in Congress

Doubts remain on Capitol Hill and in Asia about whether Obama can close the
deal . The president has dispatched his Cabinet to lobby Congress , emphasizing his
represent 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic product, though China remains on the outside.

commitment to enforceable labor and environmental protections. But Democrats have been cool to the
sales pitch, and Obama has had to personally call lawmakers . In the meantime, Asian countries are
growing impatient and U.S. allies in Europe, including Britain and Germany, agreed recently to support a new China-led Asian development bank over the objections
of the Obama administration. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to appeal to U.S. lawmakers in an address to a joint session of Congress when he comes

acknowledged the uphill political fight he faces during a

recent meeting to promote his agenda with small-business executives. Trade deals have not always been good for
American manufacturing, he said. There have been times where because the trade deal was one way, American workers didnt benefit and somebody
else did. Well, we intend to change that. In many respects, however, Obama faces the same type of deep
to Washington in two weeks for a state visit. Obama

skepticism he did in Galesburg a decade ago among those he has tried the hardest to convince. On a trip to Cleveland last month, Sen.
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) accompanied the president on Air Force One. The trade deal comes
talking about it as part of national security, not part of his economic message, because it doesnt work.

across badly, Brown said. Obama is

Obamas PC Key to TPP unrelated issues spill over, even GOP could bail, and
docket crowd out is independent link TPA guarantees nothing - must whip votes,
provide political favors and control narrative
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and

the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487

If the Obama administration will find it difficult to appease the Left , a TPP that
seems focused more on left-of-center concerns than on opening markets will undermine the

interest of the business community in rallying support for passage.

As a trade association executive lamented recently, Theres a big difference between business saying its for
trade legislation and it will be almost as a knee-jerk reaction and actually committing
resources and CEO time to lobby on behalf of that legislation. Thus far, not much time or
money have been committed by the business community to get out the vote on either TPA or TPP. Business

leaders, and not just

Washington representatives of American businesses, will need to make the trek to Capitol Hill personally
for members to be comfortable voting for trade. Appeasing all these constituencies is
complicated. Further complicating the task is the fact that the political process in Washington has
a global audience, and the messaging behind a pro-TPP narrative is read far
beyond the Beltway. Other TPP members will attempt to read the process with a view to finalizing their offers, which in some cases will
be complicated by domestic political events back home. Some will rush to complete TPP even before TPA is granted to avoid the appearance of
being captive to U.S. politics. Although some analysts believe that TPP could be passed through Congress even absent TPA, it would

make an already fraught process that much riskier . I hope, said one Republican trade
staffer, theyre smarter than that. Even beyond the TPP countries, other eyes are watching goings-on in Washington carefully. During the State
of the Union speech, the president raised the specter of competition with China as a reason to pass trade

legislation. "China wants to write the rules for the world's fastest-growing region, he said. It may have been a message intended
only for the Hill fodder for the China paranoia that sometimes drives legislation . But the
administration has for years been trying to convince China that the TPP and the pivot to Asia were not about containing Chinas rise. The State
of the Union speech complicated that message, and official and unofficial Chinese reactions were blistering. The White House will have to
smooth over those ruffled feathers to manage that most important strategic relationship, even if it is very likely that anti-China rhetoric

will be an important part of the overall narrative behind the whip

votes on Capitol Hill.

Momentum behind a TPA bill could pick up quickly. Rumors that the Senate Finance and House

Ways & Means Committees are moving to mark up bills in February and March could begin to crank up the political machinery. And that

will

start to test the ability of the White House to cajole individual

members into supporting the bill. That will take a willingness

to respond to district-by-district requests for favors in areas
other than trade . It will require the administrative to help
develop narratives that provide members with answers to the question: Why did you vote for this
bill. Figuring out what members want for their votes and delivering on
those asks is new territory for this White House, and will take an awful lot of
support from pro-business lobbyists with which this White House has sought to avoid contact since the start of the Obama presidency.
Finally, the reality of the political calendar is lost on no one . With the
Presidents term now ticking down to 23 months left, and with little love lost between
Republican leaders and the White House, it's possible that the GOP might pass trade
promotion authority in hope of handing it off to the next
president, whom they hope will be a member of their party. Trade
promotion authority with a the TPP deal is not

a legacy either the president or his fellow Democrats would be proud

of. It would also be playing poker with American power and prestige abroad. The stakes

are high . But the politics of trade are low indeed.

Obamas all in on TPP PC and retail politicking still key, even after TPA passage
requires forgoing PC expenditures on unrelated legislative policies
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and
the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487

. Whatever its economic merits, it is the strategic imperative of TPP that may be

driving the White House to demand its passage . Getting an agreement in

place would be the signature piece in the presidents platform

to rebalance or pivot to

the worlds fastest growing region. The trade deal would cement the role of the United States as the prime mover on regional economic and strategic architecture. If TPP fails, the international power, prestige and economic clout of the
United States will suffer a grave setback.

The stakes are large.

This is why other all America's trade partners are waiting anxiously for Obama to be granted trade promotion

authority (TPA). Until he gets it, they will not give their final, best offers to the his negotiators. TPA would force an up-or-down vote on the deal the president sends to Congress. But who in Congress, Republican or Democrat, is eager
to give the president a blank legislative check on any issue these days? Republicans, particularly those on the Right, are loath to provide him with powers the the Constitution otherwise reserves to Congress.

Democrats,

smarting from their election losses of 2014, which many ascribe to Obamas unpopularity, arent

keen on helping him burnish his legacy, particularly with an issue that
splits his base .
Supporters of trade and the TPP are hoping that
Talk of steamrolling probably doesnt do much to advance the cause.

the presidents alternatively vaunted and lampooned skills as a community organizer will be brought to
bear and knit together this fractious community. Similar efforts by the Clinton and

Bush administrations involved all hands on deck and late-night

phone calls by the president to individual lawmakers. The pro-trade
community is cheered by recent talk that Obama will create a whip group of cabinet officers
chaired in the White House to rally support for first TPA and then TPP
with the kind of retail politicking
necessary to drive "yes" votes on trade

(and then, possibly,

for a trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership with Europe). But if the President is truly going to launch a campaign

, it would be a solitary outlier in the otherwise-aloof legislative strategy practiced by

this White House. After all, the presidents signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was notoriously passed with a White House legislative strategy that consisted primarily of cheering from the sidelines. If the legislative
activity on trade is as buzzing as some in the administration suggest, its a little alarming that few if any of the key members and staffers on the Hill seem to have heard from anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. purporting to be
whipping their votes. Froman has thus far been the frontman selling the trade agenda, but despite his strengths, he cant deliver the votes to pass the agreements he is negotiating with other countries. Whats in the

TPP will

affect the politics involved in passing it. There is a delicate balance

in the construction of trade agreements. The administration almost certainly will attempt to
inject new provisions into it that will reduce the ability of other countries to use lax labor and
environmental regulations as a competitive trade advantage. These provisions aim to respond to demands
from the Democratic base that, to paraphrase opponents of the deal, trade agreements shouldnt only be about trade. However, strong labor and
environmental provisions are far from likely to win votes from lawmakers who fundamentally

dislike trade. The primary beneficiaries of trade liberalization are, after all, private sector
companies whose agenda is held in deep suspicion by the Left

. Despite the fact that only around 15 percent of the private sector

the labor movement is deeply antagonistic to market-opening trade agreements

that are perceived to place U.S. workers under new pressures. The environmental movement views trade
agreements as race-to-the-bottom exercises, and will lobby bitterly against a TPP
workforce is organized,

regardless of new provisions

If the president wants progress on other parts
of his policy agenda
he will need the
support of his base. And
constituencies have warned that spending too much political
capital on trade will imperil their support on other issues.
to raise environmental standards.

the trade agenda only took up 15 sentences of an hour-long State of the Union address

traditional progressive

Obama PC key to congressional TPP approval vital to swing votes and overcome
fierce political opposition
Nakamura, 15 -- David, White House Reporter @ Washington Post, 4/15,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-on-trade-will-put-him-at-warwith-his-party/2015/04/15/dabd42f4-ccc8-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
Obamas proposal for more trade with Asia may not go over so well in his own party Galesburg, Ill., was a town
on the brink. The local Maytag plant had recently shut its doors, putting hundreds of union employees out of work; frustrated residents despaired
that technology and globalization had upended the manufacturing foundations of their community. Against that backdrop, Illinois junior U.S.
senator, Barack Obama, delivered a commencement speech at Knox College and directly addressed the seismic changes affecting the economic
life of places like Galesburg. He suggested that he understood the problem and that he would pursue policies to provide a solution. Its as if
someone changed the rules in the middle of the game and no one bothered to tell these folks, Obama said. Then he challenged the graduates:
What do we do about this? How does America find its way in the new global economy? What will our place in history be? Ten years later,
President Obamas answer to those questions more trade with Asia sounds to a lot of people like more of the same,

exactly the kind of solution that led to the problems in the first place . As early as this week, Congress is expected to
debate fast-track legislation that would give the administration more authority to complete a massive, 12-nation free trade pact in the
Asia Pacific that Obama has called a cornerstone of his second term a way to
ensure U.S. competitiveness in the face of a rising China. It

will mark a leadership test for the president, who

has pledged to invest his waning political capital to woo skeptical

Democrats . White House allies said the danger is that Republicans are supporting the president on trade
in large part because they know it could divide Democrats going into an
election year. Obamas embrace of the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP) faces fierce
opposition from some of his closest political allies and the
organizational heart of the Democratic coalition: labor unions, environmental groups and the progressive
wing of Congress. His critics on the left contend the pact would help American corporations i n state-controlled
foreign markets but would lead to job losses and exacerbate the growing income gap at home. If Obama pushes

hard but fails, Republicans will still be fine with that if they can ignite a civil war on
the left, said Austan Goolsbee, who chaired Obamas Council of Economic Advisers from 2010 to 2011 and supports the trade push.
Already, the AFL-CIO has suspended all political contributions to focus on defeating the
TPP . Rust Belt Democrats have accused Obama of betraying his past opposition to big trade deals as a
senator. And Sen. Elizabeth Warrens fierce criticism of provisions favoring corporations has
made it difficult for Hillary Rodham Clinton to embrace the pact in her White House bid even though she touted it as
secretary of state. Why, exactly, should the Obama administration spend any political
capital ... over such a deal? asked the New York Times liberal economic columnist Paul Krugman in a blog post. For

Obama, trade offers perhaps the best chance for him to secure a large-scale,

bipartisan legislative achievement

in his final two years. But aides

described his push in

more personal terms, suggesting that his beliefs were shaped by his upbringing in Hawaii and Jakarta and his time as a community
organizer for displaced workers in Chicago, where he saw the human costs of international competition.

capital key to TPP must sway dem votes AND prevent GOP defections entrenched political factors means approval ALWAYS tough presidential sell,
NEVER guaranteed even pro-trade GOP members could bail
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and
the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487

Trade -- Can Obama get it done? The day after the 2014 election, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was
asked what kind of proposals his new majority could work on with President Obama. Trade agreements,
McConnell said, adding, The President and I were just talking about that before I came over here." And when Obama called on Congress
during his State of the Union speech this month to pass legislation supporting new trade agreements, it was one of the few subjects that
did not raise Republican ire. It did not meet with much enthusiasm from Obama's fellow Democrats , however, who
lined up to pan the president's proposal to push the trade agenda forward . No problem, said a White House aide several
days later, the President will steamroll them. The politics of trade have long broken down along fairly strict partisan lines; pro-business
Republicans are for trade and pro-labor Democrats are against it. Freed from narrow constituent politics, however, Democrats in the

White House have pushed for greater openness to trade, largely because expanding trade is a necessarily
an important part of the foreign policy agenda of any president interested in maintaining the United
States global leadership. President Clinton famously passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade
relations with China. So it isnt surprising that Obama views new trade deals as central to his foreign policy
legacy. Still, getting new trade agreements through Congress is

tough sledding for presidents of any party . Populist

demagoguing and popular myth still hold that trade kills American jobs.
Many voters of all stripes believe this. Butressing America's international leadership makes for far
less compelling images than those of shuttered factories that have lost their competitive
edge to job-stealing firms on the other side of the planet. The misery of the few who lose out in the shuffle of trade
liberalization has huge political resonance , even if the overall economic benefit to
Americans significantly outweighs the detriment. The policy landscape is littered with competing studies that demonstrate the
success or failure of trade agreements. Depending on who you believe, NAFTA has cost or delivered millions of jobs. Permanently normalized
trade relations for China resulted in the greatest and worst transfer of wealth in human history, unless actually it didnt. The obvious reality is that
trade liberalization produces some losers, even if the rest of us are winners. But stories about the collapse of American

manufacturing and televised portraits of out-of-work breadwinners make for more

sympathetic news stories than the fact that a new trade deal has added a few hundred
dollars to the purchasing power of the average family. The way policymakers talk about trade is often
disingenuous. Trade agreements these days are about reducing barriers to trade in a supply chain that can wend through many countries.
They are about standardizing approaches to information gathering and policy making. They set rules for economic governance that limit

discrimination and encourage greater opportunities for an increased number and kind of enterprises in the economy. And importantly, they set the
rules for trade in services, which is the forgotten giant in international trade. This is all wonky stuff, so when forced to talk

about trade without putting its audience to sleep, the administration finds itself reverting to simplification .
When in doubt, Obama and the administration, like previous Republican and Democratic administrations, talk about how trade agreements are
about exports, as the president did when he proposed in his 2010 State of the Union speech to double U.S. exports in five years. We didnt come
close, but it was a worthy aspiration. The global economy and the role of the United States in that economy has

changed dramatically since the 1950s, but the politics of trade is still very much grounded in that longago epoch. Back then, you made a finished product in one country and sold it to another. The way trade data is gathered still assumes a 1950s
approach; the country in which a products assembly is finalized gets full credit for the value of that product. So China gets full credit for the
value of an iPhone it assembles from component parts made in other countries, including the lions share of the value that iPhone represents: its
design, which really never left Cupertino, Calif. The enduring, alluring image of the good (manufacturing) job at good

wages from the days in the 1950s in which manufacturing employed 60 percent of American workers, is tough to shake

in the public and political consciousness

. Despite the fact that fewer than 10 percent of

Americans work in manufacturing and that Americas role in international trade is increasingly focused on design and technological development,
and providing services, the iconic assembly line worker is the poster child for U.S. trade policy. He or she isnt
doing as well these days. So even pro-trade members of Congress are

wary of trade votes. No politician wants to hear the wrath of out-of-work

constituents on local TV news or splashed across negative campaign
advertising come election time. Obama and his team have plenty of hard work
ahead to convince even Republicans that a vote in favor of his trade deals wont
be Exhibit Number 1 when a political opponent want to suggest that he or she has lost touch
with voters. One otherwise pro-trade GOP lawmaker privately said, Give us an
excuse not to vote on trade . Steamrolling Democrats into a pro-trade vote may
prove even harder . The common wisdom is that Republicans need a
sizable corpus of Democrats to fall on their swords and vote
yes on trade deals. That number could be as few as 20 in the House, but the smaller the
number, the greater the chance recalcitrant Republicans who
feel electorally vulnerable will refuse to go along. At primary issue is
the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a free trade agreement being negotiated with 11 other countries in the AsiaPacific region. The economic rationale for the TPP is significant. Trade within Asia has been booming, largely in component
parts that have been assembled into finished products in China and exported primarily to the United States and Europe. The TPP would draw the
United States closer to the boom.

Obama PC key to Congressional TPP approval Domestic politics are difficult,

wont pass without it
Green and Goodman, 14 -- Michael Green is senior vice president for Asia at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and a professor at Georgetown University. He served on the National Security Council staff in the George
W. Bush administration. Matthew P. Goodman, a former member of the NSC staff in the Obama administration, is chair in
political economy at CSIS, 4/1, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/01/why-obama-and-abe-should-take-lead-ontpp/
Why Obama and Abe should

take lead on TPP

Barack Obama

has described himself as Americas

first Pacific president. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has pledged that Japan is not now and will never be a tier-two country. Before they
meet in Tokyo this month, the two leaders have a unique opportunity to prove these words true by
resolving their differences over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The 12 Asia-Pacific economies in the TPP negotiations are working
toward a comprehensive, high-standard, 21st century trade agreement. A TPP deal among a group of countries representing some 40 percent of
the world economy would give a significant boost to global growth and jobs and help shape the rules of the international trading system for years
to come. The United States and Japan are by far the largest participants in TPP, accounting for three-quarters of the groups economic heft. A TPP

deal would effectively amount to a bilateral free trade agreement a prize that has eluded the two countries for decades as they have sparred over
trade and, more recently, pursued FTAs with other countries. The

stakes for both Japan and the United States could

not be higher

. First, the economic benefits of a successful TPP agreement would be substantial. The Peterson Institute for
International Economics has estimated the annual income gains to the United States and Japan by 2025 at $76.6 billion and $104.6 billion,
respectively. Second, both countries have a shared interest in updating and upholding the rules of international trade and investment to meet 21st
century realities. Washington and Tokyo have long been champions of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, strong labor and
environmental standards, and transparent regulatory practices. Through TPP, they have a chance not only to strengthen global rules in these areas,
but also to create disciplines on new issues such as digital commerce and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Finally, TPP has enormous strategic
significance for both countries. It would strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance, embed the United States more deeply in the Asia-Pacific region, and
underscore American and Japanese leadership in the region. By setting the gold standard for other major trade negotiations, including the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, as well as multilateral talks in Geneva, it would also reinforce the two countries leadership on
the global stage. The TPP negotiations have been slow going, with over 20 rounds and several missed deadlines since the talks were launched
four years ago. Substantial progress has been made across most of the agreements 29 chapters, but differences remain on IPR protection, stateowned enterprises disciplines, environmental standards, and market access. One of the biggest remaining issues of importance to most countries

domestic politics of TPP are

difficult for all 12 participating countries, not least Japan and the United States. Abe faces a

in the room is greater access to Japans protected agriculture market. The

formidable agriculture lobby and an array of pressing policy challenges, from restarting nuclear power to carrying out structural reform under his

of which will cost substantial political capital. For his part,

faces a U.S. Congress where the leadership of his own party has made clear they arent yet
willing to give him trade promotion authority to complete TPP and where relations with the Republican leadership
are toxic. The president has been reluctant to push for TPA ahead of mid-term elections in November, when the Democratic majority in the
Senate is on the line. But despite the difficult politics , now is the time for the two leaders to
program of Abenomics, each
President Obama

spend some political capital on TPP

. They should both renew their commitment to the deal and

show the flexibility needed to close the remaining gaps in the negotiating room. President Obama should signal publicly ideally through a
speech on U.S. soil before he travels to Asia in late April that TPP is critical to his strategy of rebalancing to the Asia
Pacific and that hes willing to push Congress for TPA after the mid-terms. This would reassure those at home and in the
region who doubt his commitment to the rebalance and to trade, and also give other TPP negotiating partners confidence
that Washington will uphold its end of the bargain if they reveal their bottom line now. Meanwhile, letting TPP drag on indefinitely
doesnt serve the interests of Abe. His popularity, though still strong by Japanese standards, is already declining and
likely to sink further as a consumption tax hike takes effect in April and he moves ahead on nuclear power. Abe should instruct his
negotiators to move substantially closer to TPPs principle of comprehensive liberalization , especially on
agriculture, while he and his government have the political capital to do so . In doing this, Abe can take comfort that the
near-term economic benefits of TPP are greater than widely believed. In addition to improving Japans long-term competitiveness, a TPP deal
would give a substantial boost to confidence, likely causing the Japanese stock market to soar as foreign investors who have become increasingly
disillusioned with Abenomics pile back into the market. Political leaders rarely have as promising an opportunity to achieve
multiple objectives as President Obama and Prime Minister Abe have over the next few weeks. Coming

together on TPP would

help create growth and jobs in both countries, uphold the global rules-based order, and secure the two mens
legacies as visionary Asia-Pacific leaders.

Obama PC key to TPP passage must overcome fierce congressional opposition

hes all in, but outcome uncertain
Rogers, 15 Alex, covers Congress as a staff correspondent for National Journal. He previously worked as a
political reporter at TIME. National Journal, 5/11, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-democrats-arerevolting-against-obama-s-trade-plan-20150511?
utm_content=buffer537a1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
"I've been to plant closings," King

said. "Workers refused to shake my hand because they said, 'Why should I
shake the hand of somebody that let them ship my jobs overseas?' That's a formative experience." But even
though Democrats have historically opposed free trade agreements , it's still
shocking that President Obama may not be able to get enough of them to vote

just to get to a bill on which he has spent so much political capital. Obama has

emphasized trade from this year's State of the Union address to Friday's stop at the Nike
headquarters in Oregon. He's cornered sophomore Democratic
representatives, showered them with flights on Air Force One,
and promised to campaign for them , according to The New York Times. The U.S. Trade
Representative claims to have held nearly 1,700 congressional briefings on
TPP over the past five years, and even set up an office in the Capitol Visitor Center where members and staff
can read the draft language of the agreements. And yet it s till might not be enough.
" We'll see whether he can produce them ," said Senate Majority Whip John
Cornyn of the president's ability to garner the votes of his fellow Democrats. "We're not
going to renegotiate how this is going to be taken up. They'll have a chance to have a vote to get on the underlying bill that will then produce a
negotiation on the overall legislation. But it's

going to be up to the president and the Democrats to

produce the votes to get us on it."

Obama PC key to congressional TPP passage vital to sway votes and overcome
intense political resistance, fight will be huge
Fulton 14. [Deirdre, Common Dreams staff writer, "Obama ready to defy base in order to advance trans-pacific partnership" Mint Press
News 12/5/14 -- www.mintpressnews.com/obama-ready-defy-base-order-advance-trans-pacific-partnership/199643/]
President Barack Obama

is ready to buck his liberal base in order to

advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) , the pro-corporate international trade

deal currently being negotiated in secret by the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. In a speech before the Business
Roundtable, an association of conservative CEOs of major U.S. corporations, Obama indicated that he was ready to go
head-to-head with Democrats , labor unions, and environmentalists core
groups that oppose the TPP and other so-called free trade pacts in order to
move the controversial deal forward. He listed trade as one of his top four
economic priorities for the remainder of his presidency, along with tax reform, immigration, and investment in
infrastructure. With

respect to trade, we hope to be able to not simply finalize an agreement with the various
parties in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but also to be able to explain it to the public, and to engage

in all the stakeholders and to publicly engage with the critics, because I think some of the
criticism of what weve been doing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is groups fighting the last war as
opposed to looking forward, Obama said, referring to trade deals such as NAFTA that have been
strongly opposed by the same constituencies. Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a
going to have to engage directly
with our friends in labor and our environmental organizations and try to get from them why it is that they
think that. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who helped introduce Fast Track legislation earlier this year that would hand over the
power to negotiate trade agreements from Congress to the president, praised Obamas remarks : This is long overdue, he said.
The presidents influence , particularly among members of his
status quo that is more damaging to American workers, he continued. And Im

own party, will be a vital component to congressional efforts.

Intense political opposition to trade is focused on TPP - only obama PC can

overcome resistance its a huge fight and passage not guaranteed
The Economist 6/12 [Obama's agenda in the balance,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/politics-trade]
But regardless of what members of Congress believe personally, trade unions and left-wing grassroots
campaign groups have done an effective job of intimidating House

Democrats into a defensive crouch on trade, threatening to punish members who defy them by
withholding campaign funds and help from grassroots activists. Union bosses, populist Democrats and some populist
Republicans crowed with triumph after Fridays votes, saying that TPA had to be stopped to prevent more jobs from being outsourced to
Asia, andin the words of Richard Trumka, the president of the vast AFL-CIO unionto send a message that our government belongs not to the highest
corporate bidders but to the working people who make our country run. Opponents of Mr Obamas plans for global trade have no trouble
painting a picture of how they would like the world to function. Mr Trumka says that working America wants fair wages, safe working conditions and a real
opportunity to compete in the global economy. Mrs Pelosi told House colleagues that: Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for Americas
workers. Opponents do not offer concrete suggestions about how America might unilaterally achieve much more favourable conditions for its workers in an age of
intense global competition. They are conspicuously uninterested in trying to recruit foreign governments as allies. Instead they attack

Mr Obama for
failing to sue foreign governments often enough over their local environmental and labour standards.
They accuse previous trade pacts of hollowing out American manufacturing (though as trade defenders note, America has
no free-trade deal with China, and that did nothing to slow Chinas rise as an export powerhouse). Above all, they scorn the argument that
lowering barriers to trade might be to the benefit of a large, rich, innovative country such as America. The irony is thatin
presidential elections at leastDemocrats rely increasingly on the votes from Drawbridge Down bits of
America to win. The Obama coalition that handed the White House to Democrats in 2008 and 2012 is
built on groups whose members stand out in opinion polls for their confidence that free trade helps the
country more than it hurts it, such as college graduates and non-whites. Meanwhile Democrats have already lost many of the blue-collar white voters
who are most sceptical of trade (and whose relative weight in the electorate goes down with each passing year). Alas, in congressional elections
those same shifting demographic forces work differently. Non-whites and other Obama fans, such as the
young, rarely vote in non-presidential contests, leaving Republicans to pick up blue-collar white districts
that once elected centrist Democrats. That has left the Democratic Party smaller and more uniformly leftwing, which helps to explain why todays House members are taking such a sceptical

line on trade with Asia . Barack Obama faces a showdown with his party
over trade Republican leaders in the House have effectively given Mr Obama three days to persuade a few more of his
members to back him. By his somewhat chilly standards the president has already been on a charm
offensive with House Democrats for weeks, flying chosen members on Air Force One and even dropping in on the annual congressional
baseball game on June 11th. Mr Obama has promised to campaign for any members
who face rebellions in their home districts as a result of
backing him on trade . That promise has less potency than it once did. Meanwhile Mrs Pelosi is demanding that Republicans bribe
Democratic members to support TPA and TAA (which pass together in a single bill, for procedural reasons, to avoid a conflict with the bill already passed by the
Senate). In a letter to her members, Mrs Pelosi says the prospects of a trade bill passing would be greatly improved if Republicans were to support a big package of
federal funding for highways and other transportation infrastructure. It is unclear whether Mrs Pelosi is offering a lifeline by suggesting this price for her help: many
Republicans may find her intervention deeply provocative. A Democratic member of Congress thinks there is a "decent" chance the trade measures could still be
revived, not least because business and pro-trade lobbies now know how important TAA is to getting a deal done, and will push Republicans harder to back it.

Asian allies could be forgiven for watching this debate with despair, as Mr Obamas grand strategy for
rebalancing Americas economic and strategic focus towards the Pacific region is bogged down by rows about
crumbling interstate bridges. China is not one of the 12 countries in the TPP pact, and Chinese leaders would love to
think that Americas democracy is too dysfunctional to offer Asia an alternative model of economic
governance. Congress does not have long to prove foreign friends and rivals wrong.

Obama using all available PC on TPP now, thats key to passage - its his top
political priority
Kane, 6/12 -- Paul, Covers White House and Politics for Washington Post, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-hislegacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
Fridays setback dimmed hopes

at the White House that Obama will be able to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),
a sweeping free-trade and regulatory pact that he has called central to his economic

agenda at home and his foreign-policy strategy in Asia. Obamas loss came
after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant
personal credibility and political capital . Republican leaders, who had backed the presidents
trade initiative, pleaded

with their colleagues to support the deal or risk watching the United States lose
economic ground in Asia. Afterward, GOP leaders said the battle was not over , but they made

clear the onus was on Obama to sway his fellow Democrats.

The president has some work yet to do with his party to complete this process, said Rep.
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This isnt over yet .
TPP is tough politics, PC key resistance on both sides of aisle likely
Reuters 12-3-14. ["Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority" -- www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usatrade-obama-idUSKCN0JH24220141203]
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 .

Obama PC key TPA was just proxy, the real congressional fight will be over TPP
approval
Kane, 6/12 -- Paul, Covers White House and Politics for Washington Post, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-hislegacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the

presidents trade agenda is still alive and vowed that Obama

will continue to urge passage

of the package in the coming days. Earnest said that the Senate approved the fast-track

legislation last month after initially voting to block it. The silver lining for Obama and his unusual Republican allies is that the balance of the trade package narrowly
won support. The House voted 219 to 211 to approve fast-track, also known as trade promotion authority, which had been expected to be the most crucial vote. On that
vote, 219 to 211, 28 Democrats joined 191 Republicans in supporting the president. But because House leaders split the bill into several pieces, approval of the worker
assistance program known as trade adjustment assistance, or TAA is needed to advance fast-track. The problem for Obama is that he

must

still get enough Democratic votes to entice a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for TAA, which they
generally do not support. In his first visit to the Democratic caucus in two years, Obama pleaded for their support, particularly on a bill that they would otherwise back
on the merits. Play it straight, Obama said, according to several attendees. The president recounted his previous efforts on behalf of workers and the environment to

dont think you ever nail anything down around

here, Obama told reporters on his way out of the Capitol. Its always moving . According to an aide familiar with the
loud applause audible in the hallway outside. I

discussion, Pelosi told the president she was leaning no on the trade assistance vote at a meeting before Obama went before the entire Democratic caucus. Several
hours later, Pelosi walked onto the chambers floor and indicated she would do the opposite of what Obama had asked her and her colleagues to do vote against a
program she otherwise supports in order to obstruct the overall package. Pelosi said she still thinks there is a path to yes on fast-track authority, as she has said for
months, but that it must be lengthened in order to address sinkholes. That ended days of private deliberations for Pelosi. She personally negotiated the precise
fixes to the TAA bill with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who then set up the series of votes to take place exactly as she had asked. Exiting the Obama

meeting, some of Pelosis closest lieutenants thought she would support the worker assistance program and nudge it to passage. She would not have gone through the
efforts these heroic efforts to get this deal and then just to vote against this, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), an appointed member of her leadership team, said
before the key vote. Im voting for trade adjustment assistance. I believe that the vast majority of leadership will be voting for trade adjustment assistance. Israel,
Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) were the only members of leadership to support the president on the TAA vote.
After Pelosi delivered the final blow to the legislation, she sent a letter to all Democrats saying that stopping the fast-track bill was their way to leverage support for a
massive infrastructure bill. However, in

a sign of their disjointed posture, other Democrats had other ideas about

what they were trying to get by stopping the trade package. The real issue
here is TPP, and this is an effort to get TPP on the right track, said Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich.), the
ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. Levin said the focus of these next days would be to force the Obama
administration to reopen portions of the negotiations with Pacific Rim nations on worker organizing rights and
currency manipulation.

PC Key Empirics
Capital key to congressional TPP passage empirics.
Miller and Goodman 15. [Scott, senior adviser and holds the William M. Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS,
Matthew, William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, "Conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership" CSIS -- January -csis.org/files/publication/141223_Green_Pivot_Web.pdf]
What is needed to conclude TPP in 2015? For the United States, trade agreements enter into effect once

the
U.S. Congress passes legislation to implement the provisions negotiated by the executive branch . That
action is the end of a process that begins with building domestic political support
for the policy. Advocates in the business community and elsewhere have a role, but if history is any guide
presidential leadership is fundamental to making the case to the public and

managing the political conflicts

always

that are
a part of trade policy. Immediately
following the November midterm elections, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
made it clear that trade agreements like TPP were an area of potential cooperation with the president. During
President Obamas first term, the implementing bills for free-trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea passed the
Republican-controlled House by comfortable margins, with over 200 Republicans and 3060 Democrats voting in favor. This 2011 success
gave TPP talks momentum, with Canada, Mexico, and Japan deciding to join the talks shortly after the FTAs passed. Voting patterns
indicate that trade policy remains an issue that divides Democrats and unites Republicans. The president
must actively manage his partys politics while cooperating with

Republican majorities in Congress who will provide the majority of the votes. Its
never easy to advance an issue that divides your usual allies and unites your usual opponents, but
there is no alternative scenario. In short, the next step belongs to the president. He must engage the public
on the issue, underscoring its importance to the economy and, more broadly, the U.S. role in the world .
And he must manage the delicate relations with Congress,

navigating past areas of conflict to form a durable base of

support for his agreements. Presidential leadership will resonate in other
capitals, especially Tokyo, where trading partners

are looking for evidence of an adequate political consensus in the

United States.

PC key on TPP and trade particularly.

Boustany and Zoellick 12-28-14. [Charles, senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Robert, former
USTR, president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress" Wall Street Journal -www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308]
After the midterm elections, political commentators identified trade policy as one area for cooperation between
President Obama

and the Republican Congress. We agree. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority over
trade. But the active direction and use of that authority depends on an energetic

executive , in partnership with Congress. According to a recent Pew Research survey, 66% of Americans
believe greater U.S. involvement in the global economy is a good thing, with only 25% thinking it is bad. The
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is a good thing in the eyes of 55% of Americans, versus 25% who consider it bad; the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) scores 53% good and 20% bad. These inclinations offer opportunity. Prof.
Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that the presidency relied on the
power to persuade. Its time for Mr. Obama to persuade on
trade . He must make use of the convening power of the executive to bolster
his advocacy . His administration must work closely with Congress to listen,
explain, address problems and cut deals .

PC and horsetrading uniquely key on congressional trade deal votes its ALWAYS
the critical factor
Feehery, 6/10 -- John Feehery is president of QGA Public Affairs and a former spokesman for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
Wall Street Journal, 6/10/15, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/10/why-trade-promotion-bill-is-so-hard-to-pass-through-congress/

Passing trade legislation is always controversial . One mans job-creating trade agreement
spells the end of another mans job. Mr. Obama waited until the last two years of his presidency to push for
fast track, when he didnt have to run again in the face of angry union opposition. It helped that the
Republicans had seized the reins of power in the Senate and are largely sympathetic to the arguments of free
traders. Trade is much more complex than broadly understood. Every country with which we trade has laws designed to help
domestic manufacturers. There are tax provisions and subsidies and favorable regulatory breaks and no-interest loans and a list of other things that foreign
governments do to help their workers. We do some of that stuff ourselves. Making

sense of these complex laws to help constituents and domestic

is the job of Congress. Some purists might want Congress to butt out,
to let the invisible hand of the free market to work its will. But thats not realistic from either a
industries in the face of international competition

political standpoint or from a policy standpoint. At its heart, trade policy

is a political matter and the politicians have to have the ability to represent their constituents. So, if a member of the
House needs a provision to buffer the impact of lower tariffs for Vietnamese textiles, so be it. If a senator needs to point to additional tools to protest
against illegal dumping of products from overseas, thats the way it should be. On trade votes, you really get a chance

to see the legislative process work. To the casual observer, this might seem like the usual sausage
making. But to those in the middle of the scrum, all of this horse-trading makes the sausage
taste better to their constituents.

PC and horsetrading on unrelated political deals key uniquely swings trade votes,
overcomes opposition and outweighs ideology its ALWAYS the decisive factor
Becker, 6/12 ISAAC STANLEY-BECKER, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/12/fast-track-votes-have-long-difficult-history/
And Thursday, ahead of a vote on granting President Barack Obama so-called fast-track negotiating authority, lawmakers

who want to see the

agreement sealed had one word to sell the legislation: Bipartisan. They make it sound easy. But in fact,
it hasnt been. Fast-track in its present form dates to the Trade Act of 1974, which gave Gerald Ford, a Republican, power to complete the Tokyo Round of
negotiations aimed at removing export subsidies and other impediments to free trade. The expedited negotiating authority was reauthorized several times over the next
two decades. There have even been signs of agreement across party lines. In

1993, more than 100 Democrats voted for the North

American Free Trade Agreement, which organized labor today cites as the epitome of what it dislikes
about free trade. By 1997, when President Bill Clintons administration sought to reauthorize fast-track authority, which had expired in 1994, the Republican
majority took positions on labor and environmental standards that the White House wouldnt accept, said Mickey Kantor, the U.S. Trade Representative from 1993 to
1996. The administration had the legislation pulled. By that time, the president, facing the threat of impeachment proceedings toward the end of the decade, lost much
of his pull with lawmakers, who were deciding whether to try to eject him from office. Another reauthorization attempt failed in 1998, by a vote of 180-243. The

Clinton administrations early success, Mr. Kantor said, stemmed from the priority the

president put on trade, but also from the benefits promised to

certain members, which sweetened the deal . A Bush administration official
who was closely involved in trade negotiations said Republicans used similar tactics in 2002,
narrowly convincing Congress to grant Mr. Bush fast-track authority. The vote in the House, the chamber that on Friday will decide the fate of Mr.
Obamas fast-track authority, was gaveled in at 3:30 a.m. The count was 215-212. Final passage depended on

making promises to lawmakers who were on the fence , the administration

official said. You get to a point where youre 10 votes shy, and you identify the 10 members who are willing

to trade and cut deals, said the official. In a way its frustrating because its not about the
merits. Its about horse-trading. Today there are rules that bar some of the lucrative goodies, known as
earmarks. Mr. Obama

has used personal appeals in aiming to sway Democratic lawmakers , including members
of the moderate, pro-growth New Democrat Coalition and the Congressional Black Caucus . Four House
Democrats whove pledged their support traveled on Air Force One to the Group of Seven Summit in Germany, touting
international economic opportunities.

Empirics prove pc is key to trade.

Behsudi 12-3. [Adam, trade reporter, "Fincher putting the pedal to the metal on Ex-Im Lawmakers do the TPA tango EU grapples
with tar sands oil" Politico -- www.politico.com/morningtrade/1214/morningtrade16316.html]

IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO ON TRADE : Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated
on Tuesday that he wants to work with the White House to pass trade legislation, a statement perhaps more notable this time
around because it came amid Republican anger over President Barack Obamas action on immigration. Thats my first choice, to look for the things that we actually
agree on, if there are any, McConnell (R- Ky.) said at the Wall Street Journals CEO Council meeting. At least on

trade, I think theres a

potential for agreement. Trade agreements are more popular in my conference than they are in the
Democratic conference. Speaking at the same event, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he also hoped the White House and Republicans could work
together to get trade promotion authority done. I think its very important. But Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the
House Budget Committee and an ally of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, did not mention
trade in his remarks even though he has a record of voting for trade agreements. Scott Miller, a trade politics specialist at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, said any movement on TPA would require a strong push from the president. If the White House doesnt
take the initiative and actually create the political coalition to pass this, including
dealing with the politics of its own party, then Congress is just going to go work on other stuff, Miller
said. This is the secret of trade: If the president presses for it, he gets it and hell get it
with big majorities.

PC Works TPA Vote Proves

Fast track approval proves Obama PC does work and key on trade but its finite
and fights spill over next TPP vote will be even harder
Mascaro, 6/23 -- Lisa, columnist on Congress, U.S. policy, economics and political
culture, LA Times, 6/23/15, http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-senate-tradevote-20150622-story.html#page=1
After sputtering in Congress, fast-track trade deal -- a top White House priority -- nears passage Nearly two weeks
after his ambitious trade agenda was nearly derailed by fellow Democrats, President Obama is poised to clinch
the biggest legislative victory of his second term with a Senate vote Wednesday that would give him the authority
he says he needs to complete a sweeping 12-nation Pacific Rim accord. The prolonged battle , which

strained relations between the president and his party, came with the help of longtime
Republican adversaries. Many Democrats oppose the coming Trans-Pacific
Partnership and similar trade deals because they believe the pacts will sacrifice U.S. jobs to cheaper
overseas competition. Arguing that the trade deal is vital to countering China's rising economic power ,
Obama overcame vehement opposition from big trade unions
and fellow Democrats by forging a rare alliance with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). The political turnaround followed intense White
House lobbying and a heavy dose of backroom deal-making to
secure the final votes needed . This has been a long and rather twisted path to where
we are today, but it's a very, very important accomplishment for the country, McConnell said. America is back in the trade
business. The so-called fast-track bill cleared its final procedural hurdle Tuesday in the Senate by a 60-37 vote.

There wasn't

a single vote to spare in overcoming a Democratic-led filibuster. Thirteen Democrats joined the GOP
to advance the measure, and five Republicans bucked the Senate leader and voted no. Final Senate passage is expected Wednesday,
sending the measure to the president's desk. Within reach is an opportunity to shape tomorrow's global economy so that
it reflects both our values and our interests, said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Now it's time for

Congress to follow through.

Fast track, also known as trade promotion authority, would allow the
president to assure potential trade partners that the deals they negotiate with the U.S. will be presented to Congress for a yes-or-no vote without
amendment. Trade is a major driver of California's economy, so the ultimate outcome of the Pacific deal will affect many businesses and workers
in the state. California is home to the nation's busiest ports and a big exporter of electronics, farm products, machinery and many other goods and

Key to winning the

support of the 13 Democrats were assurances from both the
White House and Republican leaders that the House and the Senate also would vote on a related bill to provide worker retraining

services much of that going to Pacific Rim countries, including those involved in the negotiations.

funds for employees who lose their jobs as a result of trade. That measure, a longtime Democratic priority that most Republicans oppose, is
expected to have a vote in the Senate on Wednesday and in the House on Thursday. It's a pretty big victory for the

administration, for Obama a victory for pragmatism, said David Bach, senior associate dean at the Yale
School of Management, noting that the political cost to the president of splitting
with his own party was worth the potential gains of U.S. leadership in the Pacific . The fact that Obama was able to
work with Speaker Boehner and come up with a backup plan is not the kind of thing people would have perhaps expected in this climate of ultrapartisanship, Bach said. It keeps alive the potential legacy of his pivot to Asia . Others, though, believe the

president may have severely damaged his ability to work with

his party in his remaining 18 months in office . It's a policy
victory but not necessarily a political victory , said Julian E. Zelizer, a

Princeton University history professor. This vote and the decision to work around House Democrats will
aggravate the tensions that already exist with liberals. There isn't enough time left
in his presidency to really see the impact the trade pact will have, but this

bipartisan victory will have some negative

reverberations among allies on the Hill.

This month, in a rare rebuke of Obama by his own

party, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) led Democrats in preventing an earlier version of the fast-track package from
advancing. Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton also voiced concern that the proposed trade deal would not do enough
to protect American workers. Days later, House Republicans, working closely with the White House, passed a new fast-track bill and sent it back
to the Senate. Democratic critics blasted Tuesday's vote and predicted the trade deal will benefit only large

corporations and result in more U.S. factory closures. It's a great day for the big-money interests, not a great day for working
families, said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running against Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. The politics of the
trade vote also splintered Republicans , especially conservatives who were loath to

provide greater authority to an administration they do not trust or to

help Obama score a political victory key to his legacy . Though most
Republicans support the trade agenda, Boehner and McConnell struggled to build
enough support for passage. In a last-minute flip-flop , Sen. Ted Cruz (RTexas), a GOP presidential contender, voted

against the fast-track measure, complaining it had been tainted by Washington

deal-making. Pressure on members of Congress has run high in recent
days. The AFL-CIO ran ads against the trade vote warning lawmakers that American workers will suffer. That put
organized labor on the same side as the conservative Heritage Action for America , which told lawmakers that they
should vote no because the broader trade package is tarnished by political trade-offs and government pork. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
leading business interests urged senators to pass the legislation. As late as Monday it

was still unclear whether

the White House and Republican leaders would muster the

votes they needed.
Obama PC Key better congressional outreach efforts going forward are vital to
trade agenda
Rhodan, 6/12 -- Maya, Reporter @ Time Magazine, 6/12/15, http://time.com/3920000/barackobama-congress-lobbying/
Members have long argued that if

the President were to reach out more , he could gain more

traction during hard-wrought fights on Capitol Hill . Fridays votes gave

some weight to that argument. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar said after Fridays meeting there was a feeling among some
members that Obama had waited until the last minute to try to sway votes . I wish there would have been much better
outreach by them, he said. Still, the vote on trade isnt dead . By this time next week, the bill may have passed and the
wounds from Fridays beating may be healed. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday the President would continue

reaching out to members to ensure the bill gets passed, while

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy signaled that the battle wasnt yet finished . In a statement released
Friday, Obama urged Representatives to vote for TAA on behalf of about 100,000 workers and their communities who would be hurt by Congressional inaction.
That means

Obama is likely to keep schmoozing Congress. But if he wants his

trade effort to succeed, hell need to get better at it , and soon.

A2: TPA = Structural Congressional Rubberstamp

New TPA doesnt create congressional rubber stamp thats a false myth, its just a
political scare tactic more transparency, notice and consultation requirements than
ever before
Hatch, 15 -- Orrin, US Senator, 5/19, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=bfb3e6186f46-4d34-a89e-3e60838774af
The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, as we resume consideration of our TPA bill, I want to delve a little deeper
into the process of considering and approving trade agreements. Throughout the debate surrounding this bill, Ive heard the term fast

track used quite a few times. There was, in fact, a time when Trade Promotion Authority was commonly referred to as fast-track.
Now only TPA opponents use that term. They want the American people to believe that, under TPA, trade
agreements come to Congress and are passed in the blink of an eye . Sometimes they

use the term rubber stamp , as if, under TPA, Congress wielding ultimate
authority over a trade agreement the power to reject it
entirely is a mere administrative act. Mr. President, there is a reason the term fast track isnt
used anymore. Its because those who are being truly honest know that the process is
anything but fast. I think it would be helpful for me to walk through the entire process that Congress must
undertake before rendering a final judgment on a trade agreement to show how thoroughly
these agreements are vetted before they ever receive a vote .
Before I do though, I will note for my colleagues that this bill adds more transparency, notice, and
consultation requirements than any TPA bill before it . This bill
guarantees that Congress has all the information we need to render
an informed up-or-down verdict on any trade agreement
negotiated using the procedures in this bill.
TPA just guarantees a vote, not congressional passage their claims disregard
LONG LAUNDRY LIST of checks and procedural requirements
Hatch, 15 -- Orrin, US Senator, 5/19, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=bfb3e6186f46-4d34-a89e-3e60838774af

Once a bill implementing a trade agreement is formally submitted to Congress, a clock for consideration
of that bill starts. This clock gives Congress 90 days in session to consider and vote on the bill . As everyone
here knows, 90 legislative days takes a lot longer than 90 calendar days . Mr. President, when I hear my colleagues talk
about fast track, I think this is where they start the clock. They are disregarding the years of

oversight and consultations that occur during trade negotiations. They are
ignoring the many months of Congressional consideration of
trade legislation that occurs before the President ever formally submits that
legislation to Congress. They are d iscounting that, by this point in the process, Congress has
held hearings on the agreement, received views from the
public, and extensively reviewed the agreement and the
implementing legislation through informal markups. Calling this part of the process

fast track is like skipping to the end of a book and saying the

author didnt develop the plot. As I said, even here at the end of the process, the bill
provides more than three months for hearings, Committee
action, floor debate, and votes. Sometimes I think that only a United States Senator could
argue that more than three months to formally consider legislation legislation that has already been
thoroughly debated, vetted, and reviewed is making decisions too fast. Mr. President, when Congress votes
on an implementing bill, it is only after years of oversight, and months

of formal review. So I have to ask: Does this process sound fast to you? If TPA isnt fast, then what does TPA
do? Put simply, TPA guarantees a vote . TPA says to the world that when they sign an
agreement with the United States, Congress promises to say yes or no to THAT agreement. And

most importantly, TPA guarantees that Congress will have the

information and the time we need to make that decision .
TPA doesnt guarantee deals pass rubberstamp and secret trade deals are myth
multiple transparency and consultation requirements ensure full congressional checks and
balances
Hatch, 15 -- Orrin, US Senator, 5/19, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=bfb3e6186f46-4d34-a89e-3e60838774af

Myth of "Secret Trade Deals " WASHINGTON In a speech on the Senate

floor today, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) highlighted a number of transparency and
consultation provisions built into the bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act of 2015, a historic Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that equips Congress and the
public with months of time to review, debate and vote on a
trade deal. Under TPA, before Congress can consider a trade deal for a vote, an administration must meet
strict negotiating objectives for trade deals set by Congress and must
extensively consult and provide transparency with Congress
before, during and after negotiations . Only after the President has met these
On Senate Floor, Hatch Debunks

notification and consultation requirements, only after he has provided the required reports, and only after
he has made the agreement available to the American people, may he finally sign the agreement. The
process this bill requires before an agreement is even signed is obviously quite complex, full of checks

and balances , and provides unprecedented transparency for the American public,
Hatch said.

TPA doesnt guarantee trade deal approvals multiple checks and new informal
mark-up requirements that occur before TPA procedures kick in mean their ev
doesnt apply
Hatch, 15 -- Orrin, US Senator, 5/19, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=bfb3e6186f46-4d34-a89e-3e60838774af

Sixty days after signing the agreement, the President must provide Congress a description of changes to
U.S. law he considers necessary. This step gives Congress time to begin considering what
will be included in the legislation to implement the trade agreement. This is also the time when the
Finance Committee holds open hearings on the trade agreement in order to gather the views of the administration and the
public. Following these hearings, one of the most important steps in this entire process
occurs: the so-called informal markup. The informal markup is not always well understood, so I will take a minute to describe it. The
informal markup occurs before the President formally submits the trade
agreement to Congress. As with any markup of legislation, the Committee reviews and discusses the
agreement and implementing legislation, has the opportunity to question witnesses about the agreement,
and can amend the legislation. In the event of amendments, the Senate can proceed to a
mock conference with the House to unify the legislation. The practice of the informal markup

provides Congress an opportunity to craft the legislation

implementing a trade agreement as it sees fit, and to direct
the President on the final package to be formally submitted to
Congress. While the informal markup is well established in practice, this bill, for the first time
in the history of TPA, specifies that Congress will receive the
materials it needs in time to conduct an informal markup. It requires that 30 days before
the President formally submits a trade agreement to Congress, he must submit the final legal text of the
agreement and a statement specifying any administrative action he will take to implement the agreement . The
bill therefore ensures that Congress will have all the materials it

needs in time to conduct a thorough markup. Only at this point may the
President formally submit legislation implementing a trade agreement to
Congress. And only at this point do the TPA procedures , first established in the Trade
Act of 1974, kick in.
TPP passage not guaranteed TPA gives congress more power on trade deal, not
less
Weisman, 6/23 Jonathan, Economic Policy Reporter @ NYT, 6/23/15,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-on-trade-bill.html
Only one senator, Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, changed his vote from last month. In April, Mr. Cruz wrote an article with Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican
of Wisconsin, extolling

the trade promotion bill for giving Congress more power over

future trade accords . Under the trade promotion bill, such accords could not be considered by Congress for four
months after completion, and for two of those months, the

agreements would have to be made accessible to the public. The

bill adds dozens of negotiating objectives requested by lawmakers, who still could vote

down any deal struck.

TPA doesnt guarantee trade deal approval their claims ignore new requirements
and long laundry list of procedural checks
Hatch, 15 -- Orrin, US Senator, 5/19, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=bfb3e6186f46-4d34-a89e-3e60838774af
Mr. President, Congresss oversight of any trade agreement starts even before the negotiations on that agreement begin. Under this bill, the
President must not only notify Congress that he is considering entering into negotiations with our trading partners, but also what his objectives for

those negotiations are. Specifically this has to happen three months before the President can start negotiating. Thats three months for Congress to
consult on and shape the negotiations before they even begin. Congresss oversight continues as the negotiations advance .

This bill requires the United States Trade Representative to continuously consult with Senate
Finance Committee and any other Senate committee with jurisdiction over subject matter potentially affected by a trade agreement.
Moreover, USTR must, upon request, meet with any member of Congress to consult on the negotiations, including
providing classified negotiating text. The bill also establishes panels to oversee the trade negotiations. These panels
the Senate Advisory Group on Negotiations and the Designated Congressional Advisers consult with and advise the USTR on the formulation
of negotiating positions and strategies. Under the bill, members of these panels will be accredited advisers to trade negotiating sessions involving

oversight intensifies as the negotiations near conclusion. At least six months

submit a report to Congress detailing any potential changes to
U.S. trade remedy laws. Then, three months before the President signs a trade agreement, he must notify
Congress that he intends to do so. At the same time, the President is required to submit details of the agreement
to the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC is tasked with preparing an extensive report for
the United States. Congressional

before the President signs a trade agreement, he must

Congress on the potential costs and benefits the agreement will have on the U.S. economy, specific economic sectors,
and American workers. I want to focus on the next step required by this bill, because it is a new requirement,
never before included in TPA. Sixty days before the President can sign any trade agreement, he must
publish the full text of the agreement on the USTR website so that the public can see it. This
ensures an unprecedented level of transparency for the American people and
gives our constituents the material and time they need to inform us of their views. Only after the President
has met these notification and consultation requirements, only after he has provided the required reports,
and only after he has made the agreement available to the American people, may he finally sign the
agreement. Mr. President, the process this bill requires before an agreement is even signed is obviously

quite complex, full of checks and balances, and provides

unprecedented transparency for the American public. However, once the
President does sign the agreement , his obligations continue .

Dems Key
Dems key to TPP Obama must spend PC to swing votes
WSJ 1-22-15. blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/22/capital-journal-battles-over-iran-sanctionsgop-governors-trumpet-successes-focus-turns-to-middle-class-angst/
OBAMA SEEKS TO WOO DEMOCRATS ON TRADE DEALS: President Obamas push for a new round of
trade deals looks set to hinge on a small swing contingent of House Democratic
lawmakers, testing the presidents ability to woo wary members of
his own party. To do that, the White House has deployed cabinet secretaries and set up a war room to promote fast-track trade legislation on Capitol Hill.
The White House hopes to move ahead on a trade deal under negotiation with Japan and other Pacific
nations, as well as a deal officials are eyeing with the European Union . William Mauldin and Siobhan Hughes report.

GOP Key
GOP vital to passage of new free trade deals Obama PC key to swing their votes
Tankersley, 6/12 -- Jim Tankersley, Economic Policy Correspondent, The Washington Post,
Washington Post, 6/12/15,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/12/who-obama-needs-most-towin-on-trade-now/

Who Obama needs most to win on trade now After a pair of dramatic votes
in the House left President Obama's trade agenda dangling by a thread on Friday, most of the attention turned to
Democrats: They had bucked their president in big numbers, despite a last-minute, in-person appeal. That's true. It is
also not very surprising, in the context of recent history. The bigger historical surprise was how many
Republicans opposed a landmark bill on free trade. About three-quarters of the House GOP sided with Obama on so-called "fast track"
trade promotion authority. You have to go back to a pair of votes under Bill Clinton -- NAFTA in 1993 and a failed fast-track push in
1998 -- to find the last time such a small share of Republicans supported a major trade bill . Two-fifths of House
Democrats backed Clinton on NAFTA. That's the high-water mark for the party's support for major trade deals in the House in the last two decades. When only
15 percent of House Dems backed Obama on Friday, they weren't on the low or high end of that historical
spectrum. They were about in the middle:2 Obama effectively needed the House to approve two things Friday: a provision to spend money
helping some workers after their jobs were hurt by freer trade, and so-called "fast-track" trade authority that would allow the president to send trade deals to Congress
for an up-or-down vote. The first vote failed overwhelmingly -- only a third of Republicans and a fifth of Democrats supported it. The broader measure squeaked by,
though. There's

a lot of attention, and rightly so, on how few Democrats Obama brought along for either vote. (Especially
to note, though, that House Democrats have shown little appetite for
trade bills since NAFTA. About a third of them voted for the Panama and Korea agreements in 2011. But
fewer than 1 in 10 of them backed the Central American Free Trade Agreement under President Bush in 2004, and a
slightly smaller share of them voted to give trade promotion authority to Bush than they just did to Obama. House Republicans, on the other
hand, had hovered at or above 90 percent of support for major trade bills since 1998,
including previous bills under Obama. But some conservative activists have opposed this trade push, on a
variety of grounds, contributing to the GOP defections this time. For Obama's trade agenda to progress, he needs the workerreimbursement provision - something conservatives have tended to oppose, historically - to pass on a re-vote, likely next week. That vote is now the
proxy vote for "should the trade agenda move ahead under Obama ?" The president would certainly like
more Democrats to join his cause for it. But to win, he probably needs a lot more support
when you compare him to Clinton in 1993.) It's also fair

from Republicans. NAFTA numbers would suffice .

Both Sides Key

must sway dem votes AND prevent GOP defections capital key to both
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and
the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487

Trade -- Can Obama get it done? The day after the 2014 election, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was
asked what kind of proposals his new majority could work on with President Obama. Trade agreements,
McConnell said, adding, The President and I were just talking about that before I came over here." And when Obama called on Congress
during his State of the Union speech this month to pass legislation supporting new trade agreements, it was one of the few subjects that
did not raise Republican ire. It did not meet with much enthusiasm from Obama's fellow Democrats , however, who
lined up to pan the president's proposal to push the trade agenda forward . No problem, said a White House aide several
days later, the President will steamroll them. The politics of trade have long broken down along fairly strict partisan lines; pro-business
Republicans are for trade and pro-labor Democrats are against it. Freed from narrow constituent politics, however, Democrats in the

White House have pushed for greater openness to trade, largely because expanding trade is a necessarily
an important part of the foreign policy agenda of any president interested in maintaining the United
States global leadership. President Clinton famously passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade
relations with China. So it isnt surprising that Obama views new trade deals as central to his foreign policy
legacy. Still, getting new trade agreements through Congress is

tough sledding for presidents of any party . Populist

demagoguing and popular myth still hold that trade kills American jobs.
Many voters of all stripes believe this. Butressing America's international leadership makes for far
less compelling images than those of shuttered factories that have lost their competitive
edge to job-stealing firms on the other side of the planet. The misery of the few who lose out in the shuffle of trade
liberalization has huge political resonance , even if the overall economic benefit to
Americans significantly outweighs the detriment. The policy landscape is littered with competing studies that demonstrate the
success or failure of trade agreements. Depending on who you believe, NAFTA has cost or delivered millions of jobs. Permanently normalized
trade relations for China resulted in the greatest and worst transfer of wealth in human history, unless actually it didnt. The obvious reality is that
trade liberalization produces some losers, even if the rest of us are winners. But stories about the collapse of American

manufacturing and televised portraits of out-of-work breadwinners make for more

sympathetic news stories than the fact that a new trade deal has added a few hundred
dollars to the purchasing power of the average family. The way policymakers talk about trade is often
disingenuous. Trade agreements these days are about reducing barriers to trade in a supply chain that can wend through many countries.
They are about standardizing approaches to information gathering and policy making. They set rules for economic governance that limit
discrimination and encourage greater opportunities for an increased number and kind of enterprises in the economy. And importantly, they set the
rules for trade in services, which is the forgotten giant in international trade. This is all wonky stuff, so when forced to talk

about trade without putting its audience to sleep, the administration finds itself reverting to simplification .
When in doubt, Obama and the administration, like previous Republican and Democratic administrations, talk about how trade agreements are
about exports, as the president did when he proposed in his 2010 State of the Union speech to double U.S. exports in five years. We didnt come

close, but it was a worthy aspiration. The

global economy and the role of the United States in that economy has
changed dramatically since the 1950s, but the politics of trade is still very much grounded in that longago epoch. Back then, you made a finished product in one country and sold it to another. The way trade data is gathered still assumes a 1950s
approach; the country in which a products assembly is finalized gets full credit for the value of that product. So China gets full credit for the
value of an iPhone it assembles from component parts made in other countries, including the lions share of the value that iPhone represents: its
design, which really never left Cupertino, Calif. The enduring, alluring image of the good (manufacturing) job at good

wages from the days in the 1950s in which manufacturing employed 60 percent of American workers, is tough to shake

in the public and political consciousness

. Despite the fact that fewer than 10 percent of

Americans work in manufacturing and that Americas role in international trade is increasingly focused on design and technological development,
and providing services, the iconic assembly line worker is the poster child for U.S. trade policy. He or she isnt
doing as well these days. So even pro-trade members of Congress are

wary of trade votes. No politician wants to hear the wrath of out-of-work

constituents on local TV news or splashed across negative campaign
advertising come election time. Obama and his team have plenty of hard work
ahead to convince even Republicans that a vote in favor of his trade deals wont
be Exhibit Number 1 when a political opponent want to suggest that he or she has lost touch
with voters. One otherwise pro-trade GOP lawmaker privately said, Give us an
excuse not to vote on trade . Steamrolling Democrats into a pro-trade vote may
prove even harder . The common wisdom is that Republicans need a
sizable corpus of Democrats to fall on their swords and vote
yes on trade deals. That number could be as few as 20 in the House, but the smaller the
number, the greater the chance recalcitrant Republicans who
feel electorally vulnerable will refuse to go along. At primary issue is
the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a free trade agreement being negotiated with 11 other countries in the AsiaPacific region. The economic rationale for the TPP is significant. Trade within Asia has been booming, largely in component
parts that have been assembled into finished products in China and exported primarily to the United States and Europe. The TPP would draw the
United States closer to the boom.

PC key both dems and GOP are important must keep both on board even Protrade republicans could bail post TPA passage and try to hold out for next president
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and
the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487

If the Obama administration will find it difficult to appease the Left , a TPP that
seems focused more on left-of-center concerns than on opening markets will undermine the

interest of the business community in rallying support for passage.

As a trade association executive lamented recently, Theres a big difference between business saying its for
trade legislation and it will be almost as a knee-jerk reaction and actually committing
resources and CEO time to lobby on behalf of that legislation. Thus far, not much time or
money have been committed by the business community to get out the vote on either TPA or TPP. Business

leaders, and not just

Washington representatives of American businesses, will need to make the trek to Capitol Hill personally
for members to be comfortable voting for trade. Appeasing all these constituencies is
complicated. Further complicating the task is the fact that the political process in Washington has
a global audience, and the messaging behind a pro-TPP narrative is read far
beyond the Beltway. Other TPP members will attempt to read the process with a view to finalizing their offers, which in some cases will
be complicated by domestic political events back home. Some will rush to complete TPP even before TPA is granted to avoid the appearance of
being captive to U.S. politics. Although some analysts believe that TPP could be passed through Congress even absent TPA, it would

make an already fraught process that much riskier . I hope, said one Republican trade
staffer, theyre smarter than that. Even beyond the TPP countries, other eyes are watching goings-on in Washington carefully. During the State
of the Union speech, the president raised the specter of competition with China as a reason to pass trade

legislation. "China wants to write the rules for the world's fastest-growing region, he said. It may have been a message intended
only for the Hill fodder for the China paranoia that sometimes drives legislation . But the
administration has for years been trying to convince China that the TPP and the pivot to Asia were not about containing Chinas rise. The State
of the Union speech complicated that message, and official and unofficial Chinese reactions were blistering. The White House will have to
smooth over those ruffled feathers to manage that most important strategic relationship, even if it is very likely that anti-China rhetoric

will be an important part of the overall narrative behind the whip

votes on Capitol Hill.

Momentum behind a TPA bill could pick up quickly. Rumors that the Senate Finance and House

Ways & Means Committees are moving to mark up bills in February and March could begin to crank up the political machinery. And that

will

start to test the ability of the White House to cajole individual

members into supporting the bill. That will take a willingness

to respond to district-by-district requests for favors in areas
other than trade . It will require the administrative to help
develop narratives that provide members with answers to the question: Why did you vote for this
bill. Figuring out what members want for their votes and delivering on
those asks is new territory for this White House, and will take an awful lot of
support from pro-business lobbyists with which this White House has sought to avoid contact since the start of the Obama presidency.
Finally, the reality of the political calendar is lost on no one . With the
Presidents term now ticking down to 23 months left, and with little love lost between
Republican leaders and the White House, it's possible that the GOP might pass trade
promotion authority in hope of handing it off to the next
president, whom they hope will be a member of their party. Trade
promotion authority with a the TPP deal is not

a legacy either the president or his fellow Democrats would be proud

of. It would also be playing poker with American power and prestige abroad. The stakes

are high . But the politics of trade are low indeed.

2015 Key
Domestic Political calculations determine congressional TPP outcome 2015 is key
Hogan Lovells Yeutter, international trade and investment firm senior advisor, 2-2-15
[Amb Clayton, TPP now, not next year http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economybudget/231311-tpp-now-not-next-year]
. So why all the fuss right now? Because

we have a political window of opportunity here in the

U.S. that will close soon . Presidential campaigns typically produce far more
demagoguery than wisdom where trade policy is concerned .
Notwithstanding all the good work that has already been done by TPP negotiators, not one of
them will wish to subject a TPP agreement to the bombast of
our presidential campaigns. So we need to get this done; the TPP window
is 2015, not 2016

. Step one is fast track authority so that a final agreement will be submitted, without amendment, to an up or down vote in Congress. The other 11 TPP participants are

not about to submit their best offers to the U.S. until and unless we either have Trade Promotion Authority (TPA or fast track) or can persuasively assert that such authority clearly is on the way. Otherwise there is a risk Congress
could change the deal, an outcome the other participating nations would not accept. Therefore, one of the first bills to emerge from deliberations of the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees should be fast track, and
Congress needs to get it to the presidents desk soon. Those who dislike trade agreements will vehemently oppose fast track, but proponents must win that political battle. Delaying fast track will simply delay final offers the other 11

If the U.S. is able to enact TPA legislation during the first quarter of 2015,
negotiators will have a reasonably good chance of quickly wrapping up TPP . That will not be easy, for time is of
TPP countries are prepared to grant to the U.S.; if fast track is not approved well never see those offers.

the essence . Once finalized, the agreement will need to be translated into a host of languages,
scrubbed by the lawyers, implementing legislation will need to be agreed between the administration and
the Congressional trade committees, the U.S. International Trade Commission will need to report to Congress on the probable economic impact of the agreement here in the U.S., and
the Congressional trade committees will undoubtedly wish to hold hearings and conduct mock markups
on an agreement of this importance. That all takes time, so lets hope everyone proceeds

expeditiously, and gives TPP the fair hearing it deserves before the political
season gets underway. Some Republican colleagues may ask: Why should we do this,
of my

and give President Obama a legacy on trade that he might not otherwise receive? The answer is that this will be a splendid legacy for everyone Republican and Democrat alike who votes for it. TPP is vital for American business and American agriculture. It will create jobs and keep our
economy dynamic and growing. If we postpone until 2017, there may well be no legacy for anyone. The
opportunity will have been squandered and our grandchildren will be playing by Chinas rules. That

would be a huge blow to American leadership

, to the leadership of both our parties, and to the economic

wellbeing of millions of people here and abroad.

2015 is make or break for TPP domestic politics are crucial, obama must use PC to
sway votes for deal approval in congress
Brown and Oudraat 2-6. [Michael, dean of the Elliott School of Int'l Affairs @ George Washing, Chantal de JOnge Oudraat,
president of Women in International Security, "Trade, power and opportunity" Washington Post -- www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/]

The year ahead will be a window of opportunity for concluding the TPP and TTIP negotiations.
Obama is in his final years in office, which gives him the political immunity he will need to stand up to

domestic opponents of trade pacts mainly in his own Democratic party. The
Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have pro-trade inclinations that, hopefully, will lead to approval of trade
promotion authority. But in 2016, electoral politics will take over in the United States and the

prospects for trade deals will dim . Americans tend to be preoccupied

with U.S. politics, but domestic politics in other key countries are also well-aligned for trade

deals in 2015. In Japan, Shinzo Abe won re-election as prime minister in December 2014. This is the best position he is likely to have to stand up to Japans
domestic agricultural interests and conclude a trade agreement. In Germany, Angela Merkel won reelection as chancellor in September 2013. As a popular leader of
the country with Europes largest economy, she is well-positioned to lead the way toward a TTIP agreement. TPP and TTIP

agreements would give

much-needed economic boosts. It is important for leaders on both sides of the
Pacific and the Atlantic to seize this moment. The politics are as well-aligned as they
Japan and Europe, respectively,

can be for success in 2015, but this fortuitous confluence

wont last.

Surveillance Docket Trade Off Link Module

Yes link and issue specific spillover - Plan specifically trades off with Obamas trade
agenda - PC loss, GOP division, legislative gridlock, house backlash and
independent docket crowd out link
Kim, 5/17 -- Seung Min Kim, Politico.com, 5/17/15,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/senate-cliff-nsa-patriot-transportation-trade-recess118040.html

Time crunch pushes Senate to edge of surveillance cliff With just a handful of legislative days left
and a trade battle still on the floor the Senate needs last-minute deal on the PATRIOT Act and transportation law.
The mad dash for Memorial Day is on. Capitol Hill is again barreling toward deadlines on must-pass
legislative items, this time on government surveillance powers and federal money for roads and bridges. The Senate, particularly the GOP,
finds itself in a bind over surveillance , even as the chamber remains bogged

down in a contentious fight over trade thats scrambling party lines and eating
up valuable floor time . Meanwhile, lawmakers are edging closer to a highway funding cliff though a two-month extension unveiled last week
could resolve that tension. Still, it all makes for a hefty to-do list before lawmakers flee Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess at the
end of the week. We got too many deadlines and not enough time , said Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate
Republican leadership. Noting the weeks spent fighting over other measures earlier this year, he
added: Legislative time is hard to get back but well just have to do what has to be done. The
most pressing and complicated hurdle is the stalemate over
provisions of the PATRIOT Act used to authorize the controversial National Security Agency
program that collects Americans phone records. Those provisions are set to lapse at the end of the month. The overwhelming 338-88 House vote last
expiring

week ending the NSAs bulk collection programs though phone companies would still keep the data that could later be tapped in smaller amounts for terrorism investigations puts

is an
important tool if were going to have the maximum opportunity to defend our people here at home, and I dont think the House bill does that, McConnell said of the
NSA program Sunday on ABCs This Week. I think it basically leads us to the end of the program. But McConnell, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other GOP proponents of retaining the NSA bulk collection program are running into resistance from
Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, as well as a bipartisan vow to filibuster even a short-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act powers. Policy matters aside,
time or the lack thereof is another major hurdle . McConnell, who sets the floor schedule,
considerable pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is demanding a straight reauthorization of the current bulk collection methods until 2020. I think it

has to contend with a debate over trade thats expected to drag out through most, if not all, of this week. All 100
senators would need to agree to move off trade and onto surveillance, and liberals have threatened filibusters on trade that would take considerable floor time to resolve. McConnell and other
Senate Republican leaders remained optimistic that the Senate will be able to finish the trade promotion authority measure this week, which would allow President Barack Obama to submit trade
deals directly to Congress for approval without allowing for amendments from lawmakers. Giving Obama the so-called fast-track authority could grease the skids for a deal on the Trans-Pacific

Democrats who oppose granting Obama the fast-track powers are

determined to drag out the trade fight as long as they can. That effort is meant

Partnership, a huge 12-country trade pact totaling 40 percent of the worlds economic output. But many Senate

to blunt support

for trade promotion authority in the House, where GOP leaders are a couple of dozen members

short of the number they

need to approve it. Meanwhile, a growing circle of Senate Republicans are airing

concerns about the House surveillance legislation and aligning with McConnell and Burrs more
aggressive stance on government surveillance powers to protect
national security . Among them is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination on a hawkish
foreign policy platform. Theres some real concerns that havent been really publicized to the extent
they should be in terms of the House bill, said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee . I think we need to
buy some time so we have a much better understanding of what we are doing. Sen. Bob Corker (R-

chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said recently that he believed the government
wasnt collecting enough data in the fight against terrorism. He said he would prefer another classified

Tenn.),

briefing, like one last week led by top officials from the FBI and NSA. My prediction is, were not going to be able to pass a reauthorization, said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he
prefers the straight extension proposed by McConnell and Burr. I think

the House has already spoken. Thats

probably about as good as were gonna have . I think that is unfortunate. Top Senate
Republicans many of whom back the bulk collection of phone records and would
like to see the programs extended until 2020 have strongly
suggested that a short-term reauthorization may be the only option they can support ,
considering the deep divisions within the GOP and the dwindling timeline . McConnell
said Sunday that a two-month extension, which he filed late last week,

would allow for reassurance that the House legislation would be

effective.

That Dooms Passage

Behsudi, 15 -- Adam, Trade reporter for POLITICO Pro, Prior to joining POLITICO, he covered international trade
policy for Inside U.S. Trade, where he tracked down the latest news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Politico, 1/2/15,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/trade-outlook-2015-113793.html?hp=t3_r
Trade's big breakout Could 2015 be the year of trillion-dollar deals? The new Republican

majority in Congress could turn 2015

into the year of the trade deal. Republicans and President Barack Obama are both eager to act on a massive
Asia-Pacific deal, an even bigger agreement with the European Union and legislation that would fast-track their approval by Congress
all of which have a shot of moving next year. So while many in Washington are bracing for stalemates on issues as wide-ranging as health care to
immigration, the climate could be just right to move the kind of bipartisan trade agreements not seen since

NAFTA 20 years ago. And with trillions of dollars at stake for both the domestic and global economies,
trade could become a signature issue for both Republicans and the president as they look to
claim significant political victories. The temperature is rising , and I think, at least now, we have
President Obama making very direct comments to support the

trade agenda in a way that I hadnt seen in a long while , said Mireya
Solis, a senior fellow and Japan expert at the Brookings Institution. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement, which would cover about 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic product and about a third of global trade, is expected to
get a huge boost from the GOP takeover of the Senate, with Republicans eager to pass legislation that would expedite
congressional approval of that and several other pacts. But the trade promotion authority legislation, which would allow Obama to send the
agreement to lawmakers for an up-or-down vote with no amendments, could also serve as a legislative vehicle for a slew of other trade bills that
have been waiting in the wings, including measures to renew tariff cuts for developing nations, sub-Saharan Africa and U.S. manufacturers, and
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The last time Washington saw even a piece of this kind of trade action was in 2011, when Congress
approved the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade deals in rapid succession. The United States is also expected to finish negotiations on
major expansion of an Information Technology Agreement with nearly 80 countries that account for about 90 percent of world technology trade.
The deal, which would eliminate duties on a long list of tech products, came within a hairs breadth of concluding this month, but talks broke
down after China refused to meet other countries demands for concessions on what goods to make duty-free. The White House will also press
forward with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union, a deal even bigger than the
TPP, with European Union leaders earlier this month calling for the talks to finish up by the end of 2015. If all of that isnt enough, the U.S. is
also pushing a new Environmental Goods Agreement with 13 other members of the World Trade Organization including China and the EU
that compose about 86 percent of global trade. Talks on a new global services agreement and a bilateral investment treaty with China also will
proceed. Not all of those will get done in 2015, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said. But we hope its a very productive year both
in terms of negotiations and the legislative agenda. Before the biggest trade deals can get done, Obama will need to get lawmakers to give him
the legislative authority to expedite their debate and passage. Also known as fast-track legislation, the Obama-backed TPA bill failed to advance
earlier this year after outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to take it up out of concern that a vote on the bill before the
midterm elections would put Democrats in the politically hazardous position of possibly damaging their support from labor and environmental
groups. Even with the GOP majority in the Senate, the bill will still need Democratic support to get through Congress, political observers say.

critical item here is the extent to which the president manages

what Ive characterized as intraparty politics for Democrats,

The

said Scott Miller, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I think everybody has
concluded, including myself, that
Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the

this needs to be a bipartisan effort.

House Speaker John

White House needs to rally support from at least 50 House Democrats to get the bill through the

lower chamber no

easy task given the post-election decline in the number of trade-friendly Democrats.
Underscoring the difficulties the administration could face from intransigent Democrats, the White
Houses legislative abilities were tested just this month when countering Democratic opposition to the massive

even if the votes on a fasttrack bill can be had, this years stalled effort to get the legislation underway has
left little time to spare , especially given that Democratic
support could again grow more scarce once the presidential campaign kicks
into full gear toward the beginning of 2016. The point isnt lost on congressional trade
leaders . Incoming Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said trade will top the committees agenda in early 2015. Sen. John
spending package, which barely squeaked through to passage, Miller said. And

Thune (R-S.D.), a Finance committee member and No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership as Republican Conference chairman, said the bill would
likely be one of the first pieces of legislation that emerges from the panel, which has jurisdiction over trade. Trade supporters consider the bill
vital to ushering the Asia-Pacific trade talks toward their conclusion because it would give other countries the confidence to resolve major
outstanding issues such as access to medicines in developing nations, environmental protections and Japanese agricultural and U.S. auto tariffs
without having to worry that any hard-won concessions could be picked apart by congressional amendment. Bilateral talks between the U.S.
and Japan on the tariffs issue have proved particularly troublesome for the larger deal. In a breakthrough last month, Tokyo proposed more
meaningful tariff cuts on U.S. beef, pork and dairy products, but the negotiations have since stalled again over the United States refusal
to meet Japans demands for lower auto parts tariffs. Theyre kind of stuck because nobodys sure where the United States bottom lines are,
Miller said. I think thats the reason to get TPA, so all our trading partners know where the Congress bottom line is, and at that

point you conclude pretty quickly. The first six months of the year will be a critical window for finishing up the talks given the
tight timeline, officials from the TPP countries have said. Even if the pact gets signed, it will still have to go through a
legal scrubbing and translation before a bill to ratify the deal can be introduced. That could mean that the
implementing legislation would have to be drafted over the August recess with a view to getting the bill to
a vote before Thanksgiving, a former Senate Democratic aide speculated. If people are motivated to
finish, they could do it really, really quickly assuming they got the

votes , the former aide said, adding that the timing that the administration and others are talking about
strikes me as incredibly aggressive, but maybe not impossible. In
2011, the House and Senate were able to pass bills ratifying the deals with South Korea, Colombia and
Panama in a single day, the aide noted. But those agreements had been concluded in 2006 and 2007 under
President George W. Bushs administration and had a number of provisions renegotiated before the Obama
administration brought them to Congress for a vote.

A2: No Deal Now

TPA passage gives Obama key leverage to finalize TPP negotiations - deal coming
soon, hell force key concessions
Baker, 6/24 -- Peter, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent
for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, Prior to joining The New
York Times in 2008, Baker was a reporter for 20 years at The Washington Post, where he also covered the White
House during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/obama-bolsters-his-leverage-with-trade-victory-but-at-a-cost.html?
_r=0

Obama Bolsters His Leverage With Trade Victory, but at a Cost

President Obamas

WASHINGTON

success in rescuing his high-priority trade legislation

from a rebellion by fellow Democrats strengthens his hand

internationally and paves the way for completion of the most expansive
economic agreement in generations. While the turbulent process was embarrassing for the president and deeply confusing for
foreign negotiating partners, Mr. Obama now has the leverage he sought to force the final

concessions needed to wrap up a free-trade pact bringing together 12

nations along the Pacific Rim. Talks should resume soon, and American officials hope for a deal in
short orde r.
TPA passage overcomes stalled negotiations Obama will get the key concessions
for final deal
Baker, 6/24 -- Peter, American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the White House correspondent
for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, Prior to joining The New
York Times in 2008, Baker was a reporter for 20 years at The Washington Post, where he also covered the White
House during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/obama-bolsters-his-leverage-with-trade-victory-but-at-a-cost.html?
_r=0

In the near term, though, Mr. Obama is emerging with a more potent hand on the
world stage, having avoided a defeat that would have made him look like a lame duck . The trade talks have come
as he is at a critical stage in two other international negotiations, one with Iran to curb its nuclear program, the other with Cuba to restore
diplomatic relations. Mr. Obamas trade representative, Michael B. Froman, will now renew negotiations with

individual countries seeking to join the trade pact to work on outstanding issues. After that, the chief
negotiators of all 12 countries will gather in hopes of pushing through the final disputes. Other

nations have held off backing down on the toughest issues to

see whether Mr. Obama would have the ability to deliver
congressional approval. With the congressional votes behind him, Mr. Froman will be in a
position to press Japan to make concessions on its rice market, for example,
or Vietnam on stronger workplace standards.

Impacts

---MODULES---

2NC Asia Pivot Impact Laundry List

East Asia war outweighs lack of communication, historical tensions, US draw in
nuclear use guaranteed.
Asia war is most probably and population counts make it the biggest impact
Mead 14 Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard
College, Obama in Asia, The American Interest, 11-9, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and South Asia

are

the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic growth ,

environmental progress , the destiny of democracy and success against terror

are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelmlike dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also
strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asias; Asian

success will make America stronger, richer and

more secure. Asias failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our security and perhaps even

survival . The worlds two most mutually hostile nuclear states , India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes ,
North Korea and aspiring rogue nuclear power Iran , are there. The two superpowers with a
billion plus people are in Asia as well. This is where the worlds fastest growing economies
our

are. It is where the worst environmental problems exist . It is the home of the worlds largest democracy, the worlds most populous
Islamic country (Indonesia which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the worlds most rapidly rising non-democratic
power as well. Asia

holds more oil resources than any other continent; the worlds most important

and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia
(where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and

West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the
theaters in the world today that most directly engage Americas vital interests and where our armed forces
are most directly involved. The worlds most explosive territorial disputes are in
Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries like Russia,
the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the worlds
most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of
geopolitical security , environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the

center of your concerns . That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obamas
trip is intended to address.

Escalation and accidents makes war very likely.

Max Fisher 11, foreign affairs writer and editor for the Atlantic, MA in security studies from
Johns Hopkins, Oct 31 2011, 5 Most Likely Ways the U.S. and China Could Spark Accidental
Nuclear War, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/5-most-likely-ways-theus-and-china-could-spark-accidental-nuclear-war/247616
Neither the U.S. nor China has any interest in any kind of war with one other, nuclear or non-nuclear. The greater
risk is an accident. Here's how it would happen. First, an unforeseen event that sparks a small conflict or threat of
conflict. Second, a rapid escalation that moves too fast for either side to defuse. And, third, a mutual
misunderstanding of one another's intentions. This three-part process can move so quickly that the best way to avert a nuclear war is for both
sides to have absolute confidence that they understand when the other will and will not use a nuclear weapon. Without this, U.S.

and
Chinese policy-makers would have to guess -- perhaps with only a few minutes -- if and when the

other side would go nuclear. This is especially scary because both sides have good reason to err on the side of assuming nuclear
war. If you think there's a 50-50 chance that someone is about to lob a nuclear bomb at you, your incentive is to launch a preventative strike, just
to be safe. This is especially true because you know the other side is thinking the exact same thing. In fact, even if you think the other side
probably won't launch an ICBM your way, they actually might if they fear that you're misreading their intentions or if they fear that you might
over-react; this means they have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, which means that you have a greater incentive to launch a
preemptive strike, in turn raising their incentives, and on and on until one tiny kernel of doubt can lead to a full-fledged war that nobody wants.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union faced similar problems, with one important difference: speed. During the first decades of the Cold War, nuclear
bombs had to be delivered by sluggish bombers that could take hours to reach their targets and be recalled at any time. Escalation was much
slower and the risks of it spiraling out of control were much lower. By the time that both countries developed the ICBMs that made global
annihilation something that could happen within a matter of minutes, they'd also had a generation to sort out an extremely clear understanding of
one another's nuclear policies. But the

U.S. and China have no such luxury -- we inherited a world where total
mutual destruction can happen as quickly as the time it takes to turn a key and push a button. The

U.S. has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal with around 5,000 warheads (first-ranked Russia has more warheads but less capability for
flinging them around the globe); China has only about 200, so the danger of accidental war would seem to disproportionately threaten China. But
the greatest risk is probably to the states on China's periphery. The borders of East Asia are still not entirely settled; there are a number of small,

the biggest potential conflict points are on water: disputed

naval borders, disputed islands, disputed shipping lanes, and disputed underwater energy reserves. These
regional disputes have already led to a handful of small-scale naval skirmishes and diplomatic stand-offs.
It's not difficult to foresee one of them spiraling out of control . But what if the country squaring
off with China happens to have a defense treaty with the U.S.? There's a near-infinite number of small-scale
disputed territories, many of them bordering China. But

conflicts that could come up between the U.S. and China, and though none of them should escalate any higher than a few tough words between
diplomats, it's the unpredictable events that are the most dangerous. In 1983 alone, the U.S. and Soviet Union almost went
to war twice over bizarre and unforeseeable events. In September, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner it mistook for a spy plane; first
Soviet officials feared the U.S. had manufactured the incident as an excuse to start a war, then they refused to admit their error, nearly pushing the
U.S. to actually start war. Two months later, Soviet spies misread an elaborate U.S. wargame (which the U.S. had unwisely kept secret) as
preparations for an unannounced nuclear hit on Moscow, nearly leading them to launch a preemptive strike. In both cases, one of the things that
ultimately diverted disaster was the fact that both sides clearly understood the others' red lines -- as long as they didn't cross them, they could
remain confident there would be no nuclear war. But the

U.S. and China have not yet clarified their red lines for
nuclear strikes. The kinds of bizarre, freak accidents that the U.S. and Soviet Union barely survived in 1983 might well bring today's two
Pacific powers into conflict -- unless, of course, they can clarify their rules. Of the many ways that the U.S. and China could stumble into the
nightmare scenario that neither wants, here are five of the most likely. Any one of these appears to be extremely unlikely in today's world. But
that -- like the Soviet mishaps of the 1980s -- is exactly what makes them so dangerous.

And, multiple existential impacts conceded

-Economy
Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman
Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome
is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.

The threat

of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million
migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year.
A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability.
The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with
China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has

had to put down riots in its Far East as

well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic
largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing
threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat
of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed
emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid
off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and
the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.

Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from

poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999,
while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do
not bode well for the rest of Europe. A

prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically

raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders
actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big
bang .

-India pakistan
Chaffin 11 Greg Chaffin 11, Research Assistant at Foreign Policy in Focus, July 8, 2011,
Reorienting U.S. Security Strategy in South Asia, online:
http://www.fpif.org/articles/reorienting_us_security_strategy_in_south_asia
The greatest threat to regional security (although curiously not at the top of most lists of U.S. regional concerns) is the possibility that increased IndiaPakistan tension will erupt into all-out war that could quickly escalate

into a nuclear exchange

and Pakistan remain the most likely belligerents

. Indeed, in just the past two decades, the two neighbors have come perilously close to war on several occasions.
in the world

India

to engage in nuclear war .

Due to an Indian preponderance of conventional forces, Pakistan would have a strong

incentive to use its nuclear arsenal very early

on before a routing of its military installations and

weaker conventional forces. In the event of conflict, Pakistans only chance of survival would be the early use of its nuclear arsenal to inflict unacceptable damage to Indian military and (much more likely)

India would respond

in kind, with escalation ensuing. Neither state possesses tactical nuclear weapons, but both
civilian targets. By raising the stakes to unacceptable levels, Pakistan would hope that India would step away from the brink. However, it is equally likely that

possess scores of city-sized bombs

c ommand and c ontrol
would be disabled leaving individual
commanders to respond in an environment
clouded by the fog
of war and decreasing the likelihood either government
would
like those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, as more damage was

inflicted (or as the result of a decapitating strike),

elements

increasingly

that

(what would be left of them)

be able to guarantee that

follow a negotiated settlement or phased reduction in hostilities. As a result any such

conflict would likely continue to escalate until one side incurred an unacceptable or wholly debilitating level of injury or
their forces would

exhausted its nuclear arsenal A nuclear conflict in the subcontinent would

have disastrous effects on the world
professors Robock and
Toon forecast global repercussions of a regional
.

as a whole. In a January 2010 paper published in Scientific American, climatology

Alan

Owen Brian

the

nuclear war. Their results are strikingly similar to those of studies conducted in 1980 that conclude that a nuclear war between
the United States and the Soviet Union would result in a catastrophic and prolonged nuclear

winter which could

jeopardy
,

very well

place the survival of the human race in

. In their study, Robock and Toon use computer models to simulate the effect of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each were to use roughly half their

targets would be major population

centers. Owing to the population densities of urban centers in both nations, the number of direct casualties could climb as high as 20 million. The fallout of such an exchange would not merely be
limited to the immediate area. First, the detonation of a large number of nuclear devices would propel as much as seven million metric
tons of ash, soot, smoke, and debris as high as the lower stratosphere . Owing to their small size (less than a tenth of a
micron) and a lack of precipitation at this altitude, ash particles would remain aloft for as long as a decade , during which time
the world would remain perpetually overcast. Furthermore, these particles would soak up heat from the sun, generating
existing arsenals (50 apiece). Since Indian and Pakistani nuclear devices are strategic rather than tactical, the likely

severely damage the earths ozone layer

inability of sunlight to penetrate
would lead to global cooling
intense heat in the upper atmosphere that would

through the smoke and dust

Fahrenheit.

. The

by as much as 2.3 degrees

This shift in global temperature would lead to more drought, worldwide food shortages, and widespread

political upheaval. Although the likelihood of this doomsday scenario remains relatively low, the consequences are dire enough to warrant greater U.S. and international attention.
Furthermore, due to the ongoing conflict over Kashmir and the deep animus held between India and Pakistan , it

might not take much to set them off

. Indeed, following the successful U.S. raid on bin Ladens compound, several

members of Indias security apparatus along with conservative politicians have argued that India should emulate the SEAL Team Six raid and launch their own cross-border incursions to nab or kill antiIndian terrorists, either preemptively or after the fact. Such provocative action could very well lead to

escalate
-China

all-out war

between the two that

could quickly

Hunkovic 9 (Lee J, American Military University, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible

Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America,
http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf)
A war between China, Taiwan and the U nited S tates has the potential to escalate into a
nuclear conflict and a third world war , therefore, many countries other than the primary
actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India
and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that
participate in the global economy, in which the U nited S tates and China are the two most dominant
members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan
to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific
and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military
forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there
are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan
and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be
considered in this study.

-Regional hegemony
Rudd 11 Kevin Rudd, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Case for American
Engagement in Asia: The Australian Perspective, 9-15,
http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2011/kr_sp_110915.aspx?ministerid=2
THE GEO-STRATEGIC RAMIFICATIONS But as

nations change, so too do relations between nations.

The emergence of new

Asia will be
vulnerable to a host of strategic uncertainties, arising from the need for new powers to integrate into the global economic
and political order, and for the established powers to accommodate them. The potential for misunderstanding and the
consequences of miscalculation is also vast. Tensions like those we see in the South China
powers inevitably brings new strategic complexity, as the power relativities of the 20th century give way to the new ones.

Sea , the East China Se a, the Korean Peninsula and the Persian Gulf may
become even more difficult to manage.

Make no mistake: these arent just regional problems. Questions about the future of the
South China Sea touch on every regional countrys future, given their global strategic and economic significance. This theme isn't new, but what
I can tell you about this strategic shift is that we Australia and the United States will face it as allies. Sure, there is the possibility

of instability in our region.

But we've faced the possibility of conflict and actual conflict together in the past. Many different tests,
circumstances and challenges have put the acid to our alliance since the ANZUS treaty was signed, 60 years ago. We've been reminded again that
the only time the ANZUS treaty has been formally invoked was ten years ago this week in response to the attacks on September 11. But
military and intelligence cooperation with the US continues across a wide range of theatres within the framework of the Alliance. Here in San
Francisco where the ANZUS treaty was signed, all those years ago I'm reminded that Australian and American servicemen and women
have fought, flown, sailed and I'm reliably informed surfed together since the Pacific War. Today, that Alliance continues to grow in
meaning and intensity. We are fighting together in Afghanistan; working together against global threats like piracy; and responding together to
natural disasters across the region. For us, for our relationship, the end of the Cold War hasnt meant a downgrading of the importance of our
Alliance if anything, its become more intense and more important. So as we face the challenges of the 21st Century the challenges of the
shift of power to Asia we will do so together. Were working together to ensure our forces are aligned in the right way to provide for the
national security of our two countries, and to help us shape the emerging regional environment. Our forces have to be able to respond to the
range of contingencies that can arise in our region, including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Increasingly, we arent just working
with each other, but with other regional players. I'm not just talking about the Pacific, or the Asia-Pacific. The critical region for our future now

extends to include the Indian Ocean as well. The growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean starts with India's rise. India is the largest
democracy in the world. Forecast to be the third largest economy in the world in coming decades, it is in the interest of both the United States
and Australia for India to play the role of a major international power. For now, Indias focus remains South Asia. But its strategic weight is
increasing with its increasing economic size and strength. India is increasingly looking east with interest, both for strategic and economic
reasons, and because of long-standing cultural connections. But the importance of the Indian Ocean also lies in its unique role in maritime
security and sea lines of communication for a much larger group of economies, both in Europe and Asia. Lying between the Middle East energy
sources and the dynamic global engine room of Asia, its importance grows with each passing year. The pressures on the Gulf and

West Indian Ocean choke points will intensify, as India grows and East Asian centres of growth remain reliant on Gulf energy
and African resources. In the 21st Century, questions of resource, energy and food security are becoming more vital
than ever. As Robert Kaplan says, the Indian Ocean is once again at the heart of the world, as it was in ancient and medieval times. THE
ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES The United States has been a guarantor of security and economic
But the 21st Century will demand more . As the world changes, it's
even more critical that the US builds its engagement with our region. As the United States transitions back from tough and
prosperity in the Asia-Pacific for decades.

unforgiving wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it might seem tempting to resist the case for further international engagement. President Obama has
already rightly intensified US involvement with East Asia. It remains the case, in one way or another, that the

United States is vital

free
movement of trade , capital and people around the world . Sea-lane security ,
regional security in critical regions like the Gulf, open markets , the reserve
currency , deep and liquid capital markets who else provides these global public goods? America has faced these
in solving common problems collectively.

No other power is able or willing to support essential global public goods like the

questions before. On the

eve of entry into World War II, Henry Luce's seminal editorial in Life magazine on the American Century
a call for American
leadership in international affairs. It is in Americas interest and the worlds interest to provide that leadership because in its absence,
the risks grow that we will see destabilisation that threatens us all . The interdependence of our
was much more than a statement about relative power, as America assumed its position in the new order. It was

economies has been shown clearly by the financial crisis, and a collapse in the conditions for open trade would be an economic disaster for all
trading nations. I share President Obama's view that America can neither retreat from "responsibility as an anchor of global security" nor
"confront... every evil that can be found abroad". But President Obama talked of the need for a "more centered course"

and that lies in a deep US engagement in Asia.

I believe the vast majority of the countries of Asia welcome that continued and
expanded American strategic role in our hemisphere. As Indonesias President Yudhoyono said in November 2008, as the financial crisis was
wreaking havoc upon us, none of these global challenges can be addressed by the world community without having America onboard. And
conversely, none of these issues can be resolved by the United States alone. And as Lee Kuan Yew said a year later,
the consensus in ASEAN is that the US remains irreplaceable in East Asia. In the 21st Century, the

US needs substantial,

sophisticated, nimble engagement in the region.

-pivot
Colby 11 (Elbridge, research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, served as policy advisor
to the Secretary of Defenses Representative to the New START talks, expert advisor to the
Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, Why US Needs its Liberal Empire, 8-10-11,
http://thediplomat.com/2011/08/why-us-needs-its-liberal-empire/comment-page-2/)
Political sentiment in the United States seems to be turning against the interventions and nation-building
projects that have characterized US foreign policy in recent years. The revulsion at the cost and size of government, including the cost of
expensive wars in the Middle East, has been amply demonstrated during the debt ceiling drama of recent weeks. President Barack Obama has
spoken of the need to nation-build at home rather than in Afghanistan, while most Republican presidential contenders showed an aversion to the
Libyan operation and an unending expansive role in Afghanistan during their first primary debate in New Hampshire. Congressional grumbling is
growing against further doubling-down in Afghanistan and the meandering intervention in Libya. This is very much to the good. At times
over the past two decades, US foreign policy has lost its moorings in distinguishing the vital from the desirable, with the result that conceptions
of US security and humanitarian interests have become so expansive as to be seen to obligate preventive war against rogue states, coercive
intervention against recalcitrant dictators, and inordinately ambitious efforts at forcibly modernizing backward societies with baleful results .

this disorienting fever is subsiding in favour of a return to the more restrictive war-making and
intervention criteria typified by the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine, then theres cause for satisfaction. But the
pendulum shouldnt be allowed to swing too far toward an incautious retrenchment. For our
problem hasnt been overseas commitments and interventions as such, but the kinds of interventions. The US

If

alliance and partnership structure, what the late William Odom called the United States liberal empire that includes a substantial military
presence and a willingness to use it in the defence of US and allied interests, remains a vital component of US security and global stability and
prosperity. This system of voluntary and consensual cooperation under US leadership, particularly in the security realm, constitutes a formidable
bloc defending the liberal international order. But, in part due to poor decision-making in Washington, this

system is under strain,

particularly in East Asia , where the security situation has become tenser even as the region continues to become the centre of the
global economy. A nuclear North Koreas violent behaviour threatens South Korea and Japan, as well
as US forces on the peninsula; Pyongyangs development of a road mobile Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile, moreover, brings into sight the day when North Korea could threaten the United States itself with
nuclear attack , a prospect that will further imperil stability in the region. More broadly, the rise of China
and especially its rapid and opaque military build-up combined with its increasing assertiveness in regional disputes is troubling to the United
States and its allies and partners across the region. Particularly

relevant to the US military presence in the western Pacific is the

development of Beijings anti-access and area denial capabilities, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic
missile, more capable anti-ship cruise missiles, attack submarines, attack aircraft, smart mines, torpedoes, and other assets. While Beijing
remains a constructive contributor on a range of matters, these

capabilities will give China the growing power to

deny the United States the ability to operate effectively in the western Pacific, and thus the potential to
undermine the US-guaranteed security substructure that has defined littoral East Asia since
World War II. Even if China says today it wont exploit this growing capability, who can tell what tomorrow or the next day will bring?
Naturally, US efforts to build up forces in the western Pacific in response to future Chinese force improvements must be coupled with efforts to
engage Beijing as a responsible stakeholder; indeed, a strengthened but appropriately restrained military posture will enable rather than detract
from such engagement. In short, the United States must increase its involvement in East Asia rather than decrease it. Simply maintaining the
military balance in the western Pacific will, however, involve substantial investments to improve US capabilities. It will also require augmented
contributions to the common defence by US allies that have long enjoyed low defence budgets under the US security umbrella. This wont be
cheap, for these requirements cant be met simply by incremental additions to the existing posture, but will have to include advances in air, naval,
space, cyber, and other expensive high-tech capabilities. Yet such efforts are vital, for East Asia represents the economic future, and its strategic
developments will determine which country or countries set the international rules that shape that economic future. Conversely, US interventions
in the Middle East and, to a lesser degree, in south-eastern Europe have been driven by far more ambitious and aspirational conceptions of the
national interest, encompassing the proposition that failing or illiberally governed peripheral states can contribute to an instability that nurtures
terrorism and impedes economic growth. Regardless of whether this proposition is true, the effort is rightly seen by the new political tide not to
be worth the benefits gained. Moreover, the United States can scale (and has scaled) back nation-building plans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
Balkans without undermining its vital interests in ensuring the free flow of oil and in preventing terrorism. The

lesson to be drawn
we must be
more discriminating in making and acting upon them. A total US unwillingness to intervene would pull the
rug out from under the US-led structure , leaving the international system prey to disorder at the least,
and at worst to chaos or dominance by others who could not be counted on to look out for US interests. We need to
focus on making the right interventions , not forswearing them completely. In practice, this means a
more substantial focus on East Asia and the serious security challenges there, and less emphasis on the Middle East. This isnt
from recent years is not, then, that the United States should scale back or shun overseas commitments as such, but rather that

to say that the United States should be unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. Rather, it is to say that our interventions there should be more
tightly connected to concrete objectives such as protecting the free flow of oil from the region, preventing terrorist attacks against the United
States and its allies, and forestalling or, if necessary, containing nuclear proliferation as opposed to the more idealistic aspirations to transform the
regions societies. These more concrete objectives can be better met by the more judicious and economical use of our military power. More
broadly, however, it means a shift in US emphasis away from the greater Middle East toward the Asia-Pacific region, which dwarfs the former in
economic and military potential and in the dynamism of its societies. The Asia-Pacific region, with its hard-charging economies and growing
presence on the global stage, is where the future of the international security and economic system will be set, and it is there that Washington
needs to focus its attention, especially in light of rising regional security challenges. In light of US budgetary pressures, including the hundreds
of billions in security related money to be cut as part of the debt ceiling deal, its doubly important that US security dollars be allocated to the
most pressing tasks shoring up the US position in the most important region of the world, the Asia-Pacific. It will also require restraint in
expenditure on those challenges and regions that dont touch so directly on the future of US security and prosperity. As Americans debate the
proper US global role in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and Iraq and Afghanistan, they would do well to direct their ire not at overseas
commitments and intervention as such, but rather at those not tied to core US interests and the sustainment and adaptation of the liberal empire
that we have constructed and maintained since World War II. Defenders of our important overseas links and activities should clearly distinguish
their cause from the hyperactive and barely restrained approach represented by those who, unsatisfied with seeing the United States tied down in
three Middle Eastern countries, seek intervention in yet more, such as Syria. Indeed, those who refuse to scale back US interventions in the
Middle East or call for still more are directly contributing to the weakening of US commitments in East Asia, given strategic developments in the
region and a sharply constrained budgetary environment in Washington. We

can no longer afford, either strategically or financially,

to squander our power in unnecessary and ill-advised interventions and nation-building efforts.
The ability and will to intervene is too important to be so wasted.

2NC Trade Module

TPP critical to US trade leadership and reversing backsliding on global trade its
not resilient, new protectionist consensus emerging, TPP is key model, spills over and
sets bar for all future global trade
Ezell, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 10-29-14
[Stephen, Trade Promotion Authority A Vital Component of U.S. Trade Policy
http://www.innovationfiles.org/trade-promotion-authority-a-vital-component-of-u-s-tradepolicy/]
1. Regarding the first point, make

no mistake: there is currently a fight for the soul of

the global trading system . The years since the Great Recession have seen a dramatic
increase in countries use of innovation mercantilist policiessuch as forcing local production as a
condition of market access, subsidizing exports, stealing intellectual property, or manipulating currencies
and standardswhich seek to favor domestic enterprises at the expense of foreign competitors. Viewing
with envy Chinas rapid economic growth, dozens of other countriesfrom Brazil and India to Malaysia and South
Africahave enacted similar mercantilist policies, giving rise to an emerging Beijing Consensus (i.e.,
innovation mercantilism). In fact, as evidence of this, the World Trade Organization reported that the number of
technical barriers to trade reached an all-time high in 2012. And as this emerging Beijing Consensus
gains strength, it comes at the expense of the long-dominant, but now exhausted, Washington
Consensus which has believed in the unalloyed benefits of free trade, even when it is one-sided, and that
has fretted that robust enforcement of trade rules may ignite a trade war . As such, we need a new consensus,
one that holds that trade and globalization remain poised to generate lasting global prosperity, but only if
all countries share a commitment to playing by a strong set of rules that foster shared, sustainable growth.
And thats what the United States is doing in seeking to negotiate TPP and T-TIP agreements as model, 21st
century compacts that set the bar and lay the foundation upon which a stronger set of future global trade
rules can be built. If America doesnt successfully conclude and pass through Congress these nextgeneration trade agreementsand lets be clear, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish this without TPA
America risks losing out on the ability to set the agenda and standards for a more robust and liberalized
global trade system going forward.
Trade leadership is key to prevent great power war escalation.
Troxell, 14 -- US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute national security and military
strategy research professor, 7-15-14
[John, Op-Ed: Global Leadership Learning From History
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Global-Leadership-LearningFrom-History/2014/07/15]
We are in the season of discontent concerning the position of the United States in the world . Following the
financial crisis, it was the declinist narrative, and now it appears to be verging on a competency, or weariness, narrative. We recognize our
fundamental strengths and lean away from global responsibilities. Pundits from both sides of the aisle
wonder about the direction of our nation and the unease this has caused in the rest of the world . Signs of
retrenchment and floundering abound, and the concern over the future leadership role of the United States is not just a
partisan endeavor. The National Intelligence Councils Global Trends 2030 listed as one of its potential game-changers the uncertain role
of the United States. Whereas the United States was previously perceived as a global stabilizer, in the future,
the United States is increasingly perceived as a variable .1 Highlighting the perception of growing unease over the role of the
United States was the recent cover story in the Economist entitled, What Would America Fight For? The Question Haunting its Allies.2 Crises

in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea, and now Iraqall cry out for U.S. engagement in support of the liberal world order we have assiduously
supported for decades. Fortunately, this season of discontent corresponds with a season of momentous

commemorations that offer valuable lessons that could help us get back on track toward demonstrating
global leadership and responsibility. August marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, viewed by many as the
greatest catastrophe of the 20th century, the first calamity of the 20th century, the calamity from which all other calamities sprang.3 We have
also recently witnessed the moving commemorations of the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. Arguably, however, a more important
anniversary is the convening of the Bretton Woods conference, just 1 month later in July 1944 that resulted in correcting the failed legacy of
World War I by creating international institutions for governing the global economy. Finally, in June, despite Chinese government efforts to erase
memories of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen crisis, it remains an important reminder that China continues on an evolutionary and very
uncertain path. These three events speak volumes about important lessons the United States should be applying now as it struggles to define its
role in the world following its debilitating decade of war. As Robert Kagan recently noted, These days it is hard to watch both the conduct and
discussion of American foreign policy and not sense a certain unlearning, a forgetting of old lessons. . . .4 Relearning just a few

lessons from these commemorative occasions should help our leaders and people understand the
importance of U.S. global leadership as we shape the future, and avoid the perils of the past . Excellent
scholarship abounds on the run up to World War I, and two recent books worthy of consideration are: Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark; and,
The War that Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan. Among the many reasons for the outbreak of World War I, two stand out as of particular
importance for what they say about current circumstances: the perils of nationalism and complacency. Lack of trust between the pre-

World War I great powers was exacerbated by the failure to abate the rise of nationalism . The advent of mass
media led to the growth of a nationalist public opinion, fanned by politicians appealing to popular fears and prejudices and their populism.
Governments were finding, MacMillan concludes, that their ability to maneuver was increasingly circumscribed by their publics emotions
and expectations.5 Today, U.S. political leaders seem to be most interested in winning the next election, as

opposed to leading the nation, let alone the global community. Appeals to populist platforms on both the
left and right, along with an over emphasis on nation building at home, all stoke fears and nationalist
responses. Sure, all politicians want to win reelection, but occasionally the good ones rise above personal aspirations to make the hard choices
for the good of the nation. Newt Gingrich recalled that one of the most courageous decisions President Clinton made was to eventually come out
in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was a tough choice, and he had to make the case to the American people.
President Obama recently argued that leadership requires leveling with the American people about required sacrifices, yet an election focus feeds
populist responses and trumpets government payouts, not sacrifice nor national responsibility. Anyone reading about the coming of

World War I cannot fail to recognize the apparently unending series of great power crises that occurred
from the beginning of the 20th century. Controlled brinkmanship was demonstrated in North Africa, the Far East, Persia, and, of
course, the Balkans. French socialist Jean Jaures commented on the impact of muddling through, Europe has been afflicted by so many crises for
so many years, it has been put dangerously to the test so many times without war breaking out that it has almost ceased to believe in the threat
and is watching the further development of the interminable Balkan conflict with decreased attention and reduced disquiet.6 Leader

complacency, caused by repeatedly running to the edge of crises prior to reaching a resolution, leads to a
false sense of security. Our political establishment has mastered the art of kicking the can down the road
and muddling through, and has become complacent about the need to address pressing problems , most readily
demonstrated in our fiscal mismanagement. How many times have we dangerously approached the fiscal cliff? The need for a grand bargain to
balance revenues, entitlements, and government services has been recognized, studied, and commissioned for years without effective action.
Bruce Jones, author of the recent and appropriately titled book, Still Ours to Lead, offers this thought, . . . if the United States does not rectify a
perception that it is becoming incapable of managing its global financial role, the willingness to participate in a system still overwhelmingly
managed by the United States will be undermined.7 Perhaps we have become complacent in another matter. In a recent Brookings Essay,
Margaret MacMillan argues that: Like our predecessors a century ago, we assume that large-scale, all-out war is something

we no longer do. In short, we have grown accustomed to peace as the normal state of affairs. We expect
that the international community will deal with conflicts when they arise, and that they will be short-lived
and easily containable. But this is not necessarily true.8 Decreased attention may already have contributed to worsening
situations in the Middle East, Ukraine, and the Western Pacific. World War I was botched on the front end and the back end.9 The failure to
achieve a just and lasting peace in 1919 led to the outbreak of World War II. Economic distress during the interwar
years resulted in the rise of fascist states and easily rekindled the embers of nationalist revanchism. President Woodrow Wilsons 14 points were
not adhered to, including the all-important point 3: the removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality
of trade conditions among all nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. In terms of post-war economic
relations, the opposite occurred as nations scrambled to respond to the 1929 crash. Nations participated in a series

of competitive devaluations and enacted crippling tariffs, sending the global economy into a death spiral .
Our second major commemoration of this summer is the Bretton Woods conference , convened shortly after the DDay landings and well before the end of World War II. It was focused on creating a post-war international regime based
on rules designed to govern the global economy. Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, these rules now govern the vast
majority of the globally interconnected economy. The results of this conference point to the importance of institutional arrangements to monitor
and support the global economy, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development,
better known today as it has evolved into the World Bank (WB); and the commitment to free trade. Conference attendees initially debated the
creation of the International Trade Organization, which at the time proved to be a bridge too far, and thus they settled on the General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Through a series of multinational negotiating rounds and agreements, culminating in the creation of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, GATT, and now the WTO, have succeeded in broad tariff reductions and a dramatic increase in global trade.
The liberal world economy, based on open markets and free trade, and managed by rules-based, international monetary and trade regimes, has
furthered both individual and collective interests and promoted international cooperation. When it comes to the support for international
institutions, the President is correct in highlighting their importance. But some of that support should also be expressed in action, particularly as it
relates to the global economy. Once again the President is right to focus on the key source of American strength: a growing economy, and there
is nothing wrong with domestic nation building, but only if it does not replace an equal emphasis on the management and continued engagement
in geoeconomic affairs. International regimes, particularly those related to the global economy, require the willingness to fight for proven
common benefits. Globalization has provided proven benefits , but it has always been a hard sell with the

American people and thus our politicians need to continue to make the case. The United States is
currently engaged in two potential game changing trade negotiations: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These are both characterized as comprehensive and high-standard 21st century trade
agreements and could knit together most of the major trading nations, generating increased economic benefits for all. Of the two, the TPP holds
the most promise because of the possibility that China may join, further integrating their economy into the international rules-based trading
regime. Encouraging our negotiating partners to take the necessary political risks to finalize these

agreements would be facilitated if the United States showed leadership and passed Trade Promotion
Authority. The President called for this action in his State of the Union address, and was immediately rejected by Senator Harry Reid.
Congress also needs to make progress on IMF reforms. Economics represents a positive-sum game and leads to international cooperation. The
United States needs to level with the American people and show leadership in this area. Bretton Woods points to the essential role

of the United States in supporting these global economic arrangements. The Bretton Woods conference
represented a made in America approach to the global economy,10 and the United States was willing to
fulfill that essential leadership role. Political economist Robert Gilpin argues that: there can be no liberal international
economy unless there is a leader that uses its resources and influence to establish and manage an
international economy based on free trade, monetary stability, and freedom of capital movement. The
leader must also encourage other states to obey the rules and regimes governing international economic
activities.11 Global economic leadership requires the United States to lead by example and demonstrate
competent policy outcomes. This brings us to the commemoration of Tiananmen, which serves to focus our attention on the rise
of China and both the possibility of replaying the events of 1914 between transitioning powers, and the
prospect that the existing rules for the global economy no longer apply. Tiananmen represents a critical
example of the ongoing transformation of China. Prior to 1989, China, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, made rapid progress concerning
the four modernizations: agriculture, industry, science and technology, and defense. However, Tiananmen pointed out the governments lack of
attention to the fifth modernization, political transformation. China is now embarked on an even more ambitious reform agenda targeted at
overcoming the middle-income trap. The middle-income trap postulates that after developing nations have harvested the low-hanging fruit of
cheap labor and light manufacturing, they begin to lose their low-cost labor advantage and must transition to a knowledge based economy to
move into a higher income status. Chinas new leaders, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, recognize the need for dramatic

economic reform and have presented plans for a new growth model relying on the decisive role of the
market and rebalancing the economy to focus more on domestic consumption . The extensive reform agenda includes
reform of the household registration system (hukou), new arrangements to fund local governments, ongoing measures to address corruption,
inequality, and pollution. Chinas success implies an increased urban voice and a more individualistic consumer-based economy. All of this
presages the need to address the fifth modernization of political reform and transformation. Under these circumstances, there is

much that the United States can do to build a relationship of trust with China, to avoid the pitfalls of a
1914-style power transition, and to further integrate China as a stakeholder in the global economy . At the
same time we should not overestimate the challenge posed by China and recognize the difficulties (and possibilities) inherent in its current reform
agenda. A thoughtful array of transparent security and inclusive economic policies should point to

cooperation, not conflict. We have always maintained a strong presence in the Pacific, and for the past decade have been engaged in
intensive dialogue with China. The unneeded pivot seems to have heightened a sense of mistrust as China perceives containment, while at the
same time creating a perception elsewhere of a U.S. loss of interest. Today, U.S. leadership does not demonstrate much

appreciation for any of these lessons of history. Official statements claiming a continuing objective of
global leadership are insufficient.12 Leadership needs to be demonstrated through concrete actions . Failure
to learn important lessons from the events we commemorate this season will only serve to disadvantage our nation and condemn future
generations to unnecessary hardship.

2NC Heg Module

TPP is make or break for all US global leadership, effective grand strategy and
multilateral cooperation
LaFranchi, 6/16/15 -- Howard LaFranchi has been the Christean Science Monitor's diplomacy
correspondent in DC since 2001. Previously, he spent 12 years as a reporter in the field; serving
five years as the Monitor's Paris bureau chief from 1989 to 1994, and as a Latin America
correspondent in Mexico City from 1994 to 2001, Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2015/0616/How-Asia-trade-deal-could-makeor-break-Obama-s-foreign-policy-vision-video
USA FOREIGN POLICY How Asia

trade deal could make or break Obama's foreign

policy vision Hanging in the balance is Obamas vision of Americas place in the
world and the kind of leadership it can best wield in the 21st century, some
foreign-policy analysts say. President Obama is not battling to save his Asian-Pacific trade agenda simply
because he suddenly believes in free trade. For Mr. Obama, the fight in Congress over granting him Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) is about something much bigger. Hanging in the balance is nothing less

than Obamas vision of Americas place in the world and the

kind of leadership it can best wield in the 21st century , some foreignpolicy analysts say. Winning or losing TPA will make or break Obamas foreign policy vision of the United States no

longer the go-italone superpower leading a multipolar world where associations of like-minded nations build

regional security and economic prosperity , these analysts say. With the Obama
administration pursuing not only the Asian-Pacific trade deal but also a transformational trade pact with the European
the moment , they add, could not be more critical. Without the trade deals,
America does not get to set the global economic rules for the new
era, using trade to bind its allies around the globe to the US
and to one another , says John Hulsman, a US foreign policy analyst based in Germany. It is not too much to say, he
adds, that without TPA, there simply is no grand strategy for the new era in
Americas relations with the world.
Union,

Heg reduces violence and checks nuclear great power war.

Thayer, University of Utah international relations professor, 2013
[Bradley, International Studies Review Volume 15, Issue 3, within The Forum: The Decline of
War, Humans, Not Angels: Reasons to Doubt the Decline of War Thesis Wiley, p.409-10]
Accordingly, while Pinker is sensitive to the importance of power in a domestic contextthe Leviathan
is good for safety and the decline of violencehe neglects the role of power in the international context,
specifically he neglects US power as a force for stability. So, if a liberal Leviathan is good for domestic
politics, a liberal Leviathan should be as well for international politics. The primacy of the United States
provides the world with that liberal Leviathan and has four major positive consequences for international
politics (Thayer 2006).
In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the

international system causes many positive outcomes for the world. The first has been a more

peaceful world . During the Cold War, US leadership reduced friction among many states
that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy
and the security blanket it provides reduce nuclear proliferation incentives and help keep a number of
complicated relationships stable such as between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea

and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. Wars still occur where Washingtons
interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce wars
likelihoodparticularly the worst form great power wars .
Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and many
of the other positive forces Pinker identifies . Doing so is a source of much good for the countries
concerned as well as the United States because liberal democracies are more likely to align with the
United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview . In addition, once states are governed
democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced . This is not because
democracies do not have clashing interests. Rather, it is because they are more transparent, more
likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with US leadership .
Third, along with the growth of the number of democratic states around the world has been the
growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an

economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and

commerce, respect for international property rights, mobility of capital, and labor markets. The
economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good.
Fourth, and finally, the United States has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests
but to also promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earths leading
source of positive externalities for the world . The US military has
participated in over 50 operations since the end of the Cold Warand most of those missions have been
humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the US military is the earths 911 forceit serves, de facto, as the
worlds police, the global paramedic, and the planets fire department.
There is no other state, group of states, or international organizations that can provide these global
benefits. Without US power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly.

But, the waning of US power, at least in relative terms, introduces additional problems for Pinker
concerning the decline of violence in the international realm. Given the importance of the
distribution of power in international politics, and specifically US power for stability, there is
reason to be concerned about the future as the distribution of relative power changes and not to the
benefit of the United States.

Econ
Try or die - TPP vital to prevent future collapse of US and global economies key to
sustainable growth and vital to overcome structural impediments
Zoellick, 14 -- (Robert, former US trade representative, A Trade Opportunity for Obama and
the New Congress, 12-28, http://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellicka-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308
. So why does trade matter? First, Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew Research reported that 79% of Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living expenses for familiesoffering higher
earnings and cutting taxes on trade. Manufacturing workers who produce exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can be traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy
has focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade negotiators also use free-trade agreements (FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce. In recent years, such business services as software, finance, architecture and engineering
employed 25% of American workers, more than twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service employees earned over 20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in business services. Over the past five years, the World Bank

. With the boom in

U.S. energy innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in that sector,
too.
The W T O
reports that the N A F T A and the
Uruguay Round, the last big global trade agreement, have increased the purchasing power of an average
American family of four by $1,300 to $2,000 every year. The Peterson Institute
estimates that
the new trade deals in the works could offer that family another $3,000 or more a year.
the U.S.
reports, about 75% of the worlds growth has been in emerging markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade. As Americas highly productive farmers and ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales

American families, and businesses, benefit from higher incomes and lower-priced imports.

orld

rade

rganization

orth

merican

ree

rade

greement

for International Economics

Second,

and world economies desperately need a shift from

extraordinary governmental spending and zero-interest-rate
monetary policies to growth led by the private sector. Sustained growth can
only be generated by private investment, innovation and
purchases . American companies need greater confidence in free-enterprise policies
before investing their big cash reserves. Trade policy offers an international partnership to
overcome structural impediments to growth . The negotiations for the TPP
aim to create an open trade and investment network among the U.S., six current FTA partners, and five
new ones. The biggest additional market is Japan, a pivotal Pacific ally.
Abe wants to use the
TPP to press his own economy toward more competition, without which his goal of reviving
, for

example,

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo

Japan will falter

. Vietnam and Malaysia would also take part; they believe they can use the rules and disciplines of the

TPP boost growth, improve industries

to

and services, expand global linkages, and avoid the

middle income trap , where
countries lack of productivity growth slows the rise to higher incomes
so-called

--- PIVOT ---

I/L: TPP Key to Pivot

TPP crucial to Asia pivot will collapse without it, but passage overcomes all other
alt causes.
Kehoe 1-26. [John, Washington correspondent, "Pacific trade pact is all about containing China" Australia Financial Review -www.afr.com/opinion/pacific-trade-pact-is-all-about-containing-china-20150126-12y7kj]
The planned TPP involves 12 Pacific Rim countries accounting for about 40 per cent of world GDP and one-third of global trade. It is

the

centrepiece of the Obama administration's "pivot", renamed the "rebalance", to Asia. Obama's
request to Congress to grant him the unfettered power to complete a multilateral deal via trade promotion authority is welcomed, including by
Australia. A failure by Obama to overcome free-trade opposition by Democrats beholden to unions, and some Republicans opposed to
bestowing on Obama the power to unilaterally negotiate the details of trade deals,

would severely damage

the US's credibility in Asia. Asian allies, partly out of concern about China's growing
power in the region, are anxious to see the TPP deal sealed. It is the key economic aspect of the US's
tripartite rebalance, to complement the security and diplomatic pieces. Kurt Campbell, the former
assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs, and architect of the pivot, argues the TPP is
critical to US credibility in Asia. "If the United States does everything right in Asia, goes to the meetings,
participates but we don't get TPP done, it's very hard to succeed," Campbell said in a speech in Washington last
September. "If we make a lot of mistakes but get TPP done, we can still be successful in Asia. That's how
important TPP is."

Thumpers are irrel TPP is the acid test

Pennington, 6/18 Mathew, Reporter on US -Asian affairs for The Associated Press, US News and World
Report, 6/18/15, http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/06/18/analysis-obama-asia-policy-facestoughest-test-on-trade
Analysis: Trade

bill poses toughest test to credibility of Obama's Asia

policy Critics have long predicted that President Barack Obama's policy to shift America's focus toward
Asia is doomed. The legislative battle over his trade agenda could prove the acid test.
Legislation to smooth the way for

a free-trade pact with 11 other Asia-Pacific nations hit a wall in Congress last week, but
obstacles
remain principally, opposition from Obama's fellow Democrats who believe trade deals cost American
jobs. The Obama administration itself has always presented the Trans-Pacific
was given new life Thursday as the House took a first step to reverse the setback as soon as the July 4 national holiday. Tough

Partnership as crucial to its "pivot " toward the increasingly prosperous Asian region, after a post9/11 preoccupation with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Officials

have been at pains to point out the policy means

more than ramping up America's military presence to counter rising power

China. But the administration was slow off the blocks in the politically prickly task of getting congressional support for "fast track" authority for
the president to negotiate trade pacts that lawmakers can approve or reject but not amend. That's viewed as essential for winning eventual U.S.
ratification for TPP. The upshot was a logjam in Congress that Obama and his legislative allies which in this case are mostly Republicans
are seeking to break. The House voted in favor of fast track on Thursday, but uncertainties remain on the path ahead. That stand-alone measure
now goes to the Senate. A companion bill to provide federal aid for workers harmed by imports awaits action in both houses in the coming days.
The two measures were originally combined into one, to sweeten the deal for union-backed Democrats who voted against it anyway last Friday
a political setback that was greeted with anguish by Asia experts in Washington and former administration officials. Larry Summers, a former
director of the National Economic Council in the Obama White House, wrote then that unless the trade legislation votes were successfully
revisited, it would "doom" the TPP. "It would leave the grand strategy of rebalancing U.S. foreign policy toward

Asia with no meaningful nonmilitary component, " he said. Obama, who was born in
Hawaii and spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, has described himself as "America's first Pacific President." He took office believing that in
no small measure, America's future is tied to Asia's, as the center of global economic growth has shifted eastward.

His grand strategy to elevate America's profile in the region has been welcomed both in Washington and
in Asia, where China's assertive behavior in disputed maritime territories has unnerved its neighbors. But
skepticism has grown. Preoccupation with crises in the Mideast, cuts to the U.S. aid and defense budgets,

and domestic political woes have all been held out as reasons for Obama's signature foreign policy to fail.
The pivot has variously been described by critical U.S.-based commentators as "defunct," suffering a
"slow death," ''shrinking" or in need of a serious "rethink." This time, however, the crisis

of confidence is more acute in the Asia-Pacific itself.

Australian Trade

Minister Andrew Robb told Australian Broadcasting Corp. on Wednesday that

TPP nations could be just one week's

negotiation away from completing the agreement, but if fast track isn't resolved in the next two or three weeks, "I think we've
got a real problem with the future of the TPP." New Zealand Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser said the problems in Congress
could stall the agreement until 2018. Singapore's Foreign Minister K Shanmugam put the U.S. dilemma in
broader but starker terms. "Do you want to be part of the region or you want to be out of the region? " he
told a Washington audience this week.

TPP is top Obama agenda priority failure is a death blow for Asia pivot and US
leadership in Asia outweighs all other issues
LaFranchi, 6/16/15 -- Howard LaFranchi has been the Christean Science Monitor's diplomacy
correspondent in DC since 2001. Previously, he spent 12 years as a reporter in the field; serving
five years as the Monitor's Paris bureau chief from 1989 to 1994, and as a Latin America
correspondent in Mexico City from 1994 to 2001, Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2015/0616/How-Asia-trade-deal-could-makeor-break-Obama-s-foreign-policy-vision-video
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, that Obama had hoped to conclude by the end of the year with 11 other Pacific Basin countries most

is currently at the top of Obamas agenda because of what it means for his
Asia strategy. Without TPA the ability to negotiate trade deals with the assurance that Congress will only be allowed a simple yes or no,
non-amendable vote on a concluded trade accord Obama has virtually no chance of securing a TPP deal. And without TPP, the Asia
pivot in US strategic interests that Obama has been pushing since taking office in 2009 will be halted in its
critically Japan

still tentative tracks reduced largely to the aspirational rhetoric that critics claim it has
been all along. For Obama administration officials, the Asia pivot or what they prefer to call a rebalancing of
US interests towards a dynamic and fast-growing Asia is not just about the number of US forces
stationed in the region (Two pieces of the rebalancing so far have been accords to rotate troops into Australia and the Philippines).
Perhaps even more important is the economic dimension of the turn to
Asia. Not only does Obama underscore at every turn possible the importance of securing Americas stake
in the booming Asian economy, he also notes that some power is going to determine the

rules of the road for the worlds most dynamic trading region .
(The insinuation being that its much better that it be the US and not China, the regions other dominant power.) The

challenge to

Obamas Asia policy and the death blow that failure to move ahead on

TPP would deliver to it is not lost on the regions leaders. If

you dont do this deal, what are your levers of power? Singapores foreign minister , K. Shanmugam, said in a
warning issued in a Washington speech Monday. The choice is a very stark one, he said in remarks
delivered at

the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Do you want to be

part of the region, or do you want to be out of the region?

Singapores top diplomat his tiny but booming island country is one of the 12 TPP countries noted that without

the economic
dimension to its Asia policy, the US is reduced to primarily a military power in the region. But in a part of
the globe where trade and economic prosperity are the focus , he added, thats

not the lever you want to use . Noting that the 40-percent share of global GDP that the
region represents is only expected to grow, Mr. Shanmugam said, In all of this, where is the United States? The

Asian diplomat sounded almost like he could have been speaking from White House talking points,
suggesting that if the US chooses not to lead that Asian countries will

have no choice but to look elsewhere. That argument may not sway
Congress , however, which some see as too inwardly focused to grasp the changes
going on in the world. We are shifting into a more multipolar world, but its not clear Washington
realizes that, says Mr. Hulsman, who is president of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a global political risk firm.

TPP rights the U.S. ship in Asia overcomes all of the other problems with the pivot
Cronin, 3-18-15 -- Patrick, Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center
for a New American Security, The Straits Times, lexis)
SOME business analysts are stressing that the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and 11 other countries
promises smaller rewards - if also fewer risks - than previous multilateral efforts to liberalise trade. But
such a judgment omits altogether the national security reasons for finalising both the trade pact and the Trade
Promotion Authority that would strengthen the role of the US President in advancing regional commerce. First, the

TPP would help to reverse the impression that the US is a

declining and one-dimensional military power . Whatever the image of US
power in North America, Asia-Pacific countries continue to harbour
considerable doubt about American staying power and
strength relative to a rising China . Even our closest allies in the region are
enhancing their economic and development ties with China. At the same time, they and others fear what continued
US military dominance could bring to the region in dealing with the increasing tension among major
powers. A multilateral trade pact accentuates the dimension of US power

and interest that appeals to all actors in the Asia-Pacific region. In Asia,
trade is the coin of the realm. The TPP rebrands America as a leading
market power, rather than just a security guarantor that brings big guns to settle local disputes . In addition, the
TPP bolsters a model of sustainable economic growth that is essential to maintaining

our long-term security posture , both with respect to defence spending and forward
military presence. Second, the Pacific trade pact would do more to reassure
our key allies than simply tinkering on the margins of our
military presence . Our presence is vital. But if we want to signal that we
are serious about being a permanent Pacific power, then long-term trade
frameworks are more compelling . Despite our military activity, Japan and Australia
remain anxious about our future intentions. That is not good, given how
important these allies are. Indeed, Australia is becoming increasingly important for rotational presence and exercising, and the only other country beyond Japan and South
Korea where we can imagine being prepared to conduct "Phase 2" combined operations designed to "seize the initiative". The converse of reassurance would be
an action - or in this case, inaction - that would sow great doubt on American

credibility . The failure to complete this trade pact would strike a serious blow to our
reputation, and one from which it would be difficult to recover .
The TPP anchors our future interests in the region that speaks to Tokyo,
Seoul, Canberra and others worried about US power and purpose in the wake of events such as the
protracted post-9/11 diversion or the impact of the 2008 Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy on regional calculations. A third and
related national interest in completing the TPP is that it would allow the US to entrench itself in the world's

most dynamic world and thereby reach out to new partners in non-military ways. This simultaneously

enables such new engagement and lowers the transaction

costs on our security cooperation throughout the region .
Importantly, among the other initial stakeholders in the TPP are three of the four South-east Asian
countries with disputed claims in the South China Sea. The fourth, the Philippines, is already a treaty ally of the US. But with this trade
pact, the US would be able to tighten cooperation with Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei without having to focus exclusively
on maritime defence issues. In addition, the TPP would also solidify US ties with Chile and Peru, two key South American economies with a Pacific orientation. Thus,
we can expand our regional partners while underscoring our broad Pacific role .
Fourth, the TPP gives us leverage in the decade ahead as we begin negotiations on second-round entrants.
This could be a major tool for engaging China, given that our clear objective is to

integrate a rising China, not to contain it . It also gives us a potential tool

for managing Taiwan , whose growing dependence on the mainland is leaving it little
international space for avoiding coercion. Other allies, notably South Korea, would like to join, and ought to be at the front of the queue. The US-Thai alliance
has been undermined by political instability in Thailand, and trade may provide a path toward alliance renewal. Finally, other key regional actors, especially Indonesia, could be prepared for

a regional trade pact would preserve and adapt a

largely US-created regional architecture as we compete to shape the 21st century global order. What we
want is what all nations in the region should want: namely, unfettered access to trade and the global
commons. The TPP would reinforce a regional coalition around common high-standard trade norms and
rules, and thereby balance against alternative rule sets that, for instance, favour state-owned enterprises. The aim is not US primacy so much as the
primacy of a rules-based system. For all of these reasons, beyond the obvious economic ones of
expanding trade in relatively new sectors as well as services, the TPP is squarely in the national security
interest of the US and the Asia-Pacific region.
admission in a second round, making the TPP a dominant trade framework for the region. Fifth,

Passage of the TPP key to make the pivot effective embeds US presence in region
and vital to regional perceptions
Miller and Goodman 15. [Scott, senior adviser and holds the William M. Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS,
Matthew, William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, "Conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership" CSIS -- January -csis.org/files/publication/141223_Green_Pivot_Web.pdf]
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the central economic component of the administrations pivot, or rebalance, to

Asia. A completed TPP would create the largest free-trade area in which the United States participates,
representing 40 percent of all U.S. merchandise trade, with potential for expansion to other regional
economies. TPP would help establish a modern set of commercial rules for the Asia Pacific, where U.S.
firms have a large and growing stake. And TPP reinforces the American presence

in the region, embedding the United States as a Pacific

power. Without TPP, regional actors will view the pivot with
skepticism, as primarily a military endeavor .
TPP solidify US commitment to Asia overwhelms alt causes.
Flournoy, Center for a New American Security chief executive, 3-8-15
(Michele, A Trade Deal With a Bonus For National Security,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/michele-flournoy-and-ely-ratner-a-trade-deal-with-a-bonus-fornational-security-1425854510)
On the Big Island of Hawaii beginning Monday, U.S.

officials will host trade negotiators from 11 nations spanning Asia and
the Americas to work toward completing what could be the most significant trade deal in a generation. Five
years in the making, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would cover 40% of global gross domestic product and a third of

world trade. Any such deal ultimately will have to make it through the U.S. Congress. In order to prevent lawmakers from amending the agreement and
undoing years of international negotiations, Congress will first have to provide President Obama with trade promotion authority, also known as fast-track, that
allows a yes-or-no vote on the package. This

is the time for advocates on both sides to move beyond the usual economic
arguments and consider the extraordinary geopolitical stakes involved. Not every trade

agreement puts Americas prestige, influence and leadership

on the line, but the TPP does . Much of the history of the 21st century will be written
in Asia, and no region will affect U.S. prosperity and security more in the coming decades. Few in
the region doubt the foundations of American powe rfavorable
geography, abundant energy and resources, healthy demographics, diversity and immigration, cuttingedge technology and education, and a penchant for innovation . But its less clear that Washington can
govern effectively and sustain Americas traditional global role. Bipartisan congressional action on fast-track authority would
provide a welcome counter to skeptics who question the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific. By opening new opportunities for trade and
leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers, the TPP would further fuel

Americas economic recovery and support long-term growth. A

healthier fiscal environment would in turn help Washington
reverse defense cuts that threaten to undermine the U.S. militarys readiness and
technological edge when we need them more than ever. Deeper economic engagement in Asia would also
help strengthen Americas security ties , which are a unique and

central feature of U.S. global power. These critical partnerships are at their
strongest and most durable when military cooperation rests on
a foundation of shared economic interests. Wealthier partners benefiting
from a more open regional trading system would be able to devote greater resources to
helping the U.S. address global and regional security
challenges , from counterterrorism and maritime security to humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief. The TPP also represents an unprecedented opportunityand one that may not return for decadesto establish
widespread trade rules in Asia that advance U.S. values and interests. The agreement would lock in stronger labor and
environmental protections, while establishing new rules on intellectual property rights and curbing unfair government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. Ensuring
that countries like Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam elevate their practices to meet these higher standards would yield economic and social reforms that the U.S. has long
sought to advance in Asia. This wave of reform would continue as other countries line up to join the pact in future rounds. Critics of free trade in general, and the TPP
in particular, claim these standards don't go far enough. Perhaps, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Given the painstaking negotiations and the
diversity of countries involved, disrupting the deal now would likely lead to no deal at all. In

that event the leadership vacuum left by the

U.S. would quickly be filled by other powers, most likely China, which would be more than happy to set
laxer rules and lower standards for global trade. How would the U.S. benefit from such a race to the
bottom? The good news is that this contest is Washingtons to lose . Polls show that more than twothirds of Americans support increased trade ties overseas, and there remains a strong bipartisan consensus for U.S. engagement
in Asia. Now it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure that the U.S. reaps the national security
windfall of the TPP. To fail would be a historic strategic folly.

Key to asia stability and pivot shores up current weaknesses and swamps alt
causes
Brown and Oudraat 2-6. [Michael, dean of the Elliott School of Int'l Affairs @ George Washing, Chantal de JOnge Oudraat,
president of Women in International Security, "Trade, power and opportunity" Washington Post -- www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/]
Second, turning

to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our time. The TPP
isnt a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce the United States
position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific countries that worry

about Chinas rise that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new, strong multilateral accord in a
region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would be stability-enhancing
developments. Third, TPP and TTIP pacts would strengthen Obamas personal credibility and the United
States international leadership position. Obamas failure to enforce his red line on the use of chemical
weapons by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has done real damage to his credibility in the Middle East,
Asia and around the world. Effective presidential leadership in these trade negotiations would help to
restore Obamas international credibility. A TPP agreement would also solidify the economic pillar of
Obamas pivot to Asia a geostrategic priority. More generally, effective U.S. leadership on TPP and TTIP would
enhance the United States standing in an era when many countries need strategic reassurance and want
U.S. engagement. Fourth and last, economic strength is one of the fundamentals of national and international
power. This has been true for hundreds of years, and it might apply with even more force today, given the emergence of a truly global economy. In a world
where national power and balance of power considerations are still important where some states are
failing and others are flailing it is essential for the United States and its allies to strengthen their
economic fundamentals and economic ties. TPP and TTIP agreements would help.

TPP is sin quo non of Asia Pivot Success and US regional leadership
Goodman, Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, 2013
(Matthew, December, economics and the rebalance,
http://csis.org/files/publication/131220_Global_Economics_Monthly_v2issue12.pdf)
Economics is at the heart of U.S. involvement in the Asia Pacific . This statement is as true today as it was in 1784, when
the first U.S. merchant ship bound for Canton set sail from New York. Trade, investment, and other economic ties across the Pacific today are
measured in the trillions of dollars, support millions of American jobs, and underpin our national security . Like administrations before it, the
Obama administration has

put economics at the center of its Asia-Pacific strategy. But it has arguably raised the
stakes by making the overall success of its policy of rebalancing to Asia contingent on a successful
economic strategy, in particular completion of a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The
economic leg of the rebalance is driven by three broad objectives: promoting growth and jobs, upholding
and updating the rules of the international trading system, and supporting Americas long-term presence
in the region. It is worth noting that these objectives get to both sides of the coin regarding the relationship
between economics and foreign policy: using diplomatic tools to support better economic outcomes , such as
more growth and jobs; andarguably more challengingusing economic tools in a strategic way to support foreign
policy objectives, such as strengthening the rules and supporting our presence in the region. In pursuit of these objectives, the Obama
administration has used a multilayered approach to economic engagement in the Asia Pacific. This has bilateral, regional, and global strands,
from the Strategic & Economic Dialogue with China, to TPP and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, to the G-20, half of
whose members are Asia-Pacific countries. And it encompasses all aspects of economic policy, including promotion of strong domesticdemandled growth in large Asian surplus economies; negotiation of bilateral investment treaties; and strategic use of development assistance. But trade
and TPP in particularis the

sharp end of the spear when it comes to Obama economic

strategy in Asia. Through TPP, the administration seeks to advance all three objectives mentioned
above, with an accent on updating the rules. TPP aims to establish disciplines on an array of behind-the-border impediments,
such as excessive or nontransparent regulation; preferences for domestic, especially state-owned, enterprises; and inadequate intellectual property
protection. The administrations aim appears to be making a successful TPP the driver and de facto template for a new multilateral system of
rules. Failure to reach a TPP deal at this months ministerial meeting in Singapore was disappointing but not fatal. Trade talks are always darkest
and noisiestbefore the dawn, as differences are narrowed to the most politically contentious issues. There are still grounds for optimism that
a basic TPP deal can be reached by the time of President Obamas planned trip to Asia next April. The stakes could not be higher for

the White House. Conclusion of TPP is the sine qua non of success for

the Asia rebalancing strategy . In addition to its economic benefits, a successful

agreement would anchor the United States more firmly in the Asia
Pacific and bolster American leadership ther e. Without TPP, the
rebalance would contain little of substance that is new and
would be perceived in the region as driven primarily by

military considerations

. The U.S. Congress can support the economic leg of the rebalance in several important
ways. First, enacting trade promotion authority legislation would give the administration the guidance and certainty it needs to close a highstandard TPP deal; without TPA, it is difficult to see how the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) can persuade its counterparts that it
can fulfill its end of the bargain.

TPP failure devastates pivot and credibility of US leadership in Asia spills over
throughout all US policy, Allies are already jittery
Hudson, 6/12/15 John, senior reporter at Foreign Policy and co-author of the
magazine's The Cable blog where he reports on diplomacy and U.S. national security
issues, Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/12/obamas-trade-defeatimperils-u-s-credibility-in-asia/
Obamas Trade Defeat Imperils U.S. Credibility in Asia Congresss rejection of a farreaching Pacific trade pact is more than just a political blow to the president.

Lawmakers from both major American

political parties joined forces Friday to defeat a trade bill that would have delivered a potentially legacy-defining victory for the president. But
Fridays lopsided vote wasnt simply a humiliating blow for President Barack Obama, who invested significant amounts of political capital in a
high-profile, last-minute lobbying effort that would help him complete a landmark trade pact with 11 other Pacific Rim nations. The

biggest consequences could instead be felt in Asia, where jittery U.S. allies
are already afraid that Washington is neglecting the region
while China continues to expand its economic and military
influence there . The potential demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would further
embolden Pacific leaders who believe their countries would be
better off siding with China than with a United States increasingly seen as
rudderless and disengaged. This will be a blow to American
credibility beyond just trade , Michael Green, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, told Foreign Policy. Asian leaders will question whether
the American political system has the ability to implement the
Asia pivot.
TPP key to successful pivot, US political and economic leadership in asia thumpers
and alt causes are a reason TPP matters MORE
Hudson, 6/12/15 John, senior reporter at Foreign Policy and co-author of the
magazine's The Cable blog where he reports on diplomacy and U.S. national security
issues, Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/12/obamas-trade-defeatimperils-u-s-credibility-in-asia/
Since the beginning of his presidency, Obama

has struggled to implement a planned strategic shift toward Asia, because

crises in the Middle East and Eastern Europe have dominated his agenda and forced the administration to stay heavily
engaged in parts of the world where it had hoped to gradually reduce Washingtons political and military involvement. The president had pitched the
TPP pact as a way to establish rules to guarantee Americas economic

primacy across a region that covers 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic product.
The sprawling pact one of the biggest trade deals in the world was also meant to forge
greater economic alliances with Asian partners that would in turn
en hance Americas political standing in the region . Experts fear that the
administrations failure to get the pact through Congress will only serve to benefit China. If

theres a vacuum or perceived vacuum in Asia China is prepared

to fill it , Scott Snyder, director of the U.S.-Korea policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations,
told FP. As an example, Snyder noted Chinas success in establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a multilateral financial institution Beijing
formed in 2014. The United States had long sought to satisfy Asias growing infrastructure needs through the
World Bank, but in the last year, Beijing has succeeded in making the AIIB a major player throughout the
region. Key American allies like Germany, Britain, and France have joined the bank, which has an estimated $100 billion in assets. Another
factor that plays into Chinas favor is the increasing irrelevance of the World Trade Organization,
according to Mireya Solis, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Historically, the WTO has been the
go-to body to set the rules on multilateral trade and investment. But for the last 20 years, political disputes
at the WTO have rendered it largely futile, leaving regional clusters of nations to set the rules

on key issues like intellectual property, telecommunications, and transportation. TPP provided a
major opportunity for the United States to integrate its economy into
this cluster of Asian countries. Without it, Beijings geographical
proximity will help China consolidate its economic power
throughout the region. If we dont write the rules on trade,
China will, Solis wrote in a piece for the think tank. Moreover, we will have no way to
encourage China to move away from its mercantilistic practices. In any event, if Congress ultimately fails to
grant Obama fast-track legislation, it could do lasting damage to a

key pillar of Obamas Asia rebalance. That strategy, according to

on three pillars of American power: economic, military, and diplomatic. The first pillar
involves an increase in active diplomacy in the region, a goal in which the Obama administration can
credibly claim progress through the importance it has given to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum and the East Asia Summit, two regional meetings that focus on free trade and economic growth. The president and top cabinet officials,
experts, relied

including Secretary of State John Kerry, have regularly attended these forums, which were given far less value during the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
presidencies. The

second pillar of strategy is raising Americas military profile in the region. On this front, its
a mixed bag. The United States has increased military cooperation with Japan and Australia when it
comes to air power and basing, but U.S. allies remain jittery because Beijings defense budget has
increased by 10 percent every year as China buys a laundry list of military hardware. The third pillar is greater economic engagement ,
which seems far less likely now than it did before Fridays vote. If the president cant get a trade agreement through, it will

lead to questions about what Congress and by extension, the

American political system, can get done, said Green, the CSIS expert. Those
questions are already being asked by Asian leaders concerned about
whether they could still see America as a reliable partner.
TPP failure devastates US global power, Asia leadership, security guarantees,
credibility and pivot
Collinson, 6/16/15 Stephen, senior enterprise reporter for CNN Politics, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/obama-trade-china-asia-pivot/
There's more than President Barack Obama's legacy, or his wounded pride, on the line in the showdown with Congress
over a huge pan-Pacific trade deal. As lawmakers appear ready to thwart Obama's renewed effort this week to secure the power to conclude pacts
such as the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, the implications for U.S. global power and

prestige could linger long after he leaves office in January 2017. With U.S. regional allies
anxious about China's rise and willingness to project military power, Obama has made what is known as his
"Asian

pivot" -- an increase in U.S. economic, military and diplomatic resources to the region -- a central foreign policy priority. The

TPP is a cornerston e of that process and is meant ensure the world's most dynamic emerging
market evolves into a rules-based system that benefits all nations, and it's meant to check China's ability
to bully smaller ones, such as America's friends in Southeast Asia. But if the TPP is thwarted, U .S.

credibility in Asia will suffer , and allies will again wonder whether
Obama's assurances that the United States will remain an essential Pacific power and
guarantor of security in the region will be fulfilled. On Monday night, House Republicans appeared
to be buying time as they planned to add an extension for a vote on trade adjustment assistance until July 30. " You are either in or you
are out ," stressed Singapore Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington on Monday, assessing the implications of a busted trade agreement for the U.S.
role in Asia. "It's very, very serious. The President wants it, everybody knows this is important, and you
can't get it through . How credible are you going to be ? The world doesn't wait. Not even for the
United States." A stern warning from an Asian ally Shanmugam's remarks, coming from a senior official of an
influential ally fully invested in Obama's policy of rebalancing U.S. power toward Asia, represented a
stunning warning to the United States.

Failure to pass the TPP will deck the pivot, US leadership, Japanese econ, Alliance,
trade liberalization and boosts Chinese regional dominance.
Economist 3-28-15. www.economist.com/news/asia/21647330-why-whiff-panic-has-enteredamericas-pacific-trade-negotiations-whats-big-deal
Mr Krugman is wrong there. Failure

to complete it would be a terrible blow to American interests, for a number of

liberalisation itself is of course one. With prospects of a global agreement at the World Trade
Organisation vanishing, Americas hopes lie in the TPP and the more distant Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
reasons. Trade

with Europe. In his state-of-the-union speech to Congress in January, Barack Obama dwelt on the worlds fastest-growing region, ie, Asia and
the Pacific. The TPP has also become central to Americas most important alliance in Asia, with Japan.

Concluding it would show that the two countries can overcome the trade irritants that have always tested
the relationship. It is also seen as a vital part of Mr Abes strategy to shake the Japanese economy out of
its prolonged torpor, in part by forcing structural reform upon it . This week Mr Obama confirmed an invitation to Mr Abe
to the White House on April 28th. Mr Abe will also make a speech to Congress. But an inability to conclude the TPP, combined
with renewed difficulties over moving a controversial American marine base on the southern Japanese
island of Okinawa, could make the inevitable professions of eternal friendship ring a little hollow. More
broadly, so would another central boast of Mr Obamas diplomacy, the pivot or rebalancing of
American interests towards Asia. Diplomatically, this has always looked a little perfunctory, as crises in the Middle East and Europe
have distracted America. The military component has so far not seemed very significant. And so more and more emphasis has
been placed on the economic elementthe TPP. Having advertised it as a symbol of their countrys
enduring role as a regional leader, Americans can hardly complain if other countries choose to interpret it
that way. Yet when Mr Obama made his pitch in his state-of-the-union speech for support for TPA, he did not make the argument as
one about global trade, the Japanese alliance or rebalancing to Asia. Rather, he argued it was needed to protect the interests
of American workers and businesses against strategic competition from China , which, he said, wants to
set the rules in the region. China is at present excluded from TPP, but is engaged in talks with 15 other countries, including the ten
members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, as well as India and Japan, on what looks like a rival trade agreement, known as the
RCEP. China has long suspected that the TPP is designed to keep it outone part of an American policy of containment. Why, for example, its
scholars ask, is Vietnam included? Its economy, too, is lacking in transparency and distorted by state-owned industry. The zero-sum illusion So

the struggle to complete trade agreements seems to have become yet another area of strategic competition
between America and China as they tussle for regional influence . As with the AIIB fiasco, this is unwarranted: both
countries would gain from the boost to the global economy that the TPP and RCEP would provide. And China is free to join the TPP if it accepts
its standards, which it has not ruled out. The dream is that, in the end, the overlapping trade pacts will merge in a broad free-trade area including
both America and Chinaunder American-style rules. So each should be cheering the others efforts on. Failure to complete the TPP

would be a serious defeat for American diplomacy for many reasons. Portraying it as a way of countering
China risks adding an unnecessary one: that it would look like a Chinese victory.

Key to Asia Pivot, Japan Alliance, US leadership, trade and econ

Green and Goodman, 14 -- Michael Green is senior vice president for Asia at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and a professor at Georgetown University. He served on the National Security Council staff in the George
W. Bush administration. Matthew P. Goodman, a former member of the NSC staff in the Obama administration, is chair in
political economy at CSIS, 4/1, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/01/why-obama-and-abe-should-take-lead-ontpp/
Why Obama and Abe should take lead on TPP Barack Obama has described himself as Americas first Pacific president. Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe has pledged that Japan is not now and will never be a tier-two country. Before they meet in Tokyo this month, the two leaders have a

unique opportunity to prove these words true by resolving their differences over the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). The 12 Asia-Pacific economies in the TPP negotiations are working toward a comprehensive, high-standard, 21st century
trade agreement. A TPP deal

among a group of countries representing some 40 percent of the world economy

would give a significant boost to global growth and jobs and help

shape the rules of the international trading system for years

to come. The United States and Japan are by far the largest participants in TPP , accounting for threequarters of the groups economic heft. A TPP deal

would effectively amount to a bilateral free trade agreement a

prize that has eluded the two countries for decades as they
have sparred over trade and, more recently, pursued FTAs with other countries. The
stakes for both Japan and the United States could not be higher . First, the economic
benefits of a successful TPP agreement would be substantial .
The Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated the annual income gains to the United States and
Japan by 2025 at $76.6 billion and $104.6 billion, respectively. Second, both countries have a shared interest in
updating and upholding the rules of international trade and

investment to meet 21st century realities . Washington and Tokyo have long
been champions of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, strong labor and environmental standards, and
transparent regulatory practices. Through TPP, they have a chance not only to strengthen

global rules in these areas, but also to create disciplines on

new issues such as digital commerce and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Finally, TPP has
enormous strategic significance for both countries. It would strengthen
the U.S.-Japan alliance, embed the United States more deeply
in the Asia-Pacific region, and underscore American and
Japanese leadership in the region . By setting the gold standard
for other major trade negotiations, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, as well
as multilateral talks in Geneva, it would also reinforce the two countries

leadership on the global stage

. The TPP negotiations have been slow going, with over 20 rounds and
several missed deadlines since the talks were launched four years ago. Substantial progress has been made across most of the agreements 29
chapters, but differences remain on IPR protection, state-owned enterprises disciplines, environmental standards, and market access. One of the
biggest remaining issues of importance to most countries in the room is greater access to Japans protected agriculture market. The domestic
politics of TPP are difficult for all 12 participating countries, not least Japan and the United States. Abe faces a formidable agriculture lobby and
an array of pressing policy challenges, from restarting nuclear power to carrying out structural reform under his program of Abenomics, each of
which will cost substantial political capital. For his part, President Obama faces a U.S. Congress where the leadership of his own party has made
clear they arent yet willing to give him trade promotion authority to complete TPP and where relations with the Republican leadership are toxic.
The president has been reluctant to push for TPA ahead of mid-term elections in November, when the Democratic majority in the Senate is on the
line. But despite the difficult politics, now is the time for the two leaders to spend some political capital on TPP. They should both renew their
commitment to the deal and show the flexibility needed to close the remaining gaps in the negotiating room. President Obama should signal
publicly ideally through a speech on U.S. soil before he travels to Asia in late April that TPP is

critical to his

strategy of rebalancing to the Asia Pacific and that hes willing to push Congress for

TPA after the mid-terms. This

would reassure those at home and in the region who doubt his commitment to the
rebalance and to trade, and also give other TPP negotiating partners confidence that Washington will uphold its end of the bargain if they
reveal their bottom line now.

TPP vital to asia pivot and US leadership in Asia reassures regional partners and
counter-balances china - commercial diplomacy key, overcomes alt causes
Marczak and Workman 14. Jason Marczak is deputy director of the Atlantic Councils
Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. Garrett Workman is associate director of the Atlantic
Councils Global Business and Economics Program (2014, TPA critical for US leadership in the
Pacific, Aug 1 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/213955-tpa-critical-forus-leadership-in-the-pacific)
Securing U.S. economic and strategic leadership across the Pacific depends on effective
commercial diplomacy underpinned by a clear twenty-first century geopolitical strategy. Congress
should be a vital partner in the ongoing American rebalance to Asia and doing so requires the timely passage
of trade promotion authority (TPA). Only with TPAa demonstration of Congress commitment to conclude an ambitious Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreementwill the administration be able to negotiate the best possible deal. TPA is essential so that other countries take US
positions seriously and agree to a deal that benefits US workers and consumers. If successful, TPP

could catapult the United

States into a new era of partnership with Latin America and countries across the Asia-Pacific. As
the fastest-growing U.S. trade partner, Latin Americas presence in a successful TPP could lead
to a new era of economic integration in the hemisphere. Such an agreement could broaden U.S.
relationships with economies on the rise and with markets close to U.S. ports. Expanding close
trade and investment relationships with Mexico, Canada, Chile, and Peru will provide immediate
benefits and job-creating growth in the United States. Launched in 2004 as a small but forward-thinking agreement to
liberalize trade and investment, TPP has

grown to include twelve member countries that represent 40 percent of

global GDP, 26 percent of global trade, and 40 percent of US trade . Along with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment

TPP has become one pillar of a US policy objective to foster international support
for new rules of global economic governance. The imperative of broadening Americas
commercial ties in Latin America and Asia is critical, but the geostrategic benefits of signing a trade
Partnership (TTIP),

agreement with eleven partners on

both sides of the Pacific are perhaps even more significant. Congress should be
mindful of TPP's major security-policy implications. Through increased economic ties, TPP will

reassure US partners across the Pacific Rim and act as a counterbalance to China. U.S. policymakers
need to accept that the United

States is the de facto TPP leader. Countries across the Western Hemisphere would

suffer major economic and diplomatic setbacks should TPP fail .

By the end of 2014, Congress must pass TPA to give U.S. negotiators the backing to complete the talks. A key element of this process will
demand that the Senate Finance Committee release a new draft TPA bill that can command bipartisan support. For President Obama, an

important first step is to publicly and convincingly convey the benefits of his international trade agenda to
the American people and members of Congress. Many have rightly concluded that more transparency is needed in the TPP
process. With full congressional buy-in, the TPP negotiating process can be made more transparent without sacrificing the confidentiality that
characterizes all international negotiations. Congress should see granting TPA as the best way to defend and even strengthen already high US
product safety, environmental, and labor standards in a fast-changing global economy. Multilateral

trade agreements are an

unmatched vehicle for promoting rules that reflect our democratic values: the United States
needs to be in the drivers seat. TPP's potential benefits for the United States are monumental. As
we embark further into America's Pacific age, and in tandem with Latin American partners, TPP
has the unmatched possibility to serve as the foundation for cooperation around the Pacific Rim.
Neither American business nor American national security can afford to miss this opportunity.

TPP key to successful asia pivot and overall US leadership

Nakamura, 15 -- David, White House Reporter @ Washington Post, 4/15,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-on-trade-will-put-him-at-warwith-his-party/2015/04/15/dabd42f4-ccc8-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
Obama aides were initially doubtful about whether the economic benefits would justify the level of political capital and presidential attention that

came to be viewed inside the West Wing as

having broader strategic significance as a cornerstone of the administrations Asia
pivot, a rebalancing of U.S. foreign policy attention to confront an ascendant China. The trade deal
would offset the Pentagons military buildup, White House advisers believed, and reassure the
would be necessary to complete the deal. But the TPP increasingly

region of the administrations intentions . The argument was: This is an

important leadership moment for the United States , said former
national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, who left in 2013. If the U.S. pushed hard and indicated its
commitment to the trade agreement, it would have a magnetic effect and draw in other
countries. In December 2009 a month after Obamas first visit to Asia, during which he called himself Americas first Pacific president
Kirk notified Congress that the administration would engage in the TPP negotiations. To build confidence on Capitol Hill, the administration
in 2010 reopened three smaller trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that had been signed by Bush but not yet approved by
lawmakers. After Obama aides negotiated new provisions to each including worker protections with Colombia and better access to Koreas
automotive market Congress approved all three deals on the same day in October 2011. The following month, Obama flew to an international
economic summit in Hawaii, where he

touted the TPP as part of renewed U.S. leadership in

Asia

and challenged then-Chinese President Hu Jintao to start playing by the rules of the emerging regional order. Over the next two
years, Mexico, Canada and Japan entered the talks, making good, administration officials said, on Obamas campaign pledge to renegotiate
NAFTA. The 12-nation pact now covers countries that represent 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic

product, though China remains on the outside.

Asia Pivot will fail without the TPP jacks US leadership.

Solis 3-13. [Mireya, Philip Knight Chair in Japan Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Center for East Asia Policy Studies, "The
geopolitical importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: At stake, a liberal economic order" Brookings -- www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-fromchaos/posts/2015/03/13-geopolitical-importance-transpacific-partnership]

The return of geopolitics is all around us. Civil wars in the Middle East and Russian aggression in Ukraine properly dominate the headlines.
But more quietly, a potentially more consequential strategic defeat looms for the United States : the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) may fail. Why should we care that some trade pact we have barely heard of collapses into ignominy? Quite simply: the
negotiations failure would have devastating consequences for U.S. leadership , for the deepening of key
partnerships in strategic regions, for the promotion of market reforms in emerging economies, and for the
future of the trade agenda. Consider the following: The United States would lose the ability to make the rules in
international trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been unable to update the multilateral rules
on trade and investment for the past 20 years. In the meantime, global supply chains have profoundly
altered patterns of international production and trade. Deep free trade agreements (FTAs) like TPP seek to
provide new rules that match the realities of 21st century trade. They focus on the liberalization of
services that are critical to the efficient management of dispersed production chains (telecommunications,
transportation, etc.), the protection of foreign investments and intellectual property rights, and avoiding predatory
market behavior of state-owned enterprises. With the stagnation of the WTO, we have moved to a system
of decentralized competition where different clusters of countries seek to define the standards for
economic integration. As President Obama has warned, if we dont write the rules on trade, China will.
Moreover, we will have no way to encourage China to move away from its mercantilistic practices.
The rebalance to Asia will stall . TPP is the second leg (after a reorientation of military resources) of
the policy of rebalancing to Asia. As such, its fate will determine whether this strategy advances or just limps
along. If TPP fails, doubts about the staying power of the United

States will once again rear their ugly head . The signature U.S.
policy to remain vitally connected to the worlds most dynamic

economic region will come to naught . Lets not forget that prior to the advent of
TPP, the United States appeared poised to be marginalized from the process of regionalism in Asia. The
U.S.-Japan alliance will lose a critical pillar . Trade has in the past been a divisive issue for the two allies. If TPP fails, it will
demonstrate that the United States and Japan cannot move past frictions over market access in agriculture and automobiles
to work in areas such as internationalization of financial services, protection of intellectual property, and governance of the internet economy that are
central to the 21st century economy.
Successful TPP key to Asia pivot and US leadership.
Klein 3-13. [Ezra, economics reporter, "Why the Obama administration is fighting for a trade deal its liberal allies hate" Vox -www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership]
6. There's also a bigger foreign policy objective here. TPP is central

to the Obama administration's long-heralded

"pivot to Asia." Trade deals tend to get coded as economic policy rather than foreign policy, but the
Obama administration sees that as a function of the Cold War and the post-9/11 era militarizing foreign policy.
Americans need to realize that the competition with China, etc., will be about using economic policy as
an effective tool of statecraft. 7. This is, the Obama administration thinks, a "put up or shut up" moment for
America. We talk a big game about wanting to be the global leader and fearing that China, with its
autocratic government and abysmal labor and environmental standards, will supersede our influence in
other developing countries. But if we're going to stop that, we need our leadership to be more than talk. If
America's trade deal collapses while China's succeeds, it will convince a lot of these countries that America's
political system doesn't work smoothly enough to provide the kind of leadership we once did.

I/L: China Miscalc

TPP failure dooms effective US asia strategy - forcing over-reliance on military
means triggers rising China tensions, miscalc and escalating US-China military
confrontation
Collinson, 6/16/15 Stephen, senior enterprise reporter for CNN Politics, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/obama-trade-china-asia-pivot/
But many foreign policy hands in Washington fear short-term political implications
could harm long-term U.S. interests. "The repudiation of the TPP would
neuter the U.S. presidency for the next 19months," said former Obama senior economic adviser
Lawrence Summers in an op-ed piece in Monday's Washington Post. The pivot strategy in jeopardy In not
his Asia
policy had until now been seen as a bright spot given the fracturing of nations in the Middle East, the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS
and the return of Cold War-style hostilities with Russia. His promise to channel power and resources toward Asia was
widely welcomed in the region as an antidote to China's rising might among allies
deeply concerned about Beijing's territorial ambitions on the East and South China seas. Japan, for instance, was
convincing his party on this point, Obama's entire Asia pivot strategy is in jeopardy. While Obama has struggled to stamp his authority on the globe,

deeply appreciative of Obama's forceful statement in April 2014 that U.S. treaty commitments to its ally were "absolute" amidst rising territorial tensions between
Tokyo and Beijing. While denying that he was trying to contain China, Obama

upped the U.S. military footprint in the region,

sending Marines to Australia and signing a defense agreement that will allow U.S. troops access to bases in the
Philippines. The administration helped lure Myanmar, once in China's orbit, out of isolation, despite a rocky transition that has not yet led to democracy. He
repaired ragged U.S. relations with Malaysia and played upon his ties with regional giant Indonesia after
spending four years living there as a boy. But supporters of the TPP argue that if the U.S. falls short of its trade goals in
Asia, its capacity to project power will be overly reliant on military means , a factor
that could further increase tensions with Beijing. "If you are out of the region ...
not playing a useful role, your only lever to shape the architecture, to shape the region, to influence
events is the Seventh Fleet . That is not the lever you want to use ," said
Shanmugam. As it is, growing

territorial tensions in East Asia are sparking fears of a military

miscalculation between China's forces and U.S. ships and aircraft deployed in the region. Fears of a military
confrontation Beijing's recently announced that it wants to build a navy that can project power
far from its own shores, at the same time that China is trading accusations with Washington over its
expansion of man-made islands among South China Sea navigational routes crucial to the global economy. There are
fears of an unintentional clash between U.S. and Chinese ships and planes
in the region.

I/L: Asia Conflict

TPP good key to Asia power projection and de-escalating conflict in the East and
South China Seas.
Froman, United States Trade Representative, 2014
[Michael, Nov/Dec 2014, The Strategic Logic of Trade New Rules of the Road for the Global
Market http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142198/michael-b-froman/the-strategic-logic-oftrade]
The Trans-Pacific Partnership presents an unprecedented opportunity to update the rules of the road. An
ambitious and comprehensive trade agreement that the United States is currently negotiating with 11
countries in the Asia-Pacific region, the TPP represents a main pillar of the Obama administrations
broader strategy of rebalancing toward Asia . Taken together, the parties negotiating the TPP
represent nearly 40 percent of the worlds GDP and account for roughly a third of all global trade. This
agreement would level the playing field of international trade by establishing the strongest environmental
and labor standards of any trade agreement in U.S. history. For example, the United States is pressing other countries to
address forced labor and child labor and to maintain acceptable working conditions. The United States has also broken new
ground with proposals that would address illicit wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and subsidies that
contribute to dangerous overfishing. Rules limiting such activities would help ensure that trade remains
sustainable and that its benefits are broadly shared. The TPP countries are also working to ensure fair
competition between private firms and state-owned enterprises that receive subsidies or other preferences. And
Washington is pushing to protect unrestricted access to the Internet and the free flow of data so that small
and medium-sized businesses around the world will be able to access global markets efficiently . As the need
for new rules has grown, so, too, has the difficulty of reaching agreement on the details. Emerging economies such as China and
India have pressed for a stronger voice in international matters, but they have been reluctant to take on
responsibilities commensurate with their increasing role in the global econom y. Earlier this year, for example, a
handful of countries led by India blocked the implementation of the WTOs Trade Facilitation Agreement,
which seeks to eliminate red tape in border and customs disputes and therefore contribute significantly to
economic activity, especially in developing countries. In this and other areas, the United States will
continue to press ahead, working with those countries willing to adopt stronger rules and, in doing so,
hopefully giving new momentum to the WTOs multilateral efforts . STRENGTHENING PARTNERS Trade has
played a leading role in many of the most important chapters of U.S. history, often as a tool for
strengthening international partnerships and alliances . The best-known example of this occurred in the wake of World War II,
when the United States provided more access to Western European countries and Japan than it received from them, in an attempt to speed their
reconstruction and solidify their integration into an open, rules-based international order. Trade also serves as an effective way to

send signals to allies and rivals. Signaling was the primary motivation behind the United Kingdoms push
for the trade agreement it signed with the United States in 1938, just before the outbreak of World War II. The British
gained little economically, but the deal bolstered the appearance of Anglo-American solidarity. Similarly, signaling was as
important as economics to the United States first-ever free-trade agreement, which was concluded with
Israel in 1985. If anyone doubts the strategic importance of trade, consider Russias reaction during the past year to the prospect of Ukraine
deepening its trade ties with the West. The global trading system also provides avenues for peaceful

competition and mechanisms for resolving grievances that might

otherwise escalate. Over time, the habits of cooperation shaped through trade can reduce misperceptions,
build trust, and increase cooperation between states on other issues -- creating an atmosphere congenial
to the preservation of peace, as U.S. President Harry Truman put it in 1947, while making the case for the creation of an early
international trade organization. Given recent developments in Asia and Europe -- tensions over the East

China and South China seas , the crisis in Ukraine -- the strategic implications of U.S.
trade policy have rarely been clearer. For many of the countries that would be party to the TPP, the

economic benefits of the agreement are further sweetened by expectations that the United States will
become more deeply embedded in the region. And just as completing the TPP would underscore
Washingtons commitment to development and stability in Asia during a time of flux, finalizing the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) would send an unmistakable signal to the world
about the strength of the U.S.-European bond -- a timely reminder, as the crisis in Ukraine has triggered
deep unease across the continent.

TPP key to Asian stability.

Brown, George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs dean, and De
Jonge Oudraat, Women In International Security president, 2-6-15
[Michael and Chantal, Trade, power and opportunity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-anopportunity-not-to-be-missed/]
Second, turning to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our time. The
TPP isnt a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce the United
States position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific countries that
worry about Chinas rise that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new, strong multilateral
accord in a region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would be stabilityenhancing developments.

I/L: Japan Econ

TPP key to global trading system and Japanese economy massive short and long
term effects, their ev doesnt account for confidence and stock boom
Green and Goodman, 14 -- Michael Green is senior vice president for Asia at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and a professor at Georgetown University. He served on the National Security Council staff in the George
W. Bush administration. Matthew P. Goodman, a former member of the NSC staff in the Obama administration, is chair in
political economy at CSIS, 4/1, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/01/why-obama-and-abe-should-take-lead-ontpp/
Meanwhile, letting

TPP drag on indefinitely doesnt serve the interests of Abe. His popularity , though still strong
by Japanese standards, is already declining and likely to sink further as a consumption tax hike

takes effect in April and he moves ahead on nuclear power. Abe should instruct his negotiators to
move substantially closer to TPPs principle of comprehensive
liberalization , especially on agriculture, while he and his government have the political capital to do so.
In doing this, Abe can take comfort that the near-term economic benefits of TPP
are greater than widely believed. In addition to improving Japans
long-term competitiveness , a TPP deal would give a substantial boost to
confidence , likely causing the Japanese stock market to soar as foreign
investors who have become increasingly disillusioned with
Abenomics pile back into the market. Political leaders rarely have as promising an opportunity to achieve
multiple objectives as President Obama and Prime Minister Abe have over the next few weeks. Coming together on TPP would
help create growth and jobs in both countries, uphold the global

rules-based order , and secure the two mens legacies as visionary Asia-Pacific leaders.

A2: Sequestration thumps Asia Pivot or any thumpers

Asia Pivot working now TPP passage key to sustain it.
Dhakal 3-4. [TIka, political scientist and commentator in Kathmandu, "America pivots to Asia" Nepal Foreign Affairs -nepalforeignaffairs.com/america-pivots-to-asia/]

If one would ask what could be the most significant foreign policy initiative of US president Barack Obama
during his seven years in the White House, and may be his entire term;an obvious answer is certain to be the American Pivot to Asia. No
doubt, his administration moved Americas military presence out of Iraq as promised, charted an effective

and workable exit strategy from Afghanistan and continued to counterbalance Russias belligerence in the
Eurasian region as well as in the global stage. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, these measures bailed the USA out of an
enmeshing war initiated by his predecessor George W. Bush; and with regards to Russia, Obama Administrations policy marked continuation of
a conservative US bottom line: stand by the European allies.Wading through the Arab Spring, liberating Libya from the dictatorship of Gadhafi
and Egypt of Mubarak happened in response to the local churning. Therefore, the most original contribution of President

Barack Obama to the American foreign policy is the Asia Pivot, which has already started re-balancing
Asia-Pacifics political and security landscape albeit in a lower yet increasingly longer-term profile . This
policy, on the one hand, acknowledges longstanding US and Asia-Pacific relationship, and on the other, prepares
platform for future policy configurations in favour of the current world order. This article attempts to briefly
examine the key operational ingredients of the construct of Asia Pivot and tries to touch upon what implications it will have in store for smaller
and less powerful countries like Nepal. The cogs of the pivot Americas Asia Pivot involves two basic components of

trade and defense, both complementing one another. Properly explaining this policy entails understanding Asian input to the
postwar world order that saw Japan and South Korea emerge as the indispensable partners of the US-led democratic coalition. As the two Asian
powers economically progressed from the rubble of the Second World War, their trade relations with the US jumped up. Australia, another

natural US ally in the Pacific, remained a part of this equation right from the beginning, leading
eventually to the recent free trade arrangement between democratic Asia and the Americas under TransPacific Partnership. Apart from laying the foundation of political and economic transformation in the Asian continent, the Second World
War also reshaped defense relations between the US and the Asia-Pacific. American military bases in the Philippines, South Korea and Japan
guarded Asian frontiers during the Cold War, and now seek to offer deterrence to the Chinese assertion in the South China Sea and Senkaku
Islands. Giving additional impetus to its existing military engagements in the Pacific, the US in early 2013, moved its 3,000 Marines to a base
near the city of Darwin,Australia. Major operational forces of the Asia Pivot are Japan, South Korea and Australia. While China is treated as a
competing power and a likely challenger, confusion persists regarding the enlistment of India despite both sides willing. The most

immediate motivation behind Asia Pivot seems to be the Obama Administrations desire to end the
George Bush era fixation with the Middle East. Moving away from overstretching hard-power in the
name of fighting terrorism, Barack Obama tries to balance his foreign policy moves by a careful mixture
of hard and soft powers, with an overarching objective of preserving the postwar world order, in which
the USA is left as the lone superpower.

Obamas newest military budget shows focus on Asia Pivot no thumpers.

Ratnam and Brannen 2-2. [Gopal, senior staff writer, Kate, senior reporter covering the Pentagon, "Against Other Threats,
Obamas Security Budget Sticks to Asia-Pacific Pivot" Foreign Policy -- foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/02/793982budget-asia-pacific-syria-iraqrussia-ukraine/]
President Barack Obamas 2016 budget for national security is a reflection of the administrations desire to

hold fast to its Asia-Pacific pivot strategy even as newer threats like the rise of the Islamic State and Russias aggression in
Europe impose new spending demands on various U.S. agencies. The Obama administrations $4 trillion budget for 2016
includes $619 billion for a broad set of defense programs and another $54 billion for all the U.S.
intelligence agencies to meet both long-term challenges and more immediate threats that have emerged in the last two years.
The State Department sought another $50.3 billion an increase of 6 percent from last year including $7 billion for ongoing operations in the
Middle East and Central Asia, and $8.6 billion for international security assistance that pays for a range of programs including counter-narcotics,
peacekeeping, and training foreign militaries. Obamas budget calls for raising taxes on multinational corporations and rich Americans while
overhauling the countrys immigration system to boost the economy with newly legal workers. The spending proposal, which ignores caps set by
law, will likely face a barrage of opposition in Congress, where theres no consensus on how to pay for increasing costs without raising revenues.
Speaking at the Homeland Security Departments headquarters Monday, Obama said his spending plan recognizes that our economy flourishes
when America is safe and secure. He said it aims to support American troops, bolster U.S. borders from threats, and help confront global crises
including the Islamic State and Russias violent otverreach in Ukraine. Underscoring the focus on Asia, Secretary of State John

Kerry, in his departments budget submission, called the pivot to the Asia-Pacific region a top priority for

every one of us in [Obamas] administration. And at the Pentagon, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work
said the focus on Asia remains at the top of the militarys five main priorities for the upcoming year . At
the top of the list, Work told reporters, are efforts to continue to rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. We
continue to do that. The Obama administration said the Pentagons budget is driven by the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, a oncein-four-year strategy document that mostly focused American forces toward the Asia-Pacific region while aiding allies in developing defenses to
deal with regional crises on their own. The strategy calls for spending heavily on long-range bombers, new fighter aircraft like the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters, and naval vessels, as well as cybersecurity efforts. The Pentagons budget includes $534.3 billion for regular Defense
Department operations an 8 percent increase over what Congress approved for 2015 and an additional $50.9 billion for Overseas
Contingency Operations that pays for ongoing wars and conflicts. That fund was reduced from the $64.2 billion Congress approved for last year,
largely because of the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan. If your budget is a truest indicator of where your strategy is

headed, then what the budget is telling us is a pivot to [the] Asia-Pacific remains the Obama
administrations focus while the current conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and in Ukraine are more near-term challenges that are funded on an
annual basis, said Todd Harrison, a budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

New Security Strategy doubles down on the pivot shift to diplomatic emphasis
supercharges importance of TPP.
Shen 2-10. [Dingli, rofessor and associate dean at Institute of International Studies, Fudan University, US dominance not right way of
pivot to Asia China Daily -- usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2015-02/10/content_19535923.htm]

The US government has just released its new National Security Strategy which stresses four main features, namely
national security, economic development, American values, and the international order. There is nothing dramatically new in the first three, as US
presidents always emphasize security, the economy, and democracy, the only difference is the priority given them depending on the circumstances
at different times. However, this time, the White House has added the fourth element to this document, the

international order. It is good that the US seems more willing to accommodate the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to
promote world peace and security, as well as global economic prosperity. In the face of the US' domestic situation, the Obama administration has
to focus more on partnerships and cooperation for his remaining two years in the White House. The new National Security

Strategy, however, has not forgotten the US' "rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific ". The Obama administration's first
National Security Strategy of May 2010 used the term "rebalancing" four times, but none of them applied to the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed,
Obama first raised the notion of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific in 2011. However, given the opportunity presented by drawing

up a new National Security Strategy, the White House national security team has reaffirmed the US'
commitment to rebalancing to the region. According to the latest National Security Strategy, the US will
employ a combination of tools in its rebalancing, including "increased diplomacy, stronger alliances and
partnerships, expanded trade and investment, and a diverse security posture". In this context, the US National
Security Advisor Susan Rice has announced that the Chinese, Japanese, South Korean and Indonesian leaders have been invited to visit the US

This was a clear signal that

the US is diplomatically committed to its rebalancing to East
Asia.
Sequestration doesnt thump pivot core pivot platforms remain strong, cuts only
spurring momentum for modernization and focus that increase pivot effectiveness,
shifts are from flawed and peripherial missions and platforms
The Diplomat, 13 -- 10/4, The Diplomat is the premier international current-affairs
magazine for the Asia-Pacific region, The Diplomat reaches an influential audience of
commentators, policymakers and academics with its in-depth treatment of regional issues.
The Diplomat provides expert coverage on: Geo-political trends throughout the AsiaPacific Defense and intelligence Environment, human security and development
http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/us-air-force-embraces-sequestration-and-asia/
this year, when she inaugurated the release of the new National Security Strategy.

US Air Force Embraces Sequestration and Asia Every problem represents an opportunity. For the USAF,
the sequester problem is being used to pivot to Asia. The decision of the U.S.
House of Representatives to hurtle head-long into a government shutdown highlights the current reluctance of the U.S. government to develop
any kind of coherent plan for funding its commitments. While the shutdown itself likely wont have a long-term effect on military readiness, the
already-existing sequester and the upcoming debt ceiling fight just might. At the same time, the U.S. military is undergoing a significant strategic
and geographic shift. Combining these two projects seems like a bad idea, but then, as they say, every problem represents an opportunity. Last

week, at the Air Force Associations Air and Space Conference, questions about the impact of the sequester on the future of American airpower
loomed large. The Pacific Pivot and the associated development of AirSea Battle (ASB), commits the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to an

extensive set of doctrinal and procurement targets, targets that the sequester may endanger. Its hardly
unreasonable to be concerned about how cuts in funding (especially haphazard cuts like the sequester) could
affect the ability of the service to meet these targets. However , with respect to the platforms that
will form the core of the USAFs contribution to the Pacific Pivot, the Air Forces commitment appears
to

remain strong . Despite the growing concerns about the F-35, the service has not wavered in its insistence that large

numbers Lightning IIs are necessary

to maintaining air supremacy. Similarly, Air Force leaders have consistently maintained that
the K-46 tanker and the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) will form the foundation of USAF
capabilities long into the 21st century. All of these platforms have obvious applicability to
the USAFs ability to project force along the Pacific Rim. Services are often
saddled with weapons and missions that they dont want, but that they must accept because of
Congressional pressure, executive pressure or the demands of inter-service comity. Sometimes, budget crunches can provide
an opportunity for services to discard their unwanted bits. Most notably, the Air
Force has suggested ridding itself of the A-10 Warthog , an attack aircraft that is exceptionally popular with the Army but less
so with the USAF. The Air Force considers the A-10 problematic because it is a single-mission aircraft
designed to perform a job that the USAF doesnt consider central or critical to

its mission . The combination of the sequester and the Pacific Pivot may finally give the USAF the
momentum it needs to dispose of the A-10 permanently, redirecting its efforts
towards more modern, multi-mission aircraft. Interestingly enough, some analysts
have also suggested major cuts

in the USAFs current bomber fleet, including retirement of the B-1B force and possibly of the B-2
allow the Air Force to concentrate its efforts on the next generation of

and B-52 forces, as well. These cuts would

strike aircraft, but would certainly detract in the near term from the project of re-developing maritime roles for the USAFs bomber force .
The commitment of the service to drones remains in some question. General Mike Hostage noted that Predators and Reapers are useless in a
contested environment, which is precisely the environment the Air Force expects to find in a conflict with China. The Air Force has also made
its lack of enthusiasm for the Global Hawk clear, which would appear altogether sensible were it not for the bevy of similar problems associated
with the F-35. In

short, while the sequester will continue to have an effect on how the USAF pivots, it also

provides an opportunity for the service to remake itself . The USAF

continues to see its future in preparing for high intensity conflict in
Asia , most likely in close collaboration with the U.S. Navy . This represents a
welcome shift from the last decade, in which the requirements of the War on Terror meant conducting missions
that the service considered peripheral with aircraft that it didnt particularly like .
Their ev only says sequestration creates uncertainty only makes TPA more
important signal of commitment
TPA and TPP Generates uniqueness shores up signal, confidence and effectiveness
of Asia Pivot but failure guarantees complete and utter collapse outweighs
military components and key to perceived effectiveness of our military alliances
anyway
Economist, 11/15 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797-america-needs-push-freetrade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet
In September, just

days after Mr Abe reiterated in America that TPP was crucial for raising Japans agricultural competitiveness and helping it
down. Each side blamed the other, though Americans continue to suspect

adjust to an ageing society, TPP talks between the two countries abruptly broke

that the problem is not Mr Abes own commitment but the weight the farmers carry with his bureaucrats. The

Japanese, for their part, realise that their

best offer may never be good enough for Congress, so without TPA there is unlikely

to be TPP. Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it central to
Americas pivot to Asia , a chance to show the countrys commitment
to creating institutions that moderate territorial disputes , and an
opportunity to show emerging economies (meaning China) what economic rules the global
economy should follow . At a time when there is uncertainty about the
direction of the global trading system , TPP can play a central role in
setting rules of the road for a critical region in flux, he says. The flipside of this is
that failure becomes an even bigger risk , which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort to prod a
somnolent, introspective Congress into action, he makes the dramatic claim that failure could mean America would forfeit
its seat at the centre of the global economy. Many pundits in Washington agree
that American leadership in Asia is on the table . Michael Green of the Centre for
Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure would undermine the impression of the
United States as a Pacific power and look like an abdication of
leadership . It would also take pressure off Japan and China to reform their economies . Mireya Sols,
a Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be a devastating blow to the
United States credibility . Those views are echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in Singapore says TPP
failure would be a disaster: If the domestic issues of these two countries cannot be
resolved, there is no sense that the US-Japan alliance can provide any
kind of steerage for the region. Deborah Elms, head of the Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre, suggests that
so far the American pivot has manifested itself mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in Australia. Without TPP, all the
pivot amounts to is a few extra boots on the ground in Darwin, she says.
Even members of Americas armed forces are worried . As one senior serving officer in the Pacific
puts it, the TPP unites countries that are committed to a trade-based
future , transparency and the rule of law. It is the model that the United States and Europe have
advanced versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to move the arc of Chinese
development, or identify it as a non-participant. Yet when Mr Obama mentions TPP, he talks mostly about protecting
American jobs rather than safeguarding Americas place in the world. The president has never fully put his back into
forcing a congressional vote on TPA . There is still time for him and Mr Abe to
rescue the trade talks. But unless Mr Obama leads from the front, Americas
own leadership in the Pacific will seem less convincing than he has repeatedly
promised.

No Alt Causes Commercial Diplomacy Key to Pivot

Marczak and Workman 14. Jason Marczak is deputy director of the Atlantic Councils Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.
Garrett Workman is associate director of the Atlantic Councils Global Business and Economics Program (2014, TPA critical for US leadership in
the Pacific, Aug 1 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/213955-tpa-critical-for-us-leadership-in-the-pacific)

Securing U.S. economic and strategic leadership across the Pacific depends on effective
commercial diplomacy underpinned by a clear twenty-first century geopolitical strategy. Congress

should be a vital partner in the ongoing American rebalance to Asia and doing so requires the
timely passage of trade promotion authority (TPA). Only with TPAa demonstration of Congress
commitment to conclude an ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreementwill the
administration be able to negotiate the best possible deal. TPA is essential so that other countries
take US positions seriously and agree to a deal that benefits US workers and consumers. If successful, TPP could catapult
the United States into a new era of partnership with Latin America and countries across the AsiaPacific. As the fastest-growing U.S. trade partner, Latin Americas presence in a successful TPP
could lead to a new era of economic integration in the hemisphere. Such an agreement could broaden
U.S. relationships with economies on the rise and with markets close to U.S. ports. Expanding
close trade and investment relationships with Mexico, Canada, Chile, and Peru will provide
immediate benefits and job-creating growth in the United States. Launched in 2004 as a small but forwardthinking agreement to liberalize trade and investment, TPP has grown to include twelve member countries that represent 40 percent of
global GDP, 26 percent of global trade, and 40 percent of US trade. Along with the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP), TPP has become one pillar of a US policy objective to foster
international support for new rules of global economic governance. The imperative of
broadening Americas commercial ties in Latin America and Asia is critical, but the geostrategic benefits of
signing a trade agreement with eleven partners on both sides of the Pacific are perhaps even more significant. Congress should be mindful of
TPP's major security-policy implications. Through

increased economic ties, TPP will reassure US partners

across the Pacific Rim and act as a counterbalance to China. U.S. policymakers need to accept that the United
States is the de facto TPP leader. Countries across the Western Hemisphere would suffer major economic
and diplomatic setbacks should TPP fail. By the end of 2014, Congress must pass TPA to give U.S.
negotiators the backing to complete the talks. A key element of this process will demand that the Senate Finance Committee
release a new draft TPA bill that can command bipartisan support. For President Obama, an important first step is to publicly and convincingly
convey the benefits of his international trade agenda to the American people and members of Congress. Many have rightly concluded that more
transparency is needed in the TPP process. With full congressional buy-in, the TPP

negotiating process can be made more

transparent without sacrificing the confidentiality that characterizes all international negotiations. Congress should see granting TPA as
the best way to defend and even strengthen already high US product safety, environmental, and labor
standards in a fast-changing global economy. Multilateral trade agreements are an unmatched
vehicle for promoting rules that reflect our democratic values: the United States needs to be in
the drivers seat. TPP's potential benefits for the United States are monumental. As we embark
further into America's Pacific age, and in tandem with Latin American partners, TPP has the
unmatched possibility to serve as the foundation for cooperation around the Pacific Rim. Neither
American business nor American national security can afford to miss this opportunity.

Military Pivot on track now despite budget cuts

Davidson, 14 -- Janine Davidson is senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Her areas of expertise include defense strategy and policy, military operations,
national security, and civil-military relations, 10/3/14,
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/why-isil-hasnt-derailed-americas-pivotpacific/95783/
The Council on Foreign Relations hosted Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work on September 30 for one of his first public events since
his confirmation five months ago. Work, an experienced hand in maritime strategy and force disposition, explained the quiet steps by which the
military rebalance to the Asia-Pacific has continued on course . Amid the loud headlines out of Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, it
is easy to forget that much of U.S. foreign policy is still being developed in anticipation of a Pacific Century. While unexpected

contingencies like ISIS have dictated the tempo and focus of deployed troops, they have, according to Deputy Secretary Work,
not hindered the overall rebalance, which largely continues apace. What are some of the most
tangible military steps taken since 2011? Work explains (emphasis added): By 2020, both the Navy and the Air Force will have 60
percent of their forces in the Asia Pacific region. We may not have as many forces as we would like, but 60 percent of the forces will
be in the Asia Pacific region. At the same time, PACOM is regaining Army units that were rotating through Afghanistan, and theyre

returning with all of their equipment now, such as attack aviation assets like Apaches in Korea. The army will have more than 100,000 soldiers
when all is said and done in the Asia Pacific region, including those on the West Coast in Hawaii and Alaska and Japan. And at the same time,
the Marines are distributing and having four powerful Marine air-ground task force[s] geographically dispersed

around the Pacific. All of those plans continue apace, regardless of how

stressed we are in the budget.

The four biggest construction projects since the end of the Cold War
are going on in the Pacific. Theres Camp Humphreys in Korea, where the Army is moving south of Seoul. Thats a $10 billion construction
project. The Futenma Replacement Facility in Okinawa, which will allow the Marines to concentrate into the North and become more politically
sustainable on the island is now moving forward. Guam is already starting. That will ultimately house 5,000 Marines at a new base there. And
Iwakuni, Japan, what an incredible place. Literally, the Japanese government shaved the top off of a nearby mountain, conveyored the dirt down
to a bay, put it on barges, and went around and reclaimed an enormous part, expanding the area so that the Navys carrier air wing thats right now
in Atsugi can move down there. The Asia-Pacific

also remains first priority for the United States most

sophisticated military hardware.

This includes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a deployment of the

Zumwalt destroyer class by 2018, and more THAAD and Patriot batteries to key locations. This also includes the Navys new P-8 maritime patrol
aircraft and expanded Army electronic warfare capabilities that will be focused heavily in Korea.

A2: ISIS/Ukraine Thump Asia Pivot

Military Pivot on track now ISIS, Ukraine and Budget dont thump
Davidson, 14 -- Janine Davidson is senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Her areas of expertise include defense strategy and policy, military operations,
national security, and civil-military relations, 10/3/14,
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/why-isil-hasnt-derailed-americas-pivotpacific/95783/
The Council on Foreign Relations hosted Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work on September 30 for one of his first public events since
his confirmation five months ago. Work, an experienced hand in maritime strategy and force disposition, explained the quiet steps by which the

military rebalance to the Asia-Pacific has continued on course . Amid the loud headlines out of Iraq, Syria,
and Ukraine, it is easy to forget that much of U.S. foreign policy is still being developed in anticipation of
a Pacific Century. While unexpected contingencies like ISIS have dictated the tempo and focus of
deployed troops, they have, according to Deputy Secretary Work, not hindered the overall rebalance, which

largely continues apace.

What are some of the most tangible military steps taken since 2011? Work explains

(emphasis added): By

2020, both the Navy and the Air Force will have 60 percent of their forces in the Asia Pacific
region. We may not have as many forces as we would like, but 60 percent of the forces will be in the Asia Pacific region. At the same time,
PACOM is regaining Army units that were rotating through Afghanistan, and theyre returning with all of their equipment now, such
as attack aviation assets like Apaches in Korea. The army will have more than 100,000 soldiers when all is said and done in
the Asia Pacific region, including those on the West Coast in Hawaii and Alaska and Japan. And at the same time, the Marines are
distributing and having four powerful Marine air-ground task force[s] geographically dispersed around the
Pacific. All of those plans continue apace, regardless of how stressed we

are in the budget. The four biggest construction projects since the end of the Cold War
are going on in the Pacific. Theres Camp Humphreys in Korea, where the Army is moving south of Seoul. Thats a $10 billion
construction project. The Futenma Replacement Facility in Okinawa, which will allow the Marines to concentrate into the North and become
more politically sustainable on the island is now moving forward. Guam is already starting. That will ultimately house 5,000 Marines at a new
base there. And Iwakuni, Japan, what an incredible place. Literally, the Japanese government shaved the top off of a nearby mountain,
conveyored the dirt down to a bay, put it on barges, and went around and reclaimed an enormous part, expanding the area so that the Navys
carrier air wing thats right now in Atsugi can move down there. The Asia-Pacific also remains first priority for the United

States most sophisticated military hardware. This includes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a
deployment of the Zumwalt destroyer class by 2018, and more THAAD and Patriot batteries to key locations. This also includes the Navys new
P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and expanded Army electronic warfare capabilities that will be focused heavily in Korea.

Ukraine wont derail the pivot

Chen 14 Chen Xiangyang, Deputy Director of Institute of World Political Studies, China
Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, Do Not Exaggerate the Ukraine Crisis
Impact on the US Pivot to Asia, China-US Focus, 4-16, http://www.chinausfocus.com/financeeconomy/no-exaggerating-the-ukraine-crisis-impact-on-the-us-pivot-to-asia/
With the Ukraine crisis continuing to ferment, its international strategic impacts are gradually presenting themselves. Many

wonder to
what extent the crisis will influence the U nited S tates pivoting to the Asia-Pacific. This question calls for

cool-headed observation and precise assessment. The Ukraine crisis has undeniably distracted the
United States strategically. On the surface, it is composed and continues high-profile involvement in the Asia-Pacific. Yet

it is actually

restless at heart. The United States has become deeply involved in the Ukraine crisis, engaging in a sustained rivalry with Russia. On one
hand, the US stubbornly confronts Russia, imposing pressures through sanctions. Furthermore, it has assisted Ukraines interim government, has
enhanced military support for East European allies, as well as strengthened NATOs collective defense; it has terminated NATO cooperation with
Russia; and has helped the EU reduce reliance on Russian energy supplies. On the other hand, it has bargained continuously with Russia. The
heads of state of the two countries have talked repeatedly on the phone, and their foreign ministers have met frequently, trying to strike a deal.
The US is obviously worried about the evolution of the Ukraine crisis. Even so, it is important to see that the US is striving to

simultaneously take care of the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Among them, the Middle East is

depreciating because the US is approaching energy independence. Eastern

due to the overnight worsening of the Ukraine crisis. And finally, as for the

Europe has been appreciating in the short-term

Asia -Pacific, it remains the US

priority of priorities, whose strategic values keep appreciating. The following three points are proof.
Firstly, the US continues to strengthen military deployment in the Asia-Pacific. The Wall Street
Journal recently published a story titled US Marines Rebuilding Capacity in Asia-Pacific, disclosing that, with

tensions in East Asia

escalating in the sea, the US Marine Corps is reinforcing its presence in the region by upgrading its amphibious
capabilities, which have been weakened owing to the Iraq and Afghan wars. Although the Pentagon is cutting expenditures, US Marine Corps
is still enhancing deployment in the Asia-Pacific. It already has 19,000 troops stationed in the area, and the number will reach a peak
of 22,000 by 2017. And it has been coordinating closely with the Philippines and Japan in order to formulate a so-called deterrence.
Secondly, even at the crucial moment in the Ukraine crisis , senior US
military and political leaders continued to pay frequent visits to the Asia-Pacific, placing considerable
emphasis on military diplomacy and taking advantage of its conspicuous superiority in the security area .
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has begun his fourth Asia-Pacific trip in early April. Starting with the first US-ASEAN Defense Forum in
Hawaii, where defense ministers of all 10 ASEAN nations were present, he highlighted humanitarian assistance and disaster response. The Los
Angeles Times reported that Hagel insisted there would be no wavering in the strategy of pivoting to the Asia-Pacific. Hagel went to Hawaii for
the meeting, even while Russia was deploying heavy military presence on Ukraines eastern borders, because the US continues to take the Asia-

Responding to some peoples proposal that the

Ukraine crisis means the US should postpone its pivoting to Asia, or to shift
its strategic emphasis back towards Europe, Hagel said that simply wouldnt happen . He
Pacific as its foremost concern in foreign policies.

stressed that the US would support its NATO allies in conflicts with Russia, yet it has no intention to
increase military presence in Europe. The reason is very simple in a larger context and in the long term - the AsiaPacific is the most important area of interests for the United States. Furthermore, President Obama will make a
high-profile trip to four Asia-Pacific countries (Japan, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia), where he will further emphasize the
strategic adherence to rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific. Thirdly,

the US has more forcefully

intervene

in marine disputes in East Asia, continuing to side with its allies. On the South China Sea issues, it connives at
Philippine provocations, including the latters logistical supplies for the stranded naval vessel and occupation of the Renai Reef of Chinas
Nansha Islands. While instigating the Philippines to stage the farce of proposing international arbitration, it has persistently been bad-mouthing
Chinas rightful responses to safeguard its territorial integrity. On the Diaoyu Islands dispute in the East China Sea, it has obviously been
loosening the grip on the dangerous potential of an increasingly rightist Japan. It turned a blind eye to Shinzo Abes rightist stunts, hastened the
pace of revising the Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation and enhances US-Japan joint operations. It is necessary to notice that the
international strategic impacts of the Ukraine crisis are mainly on big-power relations, including changes in principal contradictions, but not on
geopolitics. Specifically, the Ukraine crisis has resulted in the relative escalation of the contradictions between Russia and major western powers.
US-Russia contradictions have sharpened and become prominent, while the contradictions between China and major western powers have
relatively eased. Furthermore, Sino-US contradictions have more or less loosened, appearing less prominent. The crisis impacts on the
US pivoting to the Asia-Pacific, however, are nothing more than a strategic

distraction, which would hardly contain or even postpone its

rebalancing at this point. There has been no sign of abate in the US pivoting to the
region. Only that the approach will be adjusted, becoming more speculative through taking advantage of contradictions in the area. The US will
place more emphasis on using its Asia-Pacific allies, particularly the Abe administration of Japan and Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, the
two major trouble-makers, to provoke troubles and create confusion. It will take advantage of the maritime disputes between China and Japan, as
well as China and the Philippines, profit from such disputes and thus contain China with its neighbors. Of course, the Ukraine crisis is still
unfolding. The extent of its impacts on US return to the Asia-Pacific hinges on the outcomes of the ongoing contest between Russia and
Ukraine. Therefore further observation is necessary. However, one thing is for sure, this

crisis does not suffice to

reverse

the US strategy of rebalancing to the Asia-pacific. The eastward shift of the center of gravity is a preset
guideline of the Obama administration, and has been reflected in the latest Quadrennial Defense Review.

Neither will ISIS

Wang 9-29 Wang Wenfeng, Associate Professor at the China Institute of Contemporary
International Relations, Will ISIS Battle Force U.S. to Pivot Away From Asia?, Huffington
Post, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wang-wenfeng/isis-us-chinarelations_b_5900732.html

There is a strong call for a massive military assault on ISIS, as well as a "Pivot to Middle East." So under this
circumstance, it seems legitimate to ask whether America can maintain it strategic rebalance toward Asia , and
what the implication is for China. It takes deeper analysis to give good answers to those questions. First, how serious is the Islamic State's threat
to America? Do people really believe that it just cannot be overstated, as Senator Feinstein put it? As a matter of fact, U.S. intelligence

agencies, as recently reported, still see a lot of uncertainty in the danger that ISIS poses . According to some experts,
ISIS's ability to carry out complex, large-scale attacks in America and other Western countries is currently limited. So
it is one thing that some people compare ISIS to al-Qaeda and warn against the threat of terrorist attacks; it is quite another that America should
or should not be on extremely high alert. Maybe it is understandable that Obama hasn't rushed into announcing a war against the
Islamic State. He has reason to believe that his principle of "not

sending battle troops back to the Middle East" can be achieved by

the U.S. doesn't need to shift

its strategic emphasis back to the Middle East , it is not necessary to do another pivot,
and rebalancing towards Asia will not be significantly affected .
implementing his four-point strategy. If Obama is correct, it means that

Even if America does need to send some ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, let's remember that it was during the
process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama began to implement his rebalance toward
Asia, meaning that having troops fighting in other places doesn't

influence his rebalance in a serious way .

A2: Ukraine Thumps Pivot

No link this is about military part of pivot --- not our internal link --- economic
engagement solves best
Ukraine wont derail the pivot
Chen 14 Chen Xiangyang, Deputy Director of Institute of World Political Studies, China
Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, Do Not Exaggerate the Ukraine Crisis
Impact on the US Pivot to Asia, China-US Focus, 4-16, http://www.chinausfocus.com/financeeconomy/no-exaggerating-the-ukraine-crisis-impact-on-the-us-pivot-to-asia/
With the Ukraine crisis continuing to ferment, its international strategic impacts are gradually presenting themselves. Many

wonder to
what extent the crisis will influence the U nited S tates pivoting to the Asia-Pacific. This question calls for

cool-headed observation and precise assessment. The Ukraine crisis has undeniably distracted the
United States strategically. On the surface, it is composed and continues high-profile involvement in the Asia-Pacific. Yet

it is actually
restless at heart. The United States has become deeply involved in the Ukraine crisis, engaging in a sustained rivalry with Russia. On one
hand, the US stubbornly confronts Russia, imposing pressures through sanctions. Furthermore, it has assisted Ukraines interim government, has
enhanced military support for East European allies, as well as strengthened NATOs collective defense; it has terminated NATO cooperation with
Russia; and has helped the EU reduce reliance on Russian energy supplies. On the other hand, it has bargained continuously with Russia. The
heads of state of the two countries have talked repeatedly on the phone, and their foreign ministers have met frequently, trying to strike a deal.
The US is obviously worried about the evolution of the Ukraine crisis. Even so, it is important to see that the US is striving to

simultaneously take care of the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Among them, the Middle East is
depreciating because the US is approaching energy independence. Eastern Europe has been appreciating in the short-term
due to the overnight worsening of the Ukraine crisis. And finally, as for the

Asia -Pacific, it remains the US

priority of priorities, whose strategic values keep appreciating. The following three points are proof. Firstly,
the US continues to strengthen military deployment in the Asia-Pacific. The Wall Street Journal
recently published a story titled US Marines Rebuilding Capacity in Asia-Pacific, disclosing that, with

tensions in East Asia

escalating in the sea, the US Marine Corps is reinforcing its presence in the region by upgrading its amphibious
capabilities, which have been weakened owing to the Iraq and Afghan wars. Although the Pentagon is cutting expenditures, US Marine Corps
is still enhancing deployment in the Asia-Pacific. It already has 19,000 troops stationed in the area, and the number will reach a peak
of 22,000 by 2017. And it has been coordinating closely with the Philippines and Japan in order to formulate a so-called deterrence.
Secondly, even at the crucial moment in the Ukraine crisis , senior US
military and political leaders continued to pay frequent visits to the Asia-Pacific, placing considerable
emphasis on military diplomacy and taking advantage of its conspicuous superiority in the security area .
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has begun his fourth Asia-Pacific trip in early April. Starting with the first US-ASEAN Defense Forum in
Hawaii, where defense ministers of all 10 ASEAN nations were present, he highlighted humanitarian assistance and disaster response. The Los
Angeles Times reported that Hagel insisted there would be no wavering in the strategy of pivoting to the Asia-Pacific. Hagel went to Hawaii for
the meeting, even while Russia was deploying heavy military presence on Ukraines eastern borders, because the US continues to take the Asia-

Responding to some peoples proposal that the

Ukraine crisis means the US should postpone its pivoting to Asia, or to shift
its strategic emphasis back towards Europe, Hagel said that simply wouldnt happen . He
Pacific as its foremost concern in foreign policies.

stressed that the US would support its NATO allies in conflicts with Russia, yet it has no intention to
increase military presence in Europe. The reason is very simple in a larger context and in the long term - the AsiaPacific is the most important area of interests for the United States. Furthermore, President Obama will make a
high-profile trip to four Asia-Pacific countries (Japan, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia), where he will further emphasize the
strategic adherence to rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific. Thirdly,

the US has more forcefully intervene

in marine disputes in East Asia, continuing to side with its allies. On the South China Sea issues, it connives at Philippine
provocations, including the latters logistical supplies for the stranded naval vessel and occupation of the Renai Reef of Chinas Nansha Islands.
While instigating the Philippines to stage the farce of proposing international arbitration, it has persistently been bad-mouthing Chinas rightful
responses to safeguard its territorial integrity. On the Diaoyu Islands dispute in the East China Sea, it has obviously been loosening the grip on the
dangerous potential of an increasingly rightist Japan. It turned a blind eye to Shinzo Abes rightist stunts, hastened the pace of revising the
Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation and enhances US-Japan joint operations. It is necessary to notice that the international strategic

impacts of the Ukraine crisis are mainly on big-power relations, including changes in principal contradictions, but not on geopolitics.
Specifically, the Ukraine crisis has resulted in the relative escalation of the contradictions between Russia and major western powers. US-Russia
contradictions have sharpened and become prominent, while the contradictions between China and major western powers have relatively eased.
Furthermore, Sino-US contradictions have more or less loosened, appearing less prominent. The crisis impacts on the US

pivoting to the Asia-Pacific, however, are nothing more than a strategic

distraction, which would hardly contain or even postpone its

rebalancing at this point. There has been no sign of abate in the US pivoting to the
region. Only that the approach will be adjusted, becoming more speculative through taking advantage of contradictions in the area. The US will
place more emphasis on using its Asia-Pacific allies, particularly the Abe administration of Japan and Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, the
two major trouble-makers, to provoke troubles and create confusion. It will take advantage of the maritime disputes between China and Japan, as
well as China and the Philippines, profit from such disputes and thus contain China with its neighbors. Of course, the Ukraine crisis is still
unfolding. The extent of its impacts on US return to the Asia-Pacific hinges on the outcomes of the ongoing contest between Russia and
Ukraine. Therefore further observation is necessary. However, one thing is for sure, this

reverse

crisis does not suffice to

the US strategy of rebalancing to the Asia-pacific. The eastward shift of the center of gravity is a preset
guideline of the Obama administration, and has been reflected in the latest Quadrennial Defense Review.

A2: ISIS Thumps Pivot

No link this is about military part of pivot --- not our internal link --- economic
engagement solves best
Doesnt thump
Wang 9-29 Wang Wenfeng, Associate Professor at the China Institute of Contemporary
International Relations, Will ISIS Battle Force U.S. to Pivot Away From Asia?, Huffington
Post, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wang-wenfeng/isis-us-chinarelations_b_5900732.html
There is a strong call for a massive military assault on ISIS, as well as a "Pivot to Middle East." So under this
circumstance, it seems legitimate to ask whether America can maintain it strategic rebalance toward Asia , and
what the implication is for China. It takes deeper analysis to give good answers to those questions. First, how serious is the Islamic State's threat
to America? Do people really believe that it just cannot be overstated, as Senator Feinstein put it? As a matter of fact, U.S. intelligence

agencies, as recently reported, still see a lot of uncertainty in the danger that ISIS poses . According to some experts,
ISIS's ability to carry out complex, large-scale attacks in America and other Western countries is currently limited. So
it is one thing that some people compare ISIS to al-Qaeda and warn against the threat of terrorist attacks; it is quite another that America should
or should not be on extremely high alert. Maybe it is understandable that Obama hasn't rushed into announcing a war against the
Islamic State. He has reason to believe that his principle of "not

sending battle troops back to the Middle East" can be achieved by

the U.S. doesn't need to shift

its strategic emphasis back to the Middle East , it is not necessary to do another pivot,
and rebalancing towards Asia will not be significantly affected .
implementing his four-point strategy. If Obama is correct, it means that

Even if America does need to send some ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, let's remember that it was during the
process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama began to implement his rebalance toward
Asia, meaning that having troops fighting in other places doesn't

influence his rebalance in a serious way .

--- ASIA IMPACT INTERNALS/AT: IMPACT D ---

Impact Booster: Perception Key

Perception of Asia Pivot is key perception of weakness sparks destabilizing arms
races.
Whyte and Weitz 1-29. [Leon, MA candidate @ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy @ Tufts, Richard, Senior Fellow and
Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, non-resident Adjunct Senior Fellow @ Center for a New American
Securitiy, "Enough to go around? Money matters complicate US strategic rebalance to Asia-Pacific" Fletcher Security Review Vol 2 No 1 -www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/1455/2015_01_29_weitz_whyte.pdf]
In 2011, President Barack Obama told the Australian parliament that reductions in U.S. defense spending will

not I repeat, will not come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific . 9 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has
reaffirmed this commitment on several occasions, including at the AUSMIN talks in Sydney in June 2014, when Hagel signed the
Forces Posture Agreement that will see US military assets expand in Australia for the next 25 years.10 This reassurance is important,
as countries in Asia have come to depend on the United States to provide security and stability in the
region. If they believe the United States is no longer capable of fulfilling this role, the chances

of Asian states engaging in destabilizing regional arms races

increases .11 In 2012, Asia outspent Europe on defense for the first time, and that ratio is increasing.12 South Korea announced a
5.3 percent increase in defense spending for 2015, which is the highest rate of defense growth since 2011.13 In Japan, the Abe Administration is
prioritizing Japanese defense capabilities, as evidenced by its submission of the largest ever defense budget request this year.14 This increased
defense spending can trigger a regional security dilemma. This is especially true in the case of Japan, which has historical antagonisms with
both Koreas and China dating from Japans colonial period and World War II-era atrocities.15 However, China spends more on its military than
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam combined, and is continuing to increase military spending.16 17

2NC: US Cred/Commitment Impact

Credibility and perception of US commitment is the crucial variable Key to solve
laundry list of Asian conflicts - other checks insufficient without it
Goh, 8 Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Politics and International
Relations at the Univ of Oxford (Evelyn, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Hierarchy
and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order, 2008 8(3):353-377, Oxford
Journals Database)
The centrality of these mutual processes of assurance and deference means that the stability of a hierarchical order is fundamentally related to a
collective sense of certainty about the leadership and order of the hierarchy. This certainty is rooted in a combination of material calculations
smaller states' assurance that the expected costs of the dominant state conquering them would be higher than the benefits and ideational
convictions the sense of legitimacy, derived from shared values and norms that accompanies the super-ordinate state's authority in the social
order. The empirical analysis in the next section shows that regional stability in East Asia in the post-Second World War years

can be correlated to the degree of collective certainty about the US-led regional hierarchy . East Asian
stability and instability has been determined by U.S. assurances, self-confidence, and commitment to maintaining its
primary position in the regional hierarchy; the perceptions and confidence of regional states about US commitment;
and the reactions of subordinate states in the region to the varied challengers to the regional hierarchical order. 4. Hierarchy and the East Asian
security order Currently, the regional hierarchy in East Asia is still dominated by the United States. Since the 1970s, China has increasingly
claimed the position of second-ranked great power, a claim that is today legitimized by the hierarchical deference shown by smaller subordinate
powers such as South Korea and Southeast Asia. Japan and South Korea can, by virtue of their alliance with the United States, be seen to occupy
positions in a third layer of regional major powers, while India is ranked next on the strength of its new strategic relationship with Washington.
North Korea sits outside the hierarchic order but affects it due to its military prowess and nuclear weapons capability. Apart from making greater
sense of recent history, conceiving of the US' role in East Asia as the dominant state in the regional hierarchy helps to clarify three critical
puzzles in the contemporary international and East Asian security landscape. First, it contributes

to explaining the lack of

sustained challenges to American global preponderance after the end of the Cold War. Three of the key potential
global challengers to US unipolarity originate in Asia (China, India, and Japan), and their support for or
acquiescence to, US dominance have helped to stabilize its global leadership . Through its dominance of
the Asian regional hierarchy, the United States has been able to neutralize the potential threats to its position from
Japan via an alliance, from India by gradually identifying and pursuing mutual commercial and strategic interests, and from China by
encircling and deterring it with allied and friendly states that support American preponderance. Secondly, recognizing US
hierarchical preponderance further explains contemporary under-balancing in Asia, both against a rising China, and against incumbent American power. I have argued that one defining
characteristic of a hierarchical system is voluntary subordination of lesser states to the dominant state, and that this goes beyond rationalistic bandwagoning because it is manifested in a social
contract that comprises the related processes of hierarchical assurance and hierarchical deference. Critically, successful and sustainable hierarchical assurance and deference helps to explain why
Japan is not yet a normal country. Japan has experienced significant impetus to revise and expand the remit of its security forces in the last 15 years. Yet, these pressures continue to be
insufficient to prompt a wholesale revision of its constitution and its remilitarization. The reason is that the United States extends its security umbrella over Japan through their alliance, which has
led Tokyo not only to perceive no threat from US dominance, but has in fact helped to forge a security community between them (Nau, 2003). Adjustments in burden sharing in this alliance since
the 1990s have arisen not from greater independent Japanese strategic activism, but rather from periods of strategic uncertainty and crises for Japan when it appeared that American hierarchical
assurance, along with US' position at the top of the regional hierarchy, was in question. Thus, the Japanese priority in taking on more responsibility for regional security has been to improve its
ability to facilitate the US' central position, rather than to challenge it.13 In the face of the security threats from North Korea and China, Tokyo's continued reliance on the security pact with the
United States is rational. While there remains debate about Japan's re-militarization and the growing clout of nationalist hawks in Tokyo, for regional and domestic political reasons, a sustained
normalization process cannot take place outside of the restraining framework of the United StatesJapan alliance (Samuels, 2007; Pyle, 2007). Abandoning the alliance will entail Japan making
a conscience choice not only to remove itself from the US-led hierarchy, but also to challenge the United States dominance directly. The United StatesROK alliance may be understood in a
similar way, although South Korea faces different sets of constraints because of its strategic priorities related to North Korea. As J.J. Suh argues, in spite of diminishing North Korean capabilities,
which render the US security umbrella less critical, the alliance endures because of mutual identification in South Korea, the image of the US as the only conceivable protector against
aggression from the North, and in the United States, an image of itself as protector of an allied nation now vulnerable to an evil state suspected of transferring weapons of mass destruction to
terrorist networks (Suh, 2004). Kang, in contrast, emphasizes how South Korea has become less enthusiastic about its ties with the United States as indicated by domestic protests and the
rejection of TMD and points out that Seoul is not arming against a potential land invasion from China but rather maritime threats (Kang, 2003, pp.7980). These observations are valid, but they
can be explained by hierarchical deference toward the United States, rather than China. The ROK's military orientation reflects its identification with and dependence on the United States and its
adoption of US' strategic aims. In spite of its primary concern with the North Korean threat, Seoul's formal strategic orientation is toward maritime threats, in line with Washington's regional
strategy. Furthermore, recent South Korean Defense White Papers habitually cited a remilitarized Japan as a key threat. The best means of coping with such a threat would be continued reliance
on the US security umbrella and on Washington's ability to restrain Japanese remilitarization (Eberstadt et al., 2007). Thus, while the United StatesROK bilateral relationship is not always easy,
its durability is based on South Korea's fundamental acceptance of the United States as the region's primary state and reliance on it to defend and keep regional order. It also does not rule out
Seoul and other US allies conducting business and engaging diplomatically with China. India has increasingly adopted a similar strategy vis--vis China in recent years. Given its history of
territorial and political disputes with China and its contemporary economic resurgence, India is seen as the key potential power balancer to a growing China. Yet, India has sought to negotiate
settlements about border disputes with China, and has moved significantly toward developing closer strategic relations with the United States. Apart from invigorated defense cooperation in the
form of military exchange programs and joint exercises, the key breakthrough was the agreement signed in July 2005 which facilitates renewed bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation (Mohan,
2007). Once again, this is a key regional power that could have balanced more directly and independently against China, but has rather chosen to align itself or bandwagon with the primary
power, the United States, partly because of significant bilateral gains, but fundamentally in order to support the latter's regional order-managing function. Recognizing a regional hierarchy and
seeing that the lower layers of this hierarchy have become more active since the mid-1970s also allows us to understand why there has been no outright balancing of China by regional states
since the 1990s. On the one hand, the US position at the top of the hierarchy has been revived since the mid-1990s, meaning that deterrence against potential Chinese aggression is reliable and in
place.14 On the other hand, the aim of regional states is to try to consolidate China's inclusion in the regional hierarchy at the level below that of the United States, not to keep it down or to
exclude it. East Asian states recognize that they cannot, without great cost to themselves, contain Chinese growth. But they hope to socialize China by enmeshing it in peaceful regional norms
and economic and security institutions. They also know that they can also help to ensure that the capabilities gap between China and the United States remains wide enough to deter a power
transition. Because this strategy requires persuading China about the appropriateness of its position in the hierarchy and of the legitimacy of the US position, all East Asian states engage
significantly with China, with the small Southeast Asian states refusing openly to choose sides between the United States and China. Yet, hierarchical deference continues to explain why
regional institutions such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN + 3, and East Asian Summit have made limited progress. While the United State has made room for regional multilateral
institutions after the end of the Cold War, its hierarchical preponderance also constitutes the regional order to the extent that it cannot comfortably be excluded from any substantive strategic
developments. On the part of some lesser states (particularly Japan and Singapore), hierarchical deference is manifested in inclusionary impulses (or at least impulses not to exclude the United
States or US proxies) in regional institutions, such as the East Asia Summit in December 2005. Disagreement on this issue with others, including China and Malaysia, has stymied potential
progress in these regional institutions (Malik, 2006). Finally, conceiving of a US-led East Asian hierarchy amplifies our understanding of how and why the United StatesChina relationship is

now the key to regional order. The vital nature of the Sino-American relationship stems from these two states' structural positions. As discussed earlier, China is the primary second-tier power in
the regional hierarchy. However, as Chinese power grows and Chinese activism spreads beyond Asia, the United States is less and less able to see China as merely a regional power witness the
growing concerns about Chinese investment and aid in certain African countries. This causes a disjuncture between US global interests and US regional interests. Regional attempts to engage and
socialize China are aimed at mediating its intentions. This process, however, cannot stem Chinese growth, which forms the material basis of US threat perceptions. Apprehensions about the
growth of China's power culminates in US fears about the region being lost to China, echoing Cold War concerns that transcribed regional defeats into systemic setbacks.15 On the other hand,
the US security strategy post-Cold War and post-9/11 have regional manifestations that disadvantage China. The strengthening of US alliances with Japan and Australia; and the deployment of
US troops to Central, South, and Southeast Asia all cause China to fear a consolidation of US global hegemony that will first threaten Chinese national security in the regional context and then
stymie China's global reach. Thus, the key determinants of the East Asian security order relate to two core questions: (i) Can the US be persuaded that China can act as a reliable regional
stakeholder that will help to buttress regional stability and US global security aims;16 and (ii) can China be convinced that the United States has neither territorial ambitions in Asia nor the
desire to encircle China, but will help to promote Chinese development and stability as part of its global security strategy? (Wang, 2005). But, these questions cannot be asked in the abstract,
outside the context of negotiation about their relative positions in the regional and global hierarchies. One urgent question for further investigation is how the process of assurance and deference
operate at the topmost levels of a hierarchy? When we have two great powers of unequal strength but contesting claims and a closing capabilities gap in the same regional hierarchy, how much
scope for negotiation is there, before a reversion to balancing dynamics? This is the main structural dilemma: as long as the United States does not give up its primary position in the Asian

the East Asian regional order has been and

constituted by US hegemony, and to change that could be extremely disruptive and may lead to
regional actors acting in highly destabilizing ways . Rapid Japanese remilitarization, armed conflict across
the Taiwan Straits, Indian nuclear brinksmanship directed toward Pakistan, or a highly destabilized
Korean peninsula are all illustrative of potential regional disruptions. 5. Conclusion To construct a coherent account of East Asia's
regional hierarchy, China is very unlikely to act in a way that will provide comforting answers to the two questions. Yet,

still is

evolving security order, I have suggested that the United States is the central force in constituting regional stability and order. The major patterns
of equilibrium and turbulence in the region since 1945 can be explained by the relative stability of the US position at the top of the regional
hierarchy, with periods of greatest insecurity being correlated with greatest uncertainty over the American

commitment to managing regional order. Furthermore, relationships of hierarchical assurance and hierarchical deference explain the unusual
character of regional order in the post-Cold War era. However, the greatest contemporary challenge to East Asian order is the potential conflict
between China and the United States over rank ordering in the regional hierarchy, a contest made more potent because of the inter-twining of
regional and global security concerns. Ultimately, though, investigating such questions of positionality requires conceptual lenses that go beyond
basic material factors because it entails social and normative questions. How can China be brought more into a leadership position, while being
persuaded to buy into shared strategic interests and constrain its own in ways that its vision of regional and global security may eventually be
reconciled with that of the United States and other regional players? How can Washington be persuaded that its central position in the hierarchy
must be ultimately shared in ways yet to be determined? The future of the East Asian security order is tightly bound up

with the durability of the United States' global leadership and regional domination. At the regional level, the main scenarios of
disruption are an outright Chinese challenge to US leadership, or the defection of key US allies, particularly Japan. Recent history suggests, and
the preceding analysis has shown, that challenges to or defections from US leadership will come at junctures where

it appears that the US commitment to the region is in doubt, which in turn destabilizes the hierarchical order. At
the global level, American geopolitical over-extension will be the key cause of change. This is the one factor that could lead to
both greater regional and global turbulence, if only by the attendant strategic uncertainly triggering off regional challenges or
defections. However, it is notoriously difficult to gauge thresholds of over-extension. More positively, East Asia is a region that has adjusted to
previous periods of uncertainty about US primacy. Arguably, the regional consensus over the United States as primary state in a system of benign
hierarchy could accommodate a shifting of the strategic burden to US allies like Japan and Australia as a means of systemic preservation. The
alternatives that could surface as a result of not doing so would appear to be much worse.

Asia Trade/Econ
Overwhelms all constraints on conflict
Auslin, 9 (Michael, Weekly Standard, 2/5,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp)
AS THEY DEAL WITH a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when

a
depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the most heavily armed region on
earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade flows can
lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military miscalculation. The
result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also
important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention
inward, to development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives,
and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from
years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these
decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in
Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine

such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any
previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages,
conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the
nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia
to established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens
if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's
political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict . This
would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly drag America in
at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should
any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of
America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S .
military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic
conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the
American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the
American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean.
The result could be a historic changing of the geopolitical map in the world's most populous region. Perhaps China would emerge as the
undisputed hegemon. Possibly democracies like Japan and South Korea would link up to oppose any aggressor. India might decide it could move
into the vacuum. All of this is guess-work, of course, but it has happened repeatedly throughout history. There is no

reason to believe we are immune from the same types of miscalculation and greed that have destroyed
international systems in the past.

2NC: China Rise Impact

Alternative is global war
Ikenberry 08 G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University,
Foreign Affairs, January/February 2008, The Rise of China and the Future of the West, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63042/g-johnikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west
The rise of China will undoubtedly be one of the great dramas of the twenty-first century. China's extraordinary economic growth and
active diplomacy

are already transforming East Asia , and future decades will see even greater increases in

But exactly how this drama will play out is an open

question . Will China overthrow the existing order or become a
part of it? And what, if anything, can the United States do to maintain its position as China rises? Some observers believe that
the American era is coming to an end , as the Western-oriented world order is replaced by one

Chinese power and influence.

increasingly dominated by the East. The historian Niall Ferguson has written that the bloody twentieth century witnessed "the descent of the
West" and "a reorientation of the world" toward the East. Realists go on to note that as China gets more powerful and the United States' position

two things are likely to happen: China will try to use its growing influence to
reshape the rules and institutions of the international system to better serve its
interests, and other states in the system -- especially the declining hegemon -- will start to see
China as a growing security threat. The result of these developments, they predict,
will be tension, distrust, and conflict , the typical features of a power transition. In
this view, the drama of China's rise will feature an increasingly powerful China and a
declining U nited S tates locked in an epic battle over the rules and
leadership of the international system . And as the world's largest country emerges not from within but outside
erodes,

the established post-World War II international order, it is a drama that will end with the grand ascendance of China and the onset of an Asian-

That course, however, is not inevitable. The rise of China does

not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition . The U.S.Chinese power transition can be very different from those of the past
because China faces an international order that is
fundamentally different from those that past rising states confronted. China does not just face the United
States; it faces a Western -centered system that is open , integrated, and rulebased , with wide and deep political foundations. The nuclear revolution, meanwhile, has made war among great powers unlikely -centered world order.

eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining hegemonic states. Today's
Western order, in short, is hard to overturn and easy to join. This unusually durable and expansive order is itself the product of farsighted U.S.
leadership. After World War II, the United States did not simply establish itself as the leading world power. It led in the creation of universal
institutions that not only invited global membership but also brought democracies and market societies closer together. It built an order that
facilitated the participation and integration of both established great powers and newly independent states. (It is often forgotten that this postwar
order was designed in large part to reintegrate the defeated Axis states and the beleaguered Allied states into a unified international system.)

China can gain full access to and thrive within this system. And if it does, China
will rise, but the Western order -- if managed properly -- will
live on. As it faces an ascendant China, the U nited S tates should remember that its leadership of the Western order allows it
to shape the environment in which China will make critical strategic
choices . If it wants to preserve this leadership, Washington must work to strengthen the
rules and institutions that underpin that order -- making it even easier to join
Today,

and harder

to overturn. U.S. grand strategy should be built around the motto "The road to the East runs through the West." It must sink
the roots of this order as deeply as possible , giving China greater incentives for integration than for opposition and increasing the
chances that the system will survive even after U.S. relative power has declined. The United States' "unipolar moment" will inevitably end. If the

defining struggle of the twenty-first century is between China and the United States, China will have the advantage. If the defining struggle is
between China and a revived Western system, the West will triumph. TRANSITIONAL ANXIETIES China is well on its way to

becoming a formidable global power. The size of its economy has quadrupled since the launch of market reforms in the late 1970s
and, by some estimates, will double again over the next decade. It has become one of the world's major manufacturing centers and consumes
roughly a third of the global supply of iron, steel, and coal. It has accumulated massive foreign reserves, worth more than $1 trillion at the end of
2006. China's military spending has increased at an inflation-adjusted rate of over 18 percent a year, and its diplomacy has extended its reach not
just in Asia but also in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Indeed, whereas the Soviet Union rivaled the United States as a military

China is emerging as both a military and an economic

rival -- heralding a profound shift in the distribution of global power . Power
transitions are a recurring problem in international relations . As

competitor only,

scholars such as Paul Kennedy and Robert Gilpin have described it, world politics has been marked by a succession of powerful states rising up
to organize the international system. A powerful state can create and enforce the rules and institutions of a stable global order in which to pursue

changes in the distribution of power give rise

to new challenger states, who set off a struggle over the terms of that
international order . Rising states want to translate their newly acquired power into greater authority in the global system -- to reshape the
rules and institutions in accordance with their own interests. Declining states , in turn, fear their loss of
control and worry about the security implications of their weakened position. These moments are
fraught with danger . When a state occupies a commanding position in the international system, neither it nor weaker
states have an incentive to change the existing order. But when the power of a challenger state grows and
the power of the leading state weakens, a strategic rivalry ensues, and conflict -- perhaps leading to
war -- becomes likely . The danger of power transitions is captured most dramatically in the case of late-nineteenthits interests and security. But nothing lasts forever: long-term

century Germany. In 1870, the United Kingdom had a three-to-one advantage in economic power over Germany and a significant military
advantage as well; by 1903, Germany had pulled ahead in terms of both economic and military power. As Germany unified and grew,
so, too, did its dissatisfactions and demands, and as it grew more powerful, it increasingly appeared as a threat to other great powers
in Europe, and security competition began. In the strategic realignments that followed, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, formerly

The result was European war

enemies, banded together to confront an emerging Germany.

a
. Many
observers see this dynamic emerging in U.S.-Chinese relations. "If China continues its impressive economic growth over the next few decades,"
the realist scholar John Mearsheimer has written, "the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with

But not all power transitions generate war or overturn

the old order. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the U nited K ingdom ceded authority to the U nited S tates
without great conflict or even a rupture in relations. From the late 1940s to the early 1990s, Japan's economy grew
considerable potential for war."

from the equivalent of five percent of U.S. GDP to the equivalent of over 60 percent of U.S. GDP, and yet Japan never challenged the existing
international order. Clearly, there are different types of power transitions. Some states have seen their economic and geopolitical power grow
dramatically and have still accommodated themselves to the existing order. Others have risen up and sought to change it. Some power transitions
have led to the breakdown of the old order and the establishment of a new international hierarchy. Others have brought about only limited
adjustments in the regional and global system. A variety of factors determine the way in which power transitions unfold. The nature of the rising
state's regime and the degree of its dissatisfaction with the old order are critical: at the end of the nineteenth century, the United States, a liberal
country an ocean away from Europe, was better able to embrace the British-centered international order than Germany was. But even more
decisive is the character of the international order itself -- for it is the nature of the international order that shapes a rising state's choice between
challenging that order and integrating into it. OPEN ORDER The postwar Western order is historically unique. Any international order
dominated by a powerful state is based on a mix of coercion and consent, but the U.S.-led order is distinctive in that it has been more
liberal than imperial -- and so unusually accessible, legitimate, and durable. Its rules and institutions are rooted in, and thus reinforced by, the
evolving global forces of democracy and capitalism. It is expansive, with a wide and widening array of participants and stakeholders. It is

capable of generating t remendous economic growth and power while also

signaling restraint

-- all of which make it hard to overturn and easy to join. It was the explicit intention of the Western
order's architects in the 1940s to make that order integrative and expansive. Before the Cold War split the world into competing camps, Franklin
Roosevelt sought to create a one-world system managed by cooperative great powers that would rebuild war-ravaged Europe, integrate the
defeated states, and establish mechanisms for security cooperation and expansive economic growth. In fact, it was Roosevelt who urged -- over
the opposition of Winston Churchill -- that China be included as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The then Australian
ambassador to the United States wrote in his diary after his first meeting with Roosevelt during the war, "He said that he had numerous
discussions with Winston about China and that he felt that Winston was 40 years behind the times on China and he continually referred to the
Chinese as 'Chinks' and 'Chinamen' and he felt that this was very dangerous. He wanted to keep China as a friend because in 40 or 50 years' time

China might easily become a very powerful military nation." Over the next half century, the United States used the system of rules and
institutions it had built to good effect. West Germany was bound to its democratic Western European neighbors through the European Coal and
Steel Community (and, later, the European Community) and to the United States through the Atlantic security pact; Japan was bound to the
United States through an alliance partnership and expanding economic ties. The Bretton Woods meeting in 1944 laid down the monetary and
trade rules that facilitated the opening and subsequent flourishing of the world economy -- an astonishing achievement given the ravages of war
and the competing interests of the great powers. Additional agreements between the United States, Western Europe, and Japan solidified the open
and multilateral character of the postwar world economy. After the onset of the Cold War, the Marshall Plan in Europe and the 1951 security pact
between the United States and Japan further integrated the defeated Axis powers into the Western order. In the final days of the Cold War, this
system once again proved remarkably successful. As the Soviet Union declined, the Western order offered a set of rules and institutions that
provided Soviet leaders with both reassurances and points of access -- effectively encouraging them to become a part of the system. Moreover,
the shared leadership of the order ensured accommodation of the Soviet Union. As the Reagan administration pursued a hard-line policy toward
Moscow, the Europeans pursued dtente and engagement. For every hard-line "push," there was a moderating "pull," allowing Mikhail
Gorbachev to pursue high-risk reforms. On the eve of German unification, the fact that a united Germany would be embedded in European and
Atlantic institutions -- rather than becoming an independent great power -- helped reassure Gorbachev that neither German nor Western intentions
were hostile. After the Cold War, the Western order once again managed the integration of a new wave of countries, this time from the formerly
communist world. Three particular features of the Western order have been critical to this success and longevity. First, unlike the imperial

the Western order is built around rules and norms of

nondiscrimination and market openness , creating conditions for rising states to

systems of the past,

advance their expanding economic and political goals within it. Across history, international orders have varied widely in terms
of whether the material benefits that are generated accrue disproportionately to the leading state or are widely shared. In the Western system, the

China has already

discovered the massive economic returns that are possible by operating
within this open-market system.

barriers to economic participation are low, and the potential benefits are high.

Extinction no defense

Goldstein 13
AVERY GOLDSTEIN is David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International
Relations and Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China at the University of
Pennsylvania, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2013, "Chinas Real and Present Danger",
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-danger
Washington has also been vague about what it sees as its vital interests in the region. The United States hedges on the question of whether Taiwan

U nited S tates stance on the maritime disputes involving China and its
Washington has remained neutral on the rival sovereignty claims and insisted that the
disputes be resolved peacefully but has also reaffirmed its commitment to stand by its allies in the event
that a conflict erupts. Such Chinese and U.S. ambiguity about the
falls under a U.S. security umbrella. And the
neighbors is somewhat confusing:

redlines that cannot be crossed without risking conflict increases the chances that either
side could take steps that it believes are safe but that turn out to be
unexpectedly provocative. MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE COLD WAR? Uncertainty about
what could lead either Beijing or Washington to risk war makes a crisis far more
likely, since neither side knows when , where, or just how hard it
can push without the other side pushing back . This situation bears some
resemblance to that of the early Cold War, when it took a number of serious crises for the two sides to feel each other out and
learn the rules of the road. But todays environment might be even more dangerous . The
balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and the U nited S tates, for example,
is much more lopsided than the one that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States. Should Beijing and
Washington find themselves in a conflict, the huge U.S. advantage in conventional forces

would increase the temptation for Washington to threaten to or

actually use force . Recognizing the temptation facing Washington, Beijing might in turn feel pressure
to use its conventional forces before they are destroyed. Although China could not reverse the military imbalance,
it might believe that quickly imposing high costs on the United States would be the best way to get it to
back off. The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check, because both sides would want to avoid
actions that would invite nuclear retaliation. Indeed, if only nuclear considerations mattered, U.S.-Chinese crises
would be very stable and not worth worrying about too much. But the two sides

conventional forces complicate matters and undermine the

stability provided by nuclear deterrence. During a crisis, either side might
believe that using its conventional forces would confer bargaining leverage, manipulating the other sides fear of
escalation through what the economist Thomas Schelling calls a competition in risk-taking. In a crisis, China or the United States might believe

because using
conventional forces would be only the first step in an unpredictable process subject to
misperception, missteps, and miscalculation, there is no guarantee that
that it valued what was at stake more than the other and would therefore be willing to tolerate a higher level of risk. But

brinkmanship would end before it led to an unanticipated nuclear

catastrophe. China, moreover, apparently believes that nuclear deterrence opens the door to the
safe use of conventional force. Since both countries would fear a potential nuclear exchange, the Chinese seem to
think that neither they nor the Americans would allow a military conflict to escalate too far. Soviet leaders,
by contrast, indicated that they would use whatever military means were necessary if war came -- which is one reason why war never came. In
addition, Chinas official no first use nuclear policy, which guides the Chinese militarys preparation and training for conflict, might reinforce
Beijings confidence that limited war with the United States would not mean courting nuclear escalation. As

a result of its beliefs,

Beijing might be less cautious about taking steps that would

risk triggering a crisis. And if a crisis ensued, China might also
be less cautious about firing the first shot. Such beliefs are particularly
worrisome given recent developments in technology that have dramatically improved the precision
and effectiveness of conventional military capabilities. Their lethality might confer

a dramatic advantage to the side that attacks first

, something that was

generally not true of conventional military operations in the main European theater of U.S.-Soviet confrontation. Moreover, because the
sophisticated computer and satellite systems that guide contemporary weapons are highly vulnerable to conventional military strikes or
cyberattacks, todays more precise weapons might be effective only if they are used before an adversary has struck or adopted countermeasures. If
peacetime restraint were to give way to a search for advantage in a crisis, neither China nor the United States could be confident about the

both Beijing and

Washington would have incentives to initiate an attack . China

durability of the systems managing its advanced conventional weapons. Under such circumstances,

would feel particularly strong pressure, since its advanced conventional weapons are more fully
dependent on vulnerable computer networks, fixed radar sites, and satellites. The effectiveness of U.S. advanced forces is
less dependent on these most vulnerable systems. The advantage held by the United States, however, might increase its temptation to strike first,
especially against Chinas satellites, since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind.

2NC: Asia Impact Calc

Biggest magnitude---population and multiple nuclear threats cause extinction---and
turns every impact
Mead 14 Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard
College, Obama in Asia, The American Interest, 11-9, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and
South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped;

economic growth , environmental progress , the destiny of democracy

and success against terror are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that
its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain
China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with
Asias; Asian success will make America stronger, richer and more secure. Asias failures will reverberate

over here, threatening our prosperity, our security and perhaps even our survival . The worlds two

most mutually hostile nuclear states , India and Pakistan, are in Asia. The two
states most likely to threaten others with nukes , North Korea and aspiring
rogue nuclear power Iran , are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in
Asia as well. This is where the worlds fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst
environmental problems exist. It is the home of the worlds largest democracy, the worlds most populous Islamic country (Indonesia
which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the worlds most rapidly rising non-democratic power as
well. Asia

holds more oil resources than any other continent; the worlds most important and

most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where
American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and

West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the
theaters in the world today that most directly engage Americas vital interests and where our armed forces
are most directly involved. The worlds most explosive territorial disputes are in
Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries like
Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the
beaches of Taiwan the worlds most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view
the world in

terms of geopolitical security , environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of

center of your concerns . That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today,

democracy, Asia is at the

and that reality is what President Obamas trip is intended to address.

Most probable---miscalc bypasses defense

Campbell 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 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_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infra-structure 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 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, non-traditional threats like terrorism, and
traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of

miscalculation or poor decision-making .

A2: Asia Impact Defense

Asian conflict is insulated from their low risk arguments its a unique area for
conflict
Nam, senior associate in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 10-17-13 (Moiss, chief international columnist for El Pais and La
Repubblica, Spain's and Italy's largest dailies, The Most Dangerous Continent,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/the-most-dangerouscontinent/280528/, accessed 10-18-13)
Some problems travel well. Sometimes too well. Financial crashes have taught us that in some cases what starts as a very local
economic problem quickly escalates and becomes a global crisis. Think Greeceor more recently Cyprus. And we know that terrorism also has a
way of going global in unpredictable and dangerous ways. But what

about regions? Which continents are more prone

to infect the rest of the world with their problems? Africa and Latin America's woes, for example,
remain mostly insulated. Of course, the mass emigration of Africans to Europe and Latin Americans to the United States is an
example of how one continents problems spill over into another, but this contagion has had much less of an impact than
the economic crisis in the U.S. or Europe, for example. Millions of people all over the world, and especially in Europe, are
still paying the consequences for that financial earthquake. The point is that the problems of some continents are more
systemic than others. This is to say that the agonies of some regions affect the entire world, no
matter how far away they are. The question, then, is: Which of the five continents is bound to spread
more unhappiness in the future? One way to answer is to think about which threats travel the
easiest and with no trouble skirt borders, fortifications, or the public policies that we navely
believe protect us. An economic crash in China, for example, is bound to be felt everywhere and by
everyone. Nor may we be able to dodge the consequences of the nuclear experiments of a young,
inexperienced North Korean tyrant. So, which continent is the most dangerous?
Asia . This may surprise those who see the Asian economic miracle as a model for the rest of the world. Or those who
think that conditions in the Middle East are ripe for a lengthy and rising wave of armed conflicts,
religious radicalization and international terrorism. All this is true. But the problems that originate in
Asia will prove more and more complicated, as their already gigantic economies continue to
grow, albeit at a slower pace than in the last several decades. The main threats to humanity today are: 1) climate
change; 2) nuclear proliferation; 3) the outbreak of a disease with no known cure that spreads
across the globe claiming a large number of victims; 4) global economic crises and, of course, 5) an armed conflict
between two or more military powers, such as China and India, for example. Of course, there are other threats:
terrorism, the increased scarcity of water, criminalized governments, structural unemployment,
and the proliferation of failed states. But none of these would generate the colossal consequences
of the five I list. Asia is the region with the most countries that have the potential to create and
spread these five problems. The much celebrated economic success of the Asian tigers obscures the
fact that this continent is also home to the principal threats to global stability. According to the Asian
Development Bank, Asia is on the path to double its consumption of oil, triple its use of natural gas, and
see an 81 percent increase in its use of high polluting coal, speeding up and doubling its carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2035. Asia alone, then, would be emitting the total amount of CO2 that
experts have calculated to be the maximum sustainable level for the entire planet. Asia is also the
continent with the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons. These capabilities are present in highrisk countries like North Korea and Pakistan, which also happen to be those that have shown no
qualms in selling their nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Many of the worlds longest-

lasting armed conflicts are found in Asia. From Afghanistan to Sri Lanka and from Kashmir to the
unending armed insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines, wars are routine. Asia is also marked by the most
explosive borders in the world: China and India, Pakistan and India, and between the
two Koreas. From Asia came the avian bird flu pandemic. While the mortalities proved lower than feared, the
world was alerted to Asias potential to rapidly spread disease across the globe. Are these
accidents and Asia-originated problems inevitable? Of course not. But they are unfortunately
more important and urgent than issues that more frequently absorb the worlds
attention.

A2: China Impact Defense

Extinction no defense
Goldstein 13 AVERY GOLDSTEIN is David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations and Director of the
Center for the Study of Contemporary China at the University of Pennsylvania, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2013, "Chinas Real and
Present Danger", http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-danger
Washington has also been vague about what it sees as its vital interests in the region. The United States hedges on the question of whether Taiwan
falls under a U.S. security umbrella. And the

U nited S tates stance on the maritime disputes involving China and its

neighbors is somewhat confusing:

disputes be resolved peacefully but

Washington has remained neutral on the rival sovereignty claims and insisted that the
has also reaffirmed its commitment to stand by its allies in the event

that a conflict erupts. Such Chinese and U.S. ambiguity about the

redlines that cannot be crossed without risking conflict increases the chances that either
side could take steps that it believes are safe but that turn out to be
unexpectedly provocative. MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE COLD WAR? Uncertainty about
what could lead either Beijing or Washington to risk war makes a crisis far more
likely, since neither side knows when , where, or just how hard it
can push without the other side pushing back . This situation bears some
resemblance to that of the early Cold War, when it took a number of serious crises for the two sides to feel each other out and
learn the rules of the road. But todays environment might be even more dangerous . The
balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and the U nited S tates, for example,
is much more lopsided than the one that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States. Should Beijing and
Washington find themselves in a conflict, the huge U.S. advantage in conventional forces

would increase the temptation for Washington to threaten to or

actually use force . Recognizing the temptation facing Washington, Beijing might in turn feel pressure
to use its conventional forces before they are destroyed. Although China could not reverse the military imbalance,
it might believe that quickly imposing high costs on the United States would be the best way to get it to
back off. The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check, because both sides would want to avoid
actions that would invite nuclear retaliation. Indeed, if only nuclear considerations mattered, U.S.-Chinese crises
would be very stable and not worth worrying about too much. But the two sides

conventional forces complicate matters and undermine the

stability provided by nuclear deterrence. During a crisis, either side might
believe that using its conventional forces would confer bargaining leverage, manipulating the other sides fear of
escalation through what the economist Thomas Schelling calls a competition in risk-taking. In a crisis, China or the United States might believe

because using
conventional forces would be only the first step in an unpredictable process subject to
misperception, missteps, and miscalculation, there is no guarantee that
that it valued what was at stake more than the other and would therefore be willing to tolerate a higher level of risk. But

brinkmanship would end before it led to an unanticipated nuclear

catastrophe. China, moreover, apparently believes that nuclear deterrence opens the door to the
safe use of conventional force. Since both countries would fear a potential nuclear exchange, the Chinese seem to
think that neither they nor the Americans would allow a military conflict to escalate too far. Soviet leaders,
by contrast, indicated that they would use whatever military means were necessary if war came -- which is one reason why war never came. In
addition, Chinas official no first use nuclear policy, which guides the Chinese militarys preparation and training for conflict, might reinforce
Beijings confidence that limited war with the United States would not mean courting nuclear escalation. As

a result of its beliefs,

Beijing might be less cautious about taking steps that would

risk triggering a crisis. And if a crisis ensued, China might also
be less cautious about firing the first shot. Such beliefs are particularly
worrisome given recent developments in technology that have dramatically improved the precision
and effectiveness of conventional military capabilities. Their lethality might confer

a dramatic advantage to the side that attacks first

, something that was

generally not true of conventional military operations in the main European theater of U.S.-Soviet confrontation. Moreover, because the
sophisticated computer and satellite systems that guide contemporary weapons are highly vulnerable to conventional military strikes or
cyberattacks, todays more precise weapons might be effective only if they are used before an adversary has struck or adopted countermeasures. If
peacetime restraint were to give way to a search for advantage in a crisis, neither China nor the United States could be confident about the

both Beijing and

Washington would have incentives to initiate an attack . China

durability of the systems managing its advanced conventional weapons. Under such circumstances,

would feel particularly strong pressure, since its advanced conventional weapons are more fully
dependent on vulnerable computer networks, fixed radar sites, and satellites. The effectiveness of U.S. advanced forces is
less dependent on these most vulnerable systems. The advantage held by the United States, however, might increase its temptation to strike first,
especially against Chinas satellites, since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind.

A2: Korea Impact Defense

Korean conflict escalates - fast, probable, goes global and nuclear north Korean
naval strategy makes rapid unintentional escalation especially likely
Stratfor, 10 (5/26,
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100526_north_korea_south_korea_military_balance_peninsu
la)
So the

real issue is the potential for escalation or an accident that could precipitate escalation that would
both sides on high alert, both adhering to their own national (and contradictory)
definitions of where disputed boundaries lie and with rules of engagement loosened, the potential for sudden
be beyond the control of Pyongyang or Seoul. With

and rapid escalation is quite real . Indeed, North Koreas navy, though sizable on paper, is
largely a hollow shell of old, laid-up vessels. What remains are

small fast attack craft and submarines mostly Sang-O Shark

employed in the cluttered littoral environment to bring
asymmetric tactics to bear not unlike those Iran has prepared for use in the Strait of Hormuz. These kinds of vessels and
tactics including, especially, the deployment of naval mines are poorly controlled when dispersed in a crisis and are
often impossible to recall. For nearly 40 years, tensions on the Korean Peninsula were managed within the context of the wider Cold
War. During that time it was feared that a second Korean War could all too easily escalate into and a
class boats and midget submersibles. These vessels are best

thermonuclear World War III,

so both Pyongyang and Seoul were being heavily managed from their
respective corners. In fact, USFK was long designed to ensure that South Korea could not independently provoke that war and drag the
Americans into it, which for much of the Cold War period was of far greater concern to Washington than North Korea attacking southward.
Today, those constraints no longer exist. There are certainly still constraints neither the United States nor China wants war on the
peninsula. But current tensions

are quickly escalating to a level unprecedented in the post-Cold War period, and the
constraints that do exist have never been tested in the way they might be if the situation escalates much
further.

Yes Asia War/Outweighs

Asian war goes nuclear - no defense - interdependence and institutions dont check.
Mohan, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, 13
[C. Raja, March 2013, Emerging Geopolitical Trends and Security in the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, the Peoples Republic of China, and India (ACI) Region, background
paper for the Asian Development Bank Institute study on the Role of Key Emerging Economies,
http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2013/10737.pdf]
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 interstate 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 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 substantive disputes on the geographic scope and the normative basis for a future security order in Asia.

Escalation and accidents makes war very likely.

Max Fisher 11, foreign affairs writer and editor for the Atlantic, MA in security studies from
Johns Hopkins, Oct 31 2011, 5 Most Likely Ways the U.S. and China Could Spark Accidental
Nuclear War, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/5-most-likely-ways-theus-and-china-could-spark-accidental-nuclear-war/247616

Neither the U.S. nor China has any interest in any kind of war with one other, nuclear or non-nuclear. The greater
risk is an accident. Here's how it would happen. First, an unforeseen event that sparks a small conflict or threat of
conflict. Second, a rapid escalation that moves too fast for either side to defuse. And, third, a mutual
misunderstanding of one another's intentions. This three-part process can move so quickly that the best way to avert a nuclear war is for both
sides to have absolute confidence that they understand when the other will and will not use a nuclear weapon. Without this, U.S.

and
Chinese policy-makers would have to guess -- perhaps with only a few minutes -- if and when the
other side would go nuclear. This is especially scary because both sides have good reason to err on the side of assuming nuclear
war. If you think there's a 50-50 chance that someone is about to lob a nuclear bomb at you, your incentive is to launch a preventative strike, just
to be safe. This is especially true because you know the other side is thinking the exact same thing. In fact, even if you think the other side
probably won't launch an ICBM your way, they actually might if they fear that you're misreading their intentions or if they fear that you might
over-react; this means they have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, which means that you have a greater incentive to launch a
preemptive strike, in turn raising their incentives, and on and on until one tiny kernel of doubt can lead to a full-fledged war that nobody wants.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union faced similar problems, with one important difference: speed. During the first decades of the Cold War, nuclear
bombs had to be delivered by sluggish bombers that could take hours to reach their targets and be recalled at any time. Escalation was much
slower and the risks of it spiraling out of control were much lower. By the time that both countries developed the ICBMs that made global
annihilation something that could happen within a matter of minutes, they'd also had a generation to sort out an extremely clear understanding of
one another's nuclear policies. But the

U.S. and China have no such luxury -- we inherited a world where total
mutual destruction can happen as quickly as the time it takes to turn a key and push a button. The

U.S. has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal with around 5,000 warheads (first-ranked Russia has more warheads but less capability for
flinging them around the globe); China has only about 200, so the danger of accidental war would seem to disproportionately threaten China. But
the greatest risk is probably to the states on China's periphery. The borders of East Asia are still not entirely settled; there are a number of small,

the biggest potential conflict points are on water: disputed

naval borders, disputed islands, disputed shipping lanes, and disputed underwater energy reserves. These
regional disputes have already led to a handful of small-scale naval skirmishes and diplomatic stand-offs.
It's not difficult to foresee one of them spiraling out of control . But what if the country squaring
off with China happens to have a defense treaty with the U.S.? There's a near-infinite number of small-scale
disputed territories, many of them bordering China. But

conflicts that could come up between the U.S. and China, and though none of them should escalate any higher than a few tough words between
diplomats, it's the unpredictable events that are the most dangerous. In 1983 alone, the U.S. and Soviet Union almost went
to war twice over bizarre and unforeseeable events. In September, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner it mistook for a spy plane; first
Soviet officials feared the U.S. had manufactured the incident as an excuse to start a war, then they refused to admit their error, nearly pushing the
U.S. to actually start war. Two months later, Soviet spies misread an elaborate U.S. wargame (which the U.S. had unwisely kept secret) as
preparations for an unannounced nuclear hit on Moscow, nearly leading them to launch a preemptive strike. In both cases, one of the things that
ultimately diverted disaster was the fact that both sides clearly understood the others' red lines -- as long as they didn't cross them, they could
remain confident there would be no nuclear war. But the

U.S. and China have not yet clarified their red lines for
nuclear strikes. The kinds of bizarre, freak accidents that the U.S. and Soviet Union barely survived in 1983 might well bring today's two
Pacific powers into conflict -- unless, of course, they can clarify their rules. Of the many ways that the U.S. and China could stumble into the
nightmare scenario that neither wants, here are five of the most likely. Any one of these appears to be extremely unlikely in today's world. But
that -- like the Soviet mishaps of the 1980s -- is exactly what makes them so dangerous.

Most probable
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 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_iAsia_June08.pdf)
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 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.

2NC A2: Pivot Bad All

TPP solves multiple scenarios for Asia and China conflict uniquely avoids
backlash, resolves fears of US military dominance, vital to china engagement strategy
and integration, not containment
Cronin, 3-18-15 -- Patrick, Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center
for a New American Security, The Straits Times, lexis)
SOME business analysts are stressing that the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and 11 other countries
promises smaller rewards - if also fewer risks - than previous multilateral efforts to liberalise trade. But
such a judgment omits altogether the national security reasons for finalising both the trade pact and the Trade
Promotion Authority that would strengthen the role of the US President in advancing regional commerce. First, the

TPP would help to reverse the impression that the US is a

declining and one-dimensional military power . Whatever the image of US
power in North America, Asia-Pacific countries continue to harbour
considerable doubt about American staying power and
strength relative to a rising China . Even our closest allies in the region are
enhancing their economic and development ties with China. At the same time, they and others fear
what continued US military dominance could bring to the region in
dealing with the increasing tension among major powers . A multilateral trade
pact accentuates the dimension of US power and interest that
appeals to all actors in the Asia-Pacific region. In Asia, trade is the coin
of the realm. The TPP rebrands America as a leading market
power, rather than just a security guarantor that brings big
guns to settle local disputes . In addition, the TPP bolsters a model of sustainable
economic growth that is essential to maintaining our long-term
security posture , both with respect to defence spending and forward military presence. Second,
the Pacific trade pact would do more to reassure our key allies
than simply tinkering on the margins of our military presence . Our
presence is vital. But if we want to signal that we are serious about being a
permanent Pacific power, then long-term trade frameworks are more
compelling . Despite our military activity, Japan and Australia remain anxious about
our future intentions. That is not good, given how important these allies are. Indeed, Australia is
becoming increasingly important for rotational presence and exercising, and the only other country beyond Japan and South Korea where we can imagine being prepared to conduct "Phase 2"

The converse of reassurance would be an action - or in this case, inaction that would sow great doubt on American credibility . The failure to complete
combined operations designed to "seize the initiative".

this trade pact would strike a serious blow to our reputation, and one from

which it would be difficult to recover . The TPP anchors our future

interests in the region that speaks to Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra and others worried
about US power and purpose in the wake of events such as the protracted post-9/11
diversion or the impact of the 2008 Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy on regional calculations. A third and related national interest in completing

the

TPP is that it would allow the US to entrench itself in the world's most dynamic world

and thereby reach out to new partners in non-military ways . This

simultaneously enables such new engagement and lowers the

transaction costs on our security cooperation throughout the

region . Importantly, among the other initial stakeholders in the TPP are three of the four South-east
Asian countries with disputed claims in the South China Sea . The fourth, the Philippines, is
already a treaty ally of the US. But with this trade pact, the US would be able to tighten cooperation with Vietnam,
Malaysia and Brunei without having to focus exclusively on maritime
defence issues . In addition, the TPP would also solidify US ties with Chile and Peru, two key South American economies with a Pacific orientation. Thus, we
can expand our regional partners while underscoring our broad Pacific role . Fourth,
the TPP gives us leverage in the decade ahead as we begin negotiations on second-round entrants. This
could be a major tool for engaging China, given that our clear objective is to

integrate a rising China, not to contain it . It also gives us a potential tool

for managing Taiwan , whose growing dependence on the mainland is leaving it little
international space for avoiding coercion. Other allies, notably South Korea, would like to join, and ought to be at the front of the queue. The US-Thai alliance
has been undermined by political instability in Thailand, and trade may provide a path toward alliance renewal. Finally, other key regional actors, especially Indonesia, could be prepared for

a regional trade pact would preserve and adapt a

largely US-created regional architecture as we compete to shape the 21st century global order. What we
want is what all nations in the region should want: namely, unfettered access to trade and the global
commons. The TPP would reinforce a regional coalition around common high-standard trade norms and
rules, and thereby balance against alternative rule sets that, for instance, favour state-owned enterprises. The aim is not US primacy so much as the
primacy of a rules-based system . For all of these reasons, beyond the obvious
admission in a second round, making the TPP a dominant trade framework for the region. Fifth,

economic ones of expanding trade in relatively new sectors as well as services, the TPP is

squarely in the national security interest of the US and the

Asia-Pacific region.
TPP failure dooms effective US strategy - forcing over-reliance on military means
undermines China relations, triggers miscalc and escalating US-China military
confrontation
Collinson, 6/16/15 Stephen, senior enterprise reporter for CNN Politics, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/obama-trade-china-asia-pivot/
But many foreign policy hands in Washington fear short-term political implications
could harm long-term U.S. interests. "The repudiation of the TPP would
neuter the U.S. presidency for the next 19months," said former Obama senior economic adviser
Lawrence Summers in an op-ed piece in Monday's Washington Post. The pivot strategy in jeopardy In not
convincing his party on this point, Obama's entire Asia pivot strategy is in jeopardy. While Obama has struggled to stamp his authority on the globe,

his Asia

policy had until now been seen as a bright spot given the fracturing of nations in the Middle East, the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS
and the return of Cold War-style hostilities with Russia. His promise to channel power and resources toward Asia was
widely welcomed in the region as an antidote to China's rising might among allies
deeply concerned about Beijing's territorial ambitions on the East and South China seas. Japan, for instance, was
deeply appreciative of Obama's forceful statement in April 2014 that U.S. treaty commitments to its ally were "absolute" amidst rising territorial tensions between
Tokyo and Beijing. While denying that he was trying to contain China, Obama

upped the U.S. military footprint in the region,

sending Marines to Australia and signing a defense agreement that will allow U.S. troops access to bases in the

Philippines. The administration helped lure Myanmar, once in China's orbit, out of isolation, despite a rocky transition that has not yet led to democracy. He

repaired ragged U.S. relations with Malaysia and played upon his ties with regional giant Indonesia after
spending four years living there as a boy. But supporters of the TPP argue that if the U.S. falls short of its trade goals in
Asia, its capacity to project power will be overly reliant on military means , a factor
that could further increase tensions with Beijing. "If you are out of the region ...
not playing a useful role, your only lever to shape the architecture, to shape the region, to influence
events is the Seventh Fleet . That is not the lever you want to use ," said
Shanmugam. As it is, growing

territorial tensions in East Asia are sparking fears of a military

miscalculation between China's forces and U.S. ships and aircraft deployed in the region. Fears of a military
confrontation Beijing's recently announced that it wants to build a navy that can project power
far from its own shores, at the same time that China is trading accusations with Washington over its
expansion of man-made islands among South China Sea navigational routes crucial to the global economy. There are
fears of an unintentional clash between U.S. and Chinese ships and planes
in the region.

Pivot attempt inevitable, but TPP is sin quo non of Success alternative ensures
perception of military focused pivot straight turns their offense
Goodman, 13
(Matthew, Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, December, economics and the
rebalance, http://csis.org/files/publication/131220_Global_Economics_Monthly_v2issue12.pdf)
Economics is at the heart of U.S. involvement in the Asia Pacific . This statement is as true today as it was in 1784, when
the first U.S. merchant ship bound for Canton set sail from New York. Trade, investment, and other economic ties across the Pacific today are
measured in the trillions of dollars, support millions of American jobs, and underpin our national security . Like administrations before it, the
Obama administration has

put economics at the center of its Asia-Pacific strategy. But it has arguably raised the
stakes by making the overall success of its policy of rebalancing to Asia contingent on a successful
economic strategy, in particular completion of a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The
economic leg of the rebalance is driven by three broad objectives: promoting growth and jobs, upholding
and updating the rules of the international trading system, and supporting Americas long-term presence
in the region. It is worth noting that these objectives get to both sides of the coin regarding the relationship
between economics and foreign policy: using diplomatic tools to support better economic outcomes , such as
more growth and jobs; andarguably more challengingusing economic tools in a strategic way to support foreign
policy objectives, such as strengthening the rules and supporting our presence in the region. In pursuit of these objectives, the Obama
administration has used a multilayered approach to economic engagement in the Asia Pacific. This has bilateral, regional, and global strands,
from the Strategic & Economic Dialogue with China, to TPP and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, to the G-20, half of
whose members are Asia-Pacific countries. And it encompasses all aspects of economic policy, including promotion of strong domesticdemandled growth in large Asian surplus economies; negotiation of bilateral investment treaties; and strategic use of development assistance. But trade
and TPP in particularis the

sharp end of the spear when it comes to Obama economic

strategy in Asia. Through TPP, the administration seeks to advance all three objectives mentioned
above, with an accent on updating the rules. TPP aims to establish disciplines on an array of behind-the-border impediments,
such as excessive or nontransparent regulation; preferences for domestic, especially state-owned, enterprises; and inadequate intellectual property
protection. The administrations aim appears to be making a successful TPP the driver and de facto template for a new multilateral system of
rules. Failure to reach a TPP deal at this months ministerial meeting in Singapore was disappointing but not fatal. Trade talks are always darkest
and noisiestbefore the dawn, as differences are narrowed to the most politically contentious issues. There are still grounds for optimism that
a basic TPP deal can be reached by the time of President Obamas planned trip to Asia next April. The stakes could not be higher for

the White House. Conclusion of TPP is the sine qua non of success for

the Asia rebalancing strategy . In addition to its economic benefits, a successful

agreement would anchor the United States more firmly in the Asia

Pacific and bolster American leadership ther e. Without TPP, the

rebalance would contain little of substance that is new and
would be perceived in the region as driven primarily by
military considerations . The U.S. Congress can support the economic leg of the rebalance in several important
ways. First, enacting trade promotion authority legislation would give the administration the guidance and certainty it needs to close a highstandard TPP deal; without TPA, it is difficult to see how the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) can persuade its counterparts that it
can fulfill its end of the bargain.

A2: Pivot Causes War

NON-UNIQUE AND NO LINK Military pivot happening now, which is what all your
cards are about. TPP just adds an economic portion to it.
Pivot avoids conflict- not provocative
Campbell & Ratner 14 (Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he
served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a
Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a
New American Security, Far Eastern Promises, Foreign Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May,
pages 106-116)
A similar desire to realign U.S. priorities in the region helps explain the changes the Pentagon has made to its military posture there. Although
U.S. military bases in Northeast Asia remain central to Washington's ability to project power and fight wars, they are increasingly vulnerable to
disabling missile attacks, and they lie relatively far from potential disasters and crises in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile,
with countries in Southeast Asia expressing growing interest in receiving American military training and assistance with disaster response, the
United States has diversified its military footprint in the region, stationing hundreds of U.S. marines in Darwin, Australia, and deploying a pair of
Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore. Those changes

to the U.S. military's posture have been criticized as either

provocative or meaningless. Both charges are off the mark. These efforts hardly signal aggression; they
contribute primarily to peacetime activities, such as responding to natural disasters, and not to
U.S. war-fighting capabilities. And the seemingly modest number of marines and ships involved
masks the significant benefits they offer to the militaries of U.S. partners, who gain unparalleled
opportunities for joint exercises and training with U.S. forces.

Attempting to pivot is inevitable a coherent strategy solves the turns

Kay 12-10-13
(Sean, Ph.D, Director of the Arneson Institute for Practical Politics and Public Affairs, and also
Robson Professor of Politics and International Studies Chair at Ohio Wesleyan University,
Getting the Asia Pivot Right, http://warontherocks.com/2013/12/getting-the-asia-pivot-right/)
America has a new grand strategy the Asia pivot. The idea of a prioritization of American interests in
Asia is prominent in official documents and has been reinforced by

senior officials emphasized last week by Vice President Joe Bidens trip to Japan, South Korea, and China. The logic of the
pivot is obvious measured in terms of volume of trade and significant security challenges, the need for this policy shift is clear. In

practice,
failed to explain the policy to the public andCongress, and to drive the policy into
Americans foreign policy culture in Washington, D.C. Chinas recent establishment of an air control zone that extends close to
however, the Obama administration has

Japan (while heightening territorial disagreements) and the American air forces flight of nuclear-capable B52 bombers through that area in
response, is a serious warning signal that the Asia pivot needs urgent attention and will require far more engagement than a short trip by the Vice
President. For the Asia pivot to succeed, a major shift in American foreign policy concepts has to occur. For
the last twenty years, the United States had focused on a global strategy of primacy embraced by liberal interventionists on the political left and
neoconservatives on the right. This loose coalition was built on a sense that America had to be all things in all places or risk credibility of its
commitments. The result was American overstretch that committed the United States to costly conflicts defending peripheral national interests
while incentivizing free-riding among allies. The Asia pivot is a major challenge to this worldview because at its core, it is a new

prioritization guided by realism that sees the world as it is, not as we wish it might be. The global shift of
economic and latent military power is clearly moving towards Asia while Europe is capable of handling its own security challenges and
Americas interests in the Middle East are narrowing. Yet

the pivot is dangerously adrift , in large part

because the Obama administration has failed to articulate, and implement, the many moving parts that are
necessary for success, which has created uncertainty and could cause the concept to fail before it

it is essential to get the pivot right. So far, the primary image of

the pivot to Asia has been military. In reality, not that much has happened in this regard the
even starts. First,

president mainly declared that as other regions of the world are cut, Asia would be
protected in the defense budget . Even if the pivot were to get the military dimension right, , Asia
has suffered from a vacuum of diplomatic and economic engagement by senior U.S. officials. Secretary of State John Kerry has been knee-deep
in Europe and the Middle East The President unwisely cancelled essential trips to the region in the last two years. The Administration

has neglected a sustained effort to build norms of cooperation and predictability in the region and has yet to produce a
major new trade agreement, leaving the pivot incomplete and potentially dangerous if
misread by China as entirely military in nature. Vice-President Bidens trip was a timely success but mainly at managing an
immediate crisis exacerbated by a vacuum that has been allowed to persist in Asia while the United States found itself strategically distracted
elsewhere over the last year.

The US will inevitably attempt to pivot success is key

Mead 11-23-13
(Walter Russell, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard
College, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign
Relations, President's Fellow, World Policy Institute at The New School, Obama Administration
Still Committed to Asia Pivot, http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/11/23/obamaadministration-still-committed-to-asia-pivot/)
In a big speech at Georgetown University on Wednesday national security advisor Susan Rice re -made the case

for President Obamas pivot to Asia, a big and bold policy maneuver that has fallen down the priority list
in his second term. The United States of America will be therereliable, constant, strong and steadyfor the long term, said Rice. Since

Obamas reelection, the US has been criticized for failing to live up to

the promise of the pivot. During the same period, China escalated an economic and diplomatic
charm offensive across the region, from Turkmenistan to Vietnam. Partly because the Middle East remains so unstable, Obama and
his team havent devoted the attention and resources necessary to follow through on the pivot. Rices speech, hastily put
together, as the Washington Post reports, was short on specifics and focused mostly on China, with
criticisms of state-sponsored hacking and economic espionage . But she emphasized the warming relationship and
Washington hasnt yet
given up on what should be a major foreign policy initiative. A
stronger focus on a rising Asia will remain key to US foreign policy, something likely to
stay true no matter who wins in 2016. Serious people in both parties understand the importance
highlighted areas of mutual interest between Washington and Beijing. Its good to see that

of Asia for US security and economy in the 21st century.

A2: Causes China Conflict/Pivot Solves War

US warfighting shift key to deter China
Glaser 12 (Bonnie is the CSIS Freeman Chair in China Studies, Pivot to Asia: Prepare for Unintended
Consequences, http://csis.org/files/publication/120413_gf_glaser.pdf)
the pendulum in U.S. policy toward China has swung from attempting to cooperate with China on
global problems to pushing back against Chinese assertiveness and challenges to international laws and norms. Getting tougher with
Beijing was necessary, but it has also created unintended consequences that the next administration, either a second Obama team or a Republican lineup, will have to contend
Under the current administration,

with. The Obama administrations initial policy in 2009 raised fears in many Asian capitals of a G2 condominium that would make decisions over the heads of others. Those concerns were

U.S. approach as weakness, which, along with Chinas economic success and Americas struggles, led to a year of
Chinese hubris that manifested itself in a series of intimidating actions in Chinas neighborhood. Subsequent entreaties by regional states to
counterbalance China increased U.S. attention to the Asia-Pacific region. Now, the U.S. Asia pivot has prompted Chinese anxiety about U.S. containment and
unwarranted and short lived. Beijing interpreted the

heightened regional worries about intensified U.S.-China strategic competition. In the run-up to the leadership transition that will take place at Chinas 18th Party Congress this fall, Beijing is
inwardly focused and unlikely to act on its fears. However, 2013 could see a shift in Chinese foreign policy based on the new leaderships judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that

Signs of a potential harsh reaction are already detectable. The U.S. Asia pivot has triggered
anti-American sentiment in China that will increase pressure on Chinas incoming leadership to stand up to the United States. Nationalistic
voices are calling for military countermeasures to the bolstering of Americas military posture in the region and the new U.S. defense strategic guidelines. For
seeks to prevent Chinas reemergence as a great power.
an outpouring of

example, an article published in Chinas Global Times, a jingoistic newspaper owned by the Communist Party mouthpiece Peoples Daily, called for China to strengthen its long-range strike
capabilities. Deng Xiaopings guideline to keep a low profile in the international arena, designed more than two decades ago to cope with uncertainty produced by the collapse of the Soviet
bloc, is increasingly seen by Chinas elite and public as irrelevant and even harmful to the task of defending Chinese ever-expanding core interests. Some voices are calling for closer
alignment with Moscow and promoting the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) as a new pole in the international arena to strengthen the emerging powers against the West. Xi
Jinping, who will assume the helm as Chinas new leader later this year, will be under pressure from many domestic constituencies to more forcefully defend Chinese interests in the
international arena. Seeking to quickly consolidate his power and enhance the legitimacy of the Communist Party, Xi and his newly installed Politburo Standing Committee colleagues may be
more willing than their predecessors to test drive a policy that is more confrontational. The U.S. response to a more muscular Chinese foreign and military policy, should it appear, will have to
be carefully calibrated. Ignoring greater Chinese assertiveness would fuel the beliefalready emerging in China and elsewhere that the United States is in inexorable decline. History shows

China does not hesitate to seize the opportunity

that when great powers falter,

to advance its interests, especially in the South China Sea. As American forces
withdrew from Vietnam in the mid-1970s, the Chinese grabbed the Paracel Islands from Saigon. Similarly, when the Soviet Union withdrew from Vietnams Cam Ranh Bay and the United
States terminated its base agreement with the Philippines, China quietly occupied Mischief Reef to the dismay of Manila. Yet a hostile and overbearing U.S. response would confirm Chinese
suspicions that the United States seeks to contain its rise, which could cement the emergence of a U.S.-China Cold War. In addition, it would further alarm regional states who seek at all costs
to avoid having to choose between the United States and China. U.S. policy will need to combine firmness with subtlety. A strategy will need to be shaped that protects regional stability and
reassures Chinas neighbors, but also avoids greater U.S.- China strategic competition and the classic security dilemma, wherein each side believes that growing capabilities reflect hostile
intent and responds by producing that reality. Sustained attention and commitment of sufficient resources to the Asia- Pacific region will be key to assuaging the doubts of regional friends and
allies about U.S. staying power.

The United States also will need to maintain the military capabilities necessary to deter Chinese

aggression.
Only strength in the pivot can deter enemies and assure allies to prevent conflict
Trang 13 (Le Thuy is a research fellow at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, The
(continued) need for American Pivot to Asia,
http://southchinaseastudies.org/en/publications/vietnamese-publications/863-the-continued-needfor-american-qpivot-to-asiaq)
One of the oft-cited indications that the US pivot might be going astray in contributing to Asian stability, to many critics, is the emboldened stance many regional

To these critics, American efforts to enhance alliances and partnerships in Asia

were feeding many US allies and friends adventurism and seeding rivalry, to the detriment of regional security and stability.[7] Yet as Georgetown
Universitys Victor Cha has argued, Americas alliances in Asia have been maintained as much an instrument to control US allies and
avoid saber-rattling with potential adversaries as they are a deterrent to those adversaries. At the beginning of the Cold War,
countries seem to be taking towards China.

Washingtons decision to establish bilateral alliances with South Korea and Japan instead of incorporating the latter two into a larger multilateral network where
American voice would presumably hold less sway was a deliberate choice to counter Soviet influence and at the same time avoid unintended clashes with Soviet

That kind of restraining effect offered by alliances remains in place today

forces on the Asian front.[8]

. Early
into Obamas first term in office, it was demonstrated as the contours of things on the Korean peninsula turned for the worse in 2010. After Pyongyang evaded
responsibility for the Cheonan incident, in which North Korea was accused of sinking a South Korean submarine and causing the deaths of 46 South Koreans, and
Beijing refused to press its quasi-ally on that issue, Washington took an active role in keeping the situations in check by demonstrating support for South Korea while
at the same time encouraging Seoul to exercise restraint.[9] Indeed, even China has grasped the values of US alliances with Japan in discouraging Tokyos backsliding

Given growing unease with Chinas rise in various Asian capitals today, American
presence is all the more critical to provide both the assurance and deterrence all regional
countries need. Many would point to the string of confrontations in East Asia that happened to concur with US return to the region and seem not
into its past militarist adventurism.

tensions in the East and

South China Sea had smoldered before the Obama administration announced the pivot even before the administration took office.
What is truly disturbing for regional peace and stability is the correlation between signs of US
withdrawal from Asia and Chinas moves to advance its interests to many regional countries chagrin. In 1974,
when American troops were beginning to leave Vietnam after the signing of the Paris Accord, China took
advantage of Vietnams situation to capture the Paracels from South Vietnamese forces. In the early 1990s, Manilas decision to discontinue to host American
convinced that the American rebalance is indeed beneficial to regional stability. It should be noted, however, that

military base in the Philippines hastened further American disengagement from the region, and the Filipinos paid quite a dear price for their decision as China,

Clinton administrations
demonstration of US resolve and commitment to Taiwans security in 1996 forced Beijing to review its
strategy and adopt a more nuanced charm offensive towards its neighbors. Yet a decade of relative calmness in
the South China Sea began to fade away as the Bush administration appeared to be indulged in the war on terrorism.[11] In formulating and
executing the pivot, the Obama administration was responding to regional events rather than
precipitating those events ; in fact, Washington was answering US allies and friends concerns about
Chinas power trajectory and perceivable US distractedness in ways that help assuage those
concerns rather than precipitate them and allow unnecessary conflicts to transpire.
emboldened by US troops departure from Philippine shores, leveled up its assertiveness at the Mischief Reef.[10]Apparently the

US weakness leads to allied aggression still draws in the US

Trang 13 - research fellow at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
(Le Thuy, The (continued) need for American Pivot to Asia,
http://southchinaseastudies.org/en/publications/vietnamese-publications/863-the-continued-needfor-american-qpivot-to-asiaq)
Another reason many believe the pivot is not in Americas security interests comes in the form of entrapment risks.
Analysts such as Kenneth G. Lieberthal of the Brookings Institution and Justin Logan of the Cato Institute increasingly see Asia as a cost center for the United
States in which heightened American commitment is likely to encourage many Asian states increased reliance on the US to provide for their security and/or raise the
possibility of America being drawn into unnecessary conflicts with China to protect those countries interests.[22] To compound the problem of free-riding, many
have contended that by touting the Asia rebalance, the Obama administration was creating promises it would not be able to fulfill, given current budget constraints.
[23] US security commitments in Asia, so the argument goes, have allowed US allies and partners in the region to keep a limited defense budget while behaving more

Yet it is mind-boggling to think that absent

US security commitment, those ally and partner countries would both pump up their defense
spending and behave more accommodating towards China. More likely is that without America
playing the role of a balancer, increased military investment would bolster those countries
ability and willingness to take China head-on , which would be far more detrimental to
everyones interests. As has been widely noted, however, the Japanese have slowly but surely begun to upgrade their defense capability while working
provocatively than they would be if they were not certain about American posture.[24]

closely with the US.[25] Paradoxically, while critics of cheap riding have argued that the projected two-percent increase in Japanese military expenditure is minimal
and inadequate,[26] others are worrying about a possible resurgence of Japanese militarism,[27] which suggests that the Japanese investment in their military buildup
might be at the right level.

Pivot doesnt cause China conflict

Campbell & Ratner 14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy
Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, Far
Eastern Promises, Foreign Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 ,
Opponents of the pivot have raised three main objections. First, some

worry that the pivot will unnecessarily

antagonize China. This misperception ignores the fact that deepening engagement with Beijing has been a central and irrefutable feature
of the rebalancing policy. Examples of the new approach include the establishment of the annual U.S.China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, a comprehensive set of meetings chaired by the U.S. secretaries of
state and the treasury and their Chinese counterparts, and the Strategic Security Dialogue, through which the two countries have held

unprecedented high-level discussions on such sensitive matters as maritime security and cyber-security. Tensions

might rise due to

the increased U.S. military presence in Asia and Washington's more robust outreach to China's
neighbors. But bilateral ties are developing in such a way that any disagreements produced by
the pivot will be addressed in the broader context of a more stable and cooperative U.S.-Chinese relationship.

A2: Pivot Bad China Relations

Pivot doesnt hurt Chinese relations
Glaser 11
(Charles, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the Elliott School of
International Affairs at George Washington University, Director of the Institute for Security and
Conflict Studies, Will Chinas Rise lead to War? , Foreign Affairs March/April 2011,
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Glaser.pdf)
Some realist pessimists argue that in order to be highly secure, China will find itself compelled to pursue
regional hegemony, fueling conflict along the way. However, China's size, power, location, and nuclear arsenal will make it very
challenging to attack successfully. China will not need to push the United States out of its region in order to be
secure, because a forward U.S. presence will not undermine China's core deterrent capabilities. A

major U.S. withdrawal , moreover, would not automatically yield

Chinese regional hegemony , because Japan and South Korea might then acquire stronger
conventional military capabilities and nuclear capabilities of their own, greatly reducing China's coercive
potential. A Chinese drive for regional hegemony, therefore, would be both unnecessary and infeasible. The United States' forward military
presence does enhance its power-projection capabilities, which threaten China's ability to protect its sea-lanes and coerce Taiwan. But the
U.S. alliance with Japan also benefits China by enabling Japan to spend far less on defense. Although the
United States' power far exceeds Japan's, China has seen the alliance as adding to regional stability, because it fears
Japan more than the United States. As China grows more powerful, it may increasingly resent U.S. influence in Northeast Asia. But
unless U.S.-Chinese relations become severely strained, China is likely to accept a continuing U.S.
presence in the region, given the alternatives.

A2: Middle East Tradeoff

Pivot isnt zero-sum if we do it, no tradeoff with Middle East
Campbell & Ratner 14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy
Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, Far
Eastern Promises, Foreign Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 ,
A second critique stems from the argument that it would be unwise or unrealistic to shift Washington's focus from the Middle East to Asia given
the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, the instability in Egypt and Iraq, and the long-running confrontation between Iran and the Western powers.
But this criticism relies on a caricature of the rebalancing strategy. According to this view, the Middle East and South Asia have sapped U.S.
power and prestige and the pivot is really an attempt to cut and run by turning to the more peaceful and profitable shores of the Asia-Pacific. It is
certainly true that the Obama administration has tried to reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East. But even though resources are finite ,

foreign policy is not a zero-sum game , and the criticism that paying more attention to Asia is
somehow an admission of strategic defeat in the Middle East misses a crucial reality: during the past
decade, the very Asian countries to which Washington wants to pay more attention have quietly
built a substantial stake in the furtherance of peace and stability across the Middle East and South Asia
and very much want the United States to preserve its influence in those regions.

A2: Austerity makes Impossible

Budget cuts irrelevant, its a question of focus and deals
Campbell & Ratner 14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy
Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, Far
Eastern Promises, Foreign Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 ,
A third argument against the pivot concerns the sustainability of the approach during a time of budget cuts: as defense spending falls, skeptics
wonder how the United States will be able to invest the resources necessary to reassure its Asian allies and dissuade would-be provocateurs,
especially as China's power and influence continue to grow. The answer is that rebalancing

toward Asia will not require

dramatic new funding; rather, the Pentagon will need to be more flexible and find better ways to
spend. For example, as the United States reduces the overall size of its army, it should sustain its military presence in Asia and invest in naval
and air capabilities better suited to the region's security environment. And given that U.S. defense spending is unlikely
to increase significantly anytime soon, Washington should do more to improve the capacity of
Asian militaries by conducting more educational and professional exchanges, enhancing multilateral military
exercises, passing along equipment that U.S. forces no longer need, and engaging in more joint planning.

A2: Pivot just rhetoric

Thats our arg current pivot seems superficial, only real economic engagement
gains trust for success
Scott Miller 14, Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS, and Paul Nadeau, program
manager and research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, TPP Is More than a Trade
Agreement, Jan 31 2014, http://csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made news this week when he said that everyone would be well advised not to push (Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) right
now. Because trade

agreements negotiated by the United States practically require TPA to be

concluded , Senator Reids comments were described as putting the brakes on the Presidents trade agenda until after the midterm elections in
November. Senator Reids comments should not have been surprising or even troubling. When asked if he would bring TPA to the Senate floor, Reid replied with
Well see, leaving the possibility on the table. That trade critics are pleased with Senator Reids comments and that business groups are not isnt news. President
Obama expressed support for trade agreements during the State of the Union address, but not much more than a name-check and not enough to provide political cover
to Democrats who might consider supporting TPA. With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans openly advocating TPA, the issue was
probably due to get some push-back from Democrats. Tactically, this makes sense because no Democrat in a contested seat (and Senator Reid has many to protect) for
the November elections stands to gain from TPA or the deals that it would accelerate, chiefly the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Who gains the most now from TPA
and the resulting TPP agreement? The White House. This isnt because of the immediate economic benefits to the United States, or because it provides a template for

The
White House needs TPA because the TPP is the pivot to Asia. The

future large-scale, comprehensive trade agreements, or because the President has advanced the most ambitious trade agenda since the early 1990s.

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 U nited S tates 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

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
action that Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the

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). Today, there

are tensions among Asias large powers, and the U nited S tates is likely

the single entity that can influence the situation. The U nited S tates 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 achievable
goal in advance of his April trip to Asia.

Pivot is an actual event- huge rebalance

Evans 13
Michael is the General Sir Francis Hassett Chair of Military Studies at the Australian Defence
College in Canberra, American Defence Policy and the Challenge of Austerity: Some
Implications for Southeast Asia, Journal of South East Asia Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2,
August, Pages 164-178, accessed via proquest ,
The United States is currently engaged in its most important strategic activity in the Asia-Pacific region since the Vietnam War era. Faced by a
rising China and by an array of increasingly nervous allies from Seoul to Canberra, Washington

has formally announced a

"pivot" towards the Asia-Pacific to reinforce its role in the region. It is a policy that requires the
repositioning of some 60 per cent of American naval and aerospace power in the Asia-Pacific by
2020. Yet, this rebalance of U.S. strategy is occurring at a time when there is much speculation on "American decline". Such speculation is
driven by a combination of: unprecedented fiscal austerity; a staggering gross national debt of US$16 trillion; legislative political paralysis; and
the impact of two long ground wars in the greater Middle East that have exhausted the all-volunteer military and created a weariness among many
Americans over the efficacy of overseas commitments. As the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen (2010) stated,
it is national debt with its ominous domestic and foreign policy implications that constitutes America's "biggest security threat".1

---TRADE IMPACT---

2nc Trade impact overview

The global trading system is key to containing trade disputes that escalate.
Froman, United States Trade Representative, 2014
[Michael, Nov/Dec 2014, The Strategic Logic of Trade New Rules of the Road for the Global
Market http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142198/michael-b-froman/the-strategic-logic-oftrade]
Trade has played a leading role in many of the most important chapters of U.S. history, often as a tool for
strengthening international partnerships and alliances. The best-known example of this occurred in

the wake of World War II, when the United States provided more access to Western European
countries and Japan than it received from them, in an attempt to speed their reconstruction and
solidify their integration into an open, rules-based international order. Trade also serves as an
effective way to send signals to allies and rivals. Signaling was the primary motivation behind the United
Kingdoms push for the trade agreement it signed with the United States in 1938 , just before the

outbreak of World War II. The British gained little economically, but the deal bolstered the
appearance of Anglo-American solidarity. Similarly, signaling was as important as economics to the
United States first-ever free-trade agreement, which was concluded with Israel in 1985 . If anyone
doubts the strategic importance of trade, consider Russias reaction during the past year to the
prospect of Ukraine deepening its trade ties with the West. The global trading system also provides
avenues for peaceful competition and mechanisms for resolving grievances that might otherwise escalate .
Over time, the habits of cooperation shaped through trade can reduce misperceptions, build trust, and
increase cooperation between states on other issues -- creating an atmosphere congenial to the
preservation of peace, as U.S. President Harry Truman put it in 1947, while making the case for

the creation of an early international trade organization.

Without it, protectionism escalates makes all conflict and extinction inevitable.
Panzer, 2008
[25-year veteran of the markets who has worked for for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro,
Dresdner Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase. New York Institute of Finance faculty member and a
graduate of Columbia University. (Michael, Financial Armageddon, 136-8]
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other
nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced
at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic
responses , which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into
a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been
long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing
public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly
intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of
Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on
nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other
countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of illconceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange.
Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or
tryiTradeng to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar,
will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple

across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms.
All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In
a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across
markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be
easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates
unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The
rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of
production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether
involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and
energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where
demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and
pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the
world, such tensions will give rise to full scale military encounters ,
often with minimal provocation . In some instances, economic conditions will serve
as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences.
Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling
frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole
new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated
sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture
toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its
neighbors in the Mideast . Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of
allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts . Some
observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even
speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at
some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing
cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring
the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts . Terrorists employing biological or

nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunkerbusting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up confl icts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.

TPP Key - A2: trade resilient/trade up

Multiple new threats make disintegration uniquely likely going forward TPP key
to solve also revitalizes WTO and multilateral global trade
Suominen 14. [Kati, 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

are emerging. The first is disintegration of the trading system . The core of the
WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals require unanimity among 160 members, making
any cantankerous player like India a veto. 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
Two threats

system until the mid-1990s, the

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 with Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP),

are the best solution yet

to these problems . They free trade and create uniform rules among countries making up
two-thirds of the world economy . Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in America. Yet both
hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass the 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. 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 century to undo,
and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of digital protectionism are American small businesses and consumers
leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart phones to buy and sell goods and services around the planet. Trade

policymakers however lag

far behind todays trade, which requires sophisticated rules on IP, piracy, copyrights, patents
and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows, virtual currencies, and dispute settlement . The mega-regionals,
especially the TTIP, are a perfect venue to start this process. Disintegration of trade policies risk

disintegrating world markets . Just as after World War II, the global trading
system rests in Americas hands . Three things are needed. The first is the approval of TPA, which
unshackles U.S. negotiators to finalize TPP and TTIP. 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, aiming to revive sagging
growth, are

interested. Once this happens, the TTIP-TPP superdeal will cover 80 percent of worlds output and
approximate a multilateral agreement and have cutting-edge common trade
rules that could never be agreed in one Big Bang at the WTO.

TPP Key to US Trade leadership, global trade and prevent protectionism

alternative is a new perfect storm that collapses prior resiliency - currency
manipulation and instability, capital controls, deep imbalances, creeping protectionism,
financial nationalism, leadership vacuum and break down of Washington Consensus
Suominen, resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington, 76-12 (Kati, America the Absent,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/06/america_the_absent?page=full, accessed 7-712)
In the 20th century, beginning with the creation of the Bretton Woods system in 1944, America's great contribution was to
champion an economic paradigm and set of institutions that promoted open markets and
economic stability around the world. The successive Groups of Five, Seven, and Eight, first formed in the early 1970s, helped coordinate
macroeconomic policies among the world's leading economies and combat global financial imbalances that burdened U.S. trade politics. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) spread the Washington Consensus across Asia and Latin America, and shepherded economies in transition toward
capitalism. Eight multilateral trade rounds brought down barriers to global commerce, culminating in the
establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Meanwhile, a wave of bank deregulation and financial
liberalization began in the United States and proliferated around the world, making credit more available and
affordable while propelling consumption and entrepreneurship the world over. The U.S. dollar, the
world's venerable reserve currency, economized global transactions and fueled international trade. Central bank
independence spread from Washington to the world and helped usher in the Great Moderation,
which has produced a quarter-century of low and steady inflation around the world.
Globalization was not wished into being: It was the U.S.-led order that generated prosperity
unimaginable only a few decades ago. Since 1980, global GDP has quadrupled, world trade has grown more than
sixfold, the stock of foreign direct investment has shot up by 20 times, and portfolio capital flows
have surged to almost $200 trillion annually, roughly four times the size of the global economy.
Economic reforms and global economic integration helped vibrant emerging markets emerge: The "Asian Tigers" (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan)

It was the United States that

quarterbacked the play, brokering differences among nations and providing the right mix of
global public goods: a universal reserve currency, an open-trade regime, deep financial markets,
and vigorous economic growth. Trade liberalization alone paid off handsomely, adding $1 trillion
annually to the postwar U.S. economy. Talk about American decline notwithstanding, the economic order created by
the United States persists. In fact, at first blush, it appears to have only been reinforced in the past few years.
New institutions such as the G-20, a forum for the world's leading economies, and the Financial Stability Board, a
watchdog for the international financial system, are but sequels to U.S.-created entities: the Group of Five and the Financial Stability
Forum. Investors still view America as a financial safe haven, and the dollar remains the world's
lead currency. Open markets have survived, and 1930s-style protectionism has not materialized.
The WTO continues to resolve trade disputes and recently welcomed Russia as its 154th member,
while the mission and resources of the Bretton Woods twins -- the World Bank and IMF -- have only expanded. No country has pulled out of
these institutions; instead, emerging nations such as China and India are demanding greater power at the table. Countries have opted in,
not out, of the American-led order, reflecting a reality of global governance: There are no rival
orders that can yet match this one's promise of mutual economic gains. Still, while the American
order is peerless, it is also imperiled. The deepening European debt crisis, discord over national policies to
restore growth, and the all-but-dead Doha Development Round of WTO negotiations speak to the failures of the
global economy's existing instruments to manage 21st-century challenges. Instead of coordinating policies,
leading countries are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma, elbowing for an edge in world trade and
jockeying for power on the world stage. Tensions simmer over issues such as exchange-rate
manipulation, capital controls, creeping protectionism, and financial nationalism. Right at the
that boomed in the 1980s were joined in the 1990s by the awakening giants of Brazil, China, and India.

moment when we most need to shore up the troubled global economic order, America -- the architect of
this very order -- is failing to lead. Even as the United States remains pivotal to global growth, U.S. corporations -- the engines of the American economy
-- are stifled by taxes, regulations, and policy uncertainty. Gaping fiscal deficits in the United States are undermining the dollar, exacerbating trade deficits, and
undercutting U.S. economic dynamism and credibility in world affairs, but political posturing has obstructed the country's path to solvency. Earlier this week, the IMF
warned that if political deadlock takes America to the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts in January 2013, it could have a devastating impact
on the U.S. and world economies. No wonder America's image as the global economic superpower is receding around the world. Europe's travails, meanwhile, are
reducing U.S. companies' exports and overseas profits, threatening America's recovery. And yet Congress has balked at boosting the IMF's resources to fight the
eurozone crisis while the Obama administration has deflected responsibility, framing the crisis as Europe's to manage. It has fallen to countries such as Brazil, China,
India, Mexico, and Russia to instead build the firewall that will shield the rest of the world from Europe. The welcome momentum in negotiations between the United
States and Pacific Rim countries on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement does not undo over three years of drift in U.S. trade policy that has jeopardized
the very global trading system that the United States built and powered in the postwar era. The only trade deals that the Obama administration has passed -- with

The world is now facing a triple threat

of global economic instability, divisions among top powers, and a global leadership vacuum.
This perfect storm could produce a world disorder of mercurial financial markets, widening
global imbalances, spreading state capitalism, and beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism -- a
scenario with a sorry past and few safe exits. In the late 1940s, a new world order arose because
of American strength, vision, and leadership, not because global governance was in vogue.
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea -- were launched and negotiated by the Bush administration.

Leadership was never easy: Resistance from allies, protectionist pressures at home, and resource-draining
wars all stood in the way. But capitalism spread, trade and financial markets were liberalized, and
emerging-market crises were defeated. Global economic integration forged ahead . Today, American

leadership is again essential. China prioritizes mercantilism over multilateralism, and emerging nations have yet to fully step up to the plate when
it comes to global governance, while Europe and Japan are neither able nor willing to lead. In placing their faith in multilateralism, liberal
institutionalists often fail to realize that the world economic order is built on American primacy and
power, and Washington's willingness to project it. To lead abroad, the United States must reform at home by imposing ironclad
fiscal discipline, cutting taxes and red tape for businesses, and locking in long-term policies -- summoning the private sector to reform schools and rebuild

the United States needs to focus on preempting instability and integrating the global economy. It should push the IMF to address financial risks before they mushroom
infrastructure, for instance -- that harness the productivity of America's future generations. Abroad,

into catastrophes, revise the multilateral trade regime to allow for fast deals among a critical mass of members rather than agonizing, decade-long talks requiring the
consent of the full membership, and work toward unfettered global financial markets -- all the while deepening access to U.S. goods, services, and investment around

A Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and a transatlantic free trade pact are low-hanging
fruits that can jump-start global growth without any new stimulus dollars. The quintessential
challenge facing U.S. policymakers is to convince other nations to buy into a rules-based order
rather than respond to the siren calls of currency wars and capital controls. For example, with most
emerging economies uneasy about Beijing's trade and foreign policies, Washington must
incentivize others to take the high ground and strengthen investor protections, enforce
intellectual property rights, and adhere to trade rules. With others playing by the rules of the
game, a misbehaving China would be turned into a pariah. A stable, integrated, and growing
world economy serves our national interests. But such a world is America's to make.
the world.

Only Strong US support has sustained global trade so far but protectionism
increasing and resistance growing trends and data confirm - tech advances,
economic pressures and political incentives have eroded resilience Jasinowski 13. [Jerry, economist, former President of the National Association of Manufacturers, "Fast track on track" Huffington Post
-- December 18 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-jasinowski/fast-track-on-track_b_4464996.html]

The importance of trade to our economy cannot be overstated .

The link between trade and economic growth is clear and unmistakable. Trade deals open new markets to
exporters across the economic landscape. More trade stimulates more investment and R&D . It has been estimated
that every additional $1 billion in exports supports creates another 20,000 jobs . Though that is a rough estimate that depends
on the industry in question, there is no question that a rising tide of international commerce fosters job creation .
Trade is especially vital to mature economies like our own; 95 percent of consumers are not here. The bad
news is that recent trends reflect a growing resistance to international trade.

Advances in technology makes it possible for more companies to remain within their national borders.
Indeed, advances in technology are making it possible for a growing number of U.S. manufacturing
companies to bring production back to our country. And weak economic growth such as characterizes
most of the world today inevitably fosters pressure for protectionism. To this I would add that huge state-owned
enterprises like those in Russia, China and Brazil are inward looking and inherently averse to free trade.
The data confirms this unwholesome trend. Cross-border investment inflows fell by 18 percent in
2012, and it is expected they will show a similar decline this year. Last year, G-20 countries passed 23
percent more protectionist measures than they did in 200, and smaller nations also are reporting more
protectionist measures. The fact is - free trade has always been a hard sell because

every nation fears increased competition and the benefits are difficult to quantify. We are living
in an era of free trade mainly because the United States has fought for
it. To its credit, the Obama Administration recognizes the importance of this legacy and is committed to its
continuance. Early Congressional approval of fast track will augur well for the future of a growing global economy.

Protectionism is increasing globally weakening world trade

Lennane, Loadstar, 3-14-14
[Alex, FedEx chief slams protectionist policies that hamper the growth of world trade
http://theloadstar.co.uk/symposium5/]
Fred Smith,

iconic founder and president of FedEx Corp, boldly spoke out about Chinas protectionist
policies in the month he was due to visit the country to negotiate for more freedom to operate there . In a
keynote speech to delegates at the World Cargo Symposium in Los Angeles, he blamed governments around the world for
weakening global trade and called on them to stop using protectionist measures . FedEx has been trying to grow in
the Chinese market for some time, but has been thwarted and even shrunk by the governments reluctance to re-issue it with licences. In 2009,
FedEx had 58 branches it now has 37 and is waiting for 21 more licences none of which are for Beijing. Those remaining licences may be
issued in May, but in the meantime domestic rivals have gathered pace. Mr Smith pinpointed the countrys indigenous innovation policy which
favoured local companies over foreign competitors despite WTO prohibitions to the contrary. Partly as a result of these protectionist measures,
he said, Chinas logistics costs are about 20% of GDP compared with about 9 to 9.5% in the US. Such inefficiencies make it hard for the
Chinese economy to evolve to a more consumer-driven economy versus its current model, based on exports and infrastructure investment.
Russia, which in January expanded the list of documents required to ship goods to individual customers, thus slowing customs clearance for
online retailing and causing integrators to temporarily suspend shipments there, was also highlighted. Last month, FedEx couldnt ship pillows,
which were in short supply, to Olympic athletes in Sochi because Russian customs restrictions would cause a six-week delay in delivery, Mr
Smith revealed. Practising the art of efficiency by using a similar speech to the one he presented at last weeks TPM conference in Long Beach,
Mr Smith noted that global trade had helped take tens of millions of people out of poverty after the second world war and that the more liberal
trading policies of countries such as China, India and Brazil had further taken hundreds of millions more out of poverty in the early 1990s. But,
he warned: One big reason trade is no longer growing rapidly is the rise of protectionismOver the last few

years almost every trading nation has instituted policies that permit greater regulatory intervention in the
trade processesoften justified by overzealous security considerations . Unfortunately, in many other
cases, the protectionism is overt and politically driven. The result of all these factors is that exports have
been declining with most major trading partners since 2010. His comments were backed by Brian
Pearce, chief economist for IATA, who noted that nearly 500 protectionist measures were taken in 2012,
lowering international trade growth. Beggar-my-neighbour policies dont work as everyone does it, he said. Governments need
to implement the Bali agreement and as a policy issue, we need to lobby governments. World trade is much weaker than it
should have been. Growth has flatlined since the recovery and has only moved as fast as domestic
consumption. Claiming that innovation, investment and larger markets had been the main drivers to reducing poverty, Mr Smith noted that
last year the top 20 world economies passed 23% more protectionist measures than in 2009 . T

turns econ - protectionism

A new cascade of protectionism would be WORSE than Smoot-Hawley Wrecks the
global economy and prevents recovery
Dadush, 9
[Uri, Senior Associate and Director, Carnegie Endowment Economics Program , 5-2009,
Resurgent Protectionism: Risks and Possible Remedies,
http://www.felixpena.com.ar/contenido/negociaciones/anexos/2009-05-resurgentprotectionism.pdf]
The potential losses from trade restriction could be huge . The International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) estimates these losses by examines two scenarios of protectionism. In the more
modest scenario, countries raise their tariffs to their maximum rates applied during the period from 1995
to 2008. As a result, world trade decreases by 3.2 percent and world welfare falls by $134 billion. In a
more severe scenario in which countries raise tariffs up to their WTO bound rates, world trade
decreases by 7.7 percent and world welfare drops by $353 billion .13
However, this may be an underestimate of the potential losses from protectionism , as even the severe
scenario assumes that countries stay within their WTO legal limits. The current crisis is triggering
extreme economic hardshipsmany of which have not been seen since the GATT/WTOs
conceptionthat may put unprecedented pressure on members to break commitments . Furthermore, the

WTO dispute-resolution system has neither the capacity to handle a high load of disputes, nor the
power to enforce its laws through any means other than by permitting reciprocal retaliation.
Therefore while the current general expectation is that countries will abide by their WTO
commitments, this obviously cannot be taken for granted in the event of an all-out trade war.
If countries do choose to raise tariffs levels and other barriers above WTO limits, we may see a severe
contraction of trade not seen since enactment of the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the wake of the Great
Depression. Following the Smoot Hawley Act, the effective U.S. tariff rate rose from 13.5 percent

in 1929 to 19.8 percent by 1933, encouraging retaliation on the part of U.S. trading partners. The
combined effect of falling demand and increased protection led to U.S. imports falling from $1.3
billion in 1929 to $390 million in 1932. U.S. exports fell from $2.3 billion to $784 million over
the same period. Over the same period, world trade declined by 33 percent, and the increase in
both tariff and non-tariff barriers may have accounted for a little over half this decline.14
However, even the Smoot Hawley experience may underestimate the potential damages from
protectionism today. The impact of raised tariff barriers in the 1930s was likely mitigated by the relative
unimportance of trade in the U.S. economy during this period. In 1929, imports accounted for only
4.2 percent of GNP and exports only 5 percent. Today, imports comprise over 14 percent of GDP and
exports 11 percent. Average U.S. tariffs today are also a fraction of what they were in 1929; even a
small increase would significantly affect trade flows. Trade shares are much higher in other
countries, and tariffs are on average less than one fourth of what they were in 1929. Raising tariffs today
would likely inflict much greater damage on the global economy.

turns heg - protectionism

Protectionism uniquely collapses U.S. hegemony outweighs the risk of dollar
decline
Levey and Brown, 5
[ DAVID H. LEVEY recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign
Ratings Service. STUART S. BROWN is Professor of Economics and International Relations in
the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship
and Public Affairs, The Overstretch Myth, Foreign Affairs; Mar/Apr2005, Vol. 84 Issue 2,
p2-7, 6p]
Whichever perspective on the current account one favors, the United States cannot escape a
growing external debt. The "hegemony skeptics" fear such debt will lead to a collapse of the U.S.
dollar triggered by a precipitous unloading of U.S. assets. Such a selloff could result--as in emergingmarket crises--if investors suddenly conclude that U.S. foreign debt has become unsustainably
large. A panicky "capital flight" would ensue, as investors raced for the exits to avoid the falling
dollar and plunging stock and bond prices.
But even if such a sharp break occurs-which is less likely than a gradual adjustment of exchange rates and
interest rates--market-based adjustments will mitigate the consequences. Responding to a relative price
decline in U.S. assets and likely Federal Reserve action to raise interest rates, U.S. investors (arguably
accompanied by bargain-hunting foreign investors) would repatriate some of their $4 trillion in
foreign holdings in order to buy (now undervalued) assets, tempering the price decline for domestic

stocks and bonds. A significant repatriation of funds would thus slow the pace of the dollar
decline and the rise in rates. The ensuing recession, combined with the cheaper dollar, would
eventually combine to improve the trade balance. Although the period of global rebalancing
would be painful for U.S. consumers and workers, it would be even harder on the European and
Japanese economies, with their propensity for deflation and stagnation. Such a transitory
adjustment would be unpleasant, but it would not undermine the economic foundations of U.S.
hegemony.
The U.S. dollar will remain dominant in global trade, payments, and capital flows , based as it is in a
country with safe, well-regulated financial markets. Provided U.S. firms maintain their entrepreneurial
edge--and despite much anxiety, there is little reason to expect otherwise global asset managers will
continue to want to hold portfolios rich in U.S. corporate stocks and bonds . Although foreign private

demand for U.S. assets will fluctuate--witness the slowdown in purchases that precipitated the
decline in the U.S. dollar in 2002 and 2003-rapid growth of world financial wealth will allow the
proportion of U.S. assets held by foreigners to increase.
For foreign central banks (as well as commercial financial institutions), U.S. Treasury bonds,
government-supported agency bonds, and deposits in highly rated banks will remain, for the
foreseeable future, the chief sources of liquid reserve assets. Many analysts have pointed to the
euro as a threat to the dollar's status as the world's central reserve currency. But the continuing
strength of the U.S. economy relative to the European Union's and the structure of European
capital markets make such a prospect highly unlikely. On the basis of likely demographic and
productivity growth differentials, Adam Posen of the Institute for International Economics
estimates that the U.S. economy will be at least 20 percent larger than that of the EU in 2020.
The United States will maintain its 22 percent share of world output, but Europe's share will, in
the absence of serious structural reforms, shrink by 3 to 5 percent. Moreover, European
government bond markets, although larger than the U.S. Treasury market, are divided among five
large countries and a host of smaller ones, greatly reducing liquidity, and European corporate

bond and equity markets are smaller than their U.S. counterparts. With Asian capital markets still
in their infancy, it will be a very long time before the pre-eminence of the dollar and U.S. capital
markets is challenged.
At the peak of its global power the United Kingdom was a net creditor, but as it entered the
twentieth century, it started losing its economic dominance to Germany and the United States. In
contrast, the United States is a large net debtor. But in its case, no plausible challenger to its
economic leadership exists, and its share of the global economy will not decline. Focusing
exclusively on the NIIP obscures the United States' institutional, technological, and demographic
advantages.
Such advantages are further bolstered by the underlying complementarities between the U.S. economy
and the economies of the developing world--especially those in Asia. The United States continues to
reap major gains from what Charles de Gaulle called its "exorbitant privilege," its unique role in
providing global liquidity by running chronic external imbalance s. The resulting inflow of productivityenhancing capital has strengthened its underlying economic position . Only one development could upset
this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that
have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from
the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.

turns environment - trade

Free Trade crucial to environmental sustainability growth is the key internal link
to environmental protections
James, 9
[Sallie, policy analyst at the CATO institute, Free Trade Is a Boon to the Environment,
October 8, 2009, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10618]
If the G-20 leaders really want to demonstrate commitment to action on climate change, they would do
well to be more careful about sticking to their commitments when it comes to open international trade.
Many lofty sentiments were displayed at both events. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon announced that the world is "one step closer" to a
climate change deal. But he declined, of course, to point out that this particular journey of a thousand miles looks increasingly precarious and that
one step is nowhere near enough progress for those hoping for a final deal in December.
The new Japanese Prime Minister made nice with his colleagues by reaffirming his vow to reduce his country's emissions to 25% below 1990
levels by 2020. China's President Hu Jintao only went so far as to promise his country would reduce emissions by a "notable" margin, but at least
sounded receptive to emissions reduction efforts. President Obama gave yet another eloquent speech, which though short on specifics, conveyed
that the United States accepted responsibility for past damage, while continuing to insist on efforts from "rapidly-growing developing nations."
On trade, the G-20 will no doubt pledge to work hard to complete the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations by 2010, and to keep trade
open in the meantime. Unfortunately,its record in this area is not great.

The governing body has consistently, if hypocritically in view of its subsequent actions, issued statements
emphasizing the importance of avoiding protectionism amid a global financial crisis, only to have its members do the
opposite. Too often the temptation among G-20 countries to subsidize and protect their own has proven too
great to resist.
The political tension between protection-seeking domestic constituencies and those in favor of more open trade is beginning to appear in the
climate change debate. Importantly, the free flow of goods and environmental soundness are not necessarily at

odds.
Indeed, because

trade leads to wealth, and wealth to an increased desire and ability to protect the
environment, the two are complementary. Nonetheless, many G-20 leaders are doing their best to set them up as being inalterably
opposed. President Sarkozy earlier this month became the latest politician to call for carbon tariffs to "level the playing field" for French products
that will attract a carbon tax and yet compete with untaxed imports.
Similar sentiments are held among certain U.S. politicians too. Senators from manufacturing states crucial to securing passage of a climate bill
have repeatedly insisted that their support depends on protection for vulnerable domestic industries. They continue to argue that Chinese imports
are threatening U.S. jobs in energy intensive industries, even though more than two-thirds of those types of products come from other similarly
rich (and, in some cases, greener) countries.
President Obama spoke out against punitive trade measures inserted into the House bill when it passed in June, but declined to say whether he
would veto a final bill if it contained the same elements. He has demonstrated little willingness to resist the siren song of protectionism, judging
from his actions on trade since assuming the presidency. He also displayed a lack of appreciation for the foreign policy implications of
protectionism in announcing tariffs on Chinese tires just prior to a climate summit where the country's cooperation was considered crucial.
Alienating the Chinese by threatening them with trade barriers would be a big mistake . And considering that the
U.S. accounts for less than one percent of the market for Chinese energy-intensive goods as is, tariffs

would create even less of an

incentive among producers to clean up their production techniques for what would be a shrinking market.
What they will do is increase the costs of U.S. producers who use Chinese inputs, and ultimately, of U.S. consumers.

Protectionism in the name of climate change carries little upside and much risk, for the environment and
for the global economy. Leaders who care about either or both goals should start fulfilling their own
pledges on open trade

turns food security trade

Trade liberalization is key to food security specialization raises output and checks
inflationary pressures
Gervais, 8
[Jean-Phillipe, associate professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at
North Carolina State University, December 2008, Moving Agricultural Trade Liberalization
Forward
to Improve Global Food Security, http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/1718-JP
%20Gervais.pdf]
Agricultural trade liberalization has the greatest potential to raise food security globally. It would allow
countries to specialize in sectors where they have a comparative advantage, and would remove the specter
of agricultural subsidies that work against capacity investments in developing economies. This would
raise output at the world level and ease inflationary pressures on commodity prices due to income growth,
negative supply shocks and biofuels. It would lower the reluctance of some countries to increase
production when they lack credible guarantees from major trading partners that market access will be
stable. Increased trade would raise world welfare.

Blips in food prices kill billions

Tampa Tribune, 1-20-96
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In
1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per
Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in
Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual
consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's
troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United
Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the
food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are
merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant
portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the
1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He also said
many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food.

Food insecurity makes all other impacts inevitable its the fuse that will ignite war,
genocide and terrorism
Trudell, 2005
Robert H. (J.D. Syracuse University College of Law) [Food Security Emergencies and the
Power of Eminent Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool to Treat a Global Problem, Syracuse Journal
of International Law and Commerce, Fall, p. lexis]
Today, more than 842 million people - nearly three times the population of the United States - are
chronically hungry. n43 "Chronic hunger is a profound, debilitating human experience that affects the
ability of individuals to work productively, think clearly, and resist disease . It also has devastating
consequences for society: it drains economies, destabilizes governments, and reaches across international

boundaries." n44 The enormous number of chronically hungry people conjures up a critical question: how can we feed these people?
While the rate of population growth has been leveling off in the developed, wealthy countries of the world, the populations of the poorest
countries and regions of the world still grow at an alarming pace. n45 Population statisticians refer to this phenomenon as population momentum.
n46 Of the seventeen countries whose women average six or more births in a lifetime, all but two are in Africa. n47 In sub-Saharan Africa,
millions are undernourished and millions more live on a dollar a day, making it the most poverty-stricken region in the world today. n48 [*285]

Chronic hunger and poverty are the rock-and-a-hard-place in between which the people of sub-Saharan
Africa find themselves today. One tragedy endlessly feeds upon and exacerbates the other because a
person needs money to buy food, but she (or he) cannot earn money when she is chronically hungry. n49
The food security issues of this region are a global concern . Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, and Chairperson of
the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome said, "Together with terrorism, hunger is one of the greatest problems the international community is
facing." n50

Human security is a value which can be broadly defined as both the "freedom from fear" and the
"freedom from want." n51 Until recently, security was largely a concern arising out of the conflict among states, i.e. state security, which
can be summed up in the phrase "military preparedness." n52 Today, it is recognized that the achievement of freedom from want is as important a
goal as the achievement of freedom from fear and countries must arm themselves against such fear by addressing food insecurity. n53 In an
editorial in the Economist, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote that today's threats to security - terrorism,

food security and poverty - are all interrelated so that no one country can tackle them alone . n54
For example, keeping our food supply secure plays a direct role in achieving freedom from fear. The State Department has been studying the
possibilities of food-borne bioterrorism, introducing the national security element to food security concerns. n55 Likewise, in December [*286]
2004, during his resignation announcement, Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, stated: "For
the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." n56 Yet it is a mistake to
think of global security only in military terms. n57

Food security deserves its place in any long-term calculation regarding global security. Widespread
chronic hunger causes widespread instability and debilitating poverty and decreases all of our safety, for
example from the increased threat from global terrorism. n58 Widespread instability is an unmistakable
characteristic of life in sub-Saharan Africa . n59 Food insecurity, therefore, causes global insecurity
because widespread instability in places like sub-Saharan Africa threatens all of our safety. Food
insecurity in the unstable regions of the world must be taken on now lest we find ourselves facing some
far worse danger in the days to come.

A2: Econ Turns Jobs/wages/manufacturing

Job loss and economic concerns are wrong consensus of experts TPP failure
decks leadership in Asia and causes backsliding protectionism
TBT, 15 Tampa Bay Times, 6/22,
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-congress-should-clear-way-forfree-trade-pact/2234642
The Pacific agreement has been in the works for a decade, and it would expand U.S. access to 40 percent of the
global economy. It would reduce trade barriers in a fast-growing area of the world, and it would level the
playing field in areas such as intellectual property rights. A University of Chicago survey finds most

of the nation's top economists say trade agreements have been good for most
Americans, and there should be opportunities here to increase exports and
encourage innovation . The labor unions who have pushed Democrats to kill the fast-track
authority the president needs to complete the

trade agreement argue that the pact would stifle pay increases and cost
jobs. But economists suggest it would slightly raise U.S. incomes, and many of the nation's
manufacturing jobs are being lost to improvements in technology, not free trade agreements . The union
opposition also has prompted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to hedge her once-unqualified support of the Pacific agreement,
but the economic

debate should be focused on expanding global opportunities rather than retreating

into populist protectionism . The United States needs to create more good-paying jobs
for workers, but avoiding free trade agreements is not the way to do it. What the nation cannot
afford is to watch from afar as Asia grows and China expands
its influence there . Congress should grant Obama the fast-track authority he needs to complete negotiations on the transPacific trade agreement, and then it can fully explore the details and vote it up or down.

New trade deals key to revive manufacturing and boost agriculture - concerns are
wrong and service sector gains outweigh anyway
Boustany amd Zoellick 12-28. [Charles, senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Robert, former USTR,
president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/charlesboustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308]
So why does trade matter? First, Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew Research reported that 79% of
Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost

in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living

expenses for familiesoffering higher earnings and cutting taxes on trade . Manufacturing workers who
produce exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can be
traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy has
focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade negotiators also
use free-trade agreements (FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce . In recent years,
such business services as software, finance, architecture and engineering employed 25% of American
workers, more than twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service employees earned over
20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in business
services. Over the past five years, the World Bank reports, about 75% of the worlds growth has been in emerging
markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade. As Americas highly productive farmers and
ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales . With the boom in U.S. energy
innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in that sector , too.

Expanding Trade key to competitiveness and growth claims of diminishing return

dont assume protectionist backsliding only strong US support for new trade deals
prevents it
Jasinowski 13. [Jerry, economist, former President of the National Association of Manufacturers, "Fast track on track" Huffington Post
-- December 18 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-jasinowski/fast-track-on-track_b_4464996.html]

The importance of trade to our economy cannot be overstated .

The link between trade and economic growth is clear and unmistakable. Trade deals open new markets to
exporters across the economic landscape. More trade stimulates more investment and R&D . It has been estimated
that every additional $1 billion in exports supports creates another 20,000 jobs. Though that is a rough estimate that depends
on the industry in question, there is no question that a rising tide of international commerce fosters job creation .
Trade is especially vital to mature economies like our own ; 95 percent of consumers are not here. The bad
news is that recent trends reflect a growing resistance to international trade. Advances in technology
makes it possible for more companies to remain within their national borders. Indeed, advances in
technology are making it possible for a growing number of U.S. manufacturing companies to bring
production back to our country. And weak economic growth such as characterizes most of the world today
inevitably fosters pressure for protectionism. To this I would add that huge state-owned enterprises like those in
Russia, China and Brazil are inward looking and inherently averse to free trade. The data confirms this
unwholesome trend. Cross-border investment inflows fell by 18 percent in 2012, and it is expected they
will show a similar decline this year. Last year, G-20 countries passed 23 percent more protectionist
measures than they did in 200, and smaller nations also are reporting more protectionist measures. The
fact is - free trade has always been a hard sell because every nation fears increased competition and the
benefits are difficult to quantify. We are living in an era of free trade mainly because the U nited States has
fought for it. To its credit, the Obama Administration recognizes the importance of this legacy and is committed to its
continuance. Early Congressional approval of fast track will augur well for the future of a growing global economy.

---HEG IMPACT---

TPP Key Heg

TPP key to US global leadership and restores credibility.
Brown and Oudraat 2-6. [Michael, dean of the Elliott School of Int'l Affairs @ George Washing, Chantal de JOnge Oudraat,
president of Women in International Security, "Trade, power and opportunity" Washington Post -- www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/]
Second, turning

to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our time. The TPP
isnt a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce the United States
position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific countries that worry
about Chinas rise that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new, strong multilateral accord in a
region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would be stability-enhancing
developments. Third, TPP and TTIP pacts would strengthen Obamas personal credibility and the United
States international leadership position. Obamas failure to enforce his red line on the use of chemical
weapons by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has done real damage to his credibility in the Middle East,
Asia and around the world. Effective presidential leadership in these trade negotiations would help

to restore Obamas international credibility . A TPP agreement would also

solidify the economic pillar of Obamas pivot to Asia a geostrategic priority. More generally, effective U.S.
leadership on TPP and TTIP would enhance the United States standing in an era when many countries need
strategic reassurance and want U.S. engagement . Fourth and last, economic strength is one of the fundamentals
of national and international power. This has been true for hundreds of years, and it might apply with even more force today, given the emergence
of a truly global economy. In a world where national power and balance of power considerations are still important
where some states are failing and others are flailing it is essential for the United States and its allies to
strengthen their economic fundamentals and economic ties. TPP and TTIP agreements would help.
TPP is key to overall hegemony outweighs all other factors - US cred, economic
strength, trade leadership, asia pivot
Froman, 2-17-15
(Michael, U.S. Trade Representative, The Geopolitical Stakes of Americas Trade Policy,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/17/the-geopolitical-stakes-of-americas-trade-policy-tpp-ttip/)
This centurys defining battle could be won or lost without a shot fired. As President Barack
Obamas National

Security Strategy makes clear, the rules-based system we have led since

World War II is competing against alternative, more mercantilist models. Unlike past

challenges to American leadership, this competition is primarily

economic in nature , and victory hinges more on opening
markets and raising standards than on building bombs and raising armies. To be sure, the traditional link
between economics and strategy hasnt been upended as much as extended. Beginning with the first estimates of national income, which were
developed in 17th century Europe to compare the ability of states to raise and support militaries, economic power has been viewed

primarily as an enabler for military power. This basic belief was widely adopted and held sway among most strategists through
the Cold War. More recently, however, leaders and strategic thinkers around the world have come to see
economic strength as more than merely a purse for military power. They now understand prosperity to be
a principal means by which countries exercise power itself . As the

Americas growing economic strength is the

foundation of our national security and a critical source of our

National Security Strategy states,

influence abroad. In this environment, trade has emerged as one of Americas most
important foreign policy tools both for increasing our
strength at home and for exercising it abroad . At home, one-third of our
economic growth since 2009 is due to the increase in U.S. exports . Last year, the United States exported $2.35 trillion in
goods and services, a record amount that supported over 11 million U.S. jobs. During a period of uneven global growth, growing exports
are a key driver of Americas resurgence. Above and beyond its immediate benefits for the U.S.
economy, President Obamas trade agenda is advancing three objectives outlined in the N ational Security Strategy:
setting new rules of the road, strengthening our partnerships, and promoting inclusive development. In the
Asia Pacific, were negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will help set rules of the road

for the worlds fastest-growing region . A main pillar of our

rebalance toward Asia , this agreement will cover nearly 40 percent of the global economy.
It will level the playing field for American workers and businesses by establishing the strongest environmental and labor
standards of any trade agreement in history, as well as the first disciplines on issues like

state-owned enterprises and on maintaining a free and open

Internet . By leading on these issues, the United States can launch a race to the top , rather
than be subject to a race to the bottom that we cannot win and should not run. At a time when the crisis in Ukraine
has triggered deep unease, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will remind the world that our transatlantic partnership is
second-to-none. This agreement will deepen our economic relationship with the European Union, already the worlds largest, by bridging
divergences between our regulations and standards without compromising health, safety, environmental, and consumer protection on both
sides of the Atlantic. Many in Europe are looking to TTIP not only to spur much-needed economic growth but also to support efforts to reform
European energy policies and create greater energy security. Taken together, TPP and TTIP will help update the rules-based order as well as
solidify Americas strategic position within it. With these agreements in place, the United States will be at the center of a free trade zone covering
nearly two-thirds of the global economy. Combined with all of the strengths that already make the U nited States an

attractive place to invest and do business a highly skilled and innovative workforce, a large market backed by a strong rule of
law, and an abundant supply of affordable energy well be one step closer to becoming the worlds production
platform of choice, further increasing our economic strength and influence . Our trade policy aims not only to update
the global economic architecture but also to expand it through efforts like the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The cornerstone of U.S. trade
policy with sub-Saharan Africa since 2001, this program has supported hundreds of thousands of jobs in the region and created countless market
opportunities for American businesses. Updating and renewing this program to reflect changes within Africa and between African countries and
their trading partners would send a strong message that America remains deeply committed to this dynamic region and to promoting broad-based
development through trade. The geopolitical stakes become even clearer when you consider the alternatives. In

the Asia-Pacific region, for example, over 200 trade deals have been struck in recent years and more are
currently under negotiation. Unlike TPP and TTIP, the vast majority of these agreements make no commitment to protecting labor
rights and environmental standards, creating disciplines on state-owned enterprises, and promoting the digital economy. We face an
important choice. We can lead and ensure that the global trading system reflects our values and our
interests, or we can cede that role to others, which will inevitably

create a less advantageous position for our workers and our businesses. The
economic implications are stark, but so too are the strategic
ones. Sitting on the sidelines, well see our partnerships
weakened as theyre deprived of the strength that comes from
enhanced economic relationships, and well miss the
opportunity to forge new habits of cooperation among key
partners . We cannot allow that to happen. As economic power has become
more consequential in world affairs, so too has American
leadership on trade . If the U nited S tates leads on trade, it can
strengthen the rules-based order . For over seven decades, American leadership of

the global trading system has helped bring jobs to our shores, partners to our defense, and peace and
prosperity to those around the world who have embraced openness and fairness . Economically

and strategically, that leadership is now more important than

ever.
TPP key to global leadership, Asia pivot, and competitiveness failure causes
collapse of US power, prestige, credibility and economic clout
Freeman, 15 -- Charles W. Freeman III, senior fellow in the China Center at Brookings. As an international principal at
Forbes-Tate, he directs the firms global efforts. He advises companies, financial institutions, and associations on strategy,
regulatory issues, and trade policy matters overseas, with particular attention to China and other Asian markets. Freeman
previously served as assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In his role as the United States chief China trade
negotiator, he helped to shape U.S. trade policy toward China, as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia. Freeman
also oversaw U.S. efforts to integrate China into the World Trade Organization. Earlier in his government career, he served as
legislative counsel for international affairs for Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. After leaving government, Freeman has
advised a wide array of firms and associations on Chinese and East Asian business and regulatory matters. In addition to his work
in private practice, Freeman has held the chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been
a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations and Chinese economic issues and has published extensively on Chinese trade
and regulatory matters. Freeman received his Juris Doctor from the Boston University School of Law and his bachelors in Asian
studies with a concentration in economics from Tufts University. He studied Chinese economic policymaking at Fudan
University in Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese at the Taipei Language Institute. He is a director of Harding Loevner Funds and
the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations, Washington Examiner, 2/2/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tradecan-obama-get-it-done/article/2559487
Trade -- Can Obama get it done? The day after the 2014 election, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what kind of proposals
his new majority could work on with President Obama. Trade agreements, McConnell said, adding, The President and I were just talking
about that before I came over here." And when Obama called on Congress during his State of the Union speech this month to pass legislation
supporting new trade agreements, it was one of the few subjects that did not raise Republican ire. It did not meet with much enthusiasm from
Obama's fellow Democrats, however, who lined up to pan the president's proposal to push the trade agenda forward. No problem, said a White
House aide several days later, the President will steamroll them. The politics of trade have long broken down along fairly strict partisan lines;
pro-business Republicans are for trade and pro-labor Democrats are against it. Freed from narrow constituent politics, however, Democrats

in the White House have pushed for greater openness to trade, largely because expanding

trade is a necessarily an important part of the foreign policy

agenda of any president interested in maintaining the United
States global leadership. President Clinton famously passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and
permanent normal trade relations with China. So it isnt surprising that Obama views new trade deals as
central to his foreign policy legacy. Still, getting new trade agreements through Congress is tough sledding
for presidents of any party. Populist demagoguing and popular myth still hold that trade kills American jobs. Many voters of all stripes believe
this. Butressing America's international leadership makes for far less compelling images than those of shuttered factories that have lost their
competitive edge to job-stealing firms on the other side of the planet. The misery of the few who lose out in the shuffle of trade liberalization has
huge political resonance, even if the overall economic benefit to Americans significantly outweighs the detriment. The policy landscape is littered
with competing studies that demonstrate the success or failure of trade agreements. Depending on who you believe, NAFTA has cost or delivered
millions of jobs. Permanently normalized trade relations for China resulted in the greatest and worst transfer of wealth in human history, unless
actually it didnt. The obvious reality is that trade liberalization produces some losers, even if the rest of us are winners. But stories about the
collapse of American manufacturing and televised portraits of out-of-work breadwinners make for more sympathetic news stories than the fact
that a new trade deal has added a few hundred dollars to the purchasing power of the average family. The way policymakers talk about trade is
often disingenuous. Trade agreements these days are about reducing barriers to trade in a supply chain that can wend through many countries.
They are about standardizing approaches to information gathering and policy making. They set rules for economic governance that limit
discrimination and encourage greater opportunities for an increased number and kind of enterprises in the economy. And importantly, they set the
rules for trade in services, which is the forgotten giant in international trade. This is all wonky stuff, so when forced to talk about trade without
putting its audience to sleep, the administration finds itself reverting to simplification. When in doubt, Obama and the administration, like
previous Republican and Democratic administrations, talk about how trade agreements are about exports, as the president did when he proposed
in his 2010 State of the Union speech to double U.S. exports in five years. We didnt come close, but it was a worthy aspiration. The global
economy and the role of the United States in that economy has changed dramatically since the 1950s, but the politics of trade is still very much
grounded in that long-ago epoch. Back then, you made a finished product in one country and sold it to another. The way trade data is gathered
still assumes a 1950s approach; the country in which a products assembly is finalized gets full credit for the value of that product. So China gets
full credit for the value of an iPhone it assembles from component parts made in other countries, including the lions share of the value that
iPhone represents: its design, which really never left Cupertino, Calif. The enduring, alluring image of the good (manufacturing) job at good
wages from the days in the 1950s in which manufacturing employed 60 percent of American workers, is tough to shake in the public and

political consciousness. Despite the fact that fewer than 10 percent of Americans work in manufacturing and that Americas role in international
trade is increasingly focused on design and technological development, and providing services, the iconic assembly line worker is the poster child
for U.S. trade policy. He or she isnt doing as well these days. So even pro-trade members of Congress are wary of trade votes. No politician
wants to hear the wrath of out-of-work constituents on local TV news or splashed across negative campaign advertising come election time.
Obama and his team have plenty of hard work ahead to convince even Republicans that a vote in favor of his trade deals wont be Exhibit
Number 1 when a political opponent want to suggest that he or she has lost touch with voters. One otherwise pro-trade GOP lawmaker privately
said, Give us an excuse not to vote on trade. Steamrolling Democrats into a pro-trade vote may prove even harder. The common wisdom is that
Republicans need a sizable corpus of Democrats to fall on their swords and vote yes on trade deals. That number could be as few as 20 in the
House, but the smaller the number, the greater the chance recalcitrant Republicans who feel electorally vulnerable will refuse to go along. At

primary issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a free trade agreement being negotiated
with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The economic rationale for the TPP is
significant . Trade within Asia has been booming, largely in component parts that have been assembled into finished
products in China and exported primarily to the United States and Europe. The TPP would draw the United
States closer to the boom . But the economics are changing because Asians are getting
richer. This is having two effects. First, Asians are increasingly able to buy more things from abroad.
Second, the United States as a manufacturing center is becoming more viable as production in Asia is
becoming more expensive, although dont expect many new jobs on the assembly line here, unless you are a robot or a semiconductor
chip. So putting the TPP in place is a way to set the table for American

competitiveness in the broader regional economy a s it develops.

Whatever its economic merits, it is the strategic imperative of TPP that may be driving the
White House to demand its passage. Getting an agreement in place would be the signature
piece in the presidents platform to rebalance or pivot to
the worlds fastest growing region . The trade deal would cement the
role of the United States as the prime mover on regional
economic and strategic architecture. If TPP fails, the
international power, prestige and economic clout of the United
States will suffer a grave setback. The stakes are large.
TPP is key to US economic and geopolitical leadership failure causes collapse
Hogan Lovells Yeutter, international trade and investment firm senior advisor, 2-2-15
[Amb Clayton, TPP now, not next year http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economybudget/231311-tpp-now-not-next-year]
The world economy could use a major boost; thats hardly a surprise. Our U.S. economic growth rate isnt shabby, but
deep concerns elsewhere in the world will eventually have a spillover effect on us. So the world badly
needs someone to step forward with decisive, transformative actions that will stimulate economic growth
and job creation. Only the U.S. can provide that leadership , and we should do so, now! What might
we do? Fortunately, the answer is right in front of us if we recognize it and take the steps to make it happen. It is TPP, the TransPacific Partnership negotiations, a 12-country exercise that has been underway since
the U.S. signed up in 2008. Some might find it difficult to attach the words decisive and transformative to trade negotiations when such deals are typically phased in over 10 years or more and when the last major negotiation was
the Uruguay Round, concluded more than two decades ago. But lets not discard TPP before examining progress that has already been made; lets not underestimate its transformative potential; and lets not judge the outcome until we

this is a negotiation that covers 40% of world trade, and a potential second tranche
will cover a lot more. This is a strategic opportunity that should not be ignored or squandered. Americans should be
excited about TPP with its focus is on Asia and Latin America. The rest of the world is important to us too, and we have a similar negotiation underway with the European Union (the so-called TTIP negotiations). But the
Asia-Pacific is where much of the worlds growth in purchasing power will reside in the decades to come,
and it takes purchasing power to buy our goods and services and create U.S. jobs . We have long discussed
the benefits of a free trade agreement with Japan, and that alone makes TPP worthwhile. But well gain
have an outcome. Too much is at stake, for

from boosting exports to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Vietnam as well. The
intangibles of TPP are important too, especially the national security/foreign policy benefits of
demonstrating American leadership in that part of the world. Should we leave a vacuum, China will
eagerly fill it. Better that we do our part to conclude TPP successfully and then invite China to join - on
terms established by us and our negotiating partners, and not on terms presented by them. So why all the fuss right now? Because we have a

political window of opportunity here in the U.S. that will close

soon . Presidential campaigns typically produce far more demagoguery than wisdom where trade
policy is concerned. Notwithstanding all the good work that has already been done by TPP negotiators,
not one of them will wish to subject a TPP agreement to the bombast of our presidential campaigns. So
we need to get this done; the TPP window is 2015, not 2016 . Step one is fast track authority so that a final
agreement will be submitted, without amendment, to an up or down vote in Congress. The other 11 TPP participants are not about to submit their best offers to the U.S. until and unless we either have Trade Promotion Authority (TPA
or fast track) or can persuasively assert that such authority clearly is on the way. Otherwise there is a risk Congress could change the deal, an outcome the other participating nations would not accept. Therefore, one of the first bills
to emerge from deliberations of the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees should be fast track, and Congress needs to get it to the presidents desk soon. Those who dislike trade agreements will vehemently oppose

If
the U.S. is able to enact TPA legislation during the first quarter of 2015, negotiators will have a reasonably good chance of
quickly wrapping up TPP. That will not be easy, for time is of the essence . Once finalized, the agreement will need to be translated into a host
of languages, scrubbed by the lawyers, implementing legislation will need to be agreed between the administration and the
Congressional trade committees, the U.S. International Trade Commission will need to report to Congress on the probable economic impact of the agreement here in the U.S., and the
Congressional trade committees will undoubtedly wish to hold hearings and conduct mock markups on an agreement of this importance. That all takes time, so lets hope everyone
proceeds expeditiously, and gives TPP the fair hearing it deserves before the political season gets
underway. Some of my Republican colleagues may ask: Why should we do this, and give President Obama a legacy on trade that he might not otherwise receive? The answer is that this will be a splendid legacy for
everyone Republican and Democrat alike - who votes for it. TPP is vital for American business and American agriculture. It will create
jobs and keep our economy dynamic and growing. If we postpone until 2017, there may well be no legacy
for anyone. The opportunity will have been squandered and our grandchildren will be playing by Chinas
rules. That would be a huge blow to American leadership , to the leadership of both our
fast track, but proponents must win that political battle. Delaying fast track will simply delay final offers the other 11 TPP countries are prepared to grant to the U.S.; if fast track is not approved well never see those offers.

parties, and to the economic wellbeing of millions of people here and abroad.

TPP key to prevent collapse of overall US leadership confidence in US staying

power eroding now
Zoellick, former US trade representative, 2014
(Robert, A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress, 12-28,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-forobama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308)
Third, U.S.

foreign policy has been drifting . President Obamas disengagements , have

eroded confidence in Americas staying power . Trade policy can help reestablish Americas international economic commitment; U.S. economic interests underpin
political and security ties. New economic links with key
security partners on the Pacific and Atlantic rims of the Eurasian continents advance
our primary geopolitical interests . And trade policy enlists Americas greatest asset
its dynamic private sectorin support of U.S. foreign policy. Just as American commerce in the 19th and 20th centuries sailed
with missionaries, engineers and educators, so 21st-century trade, investment and business networks will promote the causes of civil society,
human rights, the environment and gender equality.

Expanding US trade liberalization vital to global leadership, trade, econ, democracy

and competitiveness structurally solves propensity for conflicts
Riley and Kim 13. [Bryan, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy, Anthony, Senior Policy Analyst, Economic
Freedom, "Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of Trade Promotion Authority Renewal" Heritage Foundation -www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-trade-freedom-key-objective-of-trade-promotion-authority-renewal]
In the 2002 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act, Congresswhose role in formulating U.S. trade policy includes defining trade negotiation

objectivesmade it clear that [t]he

expansion of international trade is vital to the national security of the United

States. Trade is critical to the economic growth and strength of the United States and to its leadership in
the world. Stable trading relationships promote security and prosperity. Leadership by the United States
in international trade fosters open markets, democracy, and peace throughout the world. [3] Foster Trade
Liberalization, Not Protectionism The Obama Administration often seems to regard trade as a zero-sum game of capturing value that
would otherwise go elsewhere. However, trade liberalization is about creating and adding value, capitalizing on
competitive advantages, and further harnessing the power of freedom and choic e. Trade has been an
integral part of Americas extraordinary economic progress over the past decades. Since 1929, trade volume has increased
from less than 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) to around 30 percent, while real U.S. GDP per person increased from $8,000 to

progress faces continuing threats , mainly from special-interest groups

that malign free trade in an attempt to seek protection from competition at the expense of everyone else.
more than $43,000. This

Some lawmakers have even viewed TPA legislation as a vehicle to address the perceived costs of free trade for the U.S. economy. However, using
TPA renewal to redress the suspected costs of trade is an ill-advised idea. TPA is an instrument that not only enables America to secure increased
access to overseas markets but also provides the unique opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its own barriers and advance economic freedom.

Congress and the President can help the American economy by removing barriers that limit its
competitiveness. With open trade and investment ensured, the interplay of low tax rates and efficient
regulations could effectively enhance Americas economic freedom . Entangling TPA with a protectionist agenda, on the
other hand, would not serve Americas interests in the global market.

---RANDOM---

T/ LA/Mexico
TPP outweighs aff internal links, turns and solves Latin America Impacts, including
mexico failure guarantees economic and diplomatic crisis, collapsing stability
throughout Latin America AND in mexico success contains and overcomes US
geostrategic insecurity threats - key to economic integration, regional democracy, broad
cooperation and US influence
Marczak and Workman 14. Jason Marczak is deputy director of the Atlantic Councils Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.
Garrett Workman is associate director of the Atlantic Councils Global Business and Economics Program (2014, TPA critical for US leadership in
the Pacific, Aug 1 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/213955-tpa-critical-for-us-leadership-in-the-pacific)

Securing U.S. economic and strategic leadership across the Pacific depends on effective
commercial diplomacy underpinned by a clear twenty-first century geopolitical strategy. Congress
should be a vital partner in the ongoing American rebalance to Asia and doing so requires the timely passage
of trade promotion authority (TPA). Only with TPAa demonstration of Congress commitment to conclude an ambitious Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreementwill the administration be able to negotiate the best possible deal. TPA is essential so that other countries take US
positions seriously and agree to a deal that benefits US workers and consumers. If successful, TPP

could catapult the United

States into a new era of partnership with Latin America and countries across the Asia-Pacific. As
the fastest-growing U.S. trade partner, Latin Americas presence in a successful TPP could lead
to a new era of economic integration in the hemisphere. Such an agreement could broaden U.S.
relationships with economies on the rise and with markets close to U.S. ports. Expanding close
trade and investment relationships with Mexico, Canada, Chile, and Peru will provide immediate
benefits and job-creating growth in the United States. Launched in 2004 as a small but forward-thinking agreement to
liberalize trade and investment, TPP has grown to include twelve member countries that represent 40 percent of global GDP, 26
percent of global trade, and 40 percent of US trade. Along with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), TPP has
become one pillar of a US policy objective to foster international support for new rules of global
economic governance. The imperative of broadening Americas commercial ties in Latin
America and Asia is critical, but the geostrategic benefits of signing a trade agreement with eleven partners on both sides
of the Pacific are

perhaps even more significant. Congress should be mindful of TPP's major security-policy
implications. Through increased economic ties, TPP will reassure US partners across the Pacific
Rim and act as a counterbalance to China. U.S. policymakers need to accept that the United States is the de facto
TPP leader. Countries across the Western Hemisphere would suffer major economic and

diplomatic setbacks should TPP fail

. By the end of 2014, Congress must pass TPA to give U.S.

negotiators the backing to complete the talks. A key element of this process will demand that the Senate Finance Committee release a new draft
TPA bill that can command bipartisan support. For President Obama, an important first step is to publicly and
convincingly convey the benefits of his international trade agenda to the American people and members
of Congress. Many have rightly concluded that more transparency is needed in the TPP process. With full congressional buy-in, the TPP
negotiating process can be made more transparent without sacrificing the confidentiality that characterizes all international negotiations. Congress
should see granting TPA as the best way to defend and even strengthen already high US product safety, environmental, and labor standards in a
fast-changing global economy. Multilateral

trade agreements are an unmatched vehicle for promoting rules

that reflect our democratic values: the United States needs to be in the drivers seat. TPP's
potential benefits for the United States are monumental. As we embark further into America's
Pacific age, and in tandem with Latin American partners, TPP has the unmatched possibility to
serve as the foundation for cooperation around the Pacific Rim. Neither American business nor American
national security can afford to miss this opportunity.

T/ Ag
TPP key to US ag crucial to maintain competitiveness and exports solves
economy and global food
Veneman and Glickman 3-11. [Ann, Ag Secretary for GW Bush, Dan, Ag Secretary for Clinton, "Trade promotion authority
sows growth in American agriculture" The Hill -- thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/235444-trade-promotion-authority-sows-growth-in-americanagriculture]
As former secretaries of Agriculture, we know firsthand the importance of international trade to Americas farm and

ranch families, to our nations rural communities, and to the U.S. economy as a whole. Theres no other
sector of the U.S. economy where the link between trade and prosperity is clearer than in agriculture.
Foreign sales account for almost a third of total U.S. farm income. For many commodities, the bulk of
total production is now exported, with about 80 percent of U.S.-grown cotton, over two-thirds of U.S. tree nuts and
about half of U.S. rice, soybeans and wheat destined for foreign markets . Not only do those international sales
benefit the farmers who grow the products, they help support more than 1 million American jobs in both farming and related
sectors such as food processing and transportation. Americas farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the world. In
fact, their productivity is growing faster than domestic food demand . Thus, the continued success of our farm
and food sector relies on having access to the 95 percent of the worlds consumers who live outside the
United States. Population growth and rising incomes particularly in the developing world are
creating significant new opportunities and U.S. farmers, ranchers and food processors are well positioned
to capitalize on this growing global demand. But for them to do this, we first need to break down trade
barriers so that our agriculture sector can compete on a level playing field. And we need trade agreements
to make that happen. Trade agreements are the most effective way to eliminate foreign tariffs, unscientific
regulatory barriers, and bureaucratic administrative impediments to trade. During our respective tenures at the helm
of the Department of Agriculture, from 1995 to 2005, we were overseeing the implementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay
Round and NAFTA agreements, Chinas accession to the WTO, and the negotiation of a number of bilateral free trade pacts. We also ensured that
U.S. products were able to compete in countries that had started to negotiate preferential agreements that were excluding American products.
Thanks in part to these efforts, we saw average tariffs on U.S. exports fall and helped ensure that U.S. products were able to better compete in
other countries. Harvesting those gains has been momentous for U.S. farming. New opportunities under these agreements are a key reason U.S.
agriculture exports are at record levels, above $150 billion per year. Despite the success U.S. farm exports have enjoyed over
the past two decades, we

still have more to do. The United States is now working to conclude negotiations for the
significantly reduce the barriers U.S. products face in the fast-growing
Asia-Pacific region. If we dont close the TPP deal, U.S. producers will be at a competitive disadvantage as
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will

Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and other countries aggressively negotiate trade agreements in the region

New trade deals key to revive manufacturing and agriculture.

Boustany amd Zoellick 12-28. [Charles, senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Robert, former USTR,
president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/charlesboustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308]
So why does trade matter? First, Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew Research reported that 79% of
Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost

in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living

expenses for familiesoffering higher earnings and cutting taxes on trade . Manufacturing workers who
produce exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can be
traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy has
focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade negotiators also use free-trade
agreements (FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce. In recent years, such business services as software, finance, architecture
and engineering employed 25% of American workers, more than twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service

employees earned over 20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a
trade surplus in business services. Over the past five years, the World Bank reports, about 75% of the worlds growth
has been in emerging markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade . As Americas highly
productive farmers and ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales. With
the boom in U.S. energy innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in
that sector, too

T/ Pharma Industry
TPP key to the pharmaceutical industry and the econ overall.
Hartley 12-31. [Jon, economics contributor, "A Free Trade New Year's Resolution For Congress and the White House" Forbes -www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2014/12/31/a-free-trade-new-years-resolution-for-congress-and-the-white-house/]
The Trans Pacific Partnership (T.P.P): A Free Trade Agreement with Asia First, the Trans Pacific Partnership (T.P.P) between the U.S. and
nearly a dozen Asian countries would

be the largest trade deal ever recorded. Countries at the negotiating table
comprise close to 40% of the worlds GDP. Part of what the T.P.P. would do is increase the ability of
certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property in foreign countries . China, though it has yet to
officially join the T.P.P. talks, has shown interest in free-trade negotiations with the U.S. while leading the Asia-only Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership. American corporations, in particular pharmaceutical companies, could benefit

enormously in expanding exports to China and other Asian countries through gaining intellectual property rights in
emerging market countries that have largely failed to enforce intellectual property theft and continue to be
rife with fraud. Indeed, a report by The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property estimated that China alone is behind
50% to 80% of IP theft cases globally, costing the U.S. economy $300-billion every year and millions of jobs.

Aff

U Overwhelms/PC not key

Zero chance congress rejects TPP post fast track approval structural factors
Stoltzfoos, 6/23 -- Rachel, Reporter @ Daily Caller, Daily Caller, 6/23/15,
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/23/congress-secures-trade-promotion-authority-for-obama/
TPA would give Congress more power to shape the trade agreement by defining specific objectives the president must work toward in a deal, and
by setting new transparency rules. But once the president submits a deal to Congress, TPA greatly restricts the

Senates ability to block or complicate the deal. Any deal the president submits to

Congress in the next six years is almost guaranteed to pass ,

because the Senate must promptly approve or reject the deal with no chance to amend it and little time for
debate. And just 51 votes would be required for passage a far cry from the 61 votes required for major
legislation. (RELATED: Why Are Senate Republicans So Eager To Cede Their Trade Authority To Obama?)What do you think? Obama says
he needs TPA to conclude a massive trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he is currently negotiating with 11 other
countries. And the Republicans who fought for the deal say TPA is key to future free trade agreements that will benefit the U.S. economy.What do
you think? Critics contend its a dangerous concession of Senate power to a president that cant be trusted.

Its Guaranteed even opponents are conceding

Werner, 6/24 Erica, Reporter @ Associated Press, Boston Herald, 6/24/15,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2015/06/senate_vote_moves_obam
as_trade_agenda_to_brink_of_enactment
Some anti-free-trade groups, however, essentially conceded defeat . "Fast track makes it
virtually certain that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and other secret
trade deals will become law," said the "Internet-freedom" group Fight for the Future. Tuesday's Senate vote was as
painful for the AFL-CIO and other unions as it was welcomed by the White House. Many corporate, agricultural
and manufacturing groups cheered.

Fast Track authority ensures TPP will pass WITH EASE structural factors, last
realistic barrier, and passage was a white flag for deal opponents in congress
Lopez, 6/24 Laura Barron-Lopez, covers Congress for The Huffington Post. Previously,
she reported for The Hill and E&E Publishing's Greenwire, Huffington Post, 6/24/15,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/pelosi-backs-taa_n_7654954.html
Pelosi Stands Down On TAA, Clearing Way For Obama's Trade Agenda House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
waved the white flag on Wednesday, telling her caucus she would support passage of a key
measure tethered to President Barack Obama's broader trade agenda . Her support

all but guarantees that the measure will succeed, thereby handing Obama a major victory on
trade. Pelosi and House Democrats were the last obstacle against Republican and pro-trade
Democrats' efforts to grant Obama so-called "fast-track" authority to clear major trade deals,
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership , through Congress with
ease . House Democrats succeeded in blocking fast-track nearly two weeks ago when they defeated Trade Adjustment Assistance, which was tied to the fasttrack legislation. TAA provides aid to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of trade deals. In response to the defeat of TAA, Obama and Republican leaders
crafted a new plan to pass fast-track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, as a standalone bill without TAA. The clean fast-track bill, already passed by the
House, is expected to sail through the Senate later Wednesday and then on to Obama's desk. Next, the Senate will immediately move to pass TAA for workers, which
is now attached to an African trade preferences bill, after which it will be sent back to the House. And with Pelosi's support, TAA should have the votes for passage.
"Im disappointed that the TAA bill isnt nearly as robust as it should be in light of a trade agreement that encompasses 40 percent of the global economy," Pelosi
wrote in a Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. "While we may not all vote in the same manner on TAA, I will support its passage because it can open the door
to a full debate on TPP." Obama is currently negotiating the TPP with 11 Pacific nations. The TPP and two other large trade deals that the administration is working

depends on Congress granting him

fast-track powers. Pelosi and a majority of House Democrats oppose fast-track, as well as the massive trade deals that the administration is pushing. They
on, together encompass over half of the world's economy. The passage of the agreements

argue that such deals fail to protect workers at home, lack sufficiently robust environmental standards and financial regulations, and do nothing to stop unfair currency
manipulation. "My standard for any trade agreement is that it must create good-paying 21st century jobs, increase the paychecks of American workers, and it must do
so recognizing the relationship between commerce and climate," Pelosi wrote. With

fast-track legislation expected to reach Obama's desk Wednesday

into law, the public will have only two months to read and understand deals such as the TPP
after they are negotiated and before the president signs them. Congress will have to
evening and be signed

approve the deals as quickly as one month after that, with no changes
allowed .
TPP Guaranteed - no filibuster, dems dont want the fight, TPA passage make
political downsides a sunk cost fights on other issues dont spillover to trade
anyway
Weisman, 6/23 Jonathan, Economic Policy Reporter @ NYT, 6/23/15,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-on-trade-bill.html
The Senate
to end debate on legislation granting Mr. Obama enhanced negotiating powers to
complete a major Pacific trade accord, virtually assuring final passage Wednesday of Mr. Obamas
top legislative priority in his final years in office. The procedural vote of 60 to 37 just reached the minimum needed, but final Senate passage will require
President Obamas ambitious trade push is back on track, after several near-death moments, in large measure because top Republicans stood by him.
on Tuesday narrowly voted

only 51 votes. The House approved trade promotion authority last week. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, criticized the Republicans
approach, saying it would hinder the ability to address climate change and its connection to commerce through the broader trade bill.House Sends Trade Bill Back to
Senate in Bid to Outflank FoesJUNE 18, 2015 People harvesting lychee in Vietnam, which is the only Communist member of the prospective Trans-Pacific
Partnership.Failure of Obamas Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Could Hurt U.S. Influence in AsiaJUNE 16, 2015 House Republicans and White House Try to Revive Trade
Bill Stalled by DemocratsJUNE 15, 2015 With

congressional support for fast track authority, the president can press
for final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a legacy-defining accord linking 40 percent of the worlds economy from
Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia in a web of rules governing Pacific commerce. His administration can also bear down on a second agreement with Europe
known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership knowing

that lawmakers will be able to vote for or against

those agreements but will not be able to amend or filibuster them. The Atlantic agreement is not expected to be completed until
the next administration is in office, but the trade negotiating powers would stretch for six years well into the next presidency. Together those two accords would put
much of the globe under the same trade rules, not only lowering tariffs and other import barriers but also creating new standards for Internet access, intellectual
property and investor protections. This is a very important day for our country, said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader,
whose procedural maneuvering was largely responsible for the outcome. America is back in the trade business. Most Democrats along with labor unions,
environmental groups and liberal activists disagreed, saying that such trade agreements had resulted in lost manufacturing jobs and lower wages for American
workers. It is a great day for the big money interests, not a great day for working families, said Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who is seeking the
Democratic presidential nomination. But 13 Democrats sided with Republicans to end the debate and get to a final vote on trade promotion authority. Tuesdays vote
was the second time the Senate had blocked a filibuster of fast-track authority, but this time the bill was shorn of a separate measure to offer enhanced retraining and
educational assistance to workers displaced by international trade accords. That measure also faces a crucial vote on Wednesday. Passage of a stand-alone trade
promotion bill will put pressure on House Democrats, who just over a week ago brought down the worker aid provision, known as trade adjustment assistance, when it
was linked to the fast-track legislation, in a strategic move they hoped would defeat the entire trade package. But Republican leaders with support from the White

legislation will
most likely be on the presidents desk, giving him the power to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He
House found a parliamentary way to corner the Democratic opponents, by separating the two pieces of the bill. By Wednesday evening,

can sign it whether or not the House passes worker dislocation assistance when it is scheduled to come to a vote late Thursday. Josh Earnest, the White House press
secretary, said House Democrats should get on board. The previous explanation that we heard from some Democrats who voted against trade adjustment assistance
something that Democrats have steadfastly supported for decades is that they were doing that in an effort to slow down the advancement of trade promotion
authority legislation, he said. That will no longer be a factor to consider. The

tortuous path of the trade legislation over the last six months
created the unusual alliance between Mr. Obama and Republican leaders, who otherwise have

worked to thwart him on domestic and foreign policies. Occasionally, even the leader of the Democratic Party,
the president of the United States, gets things right, said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican. In the end, Mr. McConnell all but
secured the top remaining legislative priority of a president he once vowed to turn out after one term. The Senate is set on
Wednesday to give final approval to trade promotion authority, then vote to end debate on a separate bill that attaches worker dislocation assistance to a broadly
popular bill extending a trade agreement with several African countries. To attract more votes, Senate leaders added another provision speeding up action against
foreign competitors who are found to be dumping selling steel and other products in the United States at artificially low prices in an effort to put domestic
manufacturers out of business. Senators would vote on that package on Thursday, and if it is approved, as expected, it would go to the House the same day. This time,
if Democrats vote down trade adjustment assistance, they will be effectively killing a worker education and retraining program created during the Kennedy
administration and that party members have nurtured ever since, but will still most likely watch Mr. Obama sign the fast-track bill into law. I dont think any
Democrats voted against T.A.A. last time because they opposed T.A.A., said Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Houses No. 2 Democrat. I will concede
there will be a different context around the next vote. At the same time, House and Senate negotiators will begin hashing out differences over a separate bill
enhancing measures to police trade agreements. Opponents had hoped that trade promotion authority without worker assistance would run into trouble in the Senate.

And some Democrats tried to stoke fears that Congress could give the president the power to complete major trade deals without assistance to affected workers. How
shameful is that? said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who led the opposition to trade promotion authority. Were making this decision knowing people
will lose their jobs because of our actions. Yet we are not going to pass this assistance. In the end, though ,

Democratic senators who had

already voted once for trade promotion authority understood they were not going

to escape the criticism , especially from the unions. They wanted to be done
with it . Senate Democrats had already taken a lot of hits in getting to this point, said
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee and a co-author of the trade promotion bill.

--- PIVOT IMPACT ANSWERS ---

Asia Pivot Thumper Sequestration/ISIS

Sequestration plus ISIS jack asia pivot.

Whyte and Weitz 1-29. [Leon, MA candidate @ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy @ Tufts, Richard, Senior Fellow and
Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, non-resident Adjunct Senior Fellow @ Center for a New American
Securitiy, "Enough to go around? Money matters complicate US strategic rebalance to Asia-Pacific" Fletcher Security Review Vol 2 No 1 -www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/1455/2015_01_29_weitz_whyte.pdf]
However, U.S. economic weaknesses and the Budget Control Act of 2011 which mandates cuts in U.S. government
spending (known

as sequestration) have constrained the U.S. governments ability to resource the

Rebalance adequately and meet its regional security commitments.7 The sequestration process was deliberately devised to
present the Congress with an unacceptable outcome if the members failed to balance the budget through a combination of tax hikes and targeted
spending cuts. But the congressional compromise has failed to occur, and now sequestration is threatening to wreck havoc

throughout the government with arbitrary percentage-driven spending cuts. Complicating matters further
in the defense domain are the Talibans resilience in Afghanistan and the stunning emergence of the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. During the initial planning and unveiling of the Rebalance, the United
States assumed it would be possible to shift more resources to Asia as it curtailed its commitments in the
Middle East and South Asia,8 yet U.S. engagement in these areas is steadying or growing. New challenges
have also emerged in Europe due to Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Sequestration and troop reductions jack Asia Pivot.

Whyte and Weitz 1-29. [Leon, MA candidate @ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy @ Tufts, Richard, Senior Fellow and
Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, non-resident Adjunct Senior Fellow @ Center for a New American
Securitiy, "Enough to go around? Money matters complicate US strategic rebalance to Asia-Pacific" Fletcher Security Review Vol 2 No 1 -www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/1455/2015_01_29_weitz_whyte.pdf]
In 2014, Katrina McFarland, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, declared that due to budget constraints the

pivot is being looked at again, because candidly it cant happen .21 The next day, MacFarland withdrew her
statement, but there are genuine concerns about U.S. ability to continue strengthen commitments to Asia
while managing other worldwide crises as defense resources shrink. For example, despite his many assurances to Asian
allies about the rebalance policy, Hagel warned in 2014 that, if the sequestration cuts continued as planned, the
military would become a hollow force. . . not capable of fulfilling assigned missions.22 Under current plans,
the United States will reduce its military budget by $487 billion in planned cuts over the next ten years on top of a potential additional $500
billion in cuts mandated by sequestration.23 A further concern is that the U.S. military will have to reallocate

resources to carry out new missions in Iraq, Syria, Europe, and other locations.24 Another important
aspect of the defense cut is the plan to reduce the overall size of the active duty U.S. Army to fewer than
450,000 soldiers, which would be its smallest size since before WWII.25 For Seoul, these reductions are
of particular concern because any major Korean contingency in the event of a North Korean invasion or
collapse would require a massive ground force to stabilize the peninsula.26 For Japan and South East
Asian countries, the U.S. Navy presence is a major concern since much of the disputed territory in the
region is maritime. Even if the Navy moves 60 percent of their fleet to the Pacific by 2020, continuing current cuts may result in a
smaller force. For example, the 2015 Department of Defense budget reduced funding for U.S. Navy shipbuilding from $17.9 billion to $14.4
billion.27 The U.S. Air Force, which would be important in any conflict in the Asia-Pacific, has suffered

critical budget cuts relating to its readiness, force structure, and modernization accounts.28 These defense
cutbacks has led the head of U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Locklear, to state that The ability for the services to
provide the type of maritime coverage, the air coverage of some of the key elements that weve historically needed in
this part of the world for crisis response, have not been available to the level that I would consider
acceptable risk [due to recent budget cutbacks], a response bound to leave U.S. allies uneasy as tensions remain high in East
Asia.29 U.S. efforts to revitalize the U.S. nuclear weapons establishment or develop new non-nuclear technologies, such as through the
Pentagons new Offset Strategy, are also constrained by limited funding.

Asia Pivot Thumper - AIIB

Zero influence in Asia now AIIB proves.
Auslin 3-17. [Michael, resident scholar and the director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, "Obama's Asia Policy
Flounders" Commentary Magazine -- https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/17/obamas-asia-policy-flounders/]
The second piece of evidence on the missteps of Obamas Asia policy is the little-known issue of the

Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). This is arguably a far more serious failure to understand and react to a major foreign initiative
than the Burmese example. In 2014, the Chinese government proposed a $50 billion lending institution for the region. The
AIIB is inescapably an alternative to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, both of which are guided by Western
financial principles and ensure the influence of Washington or allied nations, like Japan. As the biggest shareholder, founder, and guiding spirit,

China most likely will dominate the AIIB, and thereby increase its economic and political influence even
more in Asia. The founding of the AIIB might not have been such a big deal, but for the Obama
administrations ham-fisted response. In trying to pressure nations not to sign on as shareholders, Obama
has revealed just how little global influence he has. Not only have most Asian nations signed on, but
Americas main allies, including Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy have joined, as well, ignoring
U.S. pleas to stay out. The Financial Times charitably called Washingtons abandonment by its allies a blow to US foreign policy. But
with the news that stalwart U.S. ally Australia has also joined, veteran and respected Australian commentator Greg Sheridan
scathingly destroys the fiction of American standing in Asia , writing that Canberras decision represents

a colossal defeat for Obama (the article is behind a pay wall, but excerpts are here). Why has
Washington fallen on hard times in Asia? In Sheridans view, Obama is reaping the results of years of
incompetent, distracted diplomacy that has left his administration with neither the continuous
presence, nor the tactical wherewithal, nor the store of goodwill or personal relationships to carry anyone
along with it. As if to underscore Sheridans analysis of Obamas diplomatic crudeness, which includes a reminder that Obama personally
insulted Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott with a rogue climate change speech at the G-20 in Brisbane last year, Washington accused
London, its closest global ally, of constant accommodation of China, after its decision to join the AIIB. Such is the petulant, panicked response
of an administration that has failed to understand, anticipate, analyze, and respond to changes that will reshape Asias financial landscape. Now
with South Korea considering joining the AIIB, Washington will be left isolated only with its ally Japan as new
regional financial relationships are created. Ultimately, either Obama or his successor will likely bow to reality, and find a face-saving way to join
the AIIB. Yet it will be clear to everyone in Asia, as well as Europe, that the United States was outplayed by China and forced

into an impotent, reactive role.

---TRADE IMPACT ANSWERS---

trade resilient
Zero risk of protectionism
Ahearn 9 [Raymond, CRS Specialist in International Trade and Finance, The Global Economic
Downturn and Protectionism, March 23, 2009,
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19395.pdf]
There are a number of reasons why the threat of a return to protectionist, beggar-thy-neighbor
policies could be vastly overstated. Unlike the 1930s, todays global economy has several strong
firewalls to prevent governments from raising trade barriers that result in a cycle of retaliation and
counter-retaliation. These firewalls include more institutionalized obstacles to protectionism built
into the WTO system, more policy instruments to address the economic slowdown, and a more
interdependent and open world economy than existed in the 1930s. In addition, some in todays media
may tend to overstate the threat of protectionism by not always distinguishing between protectionist
actions and protectionist pressures and/or by equating legitimate forms of protection with
protectionism. The fact that there is ample room for increases in trade measures and barriers that
are consistent with the rules and obligations of the WTO often may go unappreciated in some
press coverage. These trade measures and barriers include increases in applied tariffs to bound
rates, and imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties, so-called defensive trade
measures.4 Protection for limited periods of time and under prescribed conditions is built into the rules
of the WTO as a political safety valve and as a recognition of the human and social costs that are
associated with the often wrenching adjustments that accompany increased trade competition.
Firewalls Against Protectionism WTO rules today serve to keep a lid on trade barriers of its 153
members through an elaborate set of mutual obligations and dispute settlement procedures.
Unlike the 1930s when countries could impose higher trade barriers unilaterally without
violating any international agreements or anticipating a foreign reaction, under todays rules
members can take their disputes to the WTO for settlement rather than engaging in reciprocal
retaliatory actions. The fact that countries violating WTO obligations can face WTO-sanctioned
retaliation helps constrain outbreaks of unilateral actions that could be mutually harmful.5
Pressures for protection are also dampened by a world economy that is much more
interdependent and integrated than in the 1930s.6 Leading producers have become so international in
their production operations and supply chains that they have developed a vested interest in resisting
protectionism.7 Many industries that have faced import competition in the past such as

televisions and semiconductorshave found that international diversification or joint ventures

with foreign partners are a more profitable way of coping with global competition than blocking
goods at the border. In addition, many domestic industries have less incentive to ask for import
restrictions because foreign rivals now produce in the domestic market, eliminating the benefits of trade
barriers for domestic firms .8 Unlike the early 1930s, when governments took little responsibility
for propping up financial institutions and were unable to pursue expansionary monetary policies
due to fixed exchange rates under the gold standard, policymakers around the world today are
adopting expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. These expansionary policies, in turn, have
the capability of dampening protectionist pressures and demands that stem from job losses and
related economic hardship with lower interest rates and increased expenditures on
unemployment benefits and health care benefits.9 A related consideration is that todays world
economy is much more open than the world economy of the 1930s. Average tariffs on world
trade have come down from the 50% range in the 1930s, to the 25% range in the 1980s, and to
less than 10% today.10 Under these circumstances, it would require tremendous increases in

protection to get the world back to anywhere near the conditions of the 1930s, although a major

increase in tariffs (e.g. a doubling) would be disruptive even if it left tariffs well below the 1930s
levels. Scorecard of Protective Measures To Date Empirical support exists for the view that existing
legal, economic, and political firewalls are restraining todays protectionist pressures . Most importantly,
Pascal Lamy, the WTOs Director General, reported in January 2009 that most WTO members
have successfully kept domestic protectionist pressures under control with only limited
evidence of increases in trade restricting or trade distorting measures taken during the last six
months of 2008. This assessment was based on the first report of the WTO secretariat on the
trade effects of the global economic crisis. The report found only limited evidence of an
increase in tariffs, non-tariff barriers or trade-remedy actions by member countries, but noted that
the most significant actions taken in response to the global crisis have involved financial
support of one kind or another to banks and other financial institutions and to certain industries,
notably the automobile industry.11 The WTO report notes tariff increases on selected products
being implemented by India, Russia, Ecuador, and Ukraine. Countries adopting non-tariff
measures include Indonesia (port of entry barriers) and Argentina (import licensing
requirements). Argentina was cited for measures that attempt to boost exports of selected
products. But the report indicates that there has been no dramatic increase in antidumping
investigations in the second half of 2008 compared to first half of 2008, but raised the possibility
of increased trade remedy actions in 2009.12 The World Bank, which has also been monitoring
trade restrictions proposed and adopted since the beginning of the financial crisis, reached a
conclusion similar to that of the WTO. Its initial report determined that there have been 47 trade
restrictive measures imposed since the financial crisis began last summer, including 17 from G20 countries, but that these measures have probably had only marginal effects on trade flows to
date. In addition to the measures cited by the WTO, the World Bank report cited Chinas import
ban on various food products from the EU, and export subsidies provided by the EU, China, and
India. Contrary to the WTO report, the World Bank report determined that the number of
antidumping cases (both investigations initiated and imposition of duties) surged in 2008.13

It will never collapse trade

Ikenson 9 (Daniel, associate director for the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, A Protectionism Fling: Why Tariff
Hikes and Other Trade Barriers Will Be Short-Lived, 3/12, http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-037.html
A Little Perspective, Please Although

some governments will dabble in some degree of protectionism, the

combination of a sturdy rules-based system of trade and the economic self interest in being open to
participation in the global economy will limit the risk of a protectionist pandemic. According to recent estimates
from the International Food Policy Research Institute, if all WTO members were to raise all of their applied tariffs to the
maximum bound rates, the average global rate of duty would double and the value of global trade would
decline by 7.7 percent over five years.8 That would be a substantial decline relative to the 5.5 percent annual rate of trade growth
experienced this decade.9 But, to put that 7.7 percent decline in historical perspective, the value of global trade
declined by 66 percent between 1929 and 1934, a period mostly in the wake of Smoot Hawley's passage
in 1930.10 So the potential downside today from what Bergsten calls "legal protectionism" is actually not that
"massive," even if all WTO members raised all of their tariffs to the highest permissible rates. If most
developing countries raised their tariffs to their bound rates, there would be an adverse impact on the countries that raise barriers and on their
most important trade partners. But most developing countries that have room to backslide (i.e., not China) are not major importers, and thus the
impact on global trade flows would not be that significant. OECD countries and China account for the top twothirds of global import value.11
Backsliding from India, Indonesia, and Argentina (who collectively account for 2.4 percent of global imports) is not going to be the spark that
ignites a global trade war. Nevertheless, governments are keenly aware of the events that transpired in the 1930s, and have made various pledges
to avoid protectionist measures in combating the current economic situation. In the United States, after President Obama publicly registered his
concern that the "Buy American" provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act might be perceived as protectionist or could incite a
trade war, Congress agreed to revise the legislation to stipulate that the Buy American provision "be applied in a manner consistent with United
States obligations under international agreements." In early February, China's vice commerce minister, Jiang Zengwei, announced that China
would not include "Buy China" provisions in its own $586 billion stimulus bill.12 But even more promising than pledges to avoid trade

provocations are actions taken to reduce existing trade barriers. In an effort to "reduce business operating costs, attract and retain foreign
investment, raise business productivity, and provide consumers a greater variety and better quality of goods and services at competitive prices,"
the Mexican government initiated a plan in January to unilaterally reduce tariffs on about 70 percent of the items on its tariff schedule. Those
8,000 items, comprising 20 different industrial sectors, accounted for about half of all Mexican import value in 2007. When the final phase of the
plan is implemented on January 1, 2013, the average industrial tariff rate in Mexico will have fallen from 10.4 percent to 4.3 percent.13 And
Mexico is not alone. In February, the Brazilian government suspended tariffs entirely on some capital goods imports and reduced to 2 percent
duties on a wide variety of machinery and other capital equipment, and on communications and information technology products.14 That
decision came on the heels of late-January decision in Brazil to scrap plans for an import licensing program that would have affected 60 percent
of the county's imports.15 Meanwhile, on February 27, a new free trade agreement was signed between Australia, New Zealand, and the 10
member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to reduce and ultimately eliminate tariffs on 96 percent of all goods by 2020.

While the media and members of the trade policy community fixate on how various protectionist
measures around the world might foreshadow a plunge into the abyss , there is plenty of evidence that
governments remain interested in removing barriers to trade. Despite the occasional temptation to indulge
discredited policies, there is a growing body of institutional knowledge that when people are free to
engage in commerce with one another as they choose, regardless of the nationality or location of the other parties, they can
leverage that freedom to accomplish economic outcomes far more impressive than when governments
attempt to limit choices through policy constraints.

Timeframe is decades
IINS 10, India Infoline News Service, Large-scale trade protectionism unlikely, June 30,
http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Large-scale-trade-protectionismunlikely/4872197176
The world economy has changed structurally in the past few decades, making any serious implementation
of protectionist measures almost impossible. Developed countries are more dependent on imports of
manufactured goods and services than they have ever been. Most developed countries have oriented
their domestic production capacities towards high-end products. Their domestic capacities for
manufacturing low-end products are modest at best, so it will not be easy for them to launch a fullscale protectionist war. Setting up large production capacities to replace imports would take years if not
decades. Besides, raising import tariffs across-the-board will certainly raise prices for domestic
consumers manifold.

Leaders wont cave to pressure

Ng Baoying 9, Channel NewsAsia, Mounting pressure on governments to support local
economy, but protectionism unlikely,
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/421521/1/.html
As the world deals with a global recession, there are concerns that some countries will turn to
protectionist measures to shield their domestic economies. But observers have said that so far,
most governments remain committed to free trade and that global trade flows are not likely to suffer
for now. China exports cheap toys to many parts of the world. And should countries restrict imports
on its toys, experts said China can easily retaliate. For example, it can block hard disk drives from
Thailand, which are sent to China for assembly into computers. And this could lead to a
downward spiral. But analysts said this is unlikely, as supply chains are extremely interlinked on a
global scale. David Cohen, Director of Asian Economic Forecasting, Action Economics, said:
"The fact that at these international gatherings they still feel obliged to include a statement
opposing broad protectionism in their communique from their summits, that should help allow them
to resist any domestic pressure for further protectionism. "In the current environment, I think the
leaders are aware that they would only make things worse if they were to start adopting increases in
tariffs; that would choke off world trade more than it has fallen off in the global downturn. "I
think they do realise that when people look back (to) the 1930s, they identify the protectionist
tariffs as having aggravated the downturn, and I think the leaders are intent that they are not going to

go down that route again."

No constituency for protectionism

Rodrik 9 [Dani, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The Myth of Rising Protectionism,
http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf]
The reality is that the international trade regime has passed its greatest test since the Great Depression
with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound
like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands.
Three things explain this remarkable resilience : ideas, politics , and institutions . Economists have been
extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers even if ordinary people still
regard imports with considerable suspicion. Nothing reflects this better than how protection and
protectionists have become terms of derision. After all, governments are generally expected to
provide protection to its citizens. But if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are
painted into a corner with Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, authors of the infamous 1930 US
tariff bill. But economists ideas would not have gone very far without significant changes in the
underlying configuration of political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker and firm
affected adversely by import competition, there is one or more worker and firm expecting to reap the
benefits of access to markets abroad. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often
represented by large multinational corporations. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a
former Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an
American farmer: I have never actually seen one, the minister quipped. I have only seen US
conglomerates masquerading as farmers. But the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on
trade issues must ultimately be attributed to something else altogether: the safety nets erected by
the welfare state. Modern industrial societies now have a wide array of social protections
unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as
health insurance and family support that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection. The
welfare state is the flip side of the open economy. If the world has not fallen off the protectionist
precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930s, much of the credit must go the social
programs that conservatives and market fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle
against trade protection has been won so far. But, before we relax, lets remember that we still
have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the
inevitable clash between Chinas need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured
goods and Americas need to maintain a smaller current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is
little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat.

no impact - trade
War destroys trade
Reuven Glick and, Economic Research Department at Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
Alan M. Taylor 5, econ at Cal-Davis, collateral damage: trade disruption and the economic
impact of war, July, http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/amtaylor/papers/w11565.pdf
In this paper we examine some major indirect costs of war over the period 18701997 that have
never previously been examined, namely the effect of belligerent conflict on the volume of
international trade and consequently on per capita incomes and economic welfare. Using
econometric methods we find a very strong impact of war on trade volumes. Moreover these effects
have two important characteristics. First, they are persistent: even after conflicts end, trade does not
resume its pre-war level for many years, exacerbating total costs. Second, they have a multilateral
dimension: unlike the direct costs of war, which largely affect only the belligerents, commercial
losses affect neutral parties as well, meaning that wars generate a large negative externality via trade
destruction. We use these results to make general equilibrium comparative statics estimates of the
impact of World Wars I and II on global trade and income. Our paper is part of the renaissance of
research activity on the applied economics of international trade. A growing theoretical and
empirical literature relates bilateral trade flows to measures of joint economic activity and costs
of trade. These so-called gravity models have been utilized as benchmarks from which to assess
the trade impact of economic disturbances and policy regimes, such as exchange rate variability
(e.g., Thursby and Thursby 1987), preferential trade arrangements (e.g., Frankel, Stein, and Wei
1996), and currency unions (e.g., Rose 2000).1 On theoretical grounds, wars and other forms of
militarized conflict should affect trade among adversaries. Military conflict between countries is
often accompanied by the imposition of partial or total trade embargoes on the exchange of goods.
Conflict may also reduce trade flows by raising the costs to private agents of engaging in international
business. However, the relation of aggregate trade to political disturbances and conflict has not
received much attention among economists. Among the few extant studies, Blomberg and Hess
(2004) analyze the impact on trade of various forms of violence, including war and terrorism,
while Martin, Mayer, and Thoenig (forthcoming) estimate the effects of military conflicts on
trade. But these analyses focus only on the latter half of the twentieth century; our data span a
much longer period including the two great wars of the twentieth century.2

Self-interest means security always trumps trade

Layne 98, Christopher, associate professor at Naval Postgraduate School, Summer, World Policy
Journal, p. 8-28
These arguments notwithstanding, international economic interdependence does not cause peace. In
fact, it has very serious adverse security consequences that its proponents either do not understand or
will not acknowledge. Economic relations (whether domestic or international) never take place
in a vacuum; on the contrary, they occur within a politically defined framework. International
economic interdependence requires certain conditions in order to flourish, including a maximum
degree of political order and stability. Just as the market cannot function within a state unless the
state creates a stable "security" environment in which economic exchange can occur (by
protecting property rights and enforcing contracts), the same is true in international relations.
Because there is no world government, it falls to the dominant state to create the conditions
under which economic interdependence can take hold (by providing security, rules of the game,

and a reserve currency, and by acting as the global economy's banker and lender of last resort).
Without a dominant power to perform these tasks, economic interdependence does not happen.
Indeed, free trade and interdependence have occurred in the modern international system only
during the hegemonies of Victorian Britain and postwar America. International economic
interdependence generally occurs when states feel secure, when they do not have to worry that others will
transform their economic gains from trade into military advantages. Conversely, when states are
concerned about their security, they are less likely to engage in free trade. When security is at issue,

states are always measuring themselves in comparison with their actual, or potential, rivals.
When states feel secure, they focus on the overall gains to global wealth that flow from trade . Under
peaceful international conditions, the distribution of this increased wealth is not a matter of high
politics: so long as all states are getting wealthier, trade is looked upon as a good thing. When security
is an issue, however, states become intensely concerned about how the gains from trade are being
distributed. When security concerns are paramount, the key question no longer is whether
everyone is gaining something but rather who is gaining the most. Because economic power is
the cornerstone of military strength, when security is an issue states want their economies to be
more vigorous and to grow faster than those of their rivals. Also, when war is regarded as a real
possibility, states deliberately attempt to reduce their dependence on imported products and raw materials
in order to minimize their vulnerability to economic coercion by others. This also impairs economic
interdependence. The bottom line here is this: When security in the international system is plentiful,
trade flourishes and, so long as they are getting richer themselves, states are untroubled by the fact
that others also are getting wealthier. When security in the international system is scarce , however,
trade diminishes; states seek to maximize their power (economic and military) over their rivals,

and hence attempt to ensure they become richer than their rivals.

Only a small percentage of wealth

John Mearsheimer 1, American professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago,
Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 370-371
There are problems with this perspective, too." In particular, there is always the possibility that a
serious economic crisis in some important region, or in the world at large, will undermine the prosperity
that this theory needs to work. For example, it is widely believed that Asia's "economic miracle" worked
to dampen security competition in that region before 1997, but that the 1997-98 financial crisis in Asia
helped foster a "new geopolitics."24 It is also worth noting that although the United States led a
successful effort to contain that financial crisis, it was a close call, and there is no guarantee that the next
crisis will not spread across the globe. But even in the absence of a major economic crisis, one or more
states might not prosper; such a state would have little to lose economically, and maybe even something
to gain, by starting a war. A key reason that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August
1990 was that Kuwait was exceeding its oil production quotas (set by the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, or OPEC) and driving down Iraq's oil profits, which the Iraqi economy could

ill-afford.25 There are two other reasons to doubt the claim that economic interdependence
makes great-power war unlikely. States usually go to war against a single rival, and they aim to win a
quick and decisive victory. Also, they invariably seek to discourage other states from joining with the
other side in the fight. But a war against one or even two opponents is unlikely to do much damage to a
state's economy, because typically only a tiny percentage of a state's wealth is tied up in economic
intercourse with any other state. It is even possible, as discussed in Chapter 5, that conquest will
produce significant economic benefits. Finally, an important historical case contradicts this perspective .
As noted above, there was probably about as much economic interdependence in Europe between 1900

and 1914 as there is today. Those were also prosperous years for the European great powers. Yet World
War I broke out in 1914. Thus a highly interdependent world economy does not make great-power war
more or less likely. Great powers must be forever vigilant and never subordinate survival to any other
goal, including prosperity.

Trade doesnt solve war

Martin et. al. 8 (Phillipe, University of Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne, Paris School of Economics, and Centre for Economic Policy
Research; Thierry MAYER, University of Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne, Paris School of Economics, CEPII, and Centre for Economic Policy
Research, Mathias THOENIG, University of Geneva and Paris School of Economics, The Review of Economic Studies 75)

Does globalization pacify international relations? The liberal view in political science argues that increasing trade flows and
the spread of free markets and democracy should limit the incentive to use military force in interstate relations. This vision, which can partly be
traced back to Kants Essay on Perpetual Peace (1795), has been very influential: The main objective of the European trade integration process
was to prevent the killing and destruction of the two World Wars from ever happening again.1 Figure 1 suggests2 however, that during the

18702001 period, the correlation between trade openness and military conflicts is not a clear cut one. The
first era of globalization, at the end of the 19th century, was a period of rising trade openness and multiple military
conflicts, culminating with World War I. Then, the interwar period was characterized by a simultaneous
collapse of world trade and conflicts. After World War II, world trade increased rapidly, while the number of
conflicts decreased (although the risk of a global conflict was obviously high). There is no clear evidence that
the 1990s, during which trade flows increased dramatically, was a period of lower prevalence of military
conflicts, even taking into account the increase in the number of sovereign states.