Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3,500 |
The U.S. had failed to be a world leader in fighting global warming—until this week.¶ President Obama’s new climate-change plan, which he unfurled at a speech at Georgetown University, is a messy, second-best affair. It comes only after he failed to move an economy-wide climate-change bill through Congress, and, at its core, the plan relies on a top-down executive mandate to force cuts of carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. It will face legal challenges, cost jobs in coal country, and galvanize his political opponents, from Republicans to the fossil-fuel industry.¶ But bypassing Congress and using the unpopular tool of executive action also positions Obama to do what no president before him has been able to—show up at the global climate-change negotiating table with a credible, concrete action plan in hand, one that he can use to force action from other nations.¶ In the past, even when U.S. leaders have had the best of intentions at global climate talks, they have failed to deliver on their promises. That’s because those pledges have relied on action from Congress, which has failed to follow up. In 1997, Vice President Al Gore was hailed as a climate leader at the United Nations summit in Kyoto, Japan, when he signed the historic Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first binding global climate-change treaty. But his credibility took a nosedive after he came home and the Senate voted not to ratify the treaty—ensuring that the U.S., the world’s biggest economy and largest historic global-warming polluter, would not be able to take the lead in combatting the problem.¶ Obama fell into the same trap in 2009 when he showed up at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, at which nations hoped to forge a true follow-up treaty to Kyoto, one that would include real action from all the major economies. Obama pledged that the U.S. would act—the Senate would soon pass a sweeping climate bill, he said—and standing on that pledge, he attempted to muscle China and India into signing on to binding emissions cuts.¶ At the time, a Chinese negotiator shared with me his skepticism about Senate passage: “There’s no way Harry Reid will get 60 votes for that,” he said then.¶ He was right, and Obama’s promise of action from Congress was proven wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid couldn’t even get all the Democrats in his chamber to vote for the bill, and he abandoned the effort.¶ Now comes round three, with the clock running out on U.S. credibility—not to mention the planet. The U.N. has scheduled a global climate summit in France for December 2015, at which world leaders will attempt, once again, to forge a meaningful, legally binding climate-change treaty committing them to fundamentally changing their economies, moving away from fossil fuels, and cutting carbon pollution enough to save the planet from an average temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, at which point scientists say we’ll see a devastating surge in sea levels, debilitating droughts, deadlier storms, extreme water shortages, and more.¶ There’s no way the U.S. can walk into the talks with only a shaky promise of future action by Congress. That’s why Obama’s new plan, as inadequate as it may be as a piece of domestic policy, could allow him to fundamentally change global policy on climate change. It’s clear from the timetable Obama laid out in his speech earlier this week that that’s what he intends to do. The president said the Environmental Protection Agency will release a draft climate-change rule on cutting pollution from existing coal-fired power plants by June 2014, finishing the rule in June 2015.¶ That will arm U.S. negotiators with a concrete action to bring to the table when they head to a presummit meeting in fall 2014, at which nations are expected to offer up their bids and set the table for a final agreement in 2015, just as the EPA rule goes online.¶ “This can show the U.S. is delivering on its goals,” said Michael Levi, an energy- and climate-policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It gives the U.S. credibility, whether on getting a binding treaty or getting more juice to pursue an international strategy.”¶ Analysts say that the executive action takes away the excuse other countries have long used for sitting on their hands. Specifically, the move could ramp up U.S. leverage in its push to extract climate concessions from China, now the world’s largest global-warming polluter. “This will put a lot more pressure on China,” said Ailun Yang, an analyst with the World Resources Institute, a think tank.¶ Europeans are also encouraged. France, as host of what it hopes will be a historic summit, has been watching Obama closely. “What makes a difference is that he’s no longer delaying,” said a French official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the French government had released a separate formal statement about Obama’s speech. “Had he not moved now, it would have been quite clear that the U.S. would not be in a position to do something meaningful in 2015. It gives credibility, for sure. Everyone’s trying to make a calculation about how the U.S. is going to act: If the Americans are serious about it, everyone else has to be, too. It kick-starts the international discussion.”¶ Opponents of U.S. climate action often point out—correctly—that if Washington moves to cut its emissions but no one else does, it won’t be enough to stop serious global warming. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, action is impossible without a move by the world’s largest superpower. Obama’s climate plan faces many hurdles; it could be delayed or felled in the courts. But if it stands, it could trigger change on a global scale.
|
Coral Davenport, 7/1/2013, National Journal, "The US just became a global leader in fighting climate change," http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-u-s-just-became-a-global-leader-in-fighting-climate-change-20130627
|
The U.S. had failed to be leader in fighting global warming until this we But bypassing Congress and using executive action positions Obama to show up at the global climate-change negotiating table with a credible action plan that he can use to force action from other nations. Obama’s plan could allow him to fundamentally change global policy on climate change. This can show the U.S. is delivering on its goals gives the U.S. credibility, whether on getting a binding treaty or getting more juice to pursue an international strategy executive action takes away the excuse other countries have long used for sitting on their hands. the move could ramp up U.S. leverage in its push to extract climate concessions from Chin Obama’s plan could trigger change on a global scale
|
Obama is taking executive action to restore climate leadership – this is sufficient to solve
| 5,692 | 92 | 775 | 952 | 15 | 130 | 0.015756 | 0.136555 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,501 |
Emerging economies such as Mexico and India are shifting energy investments into renewable resources while industrialised countries hesitate, noted two new United Nations reports released Wednesday in Nairobi, Kenya.¶ “There is a structural change in the global energy sector underway,” said Ulf Moslener, head of research of the Frankfurt School in Germany.¶ “Costs are dropping radically. Renewables represented 6.5 percent of all electricity generated and reduced carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes in 2012,” said Moslener, co-author of Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2013, a report sponsored by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP).¶ Developing countries are finding installing green energy to be far less expensive than relying on fossil fuels, Moslener told IPS. Poorer countries want to reap the benefits of stable energy costs, new jobs, improved air quality and reduced health and climate damage.¶ While political debates about the future of green energy preoccupy countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, developing countries have embraced cleaner energy. The move is reflected by a narrowing investment gap. In 2012, developing countries invested 112 billion dollars in clean energy, compared to developed economies’ 132 billion dollars.¶ In 2007, developed economies’ investments were two-and-a-half times greater (excluding large hydro) than those of developing economies.¶ Globally, despite a 12 percent decline in investment, more renewable energy went online in 2012 than in any previous year, the main reason being a 30 to 40 percent drop in the cost of solar energy.¶ “Around the world, there is a shift to clean energy,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.¶ Investors understand that clean energy no longer costs more than fossil energy. As such, there is a lot of excitement about the potential of large-scale projects in wide range of countries.¶ Nevertheless, investments in clean energy in 2013 would have been higher had governments in Europe and North America not abruptly pulled back from green energy policies.¶ “No industry has been treated as badly as the clean energy sector, particularly in Europe,” Liebreich said in an interview.¶ Frequent and sometimes wholesale changes in renewable energy policies create market uncertainty, he said, so investors hold back, waiting for clarity and stability.¶ Such changes are being driven by polarised politics and a fact-free debate about future energy choices, particularly in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada. These countries are going to be five years behind the shift to low-cost, clean energy, he said.¶ Liebreich highlighted Canada’s obsession with its tar sands as good example of a government’s failure to comprehend that future economic success will be based on clean energy sources. “They are not serving the public interest,” he said.¶ In 2012, China, the United States, Germany, Japan and Italy were the top five investors in renewables. Globally, solar photovoltaic installations reached a record 30.5 gigawatts (GW), while installed wind installations topped off at 48.4 GW – both new records, according the REN21 Renewables 2013 Global Status Report.¶ In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan is shifting from a nuclear-dependent energy policy and investing significantly in solar, geothermal and wind power.¶ In the Indian state of Gujarat, a 605 MW photovoltaic solar park, completed in April 2012, is expected to save about 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. An amount of nearly 1 billion dollars was announced to go towards a 396MW wind project in Oaxaca State, Mexico.¶ “More and more countries are set to take the renewable energy stage,” said Achim Steiner, UNEP executive director. “Only last week the global host of World Environment Day, Mongolia, invited me to tour its first 50-megawatt wind farm.”¶ Mongolia has ambitious plans to harness wind and sun to power its future and supply clean energy to China and the region, Steiner said in a press conference in Nairobi.¶ “Like many other nations, it has seen the logic and the rationale of embracing a green development path,” he added.¶ An estimated 5.7 million people worldwide worked directly or indirectly in the renewable energy sector in 2012. The bulk of these jobs were in Brazil, China, India, members of the European Union, and the United States, with employment rising in other countries.¶ Selling, installing and maintaining small solar panels in rural Bangladesh, for example, employs 150,000 people directly and indirectly.¶ The transition from brown to green energy is gaining momentum as more countries, regions and cities realise that the shift is in their best economic interests, offering energy security, among other benefits.¶ Even the currently stalled U.N. climate talks won’t slow this shift, said Steiner, and a strong global climate treaty in 2015 could spur an increase in investment.¶ “The financial sector has factored in the glacial pace of the U.N. climate talks. Nothing that happens in that forum will reduce investment now,” said Liebreich.
|
Stephen Leahy, 7/2/13, Inter Press Service, "Developing countries lead global shift to green energy," http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/developing-countries-lead-global-shift-to-green-energy/
|
Emerging economies such as Mexico and India are shifting energy investments into renewable resource There is a structural change in the global energy sector underway,” Developing countries are finding installing green energy to be far less expensive than relying on fossil fuels Poorer countries want to reap the benefits of stable energy costs developing countries have embraced cleaner energy. The move is reflected by a narrowing investment gap Globally, despite a 12 percent decline in investment, more renewable energy went online in 2012 than in any previous year, the main reason being a 30 to 40 percent drop in the cost of solar energy Around the world, there is a shift to clean energy, More and more countries are set to take the renewable energy stage, The transition to green energy is gaining momentum
|
Mexico is not key to the renewable energy transition – it’s happening now because costs are declining
| 5,145 | 101 | 815 | 797 | 17 | 134 | 0.02133 | 0.16813 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,502 |
The G20 (Group of 20) was formed in 1999 to deal with global economic crises. It was supposed to allow leaders of the world's 20 largest economies – representing 85% of global output and two-thirds of its population – to co-ordinate action to keep the global economy on track.¶ At least, that was the theory. But judging by the G20 finance leaders' meeting that wrapped up today in Mexico City, you almost have to wonder why they bothered.¶ In fact, some key players didn't bother. US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner didn't show up, and neither did Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, and a number of top Chinese officials. Those absences signal a worrying lack of leadership just at a time when the world can least afford it.
|
AVAAZ Daily Briefing, 11/5/12, "leadership failure at the G20," http://en.avaaz.org/1032/leadership-failure-at-the-g20-mexico
|
The G20 supposed to allow leaders – to co-ordinate action to keep the global economy on track But judging by the G20 finance leaders' meeting that wrapped up Mexico City, you almost have to wonder why they bothered some key players didn't bother. Geithner didn't show up, and neither did head of the European Central Bank and a number of top Chinese officials Those absences signal a worrying lack of leadership just at a time when the world can least afford it
|
The last G20 summit proves Mexico has no leverage in the organization
| 743 | 69 | 461 | 130 | 12 | 82 | 0.092308 | 0.630769 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,503 |
It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well.¶ It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term.¶ Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure.¶ It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.¶ Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the country’s military industries have spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to demonstrate Russia’s ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived American meddling in Russia’s own “near abroad,” particularly Georgia and Ukraine.¶ Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin America’s broadening international relations as marking the end of US preeminence. Unlike in the bygone era of superpowers and captive nations, American influence can no longer be defined by the ability to install and depose leaders from the US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last quarter-century.¶ A continent once afflicted by military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable democracies. Responsible economic management, poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater openness to foreign investment have all helped to generate years of low-inflation growth. As a result, the region was able to withstand the ravages of the global financial crisis.¶ The US not only encouraged these changes, but has benefited hugely from them. More than 40% of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America, the US’s fastest-growing export destination. Mexico is America’s second-largest foreign market (valued at $215 billion in 2012). US exports to Central America have risen by 94% over the past six years; imports from the region have risen by 87%. And the US continues to be the largest foreign investor on the continent. American interests are evidently well served by having democratic, stable, and increasingly prosperous neighbors.¶ This new reality also demands a different type of diplomacy – one that recognizes the diverse interests of the continent. For example, an emerging power such as Brazil wants more respect on the world stage. Obama blundered when he dismissed a 2010 deal on Iran’s nuclear program mediated by Brazil and Turkey (despite having earlier endorsed the talks). Other countries might benefit from US efforts to promote democracy and socioeconomic ties, as Obama’s recent trips to Mexico and Costa Rica show.¶ Trade relations provide another all-important lever. President Sebastian Piñera of Chile visited the White House earlier this week to discuss, among other things, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious trade agreement that might encompass New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. President Ollanta Humala of Peru is expected in the White House next week, while Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to visit Latin America soon after.¶ Language and culture matter, too. Given the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence in the US, it is almost inconceivable that America could lose its unique status in the region to China or Russia, let alone Iran.¶ Gone are the days when military muscle and the politics of subversion could secure US influence – in Latin America or anywhere else. A world power today is one that can combine economic vigor and a popular culture with global outreach on the basis of shared interests. The US is better positioned than any other power in this respect, particularly when it comes to applying these advantages in its immediate vicinity.
|
Shlomo Ben-Ami, 6/5/2013, (Ben-Ami is a former ISraeli foreign Minister), Project Syndicate, "IS the US losing Latin America?" http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami
|
It is a mantra increasingly heard US power is in decline nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin Americ Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin America’s broadening international relations as marking the end of US preeminence To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last quarter-century More than 40% of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America the US’s fastest-growing export destination. Trade relations provide another all-important lever Language and culture matter, . Given the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence in the US, it is almost inconceivable that America could lose its unique status in the region to China or Russia, let alone Iran A world power today is one that can combine economic vigor and a popular culture with global outreach on the basis of shared interests. The US is better positioned than any other power in this respect, particularly when it comes to applying these advantages in its immediate vicinity
|
US influence and relations in Latin America is resilient – no chance it will lose out to China, Russia or Iran
| 5,108 | 110 | 1,002 | 816 | 21 | 165 | 0.025735 | 0.202206 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,504 |
The reality is that the Western Hemisphere is rich in natural energy resources. Latin America already boasts the world’s cleanest energy matrix, due in large measure to a reliance on hydropower and the purposeful development of biofuels. Developing clean, renewable energy resources is a regional priority, and meaningful additional projects in wind and solar are underway. Nonetheless, traditional fuels will remain critical to meet both regional and global energy needs for the foreseeable future, and here, too, Latin America and the Caribbean boast significant resources. The region is energy rich. Unfortunately, politics including populist governance and regional rivalries between states, and a sub-optimal investment climate in a number of nations—specifically including a weak and malleable rule of law—has led to sectorial underdevelopment and unnecessary inefficiencies.¶ Of course, there is nothing more politically fraught in some Latin American and Caribbean countries than national energy policies. These matters strike at the very core of nationalist sensitivities in ways that North American observers cannot easily appreciate. These are sovereign nations with long histories and memories, and the natural resources sector is often ground zero in the national and local discourse, a short-hand, highly symbolic political proxy in nations which lack strong democratic institutions that would normally be expected to channel and address the challenge of competing political interests. These issues go a long way to predicting which nations will be more and which will be less receptive to meaningful energy partnership with the United States.
|
Eric Farnsworth, 4/11/2013, (Vice President, Council of the Americas), Hearing before the house committee on foreign affairs; subcommittee on the western hemisphere, "energy security in latin America and the Caribbean," http://www.as-coa.org/articles/energy-security-opportunities-latin-america-and-caribbean
|
Latin America is energy rich ortunately, politics including populist governance and regional rivalries between states has led to sectorial underdevelopment and unnecessary inefficiencies there is nothing more politically fraught in than national energy policies. These matters strike at the very core of nationalist sensitivities in ways that North American observers cannot easily appreciate natural resources sector is often ground zero in the national and local discourse These issues go a long way to predicting which nations will be more and which will be less receptive to meaningful energy partnership with the United States.
|
Energy nationalism is rife throughout Latin America – that prevents cooperation with the US
| 1,657 | 91 | 632 | 242 | 14 | 93 | 0.057851 | 0.384298 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,505 |
The United States emerged from the Cold War as the single most powerful state in modern times, a position that its diversified and immensely productive economy supports. Although its share of world economic output will inevitably shrink as other countries catch up, the United States will continue for many years to rank as one of the top two or three economies in the world. The United States' per capita gdp stands at $48,000, more than five times as large as China's, which means that the U.S. economy can produce cutting-edge products for a steady domestic market. North America is blessed with enviable quantities of raw materials, and about 29 percent of U.S. trade flows to and from its immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico. The fortuitous geostrategic position of the United States compounds these economic advantages. Its neighbors to the north and south possess only miniscule militaries. Vast oceans to the west and east separate it from potential rivals. And its thousands of nuclear weapons deter other countries from ever entertaining an invasion.¶ Ironically, however, instead of relying on these inherent advantages for its security, the United States has acted with a profound sense of insecurity, adopting an unnecessarily militarized and forward-leaning foreign policy. That strategy has generated predictable pushback. Since the 1990s, rivals have resorted to what scholars call "softbalancing"- low-grade diplomatic opposition. China and Russia regularly use the rules of liberal international institutions to delegitimize the United States' actions. In the un Security Council, they wielded their veto power to deny the West resolutions supporting the bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and more recently, they have slowed the effort to isolate Syria. They occasionally work together in other venues, too, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Although the Beijing-Moscow relationship is unimpressive compared with military alliances such as nato, it's remarkable that it exists at all given the long history of border friction and hostility between the two countries. As has happened so often in history, the common threat posed by a greater power has driven unnatural partners to cooperate.¶ American activism has also generated harder forms of balancing. China has worked assiduously to improve its military, and Russia has sold it modern weapons, such as fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and diesel-electric submarines. Iran and North Korea, meanwhile, have pursued nuclear programs in part to neutralize the United States' overwhelming advantages in conventional fighting power. Some of this pushback would have occurred no matter what; in an anarchic global system, states acquire the allies and military power that help them look after themselves. But a country as large and as active as the United States intensifies these responses.¶ Such reactions will only grow stronger as emerging economies convert their wealth into military power. Even though the economic and technological capacities of China and India may never equal those of the United States, the gap is destined to narrow. China already has the potential to be a serious competitor. At the peak of the Cold War, in the mid-1970s, Soviet gdp, in terms of purchasing power parity, amounted to 57 percent of U.S. gdp. China reached 75 percent of the U.S. level in 2011, and according to the International Monetary Fund, it is projected to match it by 2017. Of course, Chinese output must support four times as many people, which limits what the country can extract for military purposes, but it still provides enough resources to hinder U.S. foreign policy. Meanwhile, Russia, although a shadow of its former Soviet self, is no longer the hapless weakling it was in the 1990s. Its economy is roughly the size of the United Kingdom's or France's, it has plenty of energy resources to export, and it still produces some impressive weapons systems.
|
Barry Posen, Jan/Feb 2013, Foreign Affairs, (Posen is a Prof of Poli Sci at MIT), "Pull back: the case for a less activist foreign policy," 92.1, Proquest
|
the United States has acted with a profound sense of insecurity, adopting an unnecessarily militarized and forward-leaning foreign policy That has generated pushback rivals resorted to softbalancing China and Russia delegitimize United States' actions the Beijing-Moscow relationship is remarkable American activism has also generated harder forms of balancing China has worked to improve its military and Russia has sold it modern weapons Iran and North Korea have pursued nuclear programs in part to neutralize the United States' overwhelming advantages Some of this pushback would have occurred no matter what But a country as large and as active as the United States intensifies these responses. Such reactions will only grow stronger as emerging economies convert their wealth into military power the gap is destined to narrow
|
The pursuit of hegemony causes balancing by great and rising powers, that makes heg ultimately unsustainable and invites conflict
| 3,990 | 129 | 831 | 628 | 19 | 125 | 0.030255 | 0.199045 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,506 |
On some level, of course, the idea that China would actually attack Taiwan—rather than merely threaten to do so, as it has for years—makes no sense. Attacking would invite a military response from the United States, and even without American intervention, it's not clear that China's military is up to the task of seizing the island. China would also risk losing the trade relationships that drive its economic growth.
|
Corson ‘4 (Trevor Corson, Writer on East Asia, The Atlantic Monthly, “Strait-jacket”, Volume 294, Issue 5, December, 2004, Proquest)
|
the idea that China would actually attack Taiwan—rather than merely threaten to do so, as it has for years—makes no sense Attacking would invite a military response from the United States, and even without American intervention, it's not clear that China's military is up to the task of seizing the island. China would also risk losing the trade relationships that drive its economic growth
|
China won’t start the war – 3 reasons
| 418 | 37 | 390 | 69 | 8 | 64 | 0.115942 | 0.927536 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,507 |
Most important, as serious as are some of the differences between Washington and the PRC, none of them is important enough to trigger war. For all of the discussion of conflicting security interests, Beijing has neither the will nor the ability to threaten America. And it is hard to imagine the time when China will be able to seriously threaten America. Beijing's military build-up is real but measured. Official PRC military spending was $71 billion last year; estimates of China's real defense outlays range up to $150 billion. That's more than any other country -- except America. U.S. military outlays this year will run around $700 billion. Strip out Afghanistan and Iraq and spending will still exceed $530 billion. So Washington starts with an enormous head start over the PRC: the U.S. possesses the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, advanced air wings, numerous carriers. And America continues to spend four to seven times, depending on how one measures what, as much as Beijing on the military. Moreover, the U.S. is allied with every major industrialized state other than Russia, while China is surrounded by countries with which it has been in conflict: India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Vietnam. The PRC is not well-positioned to launch a war of aggression even if it had both the ability and desire to do so
|
Doug Bandow, 1/30/2010, Huffington Post, "China: The Next "Necessary" Enemy?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/china-the-next-necessary_b_443349.html
|
as serious as are some of the differences between Washington and the PRC, none of them is important enough to trigger war Beijing has neither the will nor the ability to threaten America Washington starts with an enormous head start over the PRC: the U.S. possesses the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, advanced air wings, numerous carriers. And America continues to spend four to seven times as much as Beijing on the military , the U.S. is allied with every major industrialized state other than Russia, while China is surrounded by countries with which it has been in conflict: The PRC is not well-positioned to launch a war of aggression even if it had both the ability and desire to do so
|
No risk of a war between the U.S. and China.
| 1,330 | 44 | 696 | 221 | 10 | 121 | 0.045249 | 0.547511 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,508 |
Iran isn’t actively supporting terrorist cells in Latin America and its influence is waning in the region after almost a decade of promises to increase investment, according to a State Department report.¶ While Iran’s interest in Latin America is a “concern,” sanctions have undermined efforts by the Islamic republic to expand its economic and political toehold in the region, according to the unclassified summary of yesterday’s report.¶ “As a result of diplomatic outreach, strengthening of allies’ capacity, international nonproliferation efforts, a strong sanctions policy, and Iran’s poor management of its foreign relations, Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean is waning,” according to the report.¶ The findings disappointed some Republican lawmakers who say President Barack Obama’s administration is underestimating the threat from Iran. The report comes as the U.S. takes a wait-and-see approach to President-elect Hassan Rohani, who has vowed to seek more dialog with the U.S.¶ “I believe the Administration has failed to consider the seriousness of Iran’s presence here at home,” said Congressman Jeff Duncan, a Republican from South Carolina who wrote the legislation requiring the State Department report. “I question the methodology that was used in developing this report.”¶ Chavez Alliance¶ The U.S. stepped up its monitoring of Iran’s presence in Latin America in a bid to isolate the country over its nuclear program and after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forged closer ties with anti-American allies of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. While Iran’s outreach bears watching, claims about more sinister activities are unproven, said Christopher Sabatini, senior policy director at the Council of the Americas.¶ “It’s a shame that in such a dynamic hemisphere in which we have so many diplomatic initiatives that for some -- especially Congress -- attention to the region has boiled down to mostly spurious charges about Iranian infiltration,” Sabatini said via e-mail.¶ Ahmadinejad made repeated trips to Latin America after taking office in 2005, most recently to Caracas to attend Chavez’s funeral in March and the inauguration of his successor, Nicolas Maduro, a month later.¶ By contrast, Rohani has said little about the region since his surprise victory earlier this month. Instead, he said one of his main foreign policy priorities will be seeking “constructive dialog” with the U.S. and U.K., two nations with which the country has traditionally been at odds.¶ ‘Good Relations’¶ “We’ll seek to have good relations with all nations, including Latin American states,” Rohani said during his first post-election press conference June 17, in response to a question about the attention he’ll devote to Latin America.¶ Under Ahmadinejad’s watch, Iran added embassies in Latin America and more than doubled trade with Brazil, the region’s biggest economy. With Chavez, Ahmadinejad signed more than 100 accords to support everything from a campaign to build homes in Venezuela to a joint venture to manufacture bicycles, which Chavez jokingly referred to as “atomic” two-wheelers.¶ The two countries also established in Caracas the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, which together with its main Iranian shareholder, Bank Saderat, is accused by the U.S. of being a vehicle for the Ahmadinejad government’s funding of the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hezbollah.¶ Yet with Iran’s economy crippled by sanctions, many of the projects haven’t gotten off the ground. For example, pledges from 2007 and 2008 to help build a $350 million deep-water port off Nicaragua’s Atlantic coast and an oil refinery in Ecuador have yet to materialize. Nor has it built what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned would be a “huge” embassy in Managua.¶ That hasn’t prevented the Obama administration from trying to curb Iran’s influence. In 2011, it imposed sanctions on state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA for defying sanctions on Iran. It also implicated an Iranian man working out of Mexico in a plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington.
|
Joshua Goodman, 6/26/13, Bloomberg, "Iran influence in Latin America waning, US report says," http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/iran-influence-in-latin-america-waning-u-s-report-says.html
|
Iran influence is waning in the region sanctions have undermined efforts by the Islamic republic to expand its economic and political toehold in the region “As a result of diplomatic outreach, strengthening of allies’ capacity, international nonproliferation efforts, a strong sanctions policy, and Iran’s poor management of its foreign relations, Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean is waning with Iran’s economy crippled by sanctions, many of the projects haven’t gotten off the ground
|
Iran’s influence in Latin America is declining now
| 4,104 | 50 | 504 | 630 | 8 | 75 | 0.012698 | 0.119048 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,509 |
Trade between Russia and the countries of the region has been roaring recently – over the last decade trade turnover has tripled and amounted to $15bln [4]. However, despite the qualitative changes in the structure of Russian export – the share of machinery and equipment has a little increased – it still leaves much to be desired. Take Brazil, for example: mineral fertilizers have made up 90% of Russian export, while Brazil has been exporting to Russia mostly meat and tropical goods.¶ Largely, Brazil has always been the weakest link of Russia’s regional policy despite its participation in the BRIC group. At any rate, the role of Brazil in Russia’s foreign policy is much smaller than those of China and India. It should be recognized that Russia has failed so far to establish strategic partnership with Brazil, which had been planned for as early as 1997.¶ It can be largely attributed to the fact that Russian leadership has no priority system in interacting with this country. The latter, from our perspective, is explained by poor understanding of how much inter-complimentary could be the interests of the two resource-rich countries in the decades to come.¶ Unfortunately, China, and lately India have been much more economically active in the region than Russia, filling the niches in the market that could have been well filled by Russia.¶ Another question is why Brazilian dimension of Russian foreign policy is much weaker than the Chinese one? Why do we transfer to China, the relationships with which in the 20th century were abundant with conflicts including the armed ones, unique military aircraft building technologies, while denying this to Brazil with which we have never had conflicts or clashes on the international arena?¶ Perhaps, it is the residual principle inherent of the USSR leadership and successfully inherited in 1990-s by the Russian leadership that is applied to this region. But, while the USSR used to have Cuba as a strategic partner, the Russian Federation, having curtailed the ties with the Island of Freedom, didn’t bother to start looking for new partners and paid as little attention to the relations with Brazil as with any other Latin American country.¶ If Russia is really interested in serious and politically influential partners, then it is the Brazil dimension that should be prioritized as the major vector of Russian policy in the region. It means establishing a special system of partnership which will include an overhaul of the current system of trade and economic relations, an introduction of a new system of preferential terms of advanced know-how transfer and exchange, particularly in aerospace field. For that sake it’s necessary to maximally intensify the relations with Brazil’s leadership and take them to a higher level, with the head of state or the government taking control of it.¶ However, the growing understanding of the Russian upper echelons of power of the necessity to shift the focus of economic cooperation with the countries of the region on to scientific and technical sphere arouses certain optimism. It is in the field of advanced technologies where Russia is most competitive, and no wonder that the main emphasis during the April 2010 visit of President Medvedev to the countries of the region was laid on this very issue.¶ Low competitiveness of Russia vis-à-vis other countries undertaking huge efforts with a view to building up their political and economic position in this region continues to persist. Besides, our investment capability is also much lower than that of USA, China, EU and even India.
|
Vladimir Sudarev, 2/20/2012, Russian International Affairs Council, "Is Russia returning to Latin America?" http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=252#top
|
Trade between Russia and the region has been roaring recently However it still leaves much to be desired China, and lately India have been much more economically active in the region than Russia, filling the niches in the market that could have been well filled by Russia the Russian Federation bother to start looking for new partners and paid as little attention to the relations with Brazil as with any other Latin American country Low competitiveness of Russia vis-à-vis other countries undertaking huge efforts with a view to building up their political and economic position in this region continues to persist investment capability is also much lower than that of USA, China, EU and even India
|
Despite increased presence in the region – Russian influence remains low
| 3,594 | 72 | 700 | 585 | 11 | 116 | 0.018803 | 0.198291 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,510 |
Although there will be various types of violence within, and perhaps between, states in Latin America, it is important to emphasize, that the focus of interaction between states of the region and external actors will be primarily securing an advantage commerce and national development, rather than in war, with competitions for the signing of trade accords, and technology sharing agreements, investment, the granting of privileged access to develop a nation’s mineral and hydrocarbon resources, or who supports whom in multilateral institutions. It is possible that external powers could become involved in a proxy war, in an attempt to hold up a regime in which they have strategic commercial interests, but such prospects remain distant at the present time.
|
Ellis 2011 (R Evan, an assistant professor with the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS). His research focus is on Latin America’s relationship with external actors, including China, Russia, and Iran. “Emerging Multi-Power Competitions in Latin America,” http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2011/2011-1/2011_1_03_ellis_eng_s.pdf)
|
Although there will be various types of violence within, and perhaps between, states in Latin America, it is important to emphasize, that the focus of interaction between states of the region and external actors will be primarily securing an advantage commerce and national development, rather than in war, is possible that external powers could become involved in a proxy war but such prospects remain distant
|
Competition won’t escalate – not even proxy wars
| 761 | 48 | 410 | 118 | 8 | 65 | 0.067797 | 0.550847 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,511 |
An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that “Russia has at different times been demonized or divinized by Western opinion less because of her real role in Europe than because of the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations, generated within European society by its own domestic problems.” Such is the case today. To be sure, mounting Western concerns about Russia are a consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are also a reflection of declining confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia come at a time when Russia is arguably less threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has been at any time since the end of the Second World War. Russia does not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our destruction, its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal – while still capable of annihilating the United States – is under more reliable control than it has been in the past fifteen years and the threat of a strategic strike approaches zero probability. Political gridlock in key Western countries, however, precludes the creativity, risk-taking, and subtlety needed to advance our interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia while laying the basis for more constructive long-term relations with Russia.
|
Thomas Graham, senior advisor on Russia in the US National Security Council staff 2002-2007, September 2007, "Russia in Global Affairs” July - September 2007, The Dialectics of Strength and Weakness
|
mounting Western concerns about Russia are a consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are also a reflection of declining confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia come at a time when Russia is arguably less threatening to the West Russia does not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our destruction, its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal is under more reliable control than it has been in the past fifteen years and the threat of a strategic strike approaches zero probability.
|
Give a Russia war impact zero probability – politics, military superiority, economic concerns, and nuclear security all check war
| 1,519 | 129 | 728 | 246 | 19 | 116 | 0.077236 | 0.471545 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,512 |
The thing is, the substance of nuclear-arms accords has little effect on the prospect of nuclear war. In the 1970s and '80s, arms control negotiations were a surrogate for other kinds of diplomacy. They were useful not so much because of the treaties they produced but, rather, because they provided a forum for the two sides to talk about something—to engage each other, probe intentions, test and expand the limits of cooperation—at a time when political differences precluded talks about anything else. Now we are talking about a lot of things that threaten our mutual interests—nuclear proliferation, terrorism, financial instability, climate change. The idea of a Russian-American nuclear-arms race, much less a nuclear war, is, for now and the foreseeable future, preposterous.
|
Fred Kaplan Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009, Don't Waste Your Time on Russian-American Nuke Talks, Mr. President Nuclear-arms accords have little effect on the chances of nuclear war. http://www.slate.com/id/2239737/
|
treaties produced a forum for the two sides to talk about something—to engage each other, probe intentions, test and expand the limits of cooperation a lot of things that threaten our mutual interests The idea of a Russian-American nuclear war, is preposterous
|
The United States and Russia won’t go to war- risk is all hype
| 783 | 63 | 260 | 122 | 13 | 42 | 0.106557 | 0.344262 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,513 |
The increased connectivity of the North American electrical grid ¶ necessitates continental defense strategies to protect critical infrastructure. ¶ One example of an attempt to minimize threats to such critical ¶ infrastructure is the Smart Border Declaration signed by Canada and the ¶ United States in December 2001. This document includes measures to ¶ encourage information sharing and prioritizes the security of energy ¶ infrastructure from terrorist threats. Integrated energy networks are more ¶ vulnerable to cyber attacks because terrorists or enemies can use them as opportunities to exploit pieces of hardware with far-reaching connectivity. ¶ Consequently, the three North American countries must weigh the ease of ¶ use gained by merging their networks with increased risks of physical and ¶ virtual attacks.
|
Alison Terry, 2012, International Affairs Review, Vol. 20, No. 3., "Policy and Practice in North American Energy Security," http://www.iar-gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/North%20American%20Energy%20Security.pdf
|
The increased connectivity of the North American electrical grid necessitates continental defense strategies to protect critical infrastructure Integrated energy networks are more vulnerable to cyber attacks because terrorists or enemies can use them as opportunities to Consequently North American countries must weigh the ease of use gained by merging their networks with increased risks of physical and virtual attacks
|
Integration of energy infrastructure between the US and Mexico makes infrastructure more vulnerable
| 823 | 100 | 421 | 123 | 13 | 59 | 0.105691 | 0.479675 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,514 |
The economic viability of growing jatropha as a cash crop¶ depends to a large extent on the yield that can be obtained¶ when it is grown in plantations. As most large scale plantations¶ were planted relatively recently, there is a significant lack of¶ data on yields. Some older projects do, however, appear to show¶ that yields have often been significantly below expectations.¶ “Although there have been increasing investments and policy¶ decisions concerning the use of jatropha as an oil crop, they have¶ been based on little evidence-based information.” (UN Food and¶ Agriculture Organisation FAO).8¶ This chapter highlights evidence that just like any other cash¶ crop, jatropha needs fertiliser and pesticide inputs, as well as a¶ lot of water to produce high yields. If additional costs, such as¶ labour and further processing are taking into account, returns¶ even from high yields are marginal at best.¶ The economic viability of jatropha cultivation is also influenced¶ by external market conditions. Moratoria or bans in producer¶ countries can for example alter market situations significantly¶ overnight. South Africa banned jatropha planting in 2007;9 the¶ government in Zimbabwe has banned its export,10 and in¶ Tanzania, the government has reportedly suspended approvals¶ for new biofuel projects until clear criteria are put in place.11¶ Political discussions in the EU also affect the biofuels sector. The¶ EU target of a 10% share of renewable transport fuel by 202012¶ has triggered a boom in biofuel production, but the target is¶ highly controversial and may yet be revised. The oil yields predicted by investment companies range from¶ around two tonnes of oil per hectare (t/ha)13 to around 3 - 3.5 t/ha¶ of oil per hectare.14 The Jatropha Investment Fund even promises¶ about 6 t/ha15.¶ However, there is hardly any long-term data from large-scale¶ jatropha plantations to support these claims16 and estimates of¶ potential seed yields and seed-to-oil conversion ratios vary widely.¶ The World Agroforestry Centre17 estimates that 3 - 5.5 kg of seed¶ are required to produce one litre of oil, while a study in Tanzania18¶ found that on average oil extraction efficiency was 1 litre from 5¶ kg of seeds, but sometimes as low as 1 litre from 8 kg of seed,¶ depending on the extraction efficiency and the varying oil¶ content of the seeds. Even if the highest conversion ratios of 3 kg¶ per litre of oil are assumed, seed yields of almost 9 t/ha would be needed to achieve the 3,000 litres of oil per hectare (2.76 t/ha)¶ promised, for example, by Experience International.19 This rises to¶ 24 t/ha of seeds if conversion ratios are low (8:1). But experts¶ estimate that actual seed yields are much lower than this.¶ The World Agroforestry Centre estimates that in China, barren¶ land yields 1.7-2.2 tonnes of seed per hectare, while on more¶ fertile soils in high rainfall areas, up to 7.5 t/ha can be expected.20¶ BioZio, an Indian biofuels consultancy, claims that yields will be¶ 6.25-7.5 t/ha from the fifth year.21 According to Plant Research¶ International, under good conditions yields can vary widely¶ between 1.5-7.8 t/ha dry seed per year.22 Given that conditions¶ are normally far less than optimal, others suggest yields as low¶ as 0.3 t/ha or even no yield at all23.¶ The limited available evidence from existing projects appears to¶ reflect this. In India, jatropha plantations yielded just 0.45 t/ha¶ after three years under rain-fed conditions, less than a fifth of¶ what was expected. Under irrigated conditions, absolute yields¶ were higher (0.75 t/ha), but were only one tenth of what had¶ been predicted.24 In Maharashtra, yields stabilised after seven¶ years at less than 1.25 t/ha. In fact by 2003, the Maharashtra¶ plantations had been abandoned, mainly because of low seed¶ yield, poor oil content and poor or variable oil quality.25 The¶ German Development Agency GTZ concluded that under rain-fed¶ conditions in India, yields of less than 1 t/ha were more realistic.26¶ Evidence appears to show that yield is highly unpredictable and¶ that the high expectations promoted by investment companies¶ such as Viceroy Invest, Experience International, Aston Lloyd and¶ others are far from realistic.
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 5
|
The economic viability of jatropha depends on the yield that can be obtained yields have often been significantly below expectations like any other cash crop jatropha needs inputs If additional costs are taking into account returns are marginal at best The economic viability of jatropha cultivation is also influenced by external market conditions Given that conditions are normally far less than optimal others suggest even no yield at all evidence from existing projects appears to reflect this Evidence appears to show that yield is highly unpredictable and that the high expectations promoted by investment companies are far from realistic
|
Jatropha biofuels are not economically viable – low production yields
| 4,242 | 69 | 644 | 674 | 10 | 99 | 0.014837 | 0.146884 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,515 |
Jatropha doesn’t thrive on marginal land.¶ The high yield expectations cited by investment companies are¶ largely based on exaggerated claims about jatropha being a¶ drought-resistant ‘wonder crop’ thriving on marginal soils. But¶ jatropha does not yield well on all soils. While jatropha can¶ survive on land with minimal water and poor nutrition,¶ evidence shows that it does not thrive. To produce a good yield¶ it needs water, nutrition and other inputs.¶ “if you plant trees in a marginal area, and all they do is just not¶ die, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get a lot of oil from them.”¶ (Rob Bailis, lead researcher of jatropha life-cycle assessment at¶ Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies).38¶ “If you grow jatropha in marginal conditions, you can expect¶ marginal yields.” (D1 Oils).39¶ Studies on marginal land plantations in India showed that¶ applying fertiliser increased seed and oil yield by more than¶ 70%.40 Another study found that limited nutrient availability led¶ to a decrease in the number of fruits and seeds that eventually¶ develop.41 In dry regions with only one wet season per year,¶ there is one annual harvest, compared with up to three if the¶ crop is irrigated and fertilised.42¶ In its report on the potential of jatropha for smallholders, the¶ UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) doubts whether¶ profitable yields can be achieved with minimal expenditure on fertilisers, irrigation and pesticides. Without these inputs,¶ jatropha farming is a risky enterprise, it concludes.43
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 5
|
Jatropha doesn’t thrive on marginal land The high yield expectations are based on exaggerated claims about being a drought-resistant ‘wonder crop’ thriving on marginal soils To produce a good yield it needs water, nutrition and other inputs If you grow jatropha in marginal conditions, you can expect marginal yields Without inputs jatropha farming is a risky enterprise
|
Jatropha’s proponents are wrong – it does not grow well on marginal land
| 1,533 | 72 | 370 | 241 | 13 | 57 | 0.053942 | 0.236515 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,516 |
One of the reasons why jatropha does not grow well on¶ marginal lands is that, like other cash crops, it needs significant¶ amounts of water to grow well. Jatropha has been lauded as a¶ miracle crop that grows on arid soils without irrigation, but¶ evidence suggests this is not the case.¶ Researchers from the University of Twente in the Netherlands45¶ found that on average, jatropha needed more water than any¶ other bioenergy crop to produce the same amount of oil,¶ requiring up to 20,000 litres of water per litre of fuel produced.¶ This was five times as much per unit of energy as sugarcane and¶ corn, and nearly ten times as much as sugar beet. Later studies¶ also found that jatropha needs more water than previously¶ thought, especially in the first few years of cultivation. foei | 7¶ jatropha: money doesn’t grow on trees ten reasons why jatropha is neither a profitable nor sustainable investment¶ BioZio, a biofuel consulting and research company, claims that a¶ minimum of 600 mm/year of rainfall is needed to produce¶ fruits.46 Other researchers and practitioners have calculated that¶ for optimal growth, jatropha needs 1,000 mm/ha to 1,500¶ mm/ha47 – far more than is available in many arid areas where¶ jatropha has been proposed. A study of existing jatropha plants¶ found that the natural habitat is typically wetter than many of¶ the areas where jatropha is now proposed.48 “The results demonstrate that Jatropha is not common in regions¶ with arid and semi-arid climates and does not naturally occur¶ in regions with [average annual precipitation] of less than¶ 944 mm year.”49¶ In Mozambique, experience shows that irrigation appears to be¶ required during the early development phase, even in areas with¶ higher rainfall. In the drier, southern region of the country,¶ constant irrigation was often needed. Such demands can compete¶ with family water use, forcing woman and children to make extra¶ trips for water. Where jatropha was not watered, especially in the¶ early phases of development, the germination rate was low and¶ plants were more prone to disease, stress and shock.50
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 5-6
|
One of the reasons why jatropha does not grow well on marginal lands is that it needs significant amounts of water Jatropha has been lauded as a miracle crop that grows without irrigation evidence suggests this is not the case Jatropha is not common in regions with arid and semi-arid climates and does not naturally occur Such demands can compete with family water use, forcing woman and children to make extra trips for water. Where jatropha was not watered, the germination rate was low and plants were more prone to disease, stress and shock
|
Jatropha requires substantial amounts of water – that trades off with limited water in rural areas
| 2,109 | 98 | 545 | 343 | 16 | 94 | 0.046647 | 0.274052 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,517 |
Jatropha plantations also need pesticides. The claim that¶ jatropha is highly resistant to pests and diseases appears to be¶ based on observations of single trees. Grown as a monoculture,¶ jatropha has been found to be vulnerable to the common pests¶ and diseases found in many food crops.51¶ Farmers in Swaziland reported problems with pests when they¶ started to grow jatropha as a crop, but because the crop was¶ new, the government had no expertise on how best to eradicate¶ the pests.52 In Tanzania, researchers found crop damage due to¶ pests on all field visits to small-scale farms.53¶ In Mozambique, many industrial projects rely on petroleumbased¶ pesticides. Despite this, pests are still common, forcing¶ some projects to experiment with different mixes of pesticides,¶ stronger chemicals and other controls. Jatropha pests were¶ found to be spreading to nearby food crops.54¶ In Nicaragua, where plantation experiments were carried out in¶ the 1990s, yields slowly decreased after the fifth year due to¶ increasing levels of pests and disease.55¶ The extensive use of pesticides not only affects biodiversity and¶ water supplies, it also increases costs and affects economic¶ viability. In Nicaragua, costs per year for pest/disease treatment¶ were found to be up to 80 USD/ha per year.56 In Swaziland, some¶ farmers lost whole fields of jatropha because they couldn’t afford¶ pesticides.57 On large-scale farms in Tanzania, pests and fungi¶ were a deciding factor in determining economic feasibility.58
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 7
|
Jatropha plantations also need pesticides The claim that jatropha is highly resistant to pests and diseases appears to be based on observations of single trees Grown as a monoculture jatropha has been found to be vulnerable to pests and diseases The extensive use of pesticides not only affects biodiversity and water supplies, it also increases costs and affects economic viability
|
Jatropha is not pest-resistant – it requires substantial pesticides that hurt the environment
| 1,516 | 93 | 382 | 232 | 13 | 60 | 0.056034 | 0.258621 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,518 |
Because jatropha is an inedible crop said to grow on marginal,¶ unused land, it is often claimed that it does not compete with¶ food production. But as jatropha does not do well on marginal¶ lands, many companies have established jatropha plantations¶ on fertile, arable lands, placing jatropha in direct competition¶ with food production.¶ In Mozambique, UK company Energem Biofuels has been¶ allocated the rights to 60,000 ha of what was previously¶ community farming and grazing land to grow jatropha.85 Many¶ subsistence farmers in Mozambique were also found to have¶ planted jatropha in good fertile soil,86 even though Mozambique¶ is one of the world’s poorest countries with a third of¶ households facing hunger.87¶ ActionAid found that land being targeted for jatropha in¶ Tanzania was not in the semi-arid parts of the country, but in¶ areas with adequate and reliable rainfall, fertile soils, and¶ relatively well developed infrastructure such as roads, railways¶ and port facilities, making it easier to export the harvest. This is¶ land that could be used to grow food.88 “How will jatropha benefit Tanzania? Well exactly. We have no¶ answers. We want food first, not jatropha.” (Dr Felician¶ Kilahama, head of Tanzanian Beekeeping and Forestry, and part¶ of the task force overseeing jatropha cultivation in Tanzania).89¶ In densely populated Southern Ethiopia, UK company Sun¶ Biofuels took 3,000 hectares of communal pastureland for a¶ jatropha plantation in an area in which around 39% of the¶ population still depend on either emergency food assistance or¶ the Food for Work programme.90 A further 80,000 ha allocated¶ to Sun Biofuels consisted mostly of forest, woodland and¶ grazing land, used by local communities for farming and¶ grazing and as a source of firewood and food. The project was¶ stopped after the first 60 ha of land had been cleared because¶ the company found the land to be too rocky and poorly drained¶ to grow jatropha profitably.91¶ In India jatropha is also often planted on land suitable for food¶ production. One study found that less than one in five farmers¶ in Tamil Nadu planted it on barren land or in place of non-food¶ commercial crops. The rest planted it in place of food crops,¶ often groundnut, which is used to produce valuable edible oil.¶ India already faces a shortage of edible oils and one in two¶ farmers reported a shortage of cattle feed directly caused by the¶ shift to jatropha.92¶ In Ghana, communities were reportedly persuaded to grow¶ jatropha on 200,000 ha of fertile land that had been previously¶ earmarked for rice production. The government has said it¶ considers the whole country suitable for jatropha production¶ except regions with relatively dense forest.93¶ The World Agroforestry Centre points out that the even where¶ jatropha is intercropped with food crops on arable land, scarcity¶ of arable land for smallholder households is likely to lead to¶ unwanted competition with food crops when the jatropha trees¶ mature and occupy more land.94
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 10
|
is often claimed that it does not compete with food production But as jatropha does not do well on marginal lands, many companies have established jatropha plantations on fertile, arable lands, placing jatropha in direct competition with food production The World Agroforestry Centre points out that the even where jatropha is intercropped with food crops on arable land, scarcity of arable land for smallholder households is likely to lead to unwanted competition with food crops when the jatropha trees mature and occupy more land.
|
Jatropha must be grown on arable land to be economically viable – that causes competition with staple crops
| 3,023 | 107 | 533 | 482 | 18 | 84 | 0.037344 | 0.174274 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,519 |
Even if companies only used marginal lands to grow jatropha,¶ most land labelled as ‘marginal’ is in reality already being used¶ by small-scale farmers, herders, hunters or foragers, often¶ without official land titles. Such land provides vital functions for¶ communities, and the loss of such land damages their food¶ security and livelihoods.95 The International Land Coalition (ILC)¶ calls the assumption that abundant ‘unused’ land is available a¶ “myth” often perpetuated by host governments trying to attract¶ investors.96 Evidence suggests that there is very little genuinely¶ ‘marginal’ land and that many communities have been displaced¶ and their livelihoods destroyed to make way for jatropha.¶ The Indian state of Chhattisgarh has embraced jatropha with¶ plans for one million hectares state-wide by 2012. Social leaders¶ and peoples’ groups have warned that as a result some of the¶ poorest people in Chhattisgarh – the tribal adivasis and the¶ lower caste dalits – will be forced from the lands which they¶ have farmed and relied on under common property rights.¶ Reportedly, some 355 families have already been displaced in¶ just two of the state’s 16 districts because of the forcible¶ planting of jatropha.97¶ “More than seventeen hundred acres of land cultivated by the¶ tribals for generations, have been taken away from them for¶ planting jatropha.” (Ratneshwar Nath in Chhattisgarh, India).98¶ In Tanzania’s Kisarawe district, villagers claim that they have¶ been cheated of 8,000 ha of their land to make way for a Sun¶ Biofuels jatropha plantation.99 In Mozambique, farmers say their¶ land was taken without compensation.100¶ “They took the land when it was already tilled...they haven’t¶ paid us anything. We are dying of hunger and there is nothing¶ that we have that is actually our own.” (Matilde Ngoene, a¶ farmer in Mozambique).101¶ In Ghana, Norwegian company Scanfuel reportedly took¶ communal land as well as land owned by individuals, including¶ from farmers who refused to give up their land.102 In Zambia,¶ more than 3,000 people were reportedly displaced in a remote¶ area of a rich farming district to make way for jatropha.103¶ Whether jatropha is grown on so-called marginal land or on¶ fertile arable land, there is a high risk that any large-scale¶ investment will affect food security. Olivier de Schutter, the UN’s¶ special rapporteur on the right to food, points out that¶ depriving local populations access to productive resources¶ without offering appropriate alternatives violates their human¶ right to food.104¶ “Virtually no large-scale land allocations can take place¶ without displacing or affecting local populations.” International¶ Land Coalition).105
|
F.O.E.I., December 2010, (Friends of the Earth International), "Jatropha: money doesn't grow on trees," Issue 120, p. 11
|
Even if companies only used marginal lands to grow jatropha most land labelled marginal’ is already being used by small-scale farmers herders, hunters or foragers often without official land titles. Such land provides vital functions for communities, and the loss of such land damages their food security and livelihoods Evidence suggests that there is very little genuinely ‘marginal’ land and that many communities have been displaced and their livelihoods destroyed to make way for jatropha Whether jatropha is grown on so-called marginal land or on fertile arable land, there is a high risk that any large-scale investment will affect food security Virtually no large-scale land allocations can take place without displacing or affecting local populations
|
Jatropha plantations displace local communities and destroy their way of life
| 2,705 | 77 | 759 | 411 | 11 | 115 | 0.026764 | 0.279805 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,520 |
President Enrique Peña Nieto intends to tackle the vexing problem of how to restore Mexico’s oil and natural gas production without letting any of that petroleum fall into the hands of foreign companies.¶ Last month, Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (the PRI) amended its charter to allow foreign participation in Mexico’s oil sector. The president assured Mexico that Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the national oil company, would not be privatized.¶ But throughout last year’s presidential campaign, and in the pact he signed after taking office with Mexico’s other two major parties, Peña Nieto has emphasized the need for energy reforms.¶ It’s easy to see why. Mexico’s oil accounts for a third of the federal budget, but production has dropped by more than a fourth since 2004. In 2011, Mexico earned $49.4 billion exporting crude oil — but paid $9.17 billion to import gasoline. With rising demand and falling production, Mexico could be a net importer of oil by the end of the decade.¶ The petroleum business is booming in Texas but slumping in Mexico. Natural gas is selling in a glutted U.S. market for little more than $3 per thousand cubic feet, while Mexico is importing liquefied natural gas from Nigeria for $20 per thousand cubic feet.¶ Mexico should have abundant resources of shale gas and deep-water oil. But Pemex, which has a monopoly on developing Mexico’s oil and gas, is struggling. The company lacks capital, technology and staff expertise.¶ Last week, Pemex and Irving-based Exxon Mobil Corp. agreed to a science and technology sharing agreement. It’s not a commercial proposition; no money is changing hands. It’s a nod in the direction Pemex needs to pursue, however, if it’s going to realize Mexico’s natural resource advantages.¶ George Baker, who runs the Houston-based analytical firm Mexico Energy Intelligence, says two big steps are needed to turn things around.¶ First, Mexico should take a page from U.S. law, which allows companies to lease mineral rights without owning them.¶ “The companies get the mineral rights to a block for as long as it’s commercial, and once that ends, the block transfers back to the American people,” Baker said. “Until you can re-create the concept of a private mineral interest in Mexico, vs. all these steps to finesse around that, you won’t get at those resources.”¶ Baker’s second recommendation is to send Pemex abroad. The company looks for oil only in Mexico. It needs to learn how other companies operate in deep water or in shale gas deposits, to improve its expertise.¶ “They should seek investment dollars from other companies and in exchange make Pemex leave home, in a venture with Exxon in, say, Nigeria, or with BP in the North Sea. That would be interesting,” Baker said.¶ It’s not an unprecedented arrangement. In 1993, Pemex became a partner with Shell in the Deer Park refinery, a 340,000-barrel-a-day giant east of Houston. The refinery processes Mexican crude oil and exports gasoline back to Mexico.¶ The Deer Park partnership hasn’t translated into the expertise needed to power Mexico’s own refinery industry. Political obstacles leave the nation dependent on gasoline and diesel imports. Pemex is supposed to build a $12 billion refinery in Tula, in Hidalgo state. The plant has been in the works for six years, but all there is to see is a security fence.¶ Peña Nieto’s reform proposals are expected soon. He has promised Pemex will be “modernized and transformed.”
|
Jim Landers, 4/8/13, Dallas News, "Mexico' struggling oil industry," http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/jim-landers/20130408-jim-landers-mexicos-struggling-oil-industry.ece
|
President Nieto intends to tackle the vexing problem of how to restore Mexico’s oil and natural gas production Nieto has emphasized the need for energy reforms With rising demand and falling production, Mexico could be a net importer of oil by the end of the decade Nieto’s reform proposals are expected soon. He has promised Pemex will be “modernized and transformed
|
PEMEX is sustainable due to energy reforms
| 3,469 | 43 | 367 | 566 | 7 | 61 | 0.012367 | 0.107774 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,521 |
The diverse Mexican economy has been growing at a sustainable pace of 3.5-5.5% over the past three years. The political mood seems to be shifting incrementally in the direction of further liberalization. Ties to relatively strong neighbors – the U.S. and the rest of Latin America – position the Mexican economy well relative to other emerging markets more dependent on floundering Europe or slowing China. The drug killings may even simmer down with the expected return to power this July of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). U.S. investors willing to look past stereotypes will find a range of modern industries in Mexico issuing easily tradable American Depository Receipts (ADRs). The composition of the iShares MSCI Mexico Investable Market ETF (EWW, quote) offers a snapshot of the Mexican economy excluding oil, which remains largely nationalized. Consumer staples account for 32% of the ETF’s holdings, telecommunications 24% and materials 15%.A number of large transportation firms are also publicly traded. The macroeconomic and political outlooks for Mexico are both positive. This means the Mexican economy should outperform other emerging markets over the next 12 months, though probably underperforming the Andean region of Latin America. Inflation was running at 3.5% annually as of April 2012, near the bottom of Mexico’s historical range. That means the usually conservative central bank is considering stimulus measures if global growth weakens further. The expected victory of the PRI in the July presidential poll (and return to power after a lame-duck period in December) also looks positive for investors. The PRI’s 70-year rule was interrupted under charges of widespread corruption in 2000. The party’s roots are socialist, but it has in recent decades embraced market reforms and moved to the center. Its presidential candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto, has run on a platform of reforms including partial privatization of state oil monopoly PEMEX, along the lines of Brazil’s Petrobras. Nieto also supports liberalizing employment laws. While the full extent of promised reforms is doubtful, Nieto’s pro-market rhetoric is welcome. Opening the oil sector to more private contractors could increase capital spending on infrastructure and accelerate GDP growth for the Mexican economy. The caveat is that these effects will be longer-term, while equity performance over the next year remains more dependent on growth in the United States and global headline risks.
|
Joseph Hogue 5-30-2012; provides investment research and analysis through his firm, Efficient Alpha. He has appeared as a guest on BloombergTV for his analysis of Latin American securities and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation.Mexican economy in contrast to its negative stereotypes http://emergingmoney.com/mexico/mexican-economy-eww/
|
The diverse Mexican economy has been growing at a sustainable pace over the past three years. The political mood seems to be shifting incrementally in the direction of further liberalization Ties to relatively strong neighbors – the U.S. and the rest of Latin America – position the Mexican economy well relative to other emerging markets The drug killings may even simmer down with the return to power of the PRI) U.S. investors will find a range of modern industries in Mexico A number of large transportation firms are also publicly traded. The macroeconomic and political outlooks for Mexico are both positive the Mexican economy should outperform other emerging markets over the next 12 months Inflation was running near the bottom of Mexico’s historical range the usually conservative central bank is considering stimulus measures if global growth weakens further. The expected victory of the PRI in the July presidential poll also looks positive for investors The party embraced market reforms and moved to the cente While the full extent of promised reforms is doubtful, Nieto’s pro-market rhetoric is welcome. ening the oil sector to more private contractors could increase capital spending on infrastructure and accelerate GDP growth for the Mexican economy
|
Economic and political stability are improving – the country is resilient
| 2,493 | 73 | 1,267 | 380 | 11 | 200 | 0.028947 | 0.526316 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,522 |
But despite the alleged Iran-Zetas connection, having the U.S. State Department label the Zetas a terrorist organization solves nothing. The addition of the Zetas to that list won’t stop cartels from running the drug market nor from establishing international ties. Furthermore, unlike terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, these cartels’ goals do not include attacking the U.S. The Zeta cartel’s motive is money, not ideology.¶ For years now, drug cartels have threatened the Mexican population and law enforcement. They’ve committed crimes against humanity like the Monterrey casino arson in September. They’ve also been responsible for a gruesome death count that ranges from 40,000 to upwards of 53,000. Yet labeling them as terrorist organizations won’t make a difference, and it could drag both countries into murky diplomatic waters because Mexico rejects any sort of U.S military intervention despite rampant violence. The Mexican government instead advocates for greater cooperation with the U.S. in order to curb drug trade and violence. President Felipe Calderón has repeatedly asked the United States to do more in addressing the demand side of the drug trade.¶ Georgetown University’s Center for Democracy and Civil Society has pointed out that a terrorist designation only works for government organizations or groups that diffuse propaganda or defend a religion—like al-Qaida or Hamas—or seek some type of international legitimacy like Colombia’s FARC does in South America and Europe in order to be recognized as a political movement. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s approach won’t deter Zetas and other Mexican drug cartels from controlling the drug market nor establishing international ties (such as the most recent connection of former Colombian army members who have been training Zetas members in command and intelligence operations), because they are running a successful mafia and are already subject to tough organized crime laws—including the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act that allows U.S. government to impose economic sanctions on drug trafficking organizations.¶ Unlike terrorist organizations like al-Qaida that are running into economic and manpower hardship due to asset forfeiture, the Zetas already profit from the multibillion-dollar drug industry; increasingly recruit common criminals and gang members to exert terror across Mexico and Central America; and also rake in the cash through human trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigrants who attempt to enter the U.S. have to pay as much as $30,000 per head while at the same time risking their own lives at the hands of Zetas members.¶ While direct involvement from the Iranian government with drug cartels seems shocking, Iran-sponsored terrorist organizations have already gained footing in Latin America. Hezbollah has been in the tripartite borders of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay since the mid-1980s, where they have established a safe haven for fundraising, money laundering, and other terrorist-oriented activities.¶ U.S. authorities have also thwarted several Hezbollah operations in Latin America, including a two-year investigation that led to the end of a Colombian cocaine smuggling and money laundering ring that financed the Lebanese Shiite militia in 2008. In July 2010, Jameel Nasr, a Hezbollah operative, was arrested in Mexico for attempting to establish connections between Lebanon-based commanders and South American crime organizations.¶ Still, many experts are not buying the so-called Quds-Zetas connection. Writer and journalist Sergio González Rodríguez believes that the way U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder framed the story is more of a plot by the U.S. intelligence to place political pressure on Mexico and impose military deployment on the border, which Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already suggested. Others like author José Reveles and Autonomous University of Mexico professor Raúl Benitez say that Mexican drug cartels would never attack the United States, because this could spark an unwanted military response from the White House.¶ U.S. intelligence consulting firms like Stratfor, meanwhile, question Holder’s accusation because such connection couldn’t have existed without us knowing. The CIA, FBI, and other agencies are deeply embedded in Latin America—particularly Mexico. The U.S. agencies cooperate in tandem with local authorities and informants to detect any anti-U.S. organizations on Latin American soil, and work to infiltrate dangerous drug rings. Instead of seeking alliances with visible Islamic organizations, Stratfor goes on, the Zetas prefer to focus on other challenges posed by other drug cartels that pursue to control the drug market and human trafficking at the border.
|
World Policy Journal, 10/26/2011, "Mexican drug cartels are not terrorists," http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/10/26/mexican-drug-cartels-are-not-terrorists
|
unlike terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, these cartels’ goals do not include attacking the U.S The Zeta cartel’s motive is money, not ideology many experts are not buying the so-called Quds-Zetas connection the way Holder framed the story is more of a plot by the U.S. intelligence to place political pressure on Mexico and impose military deployment on the borde Mexican drug cartels would never attack the United States, because this could spark an unwanted military response Instead of seeking alliances with visible Islamic organizations Zetas prefer to focus on other challenges posed by other drug cartels that pursue to control the drug market and human trafficking at the border
|
There is no credible connection between the drug cartels and terrorist groups
| 4,771 | 77 | 694 | 703 | 12 | 110 | 0.01707 | 0.156472 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,523 |
The threats Airmen will encounter in the coming years are changing dramatically. Adversaries are developing and fielding new ground-based air defenses, improved sensor capabilities and advanced fighter aircraft. These capabilities will increasingly challenge our legacy aircraft, sensors and weapons systems. Advances in integrated air defense systems, to include advanced sensors, data processing and SAMs continue trends noted in the 1990s. SAM systems are incorporating faster, more accurate missiles, with multi-target capability, greater mobility and increased immunity to electronic jamming. Currently possessing ranges of over 100 nautical miles (NM), these anti-access weapons will likely achieve ranges of over 200 NM by the end of the decade. These advanced SAMs can and will compel non-stealthy platforms to standoff beyond useful sensor and weapons ranges. Proliferation of these long-range SAMs is on the rise, with projections for 2004-2007 indicating a twofold increase over the number of advanced SAM system exports during the mid to late 1990s. Another trend is the development and proliferation of upgrades to older, 1960/70's-era SAMs. At a fraction of the cost of a new advanced, long-range SAM, many African, Asian and Mid-East nations are looking to upgrade older SAMs to revitalize their aging air defense forces. By bringing in modern technologies, improved missile propellants and increased mobility, older SAM systems are becoming more reliable and more credible threats. Finally, the threat from Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) continues to grow. Large, poorly secured stockpiles of these weapons increase the chances of highly capable MANPADS ending up in the hands of an insurgent or terrorist group. The threats from advanced fighter aircraft also continue to grow. Currently there exist 31 nations already fielding 2,500 or more airframes. Increased use of stateof- the-art radar jammers, avionics, weapons and reduced signature airframes/engines are becoming the norm in fighter design. Additionally, countries like India and China are now able to produce their own advanced fighters, thereby increasing the quantity and quality of adversary aircraft the Air Force may face in the future. By 2012, China will more than double its advanced fighter inventory to over 500 airframes, most with advanced precision-guided munitions and air-to-air weapons. Similarly, self-protection jamming suites are growing in complexity and proliferation, potentially eroding our ability to target adversary aircraft. The threat from the development, fielding and proliferation of standoff weapons such as long-range cruise missiles will also provide potential adversaries with offensive capabilities of ever- increasing accuracy and range which, when combined with their relatively small size, presents an increasing challenge to detection and tracking. Many nations are enhancing the utility of advanced fighters by pursuing, procuring and integrating support aircraft as force multipliers. They acquire aerial refueling tankers to extend the range of strike operations and increase on-station time for fighters. Furthermore, airborne early warning aircraft are extending the reach of many nations through datalink capabilities that provide control of fighter operations well beyond the reach of land-based radars. Several nations are also purchasing standoff jamming assets in both manned and unmanned platforms to attempt to deny our traditional sensor advantages. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) of all varieties are in high demand and are becoming increasingly available on today's market, providing low-cost, but highly effective reconnaissance capabilities. This situation represents a new and increasingly prolific and complex challenge on the battlefield. Additionally, the combination of improved C4ISR with improved ballistic and cruise missile capabilities will increasingly threaten regional and expeditionary Air Force basing. China, in particular, has a growing over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability from a combination of ground, air and space-based systems. Coupled with its large and growing inventory of conventionally armed theater ballistic missiles, China's increasing capabilities and reach collectively present a serious potential to adversely impact allied and Joint air and space operations across the Asian theater. Worldwide advancements in the development, deployment and employment of foreign space and counterspace systems are challenges to U.S. Space Superiority. Adversaries, including terrorists, are more and more easily obtaining a number of increasingly sophisticated space services. Furthermore, they are developing the means to degrade U.S. space capabilities, freedom of action and access. The intent of U.S. adversaries combined with the capabilities of foreign space and counterspace systems will increasingly threaten U.S. military forces and interests worldwide.
|
Michael W. Wynne Secretary of the Air Force, March 2, 2006, “FISCAL 2007 BUDGET: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE”, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
|
Adversaries are developing new ground-based air defenses, improved sensor capabilities and advanced fighter aircraft Advances in air defense to include advanced sensors, data processing and SAMs continue trends SAM systems are incorporating faster, more accurate missiles, with multi-target capability, greater mobility and increased immunity to jamming Proliferation of long-range SAMs is on the rise, with projections indicating a twofold increase Another trend is the development of upgrades to older SAMs The threats from advanced fighter aircraft continue to grow there exist 31 nations fielding 2,500 or more airframes stateof- the-art radar jammers, avionics, weapons and reduced signature airframes/engines are becoming the norm The threat from standoff weapons such as cruise missiles will provide adversaries with offensive capabilities of ever- increasing accuracy and range Many nations are enhancing the utility of advanced fighters by integrating support aircraft as force multipliers refueling tankers extend the range early warning aircraft are extending the reach nations are purchasing standoff jamming assets UAVs are in high demand and are becoming increasingly available improved ballistic and cruise missile capabilities will threaten regional and expeditionary Air Force basing
|
Air power will decline inevitably
| 4,972 | 33 | 1,300 | 701 | 5 | 181 | 0.007133 | 0.258203 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,524 |
One of the most important national security challenges facing the next president of the United States will be preserving America’s maritime power. The U.S. Navy has been cut in half since the 1980s, shrinking steadily from 594 to today’s 280 ships. The fleet size has been cut by 60 ships during the Bush administration alone, despite significantly increased Pentagon budgets. Several naval analysts and commentators, including the observant Robert Kaplan, have argued that America’s present naval fleet constitutes an “elegant decline” or outright neglect. A former Reagan administration naval official contends that our current maritime policy and investment levels are “verging towards unilateral naval disarmament.” This is something of an overstatement. The American naval fleet is still substantially larger than any other, and has unmatched global reach and endurance. The U.S. Navy’s aggregate tonnage is the equivalent of the next 17 international navies, of which 14 are U.S. allies, and our power projection capabilities retain a 4:1 advantage in missiles. Looking simply at overall naval ship totals may not be the most accurate measure of naval power, but it is an historical standard of measurement. By that criterion, the U.S. Navy has not been this size since World War I, when Britain’s Royal Navy was the guarantor of the global commons.
|
Hoffman, 08 [Frank G. Hoffman, Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, From Preponderance to Partnership: American Maritime Power in the 21st Century, http://www.cnas.org/node/529
|
The U.S. Navy has been cut in half since the 80s shrinking from 594 to 280 ships The fleet size has been cut by 60 ships during the Bush administration alone despite significantly increased Pentagon budgets analysts contend that our current maritime policy and investment levels are “verging towards unilateral disarmament This is something of an overstatement The American naval fleet is still substantially larger than any other and has unmatched global reach and endurance. The U.S. Navy’s aggregate tonnage is the equivalent of the next 17 international navies, of which 14 are U.S allies, and our power projection capabilities retain a 4:1 advantage in missiles naval ship totals may not be the most accurate measure of naval power
|
The navy is resilient – it is massively stronger than the next 17 navies
| 1,355 | 72 | 736 | 211 | 14 | 119 | 0.066351 | 0.563981 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,525 |
This is no longer the case. The U.S. faces no great maritime challengers. While China appears to be toying with the idea of building a serious Navy this is many years off. Right now it appears to be designing a military to keep others, including the United States, away, out of the Western Pacific and Asian littorals. But even if it were seeking to build a large Navy, many analysts argue that other than Taiwan it is difficult to see a reason why Washington and Beijing would ever come to blows. Our former adversary, Russia, would have a challenge fighting the U.S. Coast Guard, much less the U.S. Navy. After that, there are no other navies of consequence. Yes, there are some scenarios under which Iran might attempt to close the Persian Gulf to oil exports, but how much naval power would really be required to reopen the waterway? Actually, the U.S. Navy would probably need more mine countermeasures capabilities than it currently possesses. More broadly, it appears that the nature of the security challenges confronting the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past several decades. There are only a few places where even large-scale conventional conflict can be considered possible. None of these would be primarily maritime in character although U.S. naval forces could make a significant contribution by employing its offensive and defensive capabilities over land. For example, the administration’s current plan is to rely on sea-based Aegis missile defenses to protect regional allies and U.S. forces until a land-based variant of that system can be developed and deployed. The sea ways, sometimes called the global commons, are predominantly free of dangers. The exception to this is the chronic but relatively low level of piracy in some parts of the world. So, the classic reasons for which nations build navies, to protect its own shores and its commerce or to place the shores and commerce of other states in jeopardy, seem relatively unimportant in today’s world.
|
Goure 10 (Daniel, Vice President, Lexington Institute, PhD, “Can The Case Be Made For Naval Power?”, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-the-case-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171,
|
The U.S. faces no great maritime challengers. While China appears to be toying with the idea this is many years off it is difficult to see a reason why Washington and Beijing would ever come to blows Russia would have a challenge fighting the U.S. Coast Guard, much less the U.S. Navy After that, there are no other navies of consequence There are only a few places where even large-scale conventional conflict can be considered possible None of these would be primarily maritime in character the administration’s current plan is to rely on sea-based Aegis missile defenses to protect regional allies and U.S. forces until a land-based variant of that system can be developed and deployed. classic reasons for which nations build navies, to protect its own shores and its commerce or to place the shores and commerce of other states in jeopardy, seem relatively unimportant in today’s world.
|
No impact to naval power
| 1,988 | 24 | 893 | 328 | 5 | 149 | 0.015244 | 0.454268 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,526 |
Nowhere else are the problems of energy dependence more disturbing than in American diplomacy. Even though the Obama administration’s national security strategy, released in late May, emphasizes the deepening of relations with increasingly assertive “emerging centers of influence”—China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa—relations have floundered, especially in energy diplomacy. Most recently, Turkey and Brazil reached a deal with Iran for the shipment of enriched uranium abroad, in spite of Washington’s misgivings. This setback followed the Copenhagen climate summit last December, when U.S. suggestions were hauled over the coals by an informal alignment of developing nations, including China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.
|
Christopher Dietrich, 7/28/2010, Informed Consent, "Energy and the future of US diplomacy," http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/dietrich-energy-and-the-future-of-u-s-diplomacy.html
|
Nowhere else are the problems of energy dependence more disturbing than in American diplomacy Even though Obama emphasizes the deepening of relations with increasingly assertive emerging centers of influence” relations have floundered especially in energy diplomacy Turkey and Brazil reached a deal with Iran for the shipment of enriched uranium abroad spite of Washington’s misgivings This setback followed the Copenhagen climate summi when U.S. suggestions were hauled over the coals by an informal alignment of developing nations
|
Energy diplomacy empirically fails
| 741 | 34 | 532 | 103 | 4 | 77 | 0.038835 | 0.747573 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,527 |
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will map out a plan Thursday for making energy a centerpiece of US diplomacy and foreign policy, a recognition of the profound geopolitical changes wrought by America's nascent energy revolution.¶ In a speech at Georgetown University, Mrs. Clinton will argue that "energy diplomacy" can strengthen America's allies, help counter potential rivals, and, by fostering economic growth around the world, ultimately help strengthen the American economy.¶ "Today, energy cuts across the entirety of US foreign policy. It is a matter of national security and global stability. It is at the heart of the global economy. It's an issue of democracy and human rights," she is expected to say, based on excerpts reviewed by The Journal. "It has been a top concern of mine as Secretary. And it is sure to be the same for the next Secretary of State."¶ The speech is part of Mrs. Clinton's efforts to secure her legacy after nearly four years as secretary of state; she plans to step down whether or not Barack Obama wins re-election.¶ However, that legacy is under pressure now because of the ongoing furor over the deaths in Libya in September of four Americans, including the US ambassador, in a terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. Mrs. Clinton has said that she bears full responsibility for any security lapses that led to the deadly attack.¶ Her remarks Thursday come a year after she approved the creation of a dedicated energy bureau inside the State Department.¶ The emphasis on energy diplomacy is a recognition of the profound change brought about by a huge increase in US oil and natural gas production. That has reversed decades of creeping dependence on foreign energy sources and has given the US many more options in conducting foreign policy.¶ In the 1970s, energy-related traumas included the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo, leading to decades of constraints on US foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and other big energy producers.¶ One key point Mrs. Clinton is expected to stress: The role that US energy production, coupled with US diplomatic efforts, has played in ratcheting up sanctions on Iran.¶ Diplomats from the State Department's energy bureau, including the division's leader, ambassador Carlos Pascual, have worked with their Iraqi counterparts to eliminate obstacles to increased Iraqi oil production. A surge in Iraqi output, alongside production increases from Saudi Arabia, helped make possible this year's sanctions that directly targeted Iran's ability to export oil.¶ Mrs. Clinton also is expected to make a reference to a flood of domestic natural gas that has upended traditional energy markets and given the US more leverage in dealing with rivals. Russia in recent years has wielded its vast energy reserves against smaller countries in Europe.
|
H.P., 10/18/2012, (Hydrocarbon processing), "Clinton emphasizes energy diplomacy for US," http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3105060/Clinton-emphasizes-energy-diplomacy-for-US.html
|
Clinton will map out a plan for making energy a centerpiece of US diplomacy The emphasis on energy diplomacy is a recognition of the profound change brought about by a huge increase in US oil and natural gas production That has reversed decades of creeping dependence on foreign energy sources and has given the US many more options in conducting foreign policy. a flood of domestic natural gas has upended traditional energy markets and given the US more leverage in dealing with rivals
|
The SQ solves energy diplomacy – domestic fossil fuel reserves, not renewable energy, drive energy diplomacy
| 2,869 | 108 | 487 | 460 | 16 | 83 | 0.034783 | 0.180435 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,528 |
MY ARGUMENT is that classic resource wars—hot conflicts driven by a struggle to grab resources—are increasingly rare. Even where resources play a role, they are rarely the root cause of bloodshed. Rather, the root cause usually lies in various failures of governance. That argument—in both its classic form and in its more nuanced incarnation—is hardly a straw man, as Thomas Homer-Dixon asserts. Setting aside hyperbole, the punditry increasingly points to resources as a cause of war. And so do social scientists and policy analysts, even with their more nuanced views. I’ve triggered this debate because conventional wisdom puts too much emphasis on resources as a cause of conflict. Getting the story right has big implications for social scientists trying to unravel cause-and-effect and often even larger implications for public policy. Michael Klare is right to underscore Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the only classic resource conflict in recent memory. That episode highlights two of the reasons why classic resource wars are becoming rare—they’re expensive and rarely work. (And even in Kuwait’s case, many other forces also spurred the invasion. Notably, Iraq felt insecure with its only access to the sea a narrow strip of land sandwiched between Kuwait on one side and its archenemy Iran on the other.) In the end, Saddam lost resources on the order of $100 billion (plus his country and then his head) in his quest for Kuwait’s 1.5 million barrels per day of combined oil and gas output. By contrast, Exxon paid $80 billion to get Mobil’s 1.7 million barrels per day of oil and gas production—a merger that has held and flourished. As the bulging sovereign wealth funds are discovering, it is easier to get resources through the stock exchange than the gun barrel. Klare takes me to task for failing to acknowledge the role of “lootable” resources as a motive for war. My point is that looters loot what they can—not just natural resources, but also foreign aid and anything else that passes within reach. (Paul Collier’s research, which Klare cites for support, finds that a sizeable share of African military budgets is, in effect, aid money that is looted and redirected from foreign aid.) I suspect that we don’t differ much in our assessment of the effects of lootable resources within weak and failed states, but where we do part company is in the implication for policy. Fixing the problems in the Niger River Delta—the case he uses—requires a stronger and more accountable government. That means making it harder to loot resources, taming official corruption, lending a hand with law enforcement in places where oil is produced and stolen, and engaging reformist forces in the Nigerian government. Resource looting and misallocation are severe, but they are symptoms whose cures require focusing on governance.The realities of global resource depletion are somewhat different from Klare’s story. It is true that primary resources, such as oil in the ground, are now more concentrated in “armpit” countries because more readily available resources are being depleted. That fact, though, only serves to further support my conclusion: That we must redouble our efforts to improve governance because all oil-consuming countries have a stake in the good governance of their oil producers. What really matters is not theoretical oil thousands of feet underground but actual oil produced and delivered to markets. And on that front, the armpit-country story isn’t so bad because those countries tend to put themselves out of business. Witness Venezuela, where production is declining even though the country is one of the world’s richest in untapped resources. High prices soon follow. And with those higher prices, a spate of “new” resources becomes viable—oil sands in Canada and shale in the western United States, for example. Moreover, many oil-rich countries actually have good governance systems (at least concerning their oil), such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and notably the bright new star among oil-majors, Brazil. Nonetheless, I echo a conclusion from my original article—one that Klare surely shares as well—that current patterns of oil consumption are not sustainable, and urgent efforts to tame demand are also needed.
|
Victor 8 (David G., Smoke and Mirrors”, Debating Disaster: The World Is Not Enough, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16522,)
|
classic resource wars—hot conflicts driven by a struggle to grab resources—are increasingly rare. Even where resources play a role, they are rarely the root cause of bloodshed classic resource wars are becoming rare—they’re expensive and rarely work it is easier to get resources through the stock exchange than the gun barrel.
|
Resource Wars don’t become hot wars
| 4,271 | 35 | 327 | 682 | 6 | 51 | 0.008798 | 0.07478 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,529 |
So how are we doing then? Well, according to the report, 1.2 billion people still don't have access to electricity. That's almost the population of India. A whopping 2.8 billion people still have to use wood to cook and heat their homes, and of this, every year 3.5 million women and children die from respiratory illness directly related to inhaling the wood and biomass fumes. This is more than twice as high as deaths due to malaria (1.2 million) and even HIV/AIDS (1.5 million). So you can say that energy poverty is a gigantic problem.¶ A seemingly encouraging statistic shows that 1.7 billion people did gain access to electricity between 1990 to 2010, however, factoring in population growth of 1.6 billion during that time and the numbers don't look so good. In fact, the pace of electricity expansion needs to double to meet the 100% energy access target by 2030. And to put that into perspective of just how much energy we in the developed world use, bringing electricity to that 1.2 billion people using conventional energy sources would only increase global carbon dioxide emissions by less than one percent.¶ What about the largest polluters, China and India? Both countries have achieved a lot, but they still face huge challenges. India has moved faster than any other country in the world to deliver electricity to people, extending its grid to reach over 24 million more people each year since 1990. China has been the best in the world at achieving energy efficiency, with energy savings that add up over the past 20 years to an amount equal to the amount of energy the nation used over the same time frame. To date, there are still 306.2 million people in India without electricity and 705 million still relying on wood and biomass cooking fuels. In china the number is at 621.8 million. Both countries have come a long way, hopefully they will keep at it.¶ The report recommends that a broad range of initiatives be used to fight energy poverty and boost clean energy development, including government actions to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, establishing a carbon floor price. It also claims that achieving the massive funding necessary to achieve these goals will not be possible without "substantial investment" from the private sector. And as for the public, we too can do our part, by supporting non-profits that aim to end energy poverty and engaging with our politicians and asking them to put energy poverty at the top of their agendas. The energy poverty issue is one that is larger than most of us realize, but is one that is so fundamental to human development. Providing access to clean fuel and electricity is the foundation that enables improvements and developments in health, education and business and provides the key to leaving poverty behind.
|
Sandy Tung, 6/10/2013, Energy Collective, "energy poverty: we need to do so much more," http://theenergycollective.com/sandyyt/235281/energy-poverty-we-need-do-so-much-more
|
, 1.2 billion people still don't have access to electricity. That's almost the population of India. the pace of electricity expansion needs to double to meet the 100% energy access target by 2030 there are still 306.2 million people in India without electricity In china the number is at 621.8 million The report recommends that a broad range of initiatives be used to fight energy poverty and boost clean energy development, including government actions to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, establishing a carbon floor price.
|
Reducing energy poverty in Mexico is insufficient to solve energy poverty – 1.2 billion people will still lack access and the aff doesn’t do enough to solve this
| 2,785 | 161 | 525 | 472 | 28 | 85 | 0.059322 | 0.180085 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,530 |
Huge Progress Undercut by Population Growth. The effort to tackle energy poverty may look as if it has been at a standstill because estimates of the number of people without electricity have barely changed for years. In fact, electricity has been extended to 1.7 billion more people between 1990 and 2010, and 1.6 billion people gained access to cleaner cooking fuels. But world population grew 1.6 billion over that same period, with high growth in regions with poor energy access—a problem concentrated in about 20 countries in Asia and Africa. The World Bank report said the pace of expansion would have to double to meet the 100 percent energy access target by 2030.
|
Marianne Lavelle, 5/29/2013, National Geographic, "Five surprising facts about energy poverty," http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130529-surprising-facts-about-energy-poverty/
|
Huge Progress Undercut by Population Growth The effort to tackle energy poverty may look as if it has been at a standstill because estimates of the number of people without electricity have barely changed for years The World Bank report said the pace of expansion would have to double to meet the 100 percent energy access target by 2030
|
Global energy poverty inevitable – population growth
| 670 | 52 | 337 | 113 | 7 | 59 | 0.061947 | 0.522124 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,531 |
Bane suggests that policymakers should consider changing their language. Instead of “helping the poor,” they should focus on “helping people who can’t take care of themselves,” “aiding struggling working families,” and “guaranteeing food and shelter.” She also suggests that American policy analysts 26 should pay more attention to the high poverty rates in developing countries, both because globalization has increased linkages between countries and because immigration to the United States would be likely to fall as living standards increase in sending countries, such as Mexico.
|
Cancian and Danziger 9 (Maria, La Follette School of Public Affairs, School of Social Work and Institute for Research on Poverty, and Sheldon Danziger Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, Population Studies Center and National Poverty Center at U-Mich Ann Arbor, April 2009, “Changing Poverty and Changing Antipoverty Policies”)
|
Bane suggests that policymakers should consider changing their language. Instead of “helping the poor,” they should focus on “helping people who can’t take care of themselves,” “aiding struggling working families,” and “guaranteeing food and shelter should pay more attention to the high poverty rates in developing countries, both because globalization has increased linkages between countries and because immigration to the United States would be likely to fall as living standards increase in sending countries,
|
Globalization has made poverty inevitable.
| 583 | 42 | 514 | 85 | 5 | 74 | 0.058824 | 0.870588 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,532 |
The inaugural meeting of the World Future Council was recently held in Hamburg, Germany. It brought together 50 Councilors from all continents, chosen for their diversity and pioneering commitment to building a better world. At the conclusion of the four-day meeting, the Council released the Hamburg Call to Action, a document calling for action to protect the future of all life. It began, “Today we stand at the crossroads of human history. Our actions – and our failures to act – will decide the future of life on earth for thousands of years, if not forever.” The Call to Action is a challenge to each of us to take responsibility for assuring a positive future for humanity and for preserving life on our planet. The document states: “Today there is no alternative to an ethics of global responsibility for we are entering an era of consequences. We must share, co-operate and innovate together in building a world worthy of our highest aspirations. The decision lies with each one of us!” We are challenged to consider what we are individually and collectively doing not only to radically undermine our present world through war and its preparation, resource depletion, pollution and global warming, but also the effects of what we are doing upon future generations. Those of us alive now have the responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation, and to assure that our actions do not foreclose the future. The Hamburg Call to Action is a great document and I urge you to read and reflect upon it. But I draw your attention specifically to the section on nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most immediate catastrophic threat. These weapons would destroy cities, countries, civilization and possibly humanity itself. The danger posed by nuclear weapons in any hands must be confronted directly and urgently through a new initiative for the elimination of these instruments of annihilation.”
|
(David, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, “Responsibility in an Era of Consequences,” May 17, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/05/17_krieger_Responsibility_In_An_Era.htm, AD: 6/30/09
|
Today we stand at the crossroads of human history. Our actions – and our failures to act – will decide the future of life on earth forever The Call to Action is a challenge to each of us to take responsibility for assuring a positive future for humanity and for preserving life on our planet. there is no alternative to an ethics of global responsibility for we are entering an era of consequences. Those of us alive now have the responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation, and to assure that our actions do not foreclose the future. Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most immediate catastrophic threat. These weapons would destroy cities, countries, civilization and possibly humanity itself. The danger posed by nuclear weapons in any hands must be confronted directly and urgently through a new initiative for the elimination of these instruments of annihilation.”
|
In the face of nuclear annihilation – an ethic of responsibility to future generations must come first – it’s the only ethical choice.
| 1,942 | 134 | 893 | 319 | 23 | 148 | 0.0721 | 0.46395 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,533 |
The relation between poverty and war in the world today is smooth but highly nonlinear. Among wealthy countries in the developed world, the risk of civil war is essentially zero. For countries with a per capita gross domestic product of around $1,500 a year (in 2003 U.S. dollars), the probability of a new conflict breaking out within five years rises to around 3 percent. But from there downward the risk shoots up: for countries with a per capita GDP of $750, it is 6 percent; for countries whose people earn $500, it is 8 percent; and for those that subsist on $250, it is 15 percent.28 A simplistic interpretation of the correlation is that poverty causes war because poor people have to fight for survival over a meager pool of resources. Though undoubtedly some conflicts are fought over access to water or arable land, the connection is far more tangled than that.'' For starters, the causal arrow also goes in the other direction. War causes poverty, because it's hard to·generate wealth when roads, factories, and granaries are blown up as fast as they are built and when the most skilled workers and managers are constantly being driven from their workplaces or shot. War has been called "development in reverse," and the economist Paul Collier has estimated that a typical civil war costs the afflicted country $50 billion.'" Also, neither wealth nor peace comes from having valuable stuff in the ground. Many poor and war-torn African countries are overflowing with gold, oil, diamonds, and strategic metals, while affluent and peaceable countries such as Belgium, Singapore, and Hong Kong have no natural resources to speak of. There must be a third variable, presumably the norms and skills of a civilized trading society, that causes both wealth and peace. And even if poverty does cause conflict, it may do so not because of competition over scarce resources but because the most important thing that a little wealth buys a country is an effective police force and army to keep domestic peace. The fruits of economic development flow far more to a government than to a guerrilla force, and that is one of the reasons that the economic tigers of the developing world have come to enjoy a state of relative tranquillity."
|
Pinker 2011 (Steven [Professor of Psychology @ Harvard; two time Pulitzer finalist]; The Better angels of our nature: why violence has declined; pp.305-7
|
The relation between poverty and war in the world today is smooth but highly nonlinear. . Though undoubtedly some conflicts are fought over access to water or arable land, the connection is far more tangled than that.'' War causes poverty, neither wealth nor peace comes from having valuable stuff in the ground. Many poor and war-torn African countries are overflowing with gold, oil, diamonds, and strategic metals, while affluent and peaceable countries such as Belgium, Singapore, and Hong Kong have no natural resources to speak of. . And even if poverty does cause conflict, it may do so not because of competition over scarce resources but because the most important thing that a little wealth buys a country is an effective police force and army to keep domestic peace
|
Poverty is not a good indicator of war
| 2,236 | 38 | 776 | 378 | 8 | 129 | 0.021164 | 0.34127 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,534 |
While its most recent primary ambition has been changing the energy marketplace in favor of “clean” fuels, EPA is regularly engaged in other agenda-driven activities out of view of the mainstream media and the average American family.¶ A primary battlefront over the last several years has been chemical regulation. As other parts of government deal with sequestration cuts, EPA’s chemical management programs received a hefty increase in the budget released by the President this spring. Of the $8.2 billion earmarked for EPA, a whopping $682.2 million would be devoted to the Agency’s chemical safety and pollution prevention activities.¶ According to EPA, the budget would “sustain its success in managing potential risks of new chemicals entering commerce without impacting progress in assessing and ensuring the safety of existing chemicals.”
|
Kerri Toloczko, 6/17/2013, Forbes, "environmental protection agency: constantly leaping before it looks," http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/06/17/environmental-protection-agency-constantly-leaping-before-it-looks/
|
While its most recent primary ambition has been changing the energy marketplace in favor of “clean” fuels, EPA is regularly engaged in other activities A primary battlefront over the last several years has been chemical regulation As other parts of government deal with sequestration cuts, EPA’s chemical management programs received a hefty increase in the budget $682.2 million would be devoted to the Agency’s chemical safety and pollution prevention activities the budget would “sustain its success in managing potential risks of new chemicals entering commerce
|
The EPA budget is fine now – it is focusing its resources on reducing chemical pollution
| 847 | 88 | 565 | 128 | 16 | 85 | 0.125 | 0.664063 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,535 |
Large-scale environmental infrastructure projects, such as those listed ¶ in Table 1, [water supply, water conservation, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste, air quality improvement, clean and renewable energy, energy efficiency, industrial and hazardous waste, public transportation] have traditionally been funded with public monies. In ¶ general terms, this occurs for three reasons: because the good or service to be provided has the characteristics of a public good, making ¶ it unattractive to private investors;5 because there are laws or regulations that prohibit or limit private investments; or because even if a ¶ specific infrastructure project has low profit potential, it might be ¶ highly desirable from a social or environmental standpoint.¶ In the United States, there are various agencies involved in ¶ environmental infrastructure financing. At the federal level, the ¶ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remains as one of the top ¶ contributors based on the total value of grants devoted to border ¶ environmental infrastructure projects. In the case of Mexico, a significant portion of federal funds is appropriated through programs ¶ administered by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources¶ (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales–SEMARNAT). ¶ However, these federal agencies can only provide the funding that ¶ their respective legislatures authorize during the annual budget ¶ process.6 Unfortunately, as evidence shows, the tendency has been ¶ toward a decrease in the appropriations for programs to finance environmental infrastructure. An illustrative example of the declining ¶ trend observed in government funding is the money appropriated by ¶ the U.S. Congress for the U.S.-Mexico Border Program, which constitutes one of the main sources of funding for water and wastewater ¶ projects. As data from BECC reveal, appropriations for this program ¶ have gone from $100 million in the mid-1990s to roughly $10 million in fiscal year 2008 (BECC 2007).¶ There are two important factors that need to be taken into account ¶ when assessing reductions in budget appropriations. The first factor has to do with the ongoing economic recession, its effects on ¶ government budgets, and the realignment of policy priorities that ¶ this situation requires. Countries around the globe are experiencing ¶ the consequences of an economic slowdown that has significantly ¶ affected revenue collections. Expenditure trends, nonetheless, continue showing an upward trend. This is putting additional pressures ¶ on public budgets and is forcing governments to rethink expenditure ¶ priorities. The second factor has to do with the process that must ¶ be followed to allocate government funds. Budget appropriations ¶ are the result of difficult and complex negotiations among actors ¶ who represent constituencies from numerous geographical areas and ¶ with a wide array of interests and policy agendas. These actors must ¶ compete for an increasingly limited amount of government revenues. ¶ Given the current economic scenario, developing border environmental infrastructure may not be seen as a strategic need.
|
Salvador Espinosa, 2012, The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: Progress and Challenges for Sustainability (eds., Erik Lee and Paul Ganster), "Chapter 15: Financing Border Environmental Infrastructure: Where are We? Where to form Here?? p. 398-399
|
environmental infrastructure projects such a clean and renewable energy have traditionally been funded with public monies In the United States the EPA remains as one of the top contributors to border environmental infrastructure projects these agencies can only provide the funding that their legislatures authorize the tendency has been toward a decrease in the appropriations for programs to finance environmental infrastructure money appropriated by Congress for the U.S.-Mexico Border Program, have gone from $100 million in the mid-1990s to roughly $10 million in fiscal year 2008 This is putting additional pressures on public budgets and is forcing governments to rethink expenditure priorities
|
But increased funding for renewable energy projects on the border trades off with other EPA priorities
| 3,156 | 102 | 701 | 475 | 16 | 102 | 0.033684 | 0.214737 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,536 |
Common synthetic chemicals suspected of disrupting the hormone system could be responsible for serious health problems, warns a report released on 19 February by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Nearly 800 chemicals are known or believed to interfere with hormone receptors, synthesis or conversion, according to the report’s authors. But while the vast majority are currently on the market, only a small fraction have been investigated in tests capable of identifying overt endocrine effects, the report concluded. Specifically, the report highlighted associations between exposure to these endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and non-descended testes in young males, breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, thyroid cancer, and developmental effects on the nervous system in children as well as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
|
Rebecca Trager, 2/23/2013,Royal Society of Chemistry, "endocrine disrupting chemicals under fire," http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/02/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-under-fire
|
Common synthetic chemicals suspected of disrupting the hormone system could be responsible for serious health problems Nearly 800 chemicals are known or believed to interfere with hormone receptor only a small fraction have been investigated in tests capable of identifying overt endocrine effects
|
Rampant chemical pollution will cause endocrine disruption
| 905 | 58 | 297 | 128 | 7 | 43 | 0.054688 | 0.335938 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,537 |
While researching this topic, I came across one statistic that stated, “1 in 6 couples is infertile.” Low sperm count is another one of the many results of endocrine disruptors in our environment. A study released by the Denmark government concluded that “young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much semen, proportionately, as hamsters.” In another study, there is evidence that the birth rate of boys is decreasing in industrial nations including Japan, US, Canada, Denmark and other European nations. And yet, in another report, evidence that men exposed to high levels of phthalates actually damaged the DNA of their sperm. Is the 2006, post-apocalyptic film, Children of Men, which takes place in a not-so-far-off future where mankind is no longer able to reproduce, just fiction or a warning tale? As we fight for women’s right to control reproduction, maybe we should also be fighting for the right to reproduce as well!
|
Lisbeth Prifogle, 5/7/2012, Hormones Matter, "evolution or extinction of men," http://www.hormonesmatter.com/endocrine-disruptors-mens-health/
|
1 in 6 couples is infertile Low sperm count is another one of the many results of endocrine disruptors in our environment there is evidence that the birth rate of boys is decreasing in industrial nations Is the 2006, post-apocalyptic film Children of Men, which takes place in a not-so-far-off future where mankind is no longer able to reproduce just fiction or a warning tale?
|
Endocrine disruption causes extinction
| 961 | 38 | 377 | 159 | 4 | 65 | 0.025157 | 0.408805 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,538 |
The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized a list of 109 chemicals and pesticide active ingredients for inclusion in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, according to a notice published June 14 in the Federal Register (78 Fed. Reg. 35,922).¶ The listed chemicals, the second group of substances selected for inclusion in the EDSP, will undergo Tier 1 screening, a battery of tests designed to identify substances that have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems.¶ EPA said it focused on priority drinking water contaminants and pesticides, including substances included on the third Contaminant Candidate List, a set of contaminants that are not currently subject to any national primary drinking water regulations but may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The finalized List 2 includes the chemicals perchlorate, benzene, and methanol, as well as 41 substances that are listed as pesticide active ingredients.¶ The notice specifies that List 2 should not be interpreted as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors.¶ The agency developed the EDSP after Congress passed authorizing legislation in 1996. The first test orders for the program were issued in October 2009.
|
Bloomberg, 6/17/2013, "EPA finalizes list of 109 chemicals to undergo endocrine disruptor screening," http://www.bna.com/epa-finalizes-list-n17179874541/
|
The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized a list of 109 chemicals and pesticide active ingredients for inclusion in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program The listed chemicals will undergo Tier 1 screening EPA said it focused on priority drinking water contaminants and pesticides
|
The EPA is focused on finding endocrine disrupting chemicals now
| 1,250 | 64 | 291 | 191 | 10 | 42 | 0.052356 | 0.219895 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,539 |
China and Mexico, two of the world's emerging powers, "relaunched" their partnership, strengthening it with the signing of a dozen agreements on Tuesday — the first day of President Xi Jinping's three-day visit.¶ Xi said his meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has been fruitful and produced a consensus on many issues.¶ "Our joint announcement to elevate our strategic partnership to an overall strategic partnership reflects both the reality of bilateral relations as well as shows the direction of their future development," Xi told the media after meeting his Mexican counterpart.¶ Xi, who last visited Mexico in 2009 as China's vice-president, arrived in Mexico City after touring Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica, where agreements to develop ties were also signed. The agreements and memorandum of understanding signed on Tuesday between Mexico and China cover cooperation in energy, new-industry trade, infrastructure construction, mining, trade, education, banking and entrepreneurial exchanges.¶ Pena Nieto said Xi's official visit to Mexico proves the two countries have reached a high level of friendship, trust and cooperation.¶ He said he believes China and Mexico will explore additional ways to cooperate, and that Mexico will attract Chinese investment for large projects, including in energy and infrastructure.¶ Pena Nieto, who took office in December, visited China in April to attend the Boao Asia Forum in Hainan province, where he met Xi.¶ Trade between the two countries was $36 billion last year, more than seven times what it was in 2003, when China and Mexico established a strategic partnership.¶ Liu Yuqin, a researcher of Latin American studies at the China Foundation for International Studies and former Chinese ambassador to Ecuador, Chile and Cuba, said the elevation of the bilateral relationship is based on the two countries' well-developed cooperation and shows that they consider each other important.¶ The Sino-Mexican relationship has developed well in many areas, including the economy, politics and culture, since they established diplomatic ties in 1972, Liu said.¶ "Despite some trade friction, the two countries have more common interests and have a strong desire to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiations," she said.¶ Liu said Mexico, an important member of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, plays an important role in promoting China's relations with this region.¶ "The enhanced China-Mexico relationship and Mexico's positive response to the establishment of the China-Latin America Cooperation Forum, which was advocated last year by former premier Wen Jiabao, is important to future cooperation between China and the whole region," Liu said.¶ Theodore Kahn, a researcher at Inter-American Bank, described Xi's visit to Mexico as a chance to "relaunch" the two countries' relations after a decade.¶ "Both countries have something to gain by closer ties, but seizing the opportunity will require dropping long-held preconceptions about the commercial relationship," Kahn wrote in The Diplomat on Tuesday.¶ "The arrival of new leaders in both countries presents an opportunity to forge a closer, more fruitful alliance between two key emerging markets."¶ Kahn believes Mexico should get over its obsession with trade deficits, which he said are numbers that fail to capture the complexity of the countries' commercial relationship and hinder opportunities for further cooperation.¶ He believes that Mexico stands to gain from China's expanding foreign direct investment, particularly in the energy sector, and in Mexico's own increasingly competitive manufacturing industry, especially in the wake of China's rising labor costs.
|
Zhu Zhe, 6/5/13, China Daily, "China, Mexico boost relations," http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013xivisit/2013-06/05/content_16573196.htm
|
The agreements and memorandum of understanding between Mexico and China cover cooperation in energy, China and Mexico will explore additional ways to cooperate, and that Mexico will attract Chinese investment for large projects, including in energy and infrastructure Despite some friction the two countries have more common interests and have a strong desire to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiations Mexico stands to gain from China's expanding foreign direct investment, particularly in the energy sector,
|
China can provide investment to boost Mexico’s renewable energy sector
| 3,726 | 70 | 523 | 557 | 10 | 75 | 0.017953 | 0.13465 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,540 |
China’s leader is a guest who brings lots of gifts and lingers.¶ President Xi Jinping, on the second day of an unhurried three-day visit to Mexico, spoke to the nation’s Senate Wednesday afternoon, then left for City Hall and prepared to visit the nation’s most renowned Mayan pyramid before heading on to California later in the week.¶ Throughout his activities, Xi emphasized that China is upgrading its relations with Latin America, and Mexico in particular.¶ Xi opened his nation’s wallet to prove it, splashing out $1 billion in credit to Petroleos Mexicanos [PEMEX], the state oil giant, and pledging $1 billion in trade deals.¶ He also vowed to strengthen cultural and educational ties, offering 300 scholarships for Mexican students to study in China and announcing the opening of China’s first cultural center in Latin America. Other accords promised cooperation in renewable energy, disease control and promotion of tourism.
|
Tim Johnson, 6/5/13, Fort Mill Times, "China's Xi splashes cash, deals on leisurely rip to woo Mexico," http://www.fortmilltimes.com/2013/06/05/2739528/chinas-xi-splashes-cash-deals.html
|
China’s leader is a guest who brings lots of gifts , Xi emphasized that China is upgrading its relations with Mexico Xi opened his nation’s wallet to prove it, splashing out $1 billion in credit to Petroleos Mexicanos PEMEX Other accords promised cooperation in renewable energy
|
China can make substantial investments in the energy sector
| 934 | 59 | 278 | 148 | 9 | 46 | 0.060811 | 0.310811 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,541 |
To date wind energy exploitation occupies 11,000 hectares nationwide, with investments since 2007 totalling five billion dollars, according to the Mexican Wind Energy Association (AMDEE).¶ The energy reform of 2008 allows individuals and businesses to generate their own electricity from renewable sources, supply it to the national grid and be rewarded with preferential feed-in tariffs.¶ As a result, many companies are buying cheap wind energy to become self-sufficient in energy and reduce their electricity bills. However, critics of this strategy argue that the communities where wind parks are installed have the least to gain.¶ "There is a pattern of human rights violations in the communities. Wind energy companies advertise themselves well, offering money and jobs, but the jobs are temporary. The companies' actions are not transparent, nor do they meet established standards," Alejandra Ancheita, the head of Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC - Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Project), told IPS.¶ Following the wind energy boom in Oaxaca, activists fear the negative aspects of the model will be repeated in wind farm projects in other states.¶ "They have brought no benefits. The energy companies violate collective property rights, agrarian laws and the traditional laws of indigenous peoples," Bettina Cruz, the founder of the Assembly of Indigenous Peoples of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Defence of Land and Territory (APIIDTT), told IPS.¶ DEMEX has denied the allegations against it, saying that the contracts are valid and that it has the necessary authorisations for construction and operation of the wind park.¶ "Conditions in the communities have not improved," said Benjamin Cokelet, head of the Project on Organising, Development, Education and Research (PODER), an NGO for corporate accountability. In his view, the companies may be in violation of international conventions.¶ In the towns of San Dionisio del Mar, Álvaro Obregón and San Vicente, close to Unión Hidalgo, local people have blocked similar wind energy projects through direct protests and legal appeals.¶ For instance, in San Dionisio, the Spanish company Mareña Renovables is planning a 392 MW wind park with 75 million dollars of financing from the Inter-American Development Bank. But the project is at a standstill due to legal action.¶ On Tuesday Jun. 11 the Unión Hidalgo Resistance Committee presented a lawsuit to the agrarian court, which deals with land rights, seeking to invalidate the contracts that have been signed and suspend the working of the wind farm and its expansion, with immediate effect.¶ In April, they presented a complaint to PROFEPA, Mexico's federal agency for environmental protection, against pollution caused by the wind park.¶ "It's not right for the government to negotiate with the companies over our land. We have been badly off ever since they arrived. They say it's clean energy, but that's not true: lubricating oil from the turbines is contaminating the soil and the groundwater, the blades are killing birds, and the turbines are noisy," Esteban López, a 55-year-old Zapotec Indian who grows maize and sorghum, told IPS.
|
Independent European Daily Express, 6/18/13, "rural mexican communities protest wind farms," http://www.iede.co.uk/news/2013_2219/rural-mexican-communities-protest-wind-farms
|
wind energy exploitation occupies 11,000 hectares nationwide critics of this strategy argue that the communities where wind parks are installed have the least to gain There is a pattern of human rights violations in the communities The energy companies violate collective property rights, agrarian laws and the traditional laws of indigenous peoples Conditions in the communities have not improved It's not right for the government to negotiate with the companies over our land We have been badly off ever since they arrived They say it's clean energy, but that's not true lubricating oil from the turbines is contaminating the soil and the groundwater, the blades are killing birds, and the turbines are noisy
|
Clean energy projects subjugate rural communities
| 3,190 | 49 | 710 | 492 | 6 | 113 | 0.012195 | 0.229675 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,542 |
Out of all countries in the Western Hemisphere, only the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico ¶ have nuclear power capabilities. Nuclear power has been a topic of national debate in Chile at least¶ since the Bachelet administration, which set up a national commission to study its potential ¶ opportunities and threats. The pending Chilean nuclear program has remained on the energy agenda¶ under the leadership of Sebastián Piñera. However, it came under much greater scrutiny by ¶ environmentalists in the wake of the devastating earthquake of 2010. Earlier this year, President ¶ Obama travelled to Chile and executed a Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation on peaceful ¶ uses of nuclear energy with President Piñera. Needless to say, this agreement was overshadowed by ¶ the Japanese triple disasters in March of the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown of the Fukushima ¶ nuclear project. Japan is the third largest producer of nuclear power in the world, behind the US and ¶ 2France, and prior to Fukushima, had given the world the impression that it had resolved any potential ¶ risks associated with nuclear reactors and earthquakes. Understandably, the nuclear crisis in Japan has ¶ become public relations disaster for the nuclear industry. Therefore, despite the fact that it is the ¶ cleanest form of renewable energy, the expansion of nuclear in the hemisphere appears to be on hold ¶ for the time being.
|
Center for Hemispheric Policy, October 2011, (university of Miami), "reducing the carbon in the Americas: climate change and the future of carbon-based and alternative energy," https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Publications/10-2011_Carbon_Footprint.pdf
|
Out of all countries in the Western Hemisphere, only the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have nuclear power capabilities the nuclear crisis in Japan has become public relations disaster for the nuclear industry. Therefore, despite the fact that it is the cleanest form of renewable energy, the expansion of nuclear in the hemisphere appears to be on hold for the time being
|
No nuclear expansion in Mexico – public opinion opposes it
| 1,424 | 58 | 382 | 231 | 10 | 63 | 0.04329 | 0.272727 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,543 |
The state monopoly on the use of nuclear power remains a relatively large ¶ obstacle to its use. In contrast to coal, natural gas, wind and even hydroelectric plants, ¶ nuclear power plants can’t be operated by private investors under the Mexican ¶ constitution. Given the large up-front cost of constructing nuclear plants, and the many ¶ needs of the Mexican government for funds to invest in other infrastructure, it is not ¶ surprising that there aren’t plans to increase nuclear generating capacity. Regrettably, ¶ institutional factors in this case can impede the diversification of generating capacity in ¶ Mexico.
|
Jorge Gonzales-Gomez and Peter Hartley, 2008, Rice University, "The global energy market: comprehensive strategies to meet geopolitical and financial risks," http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/IEEJnuclear-JorgeHartley.pdf
|
The state monopoly on the use of nuclear power remains a relatively large obstacle to its use. nuclear power plants can’t be operated by private investors under the Mexican constitution Given the large up-front cost of constructing nuclear plants, and the many needs of the Mexican government for funds to invest in other infrastructure, it is not surprising that there aren’t plans to increase nuclear generating capacity institutional factors in this case can impede the diversification of generating capacity in Mexico.
|
State ownership of the nuclear industry deters private investment
| 621 | 65 | 522 | 100 | 9 | 81 | 0.09 | 0.81 |
Mexico Renewables Negative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
3,544 |
However, none of the expanding economic ties should disguise Moscow’s fundamentally geostrategic orientation. Medvedev wants the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) to bring about a genuine multipolarity and weaken U.S. hegemony in international financial institutions and the global economic order.54 He and Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner advocated reforming international financial institutions, a major thrust of recent Russian foreign policy, and Medvedev urged Argentina to recognize Russia as a market economy.55 Medvedev and subordinate officials have also urged Brazil to coordinate foreign policy with Russia to foster the multipolar world.56 Indeed, in 2006, then-Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov openly admitted that successful business contacts are crucial to Russia’s geopolitical cooperation with other governments when he said, “I would not set higher targets for geopolitical relations without making a success in the economy first.”57 Similarly, Medvedev conceded that his own trip to Latin America was prompted by serious geopolitical reasons.58 Venezuela and Cuba The dominance of geopolitics emerges quite strongly in Russian foreign policy towards its main partners in Latin America, Venezuela and Cuba. Russia’s interests are fundamentally geostrategic, not economic, and no Latin economy save perhaps Brazil can offer Russia much tangible benefit. Therefore, geopolitical and strategic aims outweigh economic interaction with these states. For example, the BBC reported that Patrushev told Ecuador’s government that Russia wanted to collaborate with its intelligence agency, “to expand Moscow’s influence in Latin America.” 59 Moscow also signed an agreement to sell Ecuador weapons.60 Most probably Russia wants to link Ecuador and Venezuela with Russian weapons and intelligence support against Colombia. Since they are both antagonistic to Colombia, they can then support the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), threaten a U.S. ally and seek to pin Washington down in another dirty war.61 Chávez’s open support of the FARC with Russian weapons strongly suggests that Moscow knows all about his efforts and approves of them. The case of Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer who enjoys protection from Russia’s government, reinforces this analysis. In 2008 Bout was arrested in Thailand for offering to deliver weapons to the FARC as part of a sting organized by the United States. It may not be coincidental that Bout’s offers coincide with Russian support for Chávez’s latest clash with Colombia.62 Once Bout was arrested and obliged to undergo an extradition hearing, Moscow brought immense pressure to bear upon Bangkok so that he would not be extradited to the United States and forced to name names, dates, places and people.63 Undoubtedly, Moscow also fully recognizes Chávez’s conversion of Venezuela into a critical transshipment center for narcotics from both Latin America and West Africa, his support for insurgencies and terrorists throughout Latin America and his expansionist and revolutionary dreams about Colombia, and seeks to exploit those factors for its own anti-American purposes.64 Therefore one must treat reports of actual or forthcoming Russian agreements with Nicaragua and Venezuela on counter-drug cooperation with great wariness, as they could be smokescreens for Moscow’s conscious support for drug running into America, Europe and Latin America.65 Indeed, reports from 2003 point to Russian criminal penetration of Mexico’s narcotics gangs.66 More recently, in early 2009, a Russian and a Cuban citizen were both arrested for drug smuggling in Yucatán.67 Simultaneously, Russia openly wants to increase cooperation among the BRIC members’ intelligence services and Latin America in general. Clearly Moscow wants to establish permanent roots in Latin America and use those contacts as bases for political influence to support those states and potential insurgent movements against the United States. 68 These are only some of the reasons why Moscow’s arms sales to Venezuela, and projected sales to Cuba, are perhaps the only truly dangerous aspects of its policies in Latin America. These sales aim to give Chávez much of what he needs to foment his Bolivarian Revolution throughout Latin America, since Chávez is running or selling weapons to insurgents and left-wing regimes all over the region, and second, because these weapons make no sense unless he is planning an arms race in Latin America. Chilean, Colombian and especially Brazilian reports all raise the alarm about the $5.4 billion in Russian arms sales to Venezuela. These reports raise the specter of Venezuela “detonating” a continental arms race, acquiring the largest Latin American fleet due to its purchase of submarines, the comprehensive arming of Venezuela’s army, fleet and air forces with huge arms purchases, and the acquisition of hundreds of thousands of Kalashnikovs, and an ammunition factory. These reports also point out that since 2003, if not earlier, these automatic rifles and ammunition have migrated from Venezuela to the FARC. This causes great fear that Russian arms will underwrite armed insurgencies and drug running (submarines being excellently equipped for that purpose, as well as to defend Venezuela’s coastline from nonexistent threats).69 The sheer scale of ongoing Russian arms sales to Venezuela since 2004 justifies these alarms, as they make no strategic sense given the absence of any U.S. or other military threat. Even Chávez knows this, for he claims that the air defense missiles he ordered are meant to protect oil derricks!70 Therefore there are purposes beyond the legitimate defense of Venezuela for these weapons. Moscow has sold Venezuela $5.4 billion in weapons since 2004. Those systems include 24 Su-30 fighters, 100,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, Ak-103 assault rifles, BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles. Venezuela also bought 53 Mi-17V-s and Mi-35M helicopters. In addition, Russia has helped develop factories in Venezuela that can make parts for the rifles, their ammunition and the fighters, with an announced goal of producing 50,000 rifles a year. Venezuela plans to buy 12 Il-76 and Il-78 tankers and cargo aircraft, or possibly 96-300 military transport planes, Tor-M1 anti-air missiles, a fifth generation anti-air system equally effective against planes, helicopters, UAVs, cruise missiles and high precision missiles, and Igla-S portable SAM systems. In September 2009, Moscow advanced Caracas a $2 billion credit to buy more arms: 92 T-72 main battle tanks, Smerch rocket artillery systems, and the Antey 2500 anti-ballistic missile system.71 Other Russian defense sources said that the tank deal could be expanded to include three diesel-powered submarines “Kilo” class, combat helicopters Mi-28 and armored infantry vehicles BMP-3.72 Venezuela also seeks Mi-28n Hunter high-attack helicopters and is discussing the possible purchase of submarines.73 There were also earlier discussions about selling project 636 submarines (among the quietest subs in the world) to Venezuela during 2011-13, along with torpedo and missile ordnance for Venzuela’s navy. The $2.2 billion loan in 2009 will go for 92 T-70 and T-72 tanks, BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Smerch anti-tank missiles, multiple rocket launchers, S-300, Buk M-2 and Pechora anti-aircraft missiles, all systems usable against Colombia. In return, Russia got access to join Venezuela’s national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), in exploring oil fields in the Orinoco River basin.74 The signed agreements make it clear that each of the three Russian companies has staked its own bloc in the Orinoco oil belt. Thus, LUKOIL has received permission to explore the Junin-3 block. In effect, it has extended its three-year-long contract with PDSVA on the block's evaluation and certification. The new two-year agreement provides for the bloc's joint exploration and development. Once accomplished, the two companies plan to establish a joint venture to develop the deposit. This will require billions of dollars in investment. The oil from this project could then be sent to an oil refinery in Italy. LUKOIL has just bought 49.9% of its shares. TNK-BP and PDSVA signed an agreement on the joint study of the Ayacucho-2 block in the wake of a framework memo signed last October. As with the LUKOIL agreement, it provides for a second phase - the sale of the produced oil abroad.75 Venezuela’s arms purchases make no sense unless they are intended for purposes of helping the FARC and other similar groups, fighting Colombia, projecting power throughout Latin America, drug running with subs that are protected against air attacks, or providing a temporary base for Russian naval and air forces where they can be sheltered from attacks but threaten North or South America.76 Since Putin has said that permanent bases in Cuba and Venzuela are unnecessary, this leaves the door open to temporary bases, including submarine bases as needed.77 Recently Bolivia, too, has offered its territory as a base in return for arms sales and economic help on energy and other projects.78 Much of what Russia sells to Venezuela is compatible with that idea, as is Putin’s call for restoring Russia’s position in Cuba and ongoing talks between Russian and Cuban military officials (e.g., Sechin’s trips in 2008).79 The following facts are also particularly noteworthy. Chávez is not only arming the FARC; he is also training other Latin American states’ military forces (e.g., Bolivian forces). 80 Venezuela aided Iranian missile sales to Syria, Chávez told Iranian leaders about his desire to introduce “nuclear elements into Venezuela,” (i.e., nuclear weapons) and Russia supports the allegedly peaceful Venezuelan development of nuclear energy and explorations for finding uranium and an alternative nuclear fuel, thorium.81 Iran is now actively helping Venezuela explore for uranium.82 These developments suggest the possiblity of Venezuela functioning as a kind of swing man or pivot for a Russo-Venezuelan-Iranian alliance against the United States. Certainly elements in the Iranian press and government believe that Tehran should further intensify its already extensive efforts here to create the possibility of a “second front” in political or even in military terms against the United States. Hizbollah already raises money and runs drugs in Latin America and many have noted the growing network of ties between Iran and Latin American insurgents and terrorists facilitated by Chávez.83
|
Blank, 10 --- Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (4/13/2010, Stephen J., “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf, JMP)
|
none of the expanding economic ties should disguise Moscow’s fundamentally geostrategic orientation Medvedev wants the BRIC countries bring about a genuine multipolarity and weaken U.S. hegemony in international financial institutions and the global economic order then-Prime Minister Fradkov openly admitted that successful business contacts are crucial to Russia’s geopolitical cooperation with other governments when he said, “I would not set higher targets for geopolitical relations without making a success in the economy first.” The dominance of geopolitics emerges quite strongly in Russian foreign policy towards its main partners in Latin America, Venezuela and Cuba. Russia’s interests are fundamentally geostrategic, not economic Undoubtedly, Moscow also fully recognizes Chávez’s conversion of Venezuela into a critical transshipment center for narcotics from both Latin America and West Africa, his support for insurgencies and terrorists throughout Latin America and his expansionist and revolutionary dreams about Colombia, and seeks to exploit those factors for its own anti-American purposes. The sheer scale of ongoing Russian arms sales to Venezuela since 2004 justifies these alarms, as they make no strategic sense given the absence of any U.S. or other military threat. Moscow has sold Venezuela $5.4 billion in weapons since 2004 There were also earlier discussions about selling project 636 submarines to Venezuela during 2011-13, along with torpedo and missile ordnance for Venzuela’s navy. The $2.2 billion loan in 2009 will go for 92 T-70 and T-72 tanks, BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Smerch anti-tank missiles, multiple rocket launchers, S-300, Buk M-2 and Pechora anti-aircraft missiles, all systems usable against Colombia. In return, Russia got access to join Venezuela’s national oil company in exploring oil fields in the Orinoco River basin. Venezuela’s arms purchases make no sense unless they are intended for purposes of helping the FARC and other similar groups, fighting Colombia, projecting power throughout Latin America, drug running with subs that are protected against air attacks, or providing a temporary base for Russian naval and air forces where they can be sheltered from attacks but threaten North or South America. Since Putin has said that permanent bases in Cuba and Venzuela are unnecessary, this leaves the door open to temporary bases, including submarine bases as needed. developments suggest the possiblity of Venezuela functioning as a kind of swing man or pivot for a Russo-Venezuelan-Iranian alliance against the U S Certainly elements in the Iranian press and government believe that Tehran should further intensify its already extensive efforts here to create the possibility of a “second front” in political or even in military terms against the U S Hizbollah already raises money and runs drugs in Latin America and many have noted the growing network of ties between Iran and Latin American insurgents and terrorists facilitated by Chávez.
|
Russia is using economic contacts in Latin America to establish geopolitical dominance and challenge U.S. hegemony
| 10,567 | 114 | 3,013 | 1,598 | 16 | 450 | 0.010013 | 0.281602 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,545 |
WASHINGTON – As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez remains gravely ill and may die soon, Russia and China are weighing their future in the country where they have billions of dollars in oil investments, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. In an effort to secure a position for the future, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent close former KGB associate Igor Sechin to Venezuela to discuss with Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro future bilateral relations. Sechin has been handling Latin American issues for years. He also happens to be the executive chairman of the Russian oil conglomerate Rosneft. Sechin and Maduro finalized a number of agreements that help assure Russia’s future position in Venezuela and keeps pace with China, which has loaned billions of dollars to the Chavez government to help ensure security of its own oil investments in the country. Both countries are in the process of helping develop Venezuela’s oil reserves, said to be the largest in the world at an estimated 296 billion barrels. Regional sources say that Sechin negotiated almost $47 billion in investments in the Venezuelan oil sector, including agreements to set up a joint Russia-Venezuela drilling and manufacturing company and to permit increased Russian access to offshore oil reserves. However, both countries also have an ulterior strategic reason for maintaining their position in Venezuela, and that is having a base from which to watch and undertake a containment approach toward the United States Russia is using its investments as a way to obtain more bases for its navy. In 2008, Russia sent in long-range bombers and a naval squadron to Venezuela. While it hasn’t done a repeat of these deployments, Russia wants permanent basing rights in Venezuela. Russia also has expanded its arms sales to Venezuela, including more than 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, Mi-35 helicopters, Su-30 jet fighters, air defense systems, tanks and armored vehicles. If Chavez dies, there is a question as to what extent a new leader will be as friendly to both Russia and China. Any new leadership probably will continue working with them but could be friendlier to the United States, unlike the Chavez regime, according to informed sources. In turn, this could create a climate for further American investment which the Russians would then find competitive with their own interests.
|
Farah, 13 --- veteran newsman and founder of WorldNetDaily.com (3/3/2013, Joseph, “Russia-China standoff in Venezuela; Both eye oil reserves as they compete for influence,” www.wnd.com/2013/03/russia-china-standoff-in-venezuela/)
|
Russia and China are weighing their future in the country where they have billions of dollars in oil investments In an effort to secure a position for the future Putin sent close former KGB associate Igor Sechin to Venezuela to discuss with Maduro future bilateral relations Sechin and Maduro finalized a number of agreements that help assure Russia’s future position in Venezuela and keeps pace with China Regional sources say that Sechin negotiated almost $47 billion in investments in the Venezuelan oil sector both countries also have an ulterior strategic reason for maintaining their position in Venezuela, and that is having a base from which to watch and undertake a containment approach toward the U S Russia is using its investments as a way to obtain more bases for its navy. In 2008, Russia sent in long-range bombers and a naval squadron to Venezuela. While it hasn’t done a repeat of these deployments, Russia wants permanent basing rights in Venezuela. there is a question as to what extent a new leader will be as friendly to both Russia and China. Any new leadership probably will continue working with them but could be friendlier to the U S this could create a climate for further American investment which the Russians would then find competitive with their own interests.
|
In particular, Russia uses oil investments to secure military ties to contain the U.S.
| 2,383 | 86 | 1,294 | 380 | 14 | 217 | 0.036842 | 0.571053 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,546 |
On September 26, Russia’s biggest state-controlled Rosneft oil company and a subsidiary of Venezuela’s PDVSA, La Corporacion Venezolana del Petroleo (CVP), signed trade agreements worth about 20 billion dollars, including a pact that allows Rosneft to tap into new Venezuelan oilfields in a region known as the Orinoco Oil Belt. Rosneft will invest 16 billion dollars in the Carabobo 2 oil project. Last week oil started coming from Venezuela’s Junin-6 deposit. Among the documents signed in the presence of President Hugo Chavez were a memorandum of understanding and an agreement whereby Rosneft would pay a bonus worth 1.1 million dollars, and another one whereby CVP would receive a five-year loan worth 1.5 billion dollars. The documents were signed by Rosneft President Igor Sechin and his PDVSA counterpart Rafael Ramirez. Another agreement and memorandum concerned joint oil development and production ventures, including the construction, by Inter RAO, of a 300 MW power plant running on petroleum coke. President Putin made his Venezuelan counterpart happy with a personal present, a 3-month-old Russian Black Terrier, delivered by Sechin. Chavez said his name would be El Russo – Russian. Putin’s present carried a message, considering that the Russian Black Terrier was first bred in Russia, in the second half of the 20th century, when the crossing of Giant Schnauzers, Airedales, Rottweilers and Newfoundlands resulted in this new sturdy black-coated breed, with big teeth and long strong and frost-resistant paws. The puppy will quickly grow strong enough to accompany and protect Chavez on his trips to Guiana Plateau and the spurs of the Cordillera on the Colombian border, the only places where you can find snow in a 9.3928° N, 66.3562° W country – except that Chavez isn’t likely to venture such trips, considering his current physical condition; also considering that the Russian Black Terrier needs a frisky handler; that this big doggie must have a hair cut every three months – otherwise it will turn into a shaggy, shapeless bear. Most likely, this gift symbolizes Russia’s penetration of this Latin American country. Russia’s expansionist moods in regard to this remote continent could be regarded from three aspects: political, military-technological, and economic one; also considering that all these aspects are intertwined. What are Putin&Co. after in Venezuela? Politically speaking, in terms of Cheka/KGB, any enemy of Washington is Russia’s friend. Hugo Chavez is this kind of friend. Putin will make every effort to win him over to his side and the process appears to be reciprocal. The president of Venezuela needs foreign support, considering the domestic situation, with Russia being among the options on his agenda, including China. All this makes Putin hurry up. Russia’s interest in Venezuela has to do with an attempt to turn this country into a bridgehead to penetrate neighboring countries with similar leftist regimes, including the multiethnic State of Bolivia and the Republic of Ecuador, also eventually Colombia, if all goes well, as schemed by the Kremlin. If this scheme works, Moscow will succeed in seriously limiting Washington’s influence behind the rear lines. Then will come the turn of Central America, with fantastic prospects. This was the Soviet political leadership’s cherished dream. To help it come true, the Soviet Communist Party’s Politburo spared no funds supporting Fidel Castro’s regime and Nicaragua’s Sandinista movement. The whole project went down the drain. Daniel Ortega’s return to power in Nicaragua failed to provide for rapprochement with Moscow. Havana started drifting, slowly but surely, toward Beijing. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador and his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales took a cautious stand from the very start, yet both have to do nationalizing, particularly in the energy sector, using anti-US rhetoric. Another aspect is Russia’s military ambitions; its generals and admirals are daydreaming about a naval base in Venezuela, after losing the spy one in Lourdes, in Cuba, with Vietnam refusing to discuss the possibility of using its Cam Ranh Bay. Events in Syria may well end up in evacuation from Tartus. What are the options left for Russia’s Navy? Hugo Chavez is going through the motions of keeping their naval bases, with the stability of his regime being anyone’s guess, considering that the results of the October 7 election are still to be determined. In other words, there are options. There are options relating to military and technological cooperation. Venezuela has been a major buyer of Russia’s weapons systems, registering between six and seven billion dollars worth of such purchases by the end of 2011, including 24 Su-30MKAV war aircraft, Tor-M1 and Pechora-2M air defense systems, 35 helicopters, 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles (AK-103), 9K38 Igla Soviet-developed man-portable infrared homing surface-to-air missiles, 92 T-72 tanks (talks are underway concerning the delivery of another 100 armored vehicles’ shipment). AK-103, ammunition production, and helicopter repair facilities are under construction. Venezuela’s populist policy of sharing leftovers from lavishly laid tables with the impoverished strata, government control over retail prices call for bigger food imports to keep these prices low. Its oil and gas industry remain the main source of the central budget’s revenues, yet this source is affected by an increase in emergency situations, with breakdowns and explosions caused by mismanagement. Recently an explosion tore through Venezuela’s biggest Amuray oil refinery, in Punto Fijo in the Peninsula of Paraguana, killing at least 39 people, wounding dozens and halting operations at this world’s second oil-producing facility, considering that such accidents have become common practice there. Russia showed its understanding by giving a loan, one of many totaling several billion dollars. Moscow is still prepared to splurge, otherwise Beijing will step in. Also, there is the aspect of the oil and gas extraction costs in Russia being on an upward curve, considering that new deposits can be developed only in the north, something easier said than done. The prospects of gas supplies to Europe remain ambiguous. Their rate is not increasing and is likely to decrease, considering the availability of liquefied and shale gas. Apparently, the only option is exporting capital to the most attractive countries. Putin wants to remain in office, but he knows he can’t stay there forever, so oil-and-gas revenues will come in handy, anyway. Add here the demonstrative support of Hugo Chavez during the presidential campaign. One hears about the gap narrowing between him and the sole opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles, with the current margin being some five percent. The competition is severe, so much so two opposition leaders were shot dead in the western state of Barinas. Four persons were injured during a shootout when rehearsing the casting of ballots in early September. The Opposition is determined to remove Chavez from office and the man is sure to face a number of problems. The United States is once again being regarded by Russia as an enemy, in terms of foreign and domestic policy. Not so long ago, Russia banned USAID activities on its territory, a very unfriendly act reminding one of the cold war. In this sense, Vladimir Putin’s gift of a puppy and the agreements made with Venezuela fit perfectly into the pattern. What is happening is just the beginning.
|
Raikhel, 12 (Yurii, “Russia’s oil companies tapping into Venezuela’s oilfields”, 10-9-12, The Day, http://www.day.kiev.ua/en/article/day-after-day/russias-oil-companies-tapping-venezuelas-oilfields)//KG
|
Russia’s biggest state-controlled Rosneft oil company and a subsidiary of Venezuela’s PDVSA signed trade agreements worth about 20 billion dollars Among the documents were a memorandum of understanding and an agreement whereby Rosneft would pay a bonus worth 1.1 million dollars Russia’s expansionist moods in regard to this remote continent could be regarded from three aspects: political, military-technological, and economic one all these aspects are intertwined What are Putin&Co. after in Venezuela? any enemy of Washington is Russia’s friend Chavez is this kind of friend. Putin will make every effort to win him over to his side and the process appears to be reciprocal Russia’s interest in Venezuela has to do with an attempt to turn this country into a bridgehead to penetrate neighboring countries with similar leftist regimes, including Bolivia Ecuador Colombia If this scheme works, Moscow will succeed in seriously limiting Washington’s influence behind the rear lines. Then will come the turn of Central America, with fantastic prospects. Russia’s generals and admirals are daydreaming about a naval base in Venezuela Chavez is going through the motions of keeping their naval bases there are options There are options relating to military and technological cooperation Venezuela has been a major buyer of Russia’s weapons systems Venezuela’s oil and gas industry remain the main source of the central budget’s revenues, yet this source is affected by an increase in emergency situations Russia showed its understanding by giving a loan, one of many totaling several billion dollars. Moscow is still prepared to splurge Putin wants to remain in office, but he knows he can’t stay there forever, so oil-and-gas revenues will come in handy The United States is once again being regarded by Russia as an enemy, in terms of foreign and domestic policy. Putin’s gift of a puppy and the agreements made with Venezuela fit perfectly into the pattern. What is happening is just the beginning.
|
Venezuela is key --- Russian control there will be a springboard to dominating the rest of the region
| 7,520 | 101 | 1,998 | 1,175 | 18 | 315 | 0.015319 | 0.268085 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,547 |
The domestic and regional implications of the death of Hugo Chávez are numerous and wide-ranging, but unique to Venezuela is the reverberations the death of its leader will have in faraway Russia and Eastern Europe. With the passing of “El Comandante," it’s possible that Russia’s geopolitical influence in Latin America may weaken and that it’s arms exports will decline, directly affecting Russia’s economic growth. Much of this depends on who succeeds Chávez and what sort of relationship his successor pursues with Russia. In the 21st century, Russia has had a tendency in its foreign policy to pursue relations with smaller, less powerful, but in many cases very central, states in regions around the world (i.e. Serbia in the Balkans, Syria in the Middle East, etc.) in an effort to increase its own role in the so-called “multi-polar” world. While Russia’s major ally in Latin America is actually Brazil, Russia has found Venezuela to be a willing partner in supporting Russia’s own foreign policy, with Venezuela even going so far as to (hypocritically) recognize South Ossetia’s declaration of independence from Georgia while opposing Kosovo’s independence from Serbia because of the “bad precedent” it would set. Venezuelan vice president Nicolás Maduro said that "the unipolar world is collapsing and finishing in all aspects, and the alliance with Russia is part of that effort to build a multipolar world." Russia’s ties with Venezuela as its Latin American partner was a perfect match- Chávez was an outspoken critic of the United States and his country controlled vast reserves of energy, which gave Russia an excellent opportunity to exert its influence in the country and counter American power in the region, namely, by combining mutual feelings on U.S. influence abroad with the capacity to develop Venezuela’s energy industry. Venezuela was billed as a regional leader for Latin America. For while Chávez’s leftist administration was one of several that proliferated throughout the region, his had been by far the most vocal (it is not uncommon, in fact, for Latin American governments to be relatively aligned on the right-left spectrum, with rightist governments predominating in the 1970’s and 80’s). Chávez carefully developed relations with Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and the two most recent Argentine administrations, that of the late Nestor Kirchner and his wife Crisitina Fernández (who succeeded her late husband in 2007). His flamboyant anti-American rhetoric was occasionally balanced out by Brazil’s center-left president Inácio Lula da Silva and Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff. Nevertheless, Venezuela provided a beacon through which Russia was able to exert geopolitical influence in a region far beyond its periphery. One of the biggest areas of cooperation between Russia and Venezuela is the energy sector, a fact recently underscored by Vladimir Putin’s decision to send Igor Sechin, CEO of Russia’s state owned oil company Rosneft, as a special presidential envoy to Hugo Chávez’s funeral. Venezuela has the largest proven reserves of crude oil in the world, but the oil is in need of a more intense refinement process than most other crude supplies around the world. Russia has the technological capabilities Venezuela needs to refine its heavy crude, and Russian energy companies are active in several aspects of the Venezuelan energy industry. Russian companies plan to invest $17.6 billion in Venezuela by 2019 and multiply energy output fourfold in an attempt to expand cooperation to offshore areas and oil services, according to Reuters. Sechin has said Rosneft will finance production with loans from Russian banks and credit lines from international banks. Because the Venezuelan economy is currently in shambles, it is highly likely that the Russian-Venezuelan energy cooperation will continue, with the possibility that if a government friendlier to the United States should take power, existing contracts with Russian companies would continue, but that American companies would be invited to participate in new ventures. The situation in Venezuela may actually effect Russia’s energy relations with one of its Eastern European neighbors- Belarus. Belarus has had a rather unique relationship with Russia, and is part of a “union state” with Russia. Yet since 2007, the one thorn in the side of Belarus-Russia relations has been energy, mainly because of a dispute which emerged when Russia accused Belarus of siphoning Russian gas transported through Belarus and selling it at world market prices (Belarus had enjoyed Russian gas at a discounted price). When Russia refused to meet Belarusian quotas for energy imports, Belarus turned to Venezuela for energy imports starting in 2010, with energy shipped via tankers from Venezuela to the Ukrainian port of Odessa, then up to Belarus through a pipeline. Belarus has sought 23 million tons of oil from Russia for 2013, but Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has stated that if Russia will only sell Belarus up to 18 million tons (as it has stated) and it will import energy from Venezuela and Azerbaijan. Yet if Venezuela for any reason suspends its sales of energy to Belarus, this may give Russia more leverage over Belarus as it (Belarus) will have lost a valuable supplier of alternative energy. This situation seems unlikely since Venezuela can only benefit from the influx of cash, but is still an example of how far reaching the implications of the upcoming transfer of power in Venezuela really are. After energy, Russia’s most valuable export is armaments and military hardware. Chávez constantly feared a U.S. invasion of Venezuela, and had been engaged in a long-standing dispute with neighboring Colombia over the presence of U.S. troops in Colombia (these U.S. troops including most notably the U.S.’s élite Special Forces, whose purpose is to assist with counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency). This, in principle, was the basis for his decision to enter into contractual agreements with Russia regarding arms sales. Venezuela is the second-largest customer for Russian military hardware (after India), and as Russia’s economy is famously lacking in diversity of exports outside of energy, a willing market for arms is greatly welcomed (a situation only enhanced by the instability in another major importer of Russian arms- Syria). In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of a possible arms race between Colombia and Venezuela. Since 2006, the gross income for Russian military sales abroad has doubled, and Russian arms sales are now almost exclusively handled through state-owned company Rosoboronexport. Chávez’s death, however, could reduce Russia’s client relationship with Venezuela in the arms industry, depending on how the succession plays out. It would be easy to assume that Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s vice president, would succeed the late Chávez, yet Venezuela’s opposition is relatively strong. The Venezuelan economy, despite the strength of the country’s crude reserves, is not entirely healthy, and if the Venezuelan opposition ends up in power they may decide that it is not economically viable to have such contracts arms with Russia. Viachelav Nikonov, deputy chair of the Russian Parliament’s committee on foreign affairs, has stated that he does not believe a new Venezuelan administration would be able to opt out of currently existing contracts, but future contracts may not be pursued. Given the fragile state of Venezuela’s economy, Russia will most likely remain a major player in Venezuela’s foreign relations, because even if the opposition were somehow to come to power, Russian participation in the country’s energy sector is still largely necessary for it to be able to produce energy in adequate amounts and at sufficient levels of refinement. Yet Russia may lose a large part of its customer base in the armaments industry, and if a right-wing administration comes to power, or at least a Chávez lieutenant who seeks to improve relations with the United States, Russia may also find itself with less of a partner in the geopolitical arena of countering U.S. influence in Latin America.
|
Rinna, 13 (3/9/2013, Anthony, “Russia’s Uncertain Position in post-Chávez Venezuela,” http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2013/03/russias-uncertain-position-in-post.html, JMP)
|
With the passing of “El Comandante," it’s possible that Russia’s geopolitical influence in Latin America may weaken and that it’s arms exports will decline, directly affecting Russia’s economic growth. Much of this depends on who succeeds Chávez and what sort of relationship his successor pursues with Russia. Russia has found Venezuela to be a willing partner in supporting Russia’s own foreign policy Maduro said that "the unipolar world is collapsing and finishing in all aspects, and the alliance with Russia is part of that effort to build a multipolar world." Russia’s ties with Venezuela as its Latin American partner was a perfect match Chávez was an outspoken critic of the U S and his country controlled vast reserves of energy, which gave Russia an excellent opportunity to exert its influence in the country and counter American power in the region, namely, by combining mutual feelings on U.S. influence abroad with the capacity to develop Venezuela’s energy industry. One of the biggest areas of cooperation between Russia and Venezuela is the energy sector Russian energy companies are active in several aspects of the Venezuelan energy industry Russian companies plan to invest $17.6 billion in Venezuela by 2019 and multiply energy output fourfold in an attempt to expand cooperation to offshore areas and oil services if a government friendlier to the U S should take power American companies would be invited to participate in new ventures. if a right-wing administration comes to power, or at least a Chávez lieutenant who seeks to improve relations with the U S Russia may also find itself with less of a partner in the geopolitical arena of countering U.S. influence in Latin America.
|
The plan crowds out Russia’s critical energy cooperation with Venezuela which it is using to undermine U.S. influence
| 8,187 | 117 | 1,709 | 1,281 | 18 | 277 | 0.014052 | 0.216237 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,548 |
Last week Russia got together with Venezuela, one of America’s largest oil suppliers, to announce a “strategic partnership.” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has admitted that this partnernship is aimed at defeating “unipolarity” — a euphemism for America’s status as the world’s dominant military and economic power. In joining with Russia, Venezuela has signed on with a growing anti-American coalition which includes countries like China, India and Iran. It should be noted that Moscow is the hub of this coalition. Offering its new client a wide range of strategic options (including military-technical support), Moscow wants to work with Venezuela on “fixing” oil prices. This is a high priority for Russia, which seeks to hurt the oil-dependent West and gain greater oil revenues for itself. There is also a more threatening aspect to the Russia-Venezuela partnership. Last week Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov signed a military cooperation agreement with his Venezuelan counterpart, Jose Vicente Rangel. From now on we can expect to see Russian military advisers joining Chinese military advisers in South America. We can also expect the deployment of new weapons systems, including aircraft and air-defense missiles. Moves of this kind have serious national-security implications for the United States. Americans should therefore ask what has motivated Venezuela’s new relationship with Russia? President Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper, is the self-proclaimed champion of the poor and oppressed in his country. Chavez’s policy has been to gradually disenfranchise the rich. At the same time he has publicly embraced Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Chavez has also transformed the Venezuelan constitution, eliminating effective checks to presidential power. Chavez has denied being a communist. It is constantly asserted that Chavez’s admiration for Castro, his close military ties to China and his new “partnership” with Russia have nothing to do with secret Marxist proclivities. On reviewing Chavez’s record, one might ask how a Marxist dictator would differ from Chavez? Of course, denying communist proclivities is pro forma among communists. The entire Russian state has adopted this pose for nearly a decade, receiving many advantages in the process. Why shouldn’t this be the case in Venezuela? After all, communism is supposedly dead. If the corpse twitches from time to time, say something clever about the electrical physiology of decaying political bodies. There is no need to give the game away. This will be vigorously denied by many wishful thinkers, but the worldwide communist movement is not dead. Throughout history the communists have gone underground time and time again. The phony death and burial of communism is just another way of going underground. Long before the Soviet Union announced its own demise, communists in the Western Hemisphere were encouraged to describe themselves as “progressives.” President Chavez could not be ignorant of this tradition, which has been described for us by David Horowitz in “Radical Son,” an autobiographical account. Horowitz’s parents were card-carrying communists who made “it a rule never to discuss their real politics, to identify their associates, or to reveal their Party activities to any outsider.” President Hugo Chavez acts like a communist. He is even suspected of supporting communist insurgents in neighboring Colombia. Last year he invited Colombian communists to visit his country, to speak before his legislature. He was the first head of state since the Gulf War to visit Iraq and shake Saddam Hussein’s hand. Last year he hosted a visit from Fidel Castro. His education program is currently modeled after Cuba’s. And now he openly aligns himself with Moscow and Beijing. If that is not enough, Venezuelan Defense Minister Jose Vicente Rangel is anxious to acquire Russian fighter aircraft, air-defense systems and more. Cuba is no longer alone in Latin America. Now the communist rebels in Colombia have an ally on the border. They have a chance to win. Imagine how Venezuela, soon to be hosting Russian military advisers, will be able to help the Colombian rebels. For those who don’t know, the communist movement in Colombia is fueled by cocaine. As it happens, Russia is a major clandestine player in the drug offensive against America, as documented by Joseph D. Douglass Jr. in a book entitled “Red Cocaine.” Earlier this month the U.S. Coast Guard found half a billion dollars worth of cocaine on a fishing boat. The vessel was manned by Russian and Ukranian gangsters who had reportedly allied with Colombian cocaine traffickers. This is but one data point among many. Can you connect the dots? The ongoing hostility of Russia can be traced in its new Latin American policy. It is no accident that the communist rebels in Colombia receive most of their heavy weapons from Eastern Europe. It is also no accident that Russian gangsters have allied with a communist insurgency that fuels itself with cocaine. Furthermore, we have to wake up to the fact that the supposedly nonexistent communist bloc not only has a newfound ally in Venezuela, but has its Chinese front companies positioned on both sides of the Panama Canal. In the 1950s we would have taken strong measures to counter such moves. Today we do nothing. We no longer think of Russia as an enemy. And yet, Russia and China have formed a strategic coalition against us. More than that, they are slowly and quietly building a network of anti-American countries. In recent days Russia announced a strengthening of military ties with Libya, over a month ago a pact was signed with Iran. Meanwhile, China has moved to patch things up with communist Vietnam and has established closer relations with South Africa. The strategic objectives here should be obvious. The stage is being set for a renewed conflict between Russia and America. In this renewed conflict Russia will have broken from its Cold War containment. It will have powerful outposts in our own hemisphere. It will have the support of China and it will have a diplomatic influence over critical oil producing states. Those who thought we were in trouble in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected president, should look more carefully at the situation today. America has reduced its military power across the board. NATO is in a state of confusion and weakness. It is time to wake up
|
Nyquist 01, Independent journalist and policy analyst. Jeffrey Nyquist is a writer for Financial Sense and an expert in Chinese and Russian military and foreign policy strategies. He was formerly a Contractor for the Defense Intelligence Agency(Jeffrey, "Russia Builds Anti-American Alliance," 05/24/01, WND, http://www.wnd.com/2001/05/9366/)//AD
|
Russia got together with Venezuela, one of America’s largest oil suppliers, to announce a “strategic partnership.” this partnernship is aimed at defeating “unipolarity” — a euphemism for America’s status as the world’s dominant military and economic power. In joining with Russia, Venezuela has signed on with a growing anti-American coalition Moscow is the hub of this coalition. Offering its new client a wide range of strategic options (including military-technical support), Moscow wants to work with Venezuela on “fixing” oil prices. This is a high priority for Russia, which seeks to hurt the oil-dependent West and gain greater oil revenues for itself. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov signed a military cooperation agreement with his Venezuelan counterpart Russian military advisers joining Chinese military advisers in South America. We can also expect the deployment of new weapons systems, including aircraft and air-defense missiles. Venezuelan Defense Minister Jose Vicente Rangel is anxious to acquire Russian fighter aircraft, air-defense systems and more. Cuba is no longer alone in Latin America. Now the communist rebels in Colombia have an ally on the border. They have a chance to win. The ongoing hostility of Russia can be traced in its new Latin American policy. It is no accident that the communist rebels in Colombia receive most of their heavy weapons from Eastern Europe. It is also no accident that Russian gangsters have allied with a communist insurgency that fuels itself with cocaine. We no longer think of Russia as an enemy. And yet, Russia and China have formed a strategic coalition against us. More than that, they are slowly and quietly building a network of anti-American countries The stage is being set for a renewed conflict between Russia and America. In this renewed conflict Russia will have broken from its Cold War containment. It will have powerful outposts in our own hemisphere. It will have the support of China and it will have a diplomatic influence over critical oil producing states. America has reduced its military power across the board. NATO is in a state of confusion and weakness. It is time to wake up
|
Increased Russian influence risks extinction--regional proliferation, establishment of Russian military strongholds and growing antagonism make conflict inevitable in the status quo
| 6,401 | 182 | 2,169 | 1,024 | 21 | 348 | 0.020508 | 0.339844 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,549 |
WHILE the United States forges ahead with its shale-led energy revolution, Russia is steadily building up its stake in the oil industry of Venezuela, where anti-American rhetoric has been the hallmark of now-ailing leader Hugo Chavezs 14-year rule. Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned oil giant Rosneft, declared last month the oil-rich South American country would be the main focus of Rosneft’s overseas investments. Under a series of accords signed during Sechin’s visit to Venezuela on January 29-30, Russia will commit to invest up to $US40 billion in jointly exploiting the Orinoco extra-heavy oil belt -- regarded as one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves -- with Venezuela’s state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA). The US Geological Survey estimated in 2010 that the Orinoco belt, a 600-km strip straddling the Orinoco River in the central-eastern part of Venezuela, held 513 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. According to OPEC statistics, Venezuela’s proven reserves stand at 296 billion barrels, the largest in the world. It also has 5.5 trillion cubic metres of gas reserves, ranking it No. 8 in gas behind Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, UAE and the US. Venezuela relies heavily on its oil exports, which supply 95 per cent of its foreign earnings. Output, which was above 3 million barrels a day in the 1990s and early 2000s, has since fallen below that figure, although Venezuela’s stated goal is to reach 5 million barrels a day by 2015 and 6.5 million by 2020, through development of the Orinoco belt. Venezuela’s heavy sour crude remains in demand with some refiners because it is cheaper than light sweet crude. Last week’s hefty devaluation of the bolivar currency by the government of Chavez – who has been in hospital in Havana, Cuba since surgery in December – will ease the country's budget shortfall, but will also likely spur inflation and further weaken the economy. Vice President Nicolas Maduro is running the country in the absence of Chavez. In the late 1990s, Venezuela was supplying almost 2 million barrels a day of crude oil to the United States. But that figure has shrunk in recent years to just over a million barrels a day, on the back of increased US shale oil and gas production, and increased imports from friendlier US neighbour Canada. Even so, Venezuela ranks as a top-four supplier, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia, and about level with Mexico. That makes the United States Venezuela’s most important trading partner, despite Chavez constantly railing at US “imperialism”. The big change for Venezuela is the increased interest being shown in the Orinoco belt by Russia, China and India. European and Asian oil companies such as Eni of Italy, Repsol of Spain, Petronas of Malaysia and Petrovietnam are active there, as is the US major Chevron, in partnership with Japanese companies. PDVSA has a majority 60 per cent stake in all the various Orinoco blocks that have been licensed since 2009. Rosneft, for example, has committed to spend $US10 billion on its Venezuela projects over the next few years, including the highly prospective Junin-6 and Carabobo-2 blocks in the Orinoco belt. Rosneft heads a Russian consortium with 40 per cent of Junin-6, where the technically recoverable reserves of oil are close to 11 billion barrels. Late last month Rosneft said it would buy out one of its Russian partners, Surgutneftegas. It had earlier announced that it would acquire another partner, TNK-BP, from current owners BP and the Russian AAR group in 2013, leaving Gazprom Neft and LUKoil as the remaining Junin-6 investors. Junin-6 is expected to produce 450,000 barrels a day at peak output. During his visit to Caracas, Sechin met Oil and Mineral Resources Minister Rafael Ramírez, with the two sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation and investment in Venezuela’s oil industry. They also said they would set up a joint drill-manufacturing operation. Like Russia, China also has been a heavy investor in Venezuela, with the China Development Bank committing to lend more than $40 billion since 2008 against crude oil sales. China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) is a 40-60 partner with PDVSA in the Junin-4 block, where projected production is 400,000 barrels a day. Alongside PDVSA’s 60 per cent stake, US oil major Chevron has 34 per cent of the Carabobo-3 block – also a 400,000 barrel a day project -- with Japanese partners holding 5 per cent and Suelopetrol (an independent Venezuelan oil producer) 1 per cent. PDVSA’s 40-60 partner in Junin-5, a 240,000 barrel a day project, is Italy’s Eni, while in the 400,000-bpd Carabobo-1 block the foreign partners with PDVA are Petronas (11 per cent), Repsol-YPF (11 per cent) and an Indian consortium led by ONGC Videsh with 18 per cent. ONGC Videsh, the overseas arm of state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, also has a stake in another Orinoco belt project, the San Cristobal oil field at Junin. Indian private sector giant Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), led by India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani, is another investor in Venezuelan oil and gas projects, and is considered likely to commit a further $2 billion this year to more exploration and development of Orinoco oil belt prospects. Last October Reliance signed a 15-year heavy crude oil supply contract and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with PDVSA to further develop Venezuela’s heavy oil fields. Under the contract, PDVSA will supply between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels a day of Venezuelan heavy crude to Reliance’s two refineries at Jamnagar in Gujarat state. Reliance said at the time the 15-year contract and MOU marked a “further strengthening of the long-standing relationship between Reliance and PDVSA”. But the failing health of Chavez has left some investors wary of over-committing until the dynamics of any transition to a new Venezuelan leader are clear. Geoff Hiscock writes on international business and is the author of “Earth Wars: The Battle for Global Resources,” published by John Wiley & Sons.
|
Hiscock 13, Geoff Hiscock is a business journalist and author based in Sydney, Australia. He has been writing on Asian business for more than 30 years and is the author of four books, including Asia's Wealth Club (1997), which documented Asia’s richest tycoons; its follow-up, Asia’s New Wealth Club (2000); a global profile of Indian business leaders in India's Global Wealth Club (2007); and India's Store Wars (2008), which looks at the growth of the modern retail scene. He served as Sydney bureau chief and Asia Business Editor for CNN.com International from 2001-2006, and as International Business Editor of The Australian daily newspaper from 1995-2000(Geoff, "Russia deepens Venezuela oil ties" 2/14/13, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/russia-deepens-venezuela-oil-ties/story-e6frg9df-1226577701328)//AD
|
Russia is steadily building up its stake in the oil industry of Venezuela, where anti-American rhetoric has been the hallmark Russia’s state-owned oil giant Rosneft, declared last month the oil-rich South American country would be the main focus of Rosneft’s overseas investments. Russia will commit to invest up to $US40 billion in jointly exploiting the Orinoco extra-heavy oil belt -- regarded as one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves Venezuela’s proven reserves stand at 296 billion barrels, the largest in the world. Venezuela was supplying almost 2 million barrels a day of crude oil to the United States. But that figure has shrunk in recent years to just over a million barrels a day, The big change for Venezuela is the increased interest being shown in the Orinoco belt by Russia Rosneft, for example, has committed to spend $US10 billion on its Venezuela projects over the next few years, including the highly prospective Junin-6 and Carabobo-2 blocks in the Orinoco belt. Rosneft heads a Russian consortium with 40 per cent of Junin-6, where the technically recoverable reserves of oil are close to 11 billion barrels. Rosneft would buy out one of its Russian partners Sechin met Oil and Mineral Resources Minister Rafael Ramírez, with the two sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation and investment in Venezuela’s oil industry. They also said they would set up a joint drill-manufacturing operation.
|
Russia is boosting oil ties with Venezuela
| 6,043 | 42 | 1,422 | 983 | 7 | 228 | 0.007121 | 0.231943 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,550 |
CARACAS, Mar 18 2013 (IPS) - Russian state oil firm Rosneft and Venezuela’s PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.) have agreed to form a partnership to exploit an oilfield with estimated reserves of 40 billion barrels, strengthening the alliance between the two countries. For 1.5 billion dollars, the Russian company will take over 40 percent of a project at a Venezuelan deposit expected to produce 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude in five years’ time, executives from the two companies said. “It is an attractive deal for Rosneft to buy, or gain access to, reserves at a very low price. That 40 percent interest ‘buys’ 16 billion barrels at a cost of 10 cents of a dollar per barrel,” Víctor Poleo, a professor of graduate studies in oil economics at the Central University of Venezuela, told IPS. The cost of a barrel of oil on the international market is between 90 and 110 dollars. The crude in question is in the Orinoco oil belt, an area of 55,000 square kilometres in the southeast of Venezuela which is estimated to contain reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, of which 240 billion barrels are technically recoverable, according to the Ministry of Petroleum and Mining. The government of Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), who died Mar. 5, named the oil blocks in the Orinoco belt after battles in the 1810-1824 war of independence and parcelled them out as concessions to mixed companies with PDVSA holding a minimum stake of 60 percent. The Hydrocarbons Law of 2006 replaced the service contracts that were formerly extended to foreign operators, which were now invited to become partners. Legally the oil reserves belong to the nation. Rosneft will pay PDVSA a bonus of 1.1 billion dollars for the rights to the new partnership in the Carabobo block, which has already been endorsed by the Venezuelan parliament. In April, the two companies will fine-tune the details of the formation of the new mixed company, named PetroVictoria. The Russian firm also took over 40 percent of the mixed company that is operating the nearby Junín block, when it bought the Russian-British consortium TNK-BP in October. The Junín reserves are estimated at 53 billion barrels, and Rosneft’s 40 percent share is greater than the 18 billion barrels it owns in Russia. With the addition of the Carabobo operation, “the book value of (Rosneft’s) shares is revalued at very low cost,” said Poleo, a critic of mixed companies because he considers they “relinquish our rights over the reserves. “At the end of the day, it means that for every 100 barrels produced from the Junín or Carabobo blocks, 40 will belong to Rosneft, which will also get 40 percent of the oil revenue,” said Poleo, who was vice minister for energy in the first three years of the Chávez administration. José Suárez Núñez, of the specialist publication Petrofinanzas, highlighted Russia’s inroads in the Orinoco belt, although he said “volumes for now are minuscule, and the crude is extra heavy and very costly to refine.” This contrasts “with deposits of lighter oil and (Russia’s) lead in production volumes, at 10 million bpd,” he told IPS. Most of the crude in the Orinoco oil belt is extra heavy, less than 10 degrees API (American Petroleum Institute classification), compared to over 30 degrees API in oil from the Middle East, Russia or the North Sea. Before distillation, this extra heavy oil must be improved in a process equivalent to partial refining. “Rosneft’s agreements with PDVSA are part of Russia’s projection towards Latin America, a region that has traditionally been in the sphere of influence of the United States,” said Kenneth Ramírez, an expert on oil geopolitics and president of the private Venezuelan Council of International Relations. This projection is part of “Russia’s grand strategy to re-emerge as a global power and replicate the advance of Washington over what was once its zone of influence, in central and southern Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Black Sea,” he told IPS. “Among its strategies is strengthening its ties with Brazil, the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and making advances to ALBA (the eight-member Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America) which is led by Venezuela,” Ramírez said. Russian President Vladimir Putin sent the head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, as his special representative to the state funeral for Chávez on Mar. 8. Sechin met with Nicolás Maduro, the acting president of Venezuela and the candidate expected to win the Apr. 14 elections, to smooth over obstacles in the bilateral oil relationship. Local media indicate PDVSA is having difficulties meeting its financial commitments, pointing to delays in its obligations to Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the construction of the Abreu e Lima refinery. But oil minister Rafael Ramírez, who is also head of PDVSA, confirmed “the commitment to continue the energy policy begun in 1999″ by the late president Chávez. “The strategic relationship with China and Russia will be deepened, in concordance with the multipolar scheme that has been the basis of the foreign policy of the revolution,” said the minister. As the projects are developed, the Russian-Venezuelan alliance will invest 46 billion dollars in the Orinoco belt, of which Moscow will contribute 17 billion dollars, he said. Kenneth Ramírez highlighted that Rosneft is also working in mature fields (those in which production has passed its peak) in areas other than the Orinoco belt, and has signed agreements to participate in future gas production and to supply drills for crude extraction. “Moscow isn’t seeking supplies of oil, since it has reserves of 88 billion barrels, but it’s looking for deals to leverage a strategic alliance,” he said. In Poleo’s view, “it is good business for the new Venezuelan nomenklatura (people in key administrative positions) to build alliances with Putin and his ‘siloviki,’ high level members of the KGB (the former Soviet Union’s intelligence and security agency) who took over the management of large companies after the fall of the old regime.” Venezuela’s military purchases from Russia appear to fit in the context of this alliance. Since 2006, Caracas has bought at least nine billion dollars’ worth of aircraft, helicopters, rocket launchers, tanks, armoured vehicles and assault rifles from Moscow, according to Control Ciudadano para la Seguridad, la Defensa y la Fuerza Armada Nacional (Citizen Control of Security, Defence and the Armed Forces), a local NGO.
|
Marquez, 13 - a journalist for more than 25 years, specialising in international news and worked for 15 years with Agence France-Presse, 10 as assignment editor in Caracas (Humberto, “Russia to Get Venezuelan Oil for a Few Cents a Barrel”, Inter Press Service, 3-18-13, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/russia-to-get-venezuelan-oil-for-a-few-cents-a-barrel/)//KG
|
Russian state oil firm Rosneft and Venezuela’s PDVSA have agreed to form a partnership to exploit an oilfield with estimated reserves of 40 billion barrels strengthening the alliance between the two countries The crude in question is in the Orinoco oil belt, an area of 55,000 square kilometres in the southeast of Venezuela which is estimated to contain reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, the two companies will fine-tune the details of the formation of the new mixed company, named PetroVictoria This projection is part of “Russia’s grand strategy to re-emerge as a global power and replicate the advance of Washington over what was once its zone of influence Among its strategies is strengthening its ties with ALBA which is led by Venezuela the Russian-Venezuelan alliance will invest 46 billion dollars in the Orinoco belt, of which Moscow will contribute 17 billion dollars Moscow isn’t seeking supplies of oil but it’s looking for deals to leverage a strategic alliance Venezuela’s military purchases from Russia appear to fit in the context of this alliance
|
Russia is using oil ties with Venezuela to leverage its influence and create a strategic alliance in the region
| 6,496 | 111 | 1,064 | 1,061 | 19 | 172 | 0.017908 | 0.162111 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,551 |
MOSCOW, January 9 (RIA Novosti) – Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez’s failing health and possible departure from power are unlikely to pose an immediate threat to Russia’s multi-billion-dollar arms and energy contracts with his country, despite his direct personal support for the deals, Russian analysts told RIA Novosti on Wednesday. Chavez, who is continuing his fight against cancer and hasn’t appeared in public in about a month, asked parliament yesterday to postpone his January 10 inauguration, citing doctors’ recommendations. Russia has intensified cooperation with Venezuela since Chavez came to power in 1999, signing multi-billion-dollar contracts with the Latin American country in the arms, oil and gas spheres. The military-technology contracts, often short on publicly available details, have been piling up in recent years. Between 2005 and 2007, Caracas signed $4 billion worth of deals with Russia to buy Sukhoi fighter jets, combat helicopters and small arms. Chavez’s government also secured a $2.2-billion loan in 2010 to purchase Russian T-72 tanks and S-300 air defense systems. Energy deals have also enhanced bilateral ties. Major joint ventures involve development of the Junin 6 and Junin 3 oilfields on the Orinoco River. Junin 6 is being developed by Russia's National Oil Consortium, which includes GazpromNeft, Lukoil, Rosneft, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP, together with Venezuela's state oil and gas company, PDVSA. Junin 3 is being developed by Lukoil. Prior to his illness, Chavez personally endorsed the deals. But even for places as dependent on personalities as these two countries, his departure would not automatically mean the emergence of problems for Russian companies operating in Venezuela, said Igor Yushkov, a senior analyst for the National Energy Security Fund, a commercial research organization. “Chavez is a charismatic leader who plays a big role in the development of modern Venezuela and many things may be centered around him,” but whoever his successor will be, the deals currently in place with Russia are likely to be respected since Chavez’s allies will stick to his policies, while his opponents will want to burnish their liberal, rule-of-law credentials. If “Chavez’s supporters […] unite around a single leader and do not engage in rivalry among themselves, if they emerge as a single front and nominate a single successor candidate, then they have all the chances to retain power,” Yushkov said. It is possible, however, that Chavez’s opponents could come to power. After the postponed inauguration, they accused the government of violating the Constitution, which stipulates that new presidential elections must be held within 30 days if Chavez is not fit enough to be sworn in on the scheduled date. But even if the opposition were to take over government, Yushkov argues, it is unlikely they will renege on legally binding agreements. “This is because they position themselves as liberal forces, as a counterbalance to ‘Dictator Chavez,’” he added. Dmitry Abzalov, a leading analyst at the Center for Current Politics, also a private research firm, agreed, saying that although Russia’s contracts with Venezuela were largely centered on Chavez, it is highly probable they would be fulfilled. According to Abzalov, Rosneft head Igor Sechin, who was deputy prime minister in Vladimir Putin’s cabinet (before Putin’s return to the Kremlin as president in 2012), visited Chavez shortly before his surgery, and “managed to reach an agreement” with the Venezuelan leadership about major energy deals. Sechin also had positive meetings with military top brass aligned with Chavez and his heir-apparent, Vice President Nicolas Maduro. “That is why, it is highly probable that the accords signed between Russia and Venezuela will be honored,” Abzalov said. The only question that remains open is the two countries’ long-term cooperation, Abzalov said. “Apart from the existing contracts, there were also discussions on the prospects of delivering armaments for the Venezuelan Air Force and Navy,” he said. “This cooperation will largely depend on who Chavez’s successor is.” “But in the medium term, the contracts will be executed in full. This refers both to military-technical deals and also to energy cooperation – first and foremost, the development of the Orinoco oil belt,” he said.
|
RIA Novosti, 13 - Russia's leading news agency (“Chavez Exit No Major Threat to Russia’s Lucrative Deals – Experts”, 1-9-13, http://en.rian.ru/business/20130109/178668233.html)//KG
|
Chavez’s failing health and possible departure from power are unlikely to pose an immediate threat to Russia’s multi-billion-dollar arms and energy contracts with his country Russian analysts told Russia has intensified cooperation with Venezuela since Chavez came to power in 1999, signing multi-billion-dollar contracts with the Latin American country in the arms, oil and gas spheres The military-technology contracts have been piling up in recent years Caracas signed $4 billion worth of deals with Russia to buy Sukhoi fighter jets, combat helicopters and small arms Energy deals have also enhanced bilateral ties Chavez personally endorsed the deals his departure would not automatically mean the emergence of problems for Russian companies operating in Venezuela the deals currently in place with Russia are likely to be respected since Chavez’s allies will stick to his policies it is highly probable that the accords signed between Russia and Venezuela will be honored there were also discussions on the prospects of delivering armaments for the Venezuelan Air Force and Navy the contracts will be executed in full
|
Cooperation between Russia and Venezuela increasing in military and energy sectors
| 4,342 | 82 | 1,123 | 671 | 11 | 172 | 0.016393 | 0.256334 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,552 |
Moscow, Jul 2 (EFE).- Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro showed here Tuesday that he plans to pick up where late predecessor Hugo Chavez left off in relations with Russia. "Hugo Chavez generated a great respect and love for Russia. We have inherited that love," Maduro said during a meeting at the Kremlin with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "We have come to confirm our desire to reinforce and expand the strategic alliance with Russia," the Venezuelan leader said. "During the last decade we have forged a map of cooperation in various areas. We move forward on the energy front, that is, oil and gas, and in provision of equipment for the petroleum sector," Maduro said. The new president's first visit to Moscow included the signing of an accord between Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and Russian counterpart Rosneft to carry out joint projects in the Andean nation. Russian utility Inter RAO EES also reached an accord with PDVSA to build a power plant in Venezuela. Putin said he and Maduro reaffirmed their "common position to pursue the course of strategic cooperation in all ambits." The Russian also praised Maduro for "firmly taking the baton" from Chavez, who died in March after a long battle with cancer, and praised the late Venezuelan head of state as "a great and sincere friend of Russia, a strong and valiant man." Maduro took time during his visit to attend a ceremony in northwest Moscow to mark the re-naming of a street in Chavez's honor. Chavez, who traveled to Russia on nine occasions, sought to institutionalize bilateral economic cooperation and bought billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment from Moscow. Venezuela turned to Russia after the United States cut off sales of military materiel to Caracas, including spare parts for the F-16s combat planes Washington sold the Andean nation in the 1980s.
|
Agencia EFE, 13 – (“Maduro reaffirms Venezuela's alliance with Russia”, Global Post, 7-2-13, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130702/maduro-reaffirms-venezuelas-alliance-russia)//KG
|
Maduro showed he plans to pick up where late predecessor Chavez left off in relations with Russia Chavez generated a great respect and love for Russia. We have inherited that love," Maduro said during a meeting at the Kremlin We have come to confirm our desire to reinforce and expand the strategic alliance with Russia We move forward on the energy front, that is, oil and gas, and in provision of equipment for the petroleum sector Putin said he and Maduro reaffirmed their "common position to pursue the course of strategic cooperation in all ambits praised the late Venezuelan head of state as "a great and sincere friend of Russia, a strong and valiant man Chavez, sought to institutionalize bilateral economic cooperation and bought billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment from Moscow Venezuela turned to Russia after the United States cut off sales of military materiel to Caracas, including spare parts for the F-16s combat planes
|
Venezuela and Russia are forming a strategic alliance now --- energy cooperation is a central feature
| 1,854 | 101 | 955 | 307 | 16 | 159 | 0.052117 | 0.517915 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,553 |
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro showed here Tuesday that he plans to pick up where late predecessor Hugo Chavez left off in relations with Russia. "Hugo Chavez generated a great respect and love for Russia. We have inherited that love," Maduro said during a meeting at the Kremlin with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "We have come to confirm our desire to reinforce and expand the strategic alliance with Russia," the Venezuelan leader said. "During the last decade we have forged a map of cooperation in various areas. We move forward on the energy front, that is, oil and gas, and in provision of equipment for the petroleum sector," Maduro said. The new president's first visit to Moscow included the signing of an accord between Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and Russian counterpart Rosneft to carry out joint projects in the Andean nation. Russian utility Inter RAO EES also reached an accord with PDVSA to build a power plant in Venezuela. Putin said he and Maduro reaffirmed their "common position to pursue the course of strategic cooperation in all ambits." The Russian also praised Maduro for "firmly taking the baton" from Chavez, who died in March after a long battle with cancer, and praised the late Venezuelan head of state as "a great and sincere friend of Russia, a strong and valiant man." Maduro took time during his visit to attend a ceremony in northwest Moscow to mark the re-naming of a street in Chavez's honor. Chavez, who traveled to Russia on nine occasions, sought to institutionalize bilateral economic cooperation and bought billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment from Moscow. Venezuela turned to Russia after the United States cut off sales of military materiel to Caracas, including spare parts for the F-16s combat planes Washington sold the Andean nation in the 1980s. EFE
|
EFE 13, Agencia EFE, S.A is a Spanish international news organizaton; the fourth largest wire service globally(Agencia EFE, S.A, "Maduro reaffirms Venezuela's alliance with Russia" 7/2/13, Fox News Latino, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/02/maduro-reaffirms-venezuela-alliance-with-russia/)//AD
|
Maduro showed that he plans to pick up Chavez left off in relations with Russia. "Hugo Chavez generated a great respect and love for Russia. We have inherited that love," Maduro said during a meeting at the Kremlin "We have come to confirm our desire to reinforce and expand the strategic alliance with Russia "During the last decade we have forged a map of cooperation in various areas. We move forward on the energy front, that is, oil and gas, and in provision of equipment for the petroleum sector The new president's first visit to Moscow included the signing of an accord between Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and Russian counterpart Rosneft to carry out joint projects in the Andean nation. Putin said he and Maduro reaffirmed their "common position to pursue the course of strategic cooperation in all ambits." The Russian also praised Maduro for "firmly taking the baton" Chavez, who traveled to Russia on nine occasions, sought to institutionalize bilateral economic cooperation and bought billions of dollars worth of arms and military equipment from Moscow.
|
Maduro will expand strategic alliances with Russia
| 1,836 | 50 | 1,074 | 304 | 7 | 177 | 0.023026 | 0.582237 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,554 |
Increased engagement is the second policy option. An engagement policy seeks a cooperative relationship with Venezuela that achieve interests vital to both nations. Its hallmark would be communication. The central themes would be to reassureVenezuela that the US is not contemplating the assassination of Chavez. This assurance encourages the respect to the Venezuelan people because it affirms US approval of their democratic process, to include their choice of President. Ideally, this message would soften the perception of Venezuelans that the US is a bullying nation whose dominant behavior on the international arena is unilateral. Finally, engagement would include reestablishment of economic programs and military relationships. The recent change in US administrations makes engagement highly feasible. A new administration provides a logical juncture to usher in a new era of cooperation. President Obama has stated that the US will operate from a multilateral platform in the international system. This sends a clear message to hemispheric countries that the US will abandon from unilateral methods. This validates visions and values that promote security, economic growth, and democratic processes. Implementation will require increased resources and commitments across the spectrum of national power because there will be heightened activity between the US and Venezuela, as well as other Latin American nations. The confidence levels of both nations would be high as engagement builds on rekindled relationships established long ago. Acceptability and suitability are as alluring as feasibility. Healthy relations with Venezuela are desirable for US businesses, particularly energy companies with their large investments in Venezuela. Economic growth would benefit the entire hemisphere. Engagement supports our interests as the prevailing nation in the Western Hemisphere. It is doubtful that an engaged Chavez Administration will as aggressively court our competitors such as China, Russia, and Iran. He also will probably abandon foreign policies designed to block or diminish US influence in the region. Finally, the suitability of engagement improves our counter-terrorism and illegal drug programs. Engagement is a low-risk policy option. Reaching out and entering into dialogue with the Chavez administration may alter the perception of a future US-led regime change. Much of Chavez’s posturing seeks to increase his power and to generate solidarity among South American states to resist US influence. As these efforts subside, there is a substantial reduction in risk for conflict and an increase in the possibility for economic growth. Engagement promotes regional harmony and guarantees US influence.
|
LeMaster 09, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army(Dennis, "US POLICY OPTIONS MITIGATING VENEZUELAN SPONSORED SECURITY CHALLENGES" 3/12/09, US Army War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497699)//AD
|
An engagement policy seeks a cooperative relationship with Venezuela that achieve interests vital to both nations. Its hallmark would be communication. This assurance encourages the respect to the Venezuelan people because it affirms US approval of their democratic process this message would soften the perception of Venezuelans that the US is a bullying nation whose dominant behavior on the international arena is unilateral. engagement would include reestablishment of economic programs and military relationships. engagement a logical juncture to usher in a new era of cooperation the US will operate from a multilateral platform in the international system. This sends a clear message to hemispheric countries that the US will abandon from unilateral methods This validates visions and values that promote security, economic growth, and democratic processes Implementation will require increased resources and commitments across the spectrum of national power because there will be heightened activity between the US and Venezuela, The confidence levels of both nations would be high as engagement builds on rekindled relationships established long ago. Healthy relations with Venezuela are desirable for US businesses, particularly energy companies with their large investments in Venezuela. Economic growth would benefit the entire hemisphere. Engagement supports our interests as the prevailing nation in the Western Hemisphere. It is doubtful that an engaged Chavez Administration will as aggressively court our competitors such as China, Russia, and Iran He also will probably abandon foreign policies designed to block or diminish US influence in the region engagement improves our counter-terrorism and illegal drug programs. Engagement is a low-risk policy option. Reaching out and entering into dialogue with the Chavez administration may alter the perception of a future US-led regime change Engagement promotes regional harmony and guarantees US influence.
|
U.S. engagement will draw Venezuela away from Russia and China
| 2,727 | 62 | 1,977 | 396 | 10 | 284 | 0.025253 | 0.717172 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,555 |
<While China’s huge entry into Latin America deservedly receives more attention, clearly Russia intends to compete with the United States throughout Latin America. Moreover, one consequence of Russia’s deals may be to corrupt Latin American officials and governments while buying influence. Even if Russia’s influence here is arguably minimal, some analysts argue that Washington should engage in dialogue with Moscow about its activities in the region to make clear the importance of issues such as Hugo Chávez’s subversive activities, and to gain a platform from which to counter Moscow in a dialogue about the former Soviet space.27 Be that as it may, both Moscow and Beijing are seriously challenging our policies in Latin America. While we should not panic about Russia’s presence in the region, it is necessary that we maintain a vigorous U.S.security policy towards Latin America.>
|
Blank 11 – Professor of Strategic Studies at United States Army War College (August 18, 2011, “Russia’s Second Wind in Latin America” https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Perspectives_on_the_Americas/Blank-Latam2011-FINAL.pdf)
|
clearly Russia intends to compete with the United States throughout Latin America. Moreover, one consequence of Russia’s deals may be to corrupt Latin American officials and governments while buying influence. Even if Russia’s influence here is minimal, some analysts argue that Washington should engage in dialogue with Moscow about its activities in the region to make clear the importance of issues
|
Russia competes with the US for influence in Latin America
| 888 | 59 | 401 | 138 | 10 | 61 | 0.072464 | 0.442029 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,556 |
Russian – Latin American relations are relatively warm these days, especially when it comes to a number of seemingly left-leaning countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Nonetheless, Washington’s indifference to these countries may have pushed these governments further into Moscow’s diplomatic embrace. The United States appears to have calculatedly severed any sort of close relations with these left-leaning nations, and has been prone to criticize them with the same degree of careless indifference as it has of Russia itself. In addition, these resident dynamics have provided the region with a growing autonomy; as Argentinean president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner aptly stated, “the world has changed, Latin America is nobody’s backyard.” This represents a full shift from Cold War politics, when the U.S. supported authoritarian regimes throughout the region in order to act as a firewall to contain Soviet influence within the hemisphere. In fact, much of the ever-growing presence of Russia in Latin America is due to Moscow’s aspirations to return to global preeminence, coinciding with Washington’s increasingly unsympathetic view toward a number of these left-leaning Latin American countries. Notably, Russia has been able to exert its influence on an expanding agenda of mostly military and energy issues through a series of existing ties, as well as through allying itself with Central American nations to fight ever-changing drug trafficking trends. As the U.S. has curtailed military and economic assistance to some emerging countries in Latin America, Russia emerged as a pivotal ally for some and a preferred alternative for others. Colombia and Venezuela, A Proxy Conflict? With Russia’s new relationships with leftist Latin American governments and the U.S.’ increasingly aimless presence in the region, one can discern a growing interaction among regional actors. In fact, this new direction seems to be reminiscent of a slow return to a Cold War modus operandi. As Carácas modernizes its army with Russian technology, Bogota is likewise being buttressed by the U.S., with its “Plan Colombia” (an international initiative to fight drug trafficking), and other countries like Israel and Spain.
|
Walle, 12 - writes for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Walter, “Russia's Intrusion into the Americas is a Wake-Up call for the United States”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 5-9-12, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=73388pageid=13pagename=Analysis)//KG
|
Russian – Latin American relations are relatively warm these days, especially when it comes to a number of seemingly left-leaning countries such as Venezuela Washington’s indifference to these countries may have pushed these governments further into Moscow’s diplomatic embrace. he United States appears to have calculatedly severed any sort of close relations with these left-leaning nations, and has been prone to criticize them with the same degree of careless indifference as it has of Russia the world has changed, Latin America is nobody’s backyard.” This represents a full shift from Cold War politics, when the U.S. supported authoritarian regimes throughout the region in order to act as a firewall to contain Soviet influence much of the ever-growing presence of Russia in Latin America is due to Moscow’s aspirations to return to global preeminence, coinciding with Washington’s increasingly unsympathetic view toward a number of these left-leaning Latin American Russia has been able to exert its influence on an expanding agenda of mostly military and energy issues through a series of existing ties As the U.S. has curtailed military and economic assistance to some emerging countries in Latin America, Russia emerged as a pivotal ally for some and a preferred alternative for others With Russia’s new relationships with leftist Latin American governments and the U.S.’ increasingly aimless presence in the region, one can discern a growing interaction among regional actors
|
US indifference in Latin America is fueling Russian expansionism
| 2,228 | 65 | 1,488 | 337 | 9 | 228 | 0.026706 | 0.676558 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,557 |
In analyzing the nature of Russia’s relations with Latin America, a few conclusions can be drawn. First, Moscow's main motives in Latin America are clearly geopolitical and tied to its self-presentation as a global superpower and rival of the US. Second, its capabilities for achieving decisive strategic influence are limited to a few struggling, leftist Latin American states. Third, the current economic crisis has constricted those capabilities still further. Fourth, most Latin American states will not follow Russian policies against their own interests simply to improve trade or let Russia hijack them for its purposes-unless the Obama Administration utterly neglects or disregards them, which is unlikely. Even Russian commentators and some military officers recognize and publicly admit that the posturing seen in exercises in Venezuela and the Caribbean is just that, a display with little or no strategic benefit." The only way in which Russian policy truly threatens the US and Latin America is its military and intelligence support for Chavez and similar leaders. This support is passed on to insurgents and narco-trafficantes in order to destabilize pro-American regimes while strengthening Chavez and his allies. Adequate responses to such threats are inherently economic and political, and only military as a last resort. Washington can do much to facilitate security in Latin America: regenerating its own economy; simultaneously opening up trade markets and eliminating barriers to Latin American exports; enhancing multilateralism and interoperability among defense forces as requested by Latin American militaries; and beginning the normalization of Cuba. Havana is no longer the threat it was, Venezuela has claimed that dubious honor. Rehabilitating Cuba, given that Castro's days are clearly numbered, would take the air out of Chavez's balloon; it is quite clear that Havana would probably welcome a path towards better relations with the US, especially the economic benefits they would inevitably bring. A policy with a more symbolically important impact upon Latin America is currently difficult to imagine. Nonetheless, there should be no illusion that the security problems that plague this region are easily overcome, quite the opposite. But that is all the more reason why the US cannot ignore the area and let it drift to Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing for want of a better alternative. That outcome would only confirm once again that in world politics, there is no such thing as benign neglect. Instead neglect is malign and engenders negative results for the negligent state along with those neglected. The policies of the Bush administration allowed Russia to gain a foothold in Latin American politics, a result of Washington's negligence; under President Obama, the US should reverse those outcomes and demonstrate what liberal democracy in action can truly accomplish.
|
Blank, 9 - Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (Stephen, “Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood”, Ifri, April 2009, www.ifri.org/downloads/ifriblankrussiaandlatinamericaengapril09.pdf)//KG
|
In analyzing the nature of Russia’s relations with Latin America, a few conclusions can be drawn Moscow's main motives in Latin America are clearly geopolitical and tied to its self-presentation as a global superpower and rival of the US its capabilities for achieving decisive strategic influence are limited to a few leftist Latin American states most Latin American states will not follow Russian policies unless the Obama Administration utterly neglects or disregards them The only way in which Russian policy truly threatens the US and Latin America is its military and intelligence support for Chavez and similar leaders Washington can do much to facilitate security in Latin America opening up trade markets and eliminating barriers to Latin American exports there should be no illusion that the security problems that plague this region are easily overcome that is all the more reason why the US cannot ignore the area and let it drift to Moscow, That outcome would only confirm once again that in world politics, there is no such thing as benign neglect. neglect is malign and engenders negative results for the negligent state along with those neglected The policies of the Bush administration allowed Russia to gain a foothold in Latin American politics ; under Obama, the US should reverse those outcomes and demonstrate what liberal democracy in action can truly accomplish
|
US support and economic engagement of Venezuela key to crowd out Russia – neglect leads to successful Russian expansionism
| 2,904 | 123 | 1,386 | 443 | 19 | 223 | 0.042889 | 0.503386 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,558 |
As US policymakers struggle to overcome sluggish economic growth while confronting abiding security threats, there is a stronger argument than ever for fortifying US partnerships with countries in the Americas whose economies and security are intertwined with America’s own economy and security. While the United States has been preoccupied with other regions, most Latin American nations have continued to modernize their market economies; two nations in particular—Brazil and Mexico—are emerging as global players. Therefore, the time is right to restore a strong bipartisan consensus in the United States that promotes a constructive, free-market growth agenda in the Americas. Practical initiatives—not rhetoric—will encourage America and its neighbors to find common ground for their collective benefit. Key points in this Outlook: •America’s economic crisis and threats to US security have undermined its traditional global-leadership role and weakened its connections to Latin American nations that continue to modernize their economies. •The United States must recover its regional credibility by taking bold initiatives to restore its fiscal solvency, while aggressively promoting trade, energy interdependence, technology transfer, and economic growth. •The United States must then retool its strategy for its partners in the Americas by working with them to combat threats such as cross-border criminality and radical populism, encouraging dialogue with regional leaders, and ensuring law enforcement cooperation to develop a mutually beneficial relationship. A stable and prosperous Americas is indispensable to US economic success and security. The region is home to three of the top four foreign sources of energy to the United States, as well as the fastest-growing destinations for US exports and investment. Clearly, geography and shared values predetermine a united destiny for the United States and its neighbors in the Americas. How positive and fruitful that destiny will be depends on whether US policymakers, private businesses, and civil society move with a greater sense of purpose toward seizing promising opportunities and meeting critical challenges. Times have changed. The US fiscal crisis and preoccupation with two distant wars have distracted policymakers in Washington and undermined US leadership in the Americas. Although access to the US market, investment, technology, and other economic benefits are highly valued by most countries in the Western Hemisphere, today, the United States is no longer the only major partner to choose from. Asia (principally China) and Europe are making important inroads. So, as US policymakers retool their strategy for the Americas, they must shelve the paternalism of the past and be much more energetic in forming meaningful partnerships with willing neighbors. Of course, the United States must recover its credibility by making bold decisions to restore its own fiscal solvency, while aggressively promoting trade, energy interdependence, technology transfer, and economic growth. Then, Washington will be better positioned to cultivate greater economic and political cooperation among its neighbors, beginning with an open and candid dialogue with the region’s leaders about their vision, their challenges, and their priorities. Partnerships can thus be built on common ground. "Today, 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that, through 2015, some 80 percent of economic growth will take place beyond US shores." The security challenges in the Americas are very real and growing more complicated every day. Illegal narcotics trafficking, transnational organized crime, and radical populism fueled by petrodollars and allied with dangerous extraregional forces pose daunting challenges. Although it is wise to prioritize a positive socioeconomic and political agenda, assessing and addressing threats is an indispensable prerequisite to achieving US security and regional leadership. To make the most of their united destiny, the United States and its partners in the Americas should: •Promote and defend democracy, the rule of law, and human rights and private property as the building blocks of just societies, accountable governments, and prosperous economies; •Advocate and support the empowerment of individuals through the development of strong free-market economies, healthy private sectors, and free trade among nations; •Assist neighbors in addressing their essential security needs so they can grow in peace and be more effective allies to prevent or confront common threats; •Incentivize capital markets and encourage new and innovative technology cooperation to develop a regional community that is interdependent in the production and distribution of a range of products and services—particularly energy; •Confront international organized crime in Mexico and Central America by supporting effective law-enforcement institutions and competent judicial systems; •Work with willing allies to restore the Organization of American States to its essential mission of promoting and defending common values and meeting common threats; •Address the role of China and Russia in the Americas by encouraging open and transparent regional investment and trade and rejecting exploitive policies that undermine local societies, regional security, and economic growth; •Combat threats posed by authoritarian regimes and their ties with Iran, Hezbollah, and transnational criminal organizations; •Assist the Cuban people in transitioning to a post–Castro Cuba by helping to jump-start their private sector, rehabilitate their economy, and restore their political freedoms when the dictatorship collapses. Maximizing Mutual Global Competitiveness Expanding regional economic cooperation is crucial to US economic growth. An aggressive trade promotion and investment strategy in today’s hypercompetitive, globalized economy is not a policy option; it is an imperative. Clearly, prosperity at home depends on success abroad. The economic opportunities in the Western Hemisphere are enormous, and US policy-makers and the private sector must recognize them as critical to US economic growth. In 2011, US exports reached a record $2.1 trillion in total value, despite the fact that only 1 percent of US businesses export their products to foreign markets. The United States must expand on these opportunities. Exports benefit the US economy by offering companies opportunities to tap new markets, expand their production, and earn more consumer dollars. Today, 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that, through 2015, some 80 percent of economic growth will take place beyond US shores. It is indisputable that an aggressive US trade policy—meaning selling US goods and services in as many markets as possible—is essential for the US economy to hone its competitive edge in the 21st century. In this sense, America’s future is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbors in its own hemisphere. A prosperous hemisphere means a more prosperous United States. "Since 2003, an estimated 73 million Latin Americans have risen out of poverty. Moreover, between then and 2010, the average Latin American income increased by more than 30 percent." The Western Hemisphere’s Moment. The United States is strategically well-placed to begin a new chapter in trade relations with Latin America. The countries within the Americas are bound by close historical, cultural, familial, and geographic ties, linked by common values and mutual interests. What also facilitates expanded economic engagement is the regional trade partners’ proximity to US shores, and the significant number of Hispanics living in the United States—some 50 million—that provide an exceptional strategic advantage in doing business with their countries of origin. Equally important are the advances that many countries within the region have made in establishing economic stability and growth in recent years as the roots of democracy and the rule of law continue to take hold. Countries such as Mexico, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Colombia have been at the forefront in modernizing their economies and opening them to investment, liberalizing trade, and becoming more competitive overall. The numbers tell the story. Since 2003, an estimated 73 million Latin Americans have risen out of poverty. Moreover, between then and 2010, the average Latin American income increased by more than 30 percent, meaning that currently, nearly a third of the region’s some 570 million people are considered middle class. And in just the next five years, regional economies are projected to expand by one-third. That macroeconomic stability generates even greater opportunities for US business. The Western Hemisphere already supplies a quarter of the world’s crude oil, a third of the world’s natural gas, nearly a fourth of its coal, and more than a third of global electricity, while offering tremendous potential for the development of renewable energy technologies. Certainly, many in the US private sector have already discovered the benefits of intrahemispheric economic relationships. In fact, Latin America has played a key role in expanding US exports in recent years. The Congressional Research Service reports that from 1998 to 2009, US trade with Latin America increased an average of 82 percent, more than 72 percent with Asia, 52 percent with the European Union, and 64 percent with the rest of the world. In 2011 alone, trade with Latin America grew 20 percent. The economic growth in 2011 elevated trade between the United States and the region to a historic high of $772 million. Exports to the region grew 22 percent to $350 million, while imports increased by 20 percent to a total of $420 million. According to the US Department of Commerce, American companies now export more to the Western Hemisphere—some 42 percent of total US exports—than to any other part of the world, including China. Last year, US merchandise exports to Latin America totaled $367 billion, and the US private sector accounts for one-third of all foreign direct investment in the region. The United States now has trade agreements with 11 countries in the Western Hemisphere, which the Department of Commerce reports help to support nearly four million US jobs. Clearly, however, there is much more that can be done to fulfill the potential of intrahemispheric economic relations in the hyper-competitive global economy. High-level official US engagement is imperative to revitalizing existing alliances and developing new partnerships to boost mutual competitiveness. A reinvigorated US trade policy must transcend past approaches that have been too identified with solely US interests and too focused on bilateral relationships. A 21st-century approach necessitates more multilateral engagement and cooperation, mutually beneficial information-sharing and support, and an inclusive vision. A complementary strategy to increase demand for US goods and services requires mobilizing private capital, encouraging technology transfer, and leveraging existing US programs to strengthen the private sector throughout the Americas. Traditionally, private-sector growth has been held back by lack of investment and access to credit. In a true win-win strategy, the United States can boost exports and investment while strengthening regional producers and consumers. In summary, increased US government initiatives to expand economic partnerships with the country’s Western Hemisphere neighbors are crucial to America’s economic recovery and competitiveness. A prosperous hemisphere is also beneficial to US security concerns. The Americas is home to some of the most dynamic markets in the world. The US administration must recognize this reality and take full advantage of the opportunities. "According to the US Department of Commerce, American companies now export more to the Western Hemisphere—some 42 percent of total US exports—than to any other part of the world, including China." Boosting Two-Way Trade. US prosperity depends on greater global economic interaction, with the Western Hemisphere providing unique opportunities. Three recommendations for boosting two-way trade: •Promote the US government’s Pathways to Prosperity initiative as the primary US vehicle—including presidential- and cabinet-level participation—through which to facilitate greater hemispheric trade integration;[1] •Expand Latin American participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership—an initiative to promote stronger economic ties between the Western Hemisphere and the Asia-Pacific region—beyond Peru, Chile, and Mexico; •Through the Inter-American Development Bank, increase material and technical support to trade- and business-advocacy groups throughout the region to promote “best practices” among companies, cooperatives, or individuals seeking to export their goods or services. Americas Economic Freedom Initiative. To accelerate the growth of the regional middle class—and thereby spur demand for US goods and services—a presidential-level initiative should be implemented to help boost a robust private sector throughout the region. Some recommendations for accomplishing this: •Marshal US and regional expertise to develop regional capital markets that will increase the availability of private financing for business expansion, budding entrepreneurs, and innovators. First, this would entail convening a regional capital-markets summit—with the participation of the US Department of the Treasury and regional counterparts—to launch a public-private task force to develop a capital formation work plan identifying the prerequisites and targeting obstacles to the development of robust capital markets in Latin America and the Caribbean. The team would consist of government financial-sector experts, Inter-American Development Bank specialists, and business and investment professionals. Second, it would require joining other nations in developing and funding a regional private-enterprise investment fund through the Inter-American Development Bank to provide equity and debt capital directly to private entrepreneurs quickly and on commercial terms (especially in locations traditionally neglected by private capital because of high risk). This fund should be governed by a private board and managed independently by investment professionals subject to public oversight; •Charge multilateral development banks to technically and financially support the creation of national or subregional enterprise funds to bolster local private-sector development at the grassroots level, which will provide seed capital and technical support to small and medium enterprises. These funds would be capitalized with public and private funds and managed by investment professionals; • Ensure that adequate protections exist in regional capital markets to prevent international terrorist financing and illicit-narcotics money laundering; •Convene a summit of deans of business schools to expand exchange programs between the 20 most prominent business schools in the Americas. This program should bolster expertise in trade, business management, and capital management, among other fields, to strengthen the professional capacity in national economies; •Expand exchanges among scientists and engineers with innovator-entrepreneurs and those engaged in private research and development to cross-fertilize and identify commercially viable technology and innovation; •Revise US Millennium Challenge Corporation guidelines to prioritize programs in subregions (for example, in Southern Mexico and Northeast Brazil) and to emphasize cooperative funding arrangements, including private-sector contributions. Attaining Western Hemisphere Energy Security. We must also maximize mutual global competitiveness in the energy realm. The United States can accomplish this by immediately approving extension of the Keystone XL Pipeline that connects Canada oil deposits with US refineries in the Midwest. We should also strive to create a “Big 4” regional energy consultative group between the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil—including representatives of the private sector—to promote cooperation and share best practices on energy production and distribution. We should likewise host a Camp David summit with leaders of these four nations. Democracy Promotion Agenda The rise to power of Hugo Chávez and his fellow authoritarian populists has exposed the fragility of Latin America’s democratic institutions. Their modus operandi has been to use those institutions to gain power and then proceed to systematically hollow them out, concentrating power in the executive, marginalizing the opposition, and undermining rule of law. A US strategy to reengage with the Americas must include a vibrant democracy promotion component to assist US partners in helping to strengthen and consolidate their democratic institutions against the predations of would-be authoritarians. To be sure, the primary democracy-building responsi-bility rests with the leaders and citizens of each country. It is for each nation to make the difficult decisions to reduce the power of the state, protect individual freedoms, and promote accountability and integrity in government. The United States is not a disinterested bystander, however. It is best served by working to advance the cause of democracy around the world, for the very real benefits of America’s long-term security and prosperity. This is not only an issue of US self-interest. Democracy also confers significant benefits on its citizens wherever it has succeeded in taking root, resulting in more effective government, more security, and better prospects for economic development. The United States can support this process by backing reformers who are working in their countries to consolidate stable, honest, and rules-based institutions and creating incentives for increased accountability in government through US assistance. Also critical is the need to increase support for the bedrock of representative government: civil society nongovernmental organizations. These include, but are not limited to, busi¬ness associations, media organizations, government, labor unions, consumer and environmental groups, and women’s and human rights watchdog groups. In Cuba, citizens must rise to this challenge by overcoming their fears and claiming their future. Before they can build that future, they must dismantle the vestiges of the police state and command economy. The responsibility is theirs, but their friends can help with a series of bold and constructive measures. Although it is more important than ever to preserve the economic sanctions and use them as leverage to bring about broad, deep, and irreversible reforms, the United States should use the promise of aid, trade, and normal political relations as an incentive to leverage change. The United States must be conscientious and bold in its support for democrats in the Americas. It must not allow the hostility of antidemocratic regimes to deter it from helping struggling democrats in countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. If those democrats are willing to take the necessary risks to advocate for different futures for their countries, the United States must demonstrate its solidarity and support for them. Again, there is no silver bullet in the policy toolkit for developing democratic institutions, building transparent and apolitical judicial systems, eliminating corruption, and promoting competitive elections. It is a difficult process that is never quite complete, as US history shows. But only by resolutely supporting democracies and democratizing countries can we achieve and sustain a stable, secure, and prosperous hemisphere. Some recommendations for promoting democracy: •The Organization of American States: the Obama administration should instruct the US permanent representative to work with willing states to promote core values and interests, invigorate the application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and restore the independence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. •Latin America needs to be reprioritized as a recipient of the funding allocated to the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and related organizations. While democracy has taken firm root, its institutions need strengthening, or else the hard-fought-for gains of recent decades will be jeopardized. Democracy promoters should prioritize support for political parties, independent journalists, and others that are indispensable and constructive protagonists in the political process. •In Cuba, the United States should restore purposeful and focused prodemocracy programs aimed at bringing genuine change to the island. •The US president should reactivate the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba to update transition plans and formulate a specific pledge of robust US aid to a genuine transition. •The United States should create a private-enterprise fund and a US-Cuba business council to empower entrepreneurs on the island once a transition is under way to promote the development of a healthy and independent private sector, respect for private property, and the rule of law. A Security and Stability Agenda Shared land and maritime borders make security in Western Hemisphere countries a permanent priority for the US government. The security challenges confronting Mexico, Central America, and Venezuela are more dramatic today than in recent memory. In the final year of the George W. Bush administration, Mexico and the United States agreed on a $1 billion counter-narcotics assistance package. Yet, despite the enormous opportunity this presented to bring Mexico and the United States into a closer and mutually beneficial security cooperation, the aid was so slowly delivered that Mexicans have been left to wonder if their raging drug war is a priority for the United States. Conservative lawmakers who were the driving force behind Plan Colombia a decade ago have been less active on Mexico, focusing instead on border security as a means to fight illegal immigration and leaving Mexicans to square off with bloodthirsty cartels on their own. It is time for the United States to more fully recognize that “Mexico’s drug war” is more accurately “America’s drug war” that Mexico is fighting. The US Department of Justice says that Mexico’s drug-trafficking organizations are the greatest organized crime threat in the United States. The US must suppress demand for illicit drugs through education, treatment, and law enforcement, but helping Mexico sustain this fight is an indispensable responsibility as well. "Even as the international community implements new financial sanctions to deny Teheran the means to sustain a uranium enrichment program, the regime has established dozens of shadowy commercial enterprises and banks in Venezuela to launder as much as $30 billion through its petro-economy." Moreover, increased US bipartisan political support may encourage the Mexican people and their new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, to sustain their antidrug efforts to advance the two countries’ common security, stability, and prosperity. The United States should also provide robust and innovative material support for these efforts and institutionalize law-enforcement cooperation and information sharing that are essential to the common fight against transnational criminal groups. In Central America, the institutions of government and the rule of law have been overwhelmed by the onslaught of criminal gangs that have been displaced by Mexico’s stepped-up law enforcement. Guatemala’s state apparatus has been underfunded for decades, and the institutions of Honduras have been weakened by a succession of populist caudillo presidents, systematic corruption, and the expanding presence of organized crime. El Salvador confronts the unique challenge of hardened gang members deported from the United States maintaining their ties to criminal networks in US urban centers. A public-security crisis in these countries has undermined popular confidence in elected officials and overwhelmed poorly trained and equipped security forces. Unless the United States and neighboring countries organize an international response, several of these countries may soon become ungovernable territories, producing economic failure, civil strife, and refugee crises. This challenge requires a regional rescue plan (led by the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Europe, and the multilateral development banks). The United States should encourage interested nations to organize a summit of governments and institutions to develop such a plan and agree on how it should be implemented and funded. But by far the greatest threat to security and stability in the Americas is the narco-state that has taken root in Venezuela under the unaccountable regime of Hugo Chávez. This hostile regime is managed by Cuba’s security apparatus, funded by China, armed by Russia, and partnered with Iran, Hezbollah, and Colombian and Mexican narco-traffickers. US law enforcement and federal prosecutors have gathered fresh, compelling evidence implicating senior Venezuelan officials and Chávez himself in narcotics trafficking in collusion with Colombian terrorist groups. Chávez has also forged an important strategic alliance with Iran to allow it to evade international sanctions and carry its asymmetrical threat against the United States to the country’s doorstep. Even as the international community implements new financial sanctions to deny Teheran the means to sustain a uranium enrichment program, the regime has established dozens of shadowy commercial enterprises and banks in Venezuela to launder as much as $30 billion through its petro-economy. Certainly the drug kingpins managing Venezuela today have everything to lose when Chávez succumbs to cancer. Several ruthless, anti-United States governments have a stake in trying to engineer a chavista succession, even as the government struggles with an unsustainable fiscal situation, a collapsing economy, social polarization, and a public-security crisis. In short, within the next several years, Venezuela will become a manmade disaster that will impact regional security and energy supply. America’s current policy of evading responsibility for the implosion in Venezuela is untenable and dangerous. Every serious government in the Americas has a stake in addressing these issues before they become unmanageable. The crises in Central America and Venezuela will require US leadership, intelligent diplomacy, and resources to organize an effective multilateral response. The following are recommendations for addressing these issues, listed by country or region. The Americas: •Renew emphasis on intelligence capabilities and mission to confront extraregional threats and cross-border criminality; •Increase dialogue with regional and European military, intelligence, and security agencies on common threats; •Direct US Northern and Southern Commands, the US Coast Guard, and the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to provide “surge” engagement plans for additional funding and other support; •Ensure better cooperation from the US State Department with law enforcement and intelligence efforts. Mexico: •Develop strong bipartisan support in the US Congress for Mexican counternarcotics efforts and for treating Mexico as not just an “enforcer” but an ally against drug trafficking cartels, and emphasize common “North American” strategies; •Set up an interagency US-Mexico financial crimes unit based at the US Treasury to improve targeting of organized-crime money-laundering operations to cripple the financial solvency of the cartels. Central America: •Build an international coalition to support Central American antidrug and anticrime security efforts— which would include Mexico, Colombia, and the European Union—then direct confiscated assets to foreign antidrug programs; •Develop an integral strategy to strengthen regional governments and their institutional processes with the objective of marginalizing organized crime groups through increased security, legal prosecution, and anticrime operations. Venezuela: •Form an interagency task force under US National Security Council leadership to assess and respond to the threats posed by the Chávez government and its alliance with Iran, its role in narco-trafficking, and implications of Russian arms purchases; •Enhance the use of law-enforcement actions by the DEA and the US Treasury to unmask Venezuelan officials and companies that are involved with narco-trafficking, international terrorism, or sanctioned Iranian entities; •Direct US embassies abroad to assist Venezuelan opposition groups in building an international democratic solidarity network to maintain scrutiny of the Chávez regime’s gross abuses of democratic processes and to defend the basic rights of the democratic Venezuelan opposition; •Deliver appropriate diplomatic messages to China, Cuba, Russia, and Iran not to interfere in a post–Chávez democratic transition in Venezuela; •Prepare a post–Chávez action plan to assist in removing criminal elements from the current Venezuelan government, helping Venezuelan people recover stolen assets through wanton corruption practices, and assist in rehabilitating the oil sector and national infrastructure through private-sector engagement and multilateral development banks. US-Brazilian Relations A reinvigorated US policy in the Western Hemisphere cannot proceed without a fundamental reevaluation of bilateral relations with Brazil. With a population of some 200 million, a $2.5 trillion economy (the world’s sixth largest), and a recent history of steady political and economic management, Brazil is beginning to realize its enormous potential. Much as China used the 2008 Beijing Olympics to unveil its economic progress and modernity, Brazil will be the focus of global attention in 2014 and 2016 as it hosts the World Cup and Olympics, respectively. Strengthening and expanding US relations with Brazil should be a US presidential priority. Specifically, it is in both countries’ interests to deepen the developing partnership, namely in the areas of trade, security, and energy. Yet, though there are opportunities in a more modern US-Brazil relationship, there are also challenges. It will be a test of US diplomacy to convince some sectors in Brazil that relations with the United States are not a zero-sum game, and that significant benefits can accrue for both populations as a result of deeper cooperation. Some recommendations for US-Brazil cooperation: •Invigorate presidential-level engagement; •Establish a jointly funded US-Brazil foundation (modeled on the German Marshall Fund) to institutionalize broad cooperation; focusing on information and communications technology (the so-called “e-economy”); student, political, cultural, and other grassroots exchanges; and language training; •Charge an interagency team with developing strategies to overcome the zero-sum approach in bilateral relations adhered to by some in the Brazilian foreign policy establishment; •Institutionalize a bilateral defense ministerial on global security challenges, defense cooperation, military modernization, and regional security challenges; •Incentivize US ventures with Brazil’s aviation and aerospace industries and overcome technology-transfer issues to create opportunities for US manufacturers; •Offer working-level cooperation with World Cup and Olympics planning teams. Conclusion The potential opportunities and mutual benefits have never been greater for intrahemispheric cooperation. But US policymakers must aggressively seize initiative in turning that potential into reality. Certainly there are challenges and obstacles ahead, but increased economic relationships will take on a dynamic and momentum of their own, and once and for all render obsolete some of the retrograde populist agendas in the Americas. Geographic proximity, cultural and family ties, shared values, and growing prosperity are powerful incentives to drive a fundamental reassessment of US relations in the Western Hemisphere. It is essential that US policymakers demonstrate the political will to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity.
|
Noriega and Cardenas 12, Roger F. Noriega is a former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs (Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean) and a former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States. He coordinates AEI's program on Latin America and writes for the Institute's Latin American Outlook series. José R. Cárdenas is a contributor to AEI’s Venezuela-Iran Project and an associate with Vision Americas (Roger/Jose, "The Mounting Hezbollah Threat in Latin America – by Roger Noriega & José R. Cárdenas" 12/05/12, America Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei.org/outlook /foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/latin-america/an-action-plan-for-us-policy-in-the-americas/)//AD
|
As US policymakers struggle to overcome sluggish economic growth while confronting abiding security threats, there is a stronger argument than ever for fortifying US partnerships with countries in the Americas whose economies and security are intertwined with America’s own economy and security Practical initiatives—not rhetoric—will encourage America and its neighbors to find common ground for their collective benefit. The United States must recover its regional credibility by aggressively promoting trade, energy interdependence, technology transfer, and economic growth A stable and prosperous Americas is indispensable to US economic success and security. The region is home to three of the top four foreign sources of energy to the United States, as well as the fastest-growing destinations for US exports and investment. Although access to the US market, investment, technology, and other economic benefits are highly valued by most countries in the Western Hemisphere, today, the United States is no longer the only major partner to choose from Washington will be better positioned to cultivate greater economic and political cooperation among its neighbors, beginning with an open and candid dialogue with the region’s leaders about their vision, their challenges, and their priorities. Partnerships can thus be built on common ground. the United States should: Incentivize capital markets and encourage new and innovative technology cooperation to develop a regional community that is interdependent in the production and distribution of a range of products and services—particularly energy; Address the role of China and Russia in the Americas by encouraging open and transparent regional investment and trade Expanding regional economic cooperation is crucial to US economic growth. An aggressive trade promotion and investment strategy in today’s hypercompetitive, globalized economy is not a policy option; it is an imperative The United States is strategically well-placed to begin a new chapter in trade relations with Latin America. The countries within the Americas are bound by close historical, cultural, familial, and geographic ties, linked by common values and mutual interests. The Western Hemisphere already supplies a quarter of the world’s crude oil, a third of the world’s natural gas, nearly a fourth of its coal, and more than a third of global electricity, while offering tremendous potential for the development of renewable energy technologies. Certainly, many in the US private sector have already discovered the benefits of intrahemispheric economic relationships. High-level official US engagement is imperative to revitalizing existing alliances and developing new partnerships to boost mutual competitiveness Expand exchanges among scientists and engineers with innovator-entrepreneurs and those engaged in private research and development to cross-fertilize and identify commercially viable technology and innovation; Venezuela: Prepare a plan to assist in rehabilitating the oil sector and national infrastructure The potential opportunities and mutual benefits have never been greater for intrahemispheric cooperation. But US policymakers must aggressively seize initiative in turning that potential into reality. Certainly there are challenges and obstacles ahead, but increased economic relationships will take on a dynamic and momentum of their own, and once and for all render obsolete some of the retrograde populist agendas in the Americas.
|
Only direct US engagement can reverse the tide of anti-Americanism-- helps form sustainable partnerships
| 32,527 | 105 | 3,490 | 4,671 | 14 | 501 | 0.002997 | 0.107258 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,559 |
CARACAS, Venezuela--Russia offered to help Venezuela set up its own space industry, including a satellite launch site, as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made his first visit to the South American country on Friday. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced the offer by Russia hours before Mr. Putin arrived, saying officials would discuss the possibility of setting up a "satellite launcher and a factory.'' He didn't give details or say how much that might cost. Russian and Venezuelan officials said they planned to sign new agreements for energy projects in Venezuela, as well as industrial, commercial and agriculture projects. On Friday, a senior Russian oil executive said Russian companies and Venezuela will invest between $60 million and $80 million this year in Venezuela's vast Orinoco heavy-crude belt. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, Venezuela's state oil monopoly, and a Russian consortium, which includes state giant Rosneft OAO and private major Lukoil OAO, agreed in February to set up the project in the belt's Junin 6 field. The deal is part of a massive plan to develop the Orinoco oil belt--considered one of the largest in the world--that is slated to add 2.1 million barrels per day of new production. The two countries are also discussing new weapons deals, Mr. Chávez said in televised remarks, without giving details. Mr. Chávez's government has already bought more than $4 billion in Russian weapons since 2005, including helicopters, fighter jets and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles. Mr. Chávez said last year that Russia agreed to loan Venezuela up to $2.2 billion for additional arms deals. Mr. Chávez also reiterated that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy--a plan he has mentioned previously that has yet to take shape. "We aren't going to make an atomic bomb, but we are going to develop atomic energy with peaceful aims,'' he said. Mr. Chávez, whose country is a major oil exporter and member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said, "We have to prepare ourselves for the post-oil era.'' The Venezuelan leader has grown increasingly close to Russia, Iran and China while criticizing U.S. policies, and his calls for countering U.S. influence to create a "multipolar world'' have found resonance in Moscow. The U.S. State Department poked fun at Mr. Chávez's suggestion that Venezuela may set up a space industry with Russian help. "We would note that the government of Venezuela was largely closed this week due to energy shortages,'' State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters. "To the extent that Venezuela is going to expend resources on behalf of its people, perhaps the focus should be more terrestrial than extraterrestrial.'' Worsening electricity shortages prompted Mr. Chávez's government to decree public holidays throughout this week to save energy. A severe drought has pushed water levels to precarious lows in the dam that supplies most of Venezuela's electricity. Some political analysts in Moscow say Russia is drawn to Venezuela because of the its anti-U.S. rhetoric, though business deals have helped cement the growing relationship between the two countries. ``The only thing that really unites Russia and Venezuela is that they don't want to see a unipolar world,'' dominated by the U.S., said Sergei Mikheyev, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies, adding that President Barack Obama's administration hasn't done enough to lure Moscow away from Caracas. Obama says he is committed to a ``reset'' of the U.S. relationship with Russia, but Mikheyev said ``the Americans haven't compromised with Russia on any significant issue ... so it makes no sense for them (the Russians) to change priorities.'' Mikheyev noted that the United States has so far failed to react to Russia's plea to cut drug traffic from Afghanistan to Russia's Central Asian borders. Russia has also spent years trying to convince the U.S. to scrap Cold War measures that have restricted U.S.-Russia trade. Venezuela is also a very lucrative arms and technology market, and Mikheyev said ``without the business involved, the anti-American rhetoric wouldn't be enough to unite Russia and Venezuela''.
|
Wall Street Journal, 10 (“Russia, Venezuela Strengthen Ties”, Dow Jones & Company Inc, 4-3-10, Proquest, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/abicomplete/docview/237987651/13F777572582BD7D55F/24?accountid=14667)//KG
|
Russia offered to help Venezuela set up its own space industry, including a satellite launch site, as Putin made his first visit to the South American country Chávez announced the offer by Russia hours before Mr. Putin arrived, saying officials would discuss the possibility of setting up a "satellite launcher and a factory.' Russian and Venezuelan officials said they planned to sign new agreements for energy projects in Venezuela, as well as industrial, commercial and agriculture projects Russian companies and Venezuela will invest between $60 million and $80 million this year in Venezuela's vast Orinoco heavy-crude belt The two countries are also discussing new weapons deals Chávez's government has already bought more than $4 billion in Russian weapons since 2005, including helicopters, fighter jets and rifles. Russia agreed to loan Venezuela up to $2.2 billion for additional arms deals Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy The Venezuelan leader has grown increasingly close to Russia, Iran and China while criticizing U.S. policies, and his calls for countering U.S. influence to create a "multipolar world'' have found resonance in Moscow Some political analysts in Moscow say Russia is drawn to Venezuela because of the its anti-U.S. rhetoric, though business deals have helped cement the growing relationship between the two countries The only thing that really unites Russia and Venezuela is that they don't want to see a unipolar world Venezuela is also a very lucrative arms and technology market, and Mikheyev said ``without the business involved, the anti-American rhetoric wouldn't be enough to unite Russia and Venezuela''
|
Business deals facilitate Russian expansionism – only increased U.S. engagement can crowd out Russia
| 4,173 | 101 | 1,660 | 658 | 14 | 256 | 0.021277 | 0.389058 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,560 |
Tactics and Instruments of Russian Foreign Policy This does not mean that Russia has no intrinsic interests in Latin America. Those interests are commercial and political, with the former being a means to secure first commercial and then political interests (e.g., using Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua) to counter U.S. influence in Latin America. In support of those interests, Russian presidential and ministerial statements concerning their and Latin American visits display a remarkable similarity. The discussion always revolves around trade, mainly in commodities but also, if possible, in high-tech and industrial products; energy deals whereby Russia either invests in the other state’s energy firms or explores for energy there; attempts to gain leverage for each side’s investment in the other’s country; Russian offers of arms sales and space-launch services (particularly to Brazil and Venezuela); arms sales (particularly to Venezuela and like-minded states like Bolivia); and Russian leaders’ habitual rhetorical invocation of a congruence or identity of interests with their interlocutors on current issues in world politics, especially construction of a multipolar world order.42 The turn to leftism in several Latin American states since 2006, combined with growing awareness of both China’s penetration of the region and Latin American economic opportunities, generated Russia’s efforts to make its anti-American campaign appear to conform with Latin American interests.43 Likewise, comments highlighting an identity of views on key elements of this vaunted multipolarity routinely appear in joint communiques of foreign ministers and presidents.44 Latin American economic integration through MERCOSUR allegedly appeals to Russia, but mainly because it supposedly points to support for a multipolar world.45 This dichotomy between a professed economic agenda and serious efforts to make deals with Latin American states, and Moscow’s increasingly transparent strategic objectives, appeared during Medvedev’s 2008 trip. His private talks seemingly emphasized trade opportunities, but his public rhetoric strongly stressed hopes for Latin American support for a multipolar world.46 Russian-Venezuelan cooperation allows Russia to undercut U.S. influence CBS News, 12 (“Russian Warships Cruise Into Venezuela”, 3-14-09, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-4632489.html)//KG Russian warships sailed into a Venezuelan port Tuesday, greeted by a 21-gun salute and an eager welcome from President Hugo Chavez as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. Russians sailors dressed in black-and-white uniforms lined up along the bow of the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko as it docked in La Guaira, near Caracas. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas - the first ever by a Russian president. For the past six months, it seems that Medvedev has been working hard to dismantle his liberal image and revive memories of the Cold War, reports CBS News' Alexsei Kuznetsov. Chavez, basking in the support of a powerful ally and traditional U.S. rival, wants Russian help to build a nuclear reactor, invest in oil and natural gas projects and bolster his leftist opposition to U.S. influence in Latin America. Chavez also wants weapons - he has bought more than $4 billion in Russian arms, including Sukhoi fighter jets, helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and more deals for Russian tanks or other weaponry may be discussed after Medvedev arrives Wednesday. Russia's deployment of the naval squadron - the behemoth flagship Peter the Great, the missile destroyer and two support vessels - is widely seen as a demonstration of Kremlin anger over the U.S. decision to send warships to deliver aid to Georgia after its battles with Russia, and U.S. plans for a European missile-defense system. But Bush administration officials mocked the show of force. "Are they accompanied by tugboats this time?" U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack joked to reporters in Washington. He noted that Russia's navy is but a shadow of its Soviet-era fleet, and reasserted U.S. dominance in Latin America. "I don't think there's any question about ... who the region looks to in terms of political, economic, diplomatic and as well as military power," McCormack said. "If the Venezuelans and the Russians want to have, you know, a military exercise, that's fine. But we'll obviously be watching it very closely." Venezuelan sailors stood at attention along the pier where the destroyer docked, while two support ships also pulled into port. The Peter the Great, the largest ship in the Russian fleet, anchored offshore in the distance due to its size. When Russia sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela in September, some drew comparisons to the Soviet Union's deployments to Cuba during the Cold War. But both countries have also shown signs of trying to engage President-elect Barack Obama. And Chavez told reporters that it's ludicrous to invoke the Cold War to describe the naval exercises beginning Dec. 1. "It's not a provocation. It's an exchange between two free countries," Chavez said. Russia's ambitions to make inroads in Latin America may be checked by global events. Both Venezuela and Russia are feeling the pinch of slumping oil prices, and their ability to be major benefactors for like-minded leaders is in doubt given the pressures of the world's financial crisis. The maneuvers starting Dec. 1 "should be viewed largely as a propaganda exercise," said Anna Gilmour, an analyst at Jane's Intelligence Review. "Pragmatic Russian policy suggests that it will content itself with a brief high-profile visit, rather than a longer-term deployment that could cause severe tensions with the U.S., at a time when Russia may be looking to re-engage with the new administration," she said. Next week, the warships will participate in exercises enabling sailors to practice reconnaissance, anti-drug patrols, anti-terrorism and search and rescue operations. There will also be anti-aircraft exercises involving Venezuela's newly bought Sukhoi fighter jets, though no live ammunition will be used, Rear Adm. Luis Morales Marquez said. He said two of the Sukhois welcomed the ships with a flyover early Tuesday as they neared the coast. Medvedev's tour this week to Peru, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba was planned before the financial crisis, and Russia must now downsize its ambitions in Latin America because its pockets are no longer so deep, said Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor of Russia in Global Affairs Magazine. "Russia will have to put off big projects like the construction of a gas pipeline across South America," Lukyanov said. The proposed natural gas pipeline is Chavez's brainchild, a controversial and ambitious plan for which he has explored Russian investment. But Russia still has an economic interest in selling more weapons and boosting business in Latin America, and Venezuela can help "open the doors," noted Venezuelan political scientist Ricardo Sucre Heredia. "It's a win-win relationship for the two countries," Sucre said. "Russia gains in terms of its international power and its presence, and Venezuela gains in terms of having an ally."
|
Blank, 10 --- Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (4/13/2010, Stephen J., “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf, JMP)
|
This does not mean that Russia has no intrinsic interests in Latin America. Those interests are commercial and political, with the former being a means to secure first commercial and then political interests using Venezuela to counter U.S. influence in Latin America. In support of those interests, Russian presidential and ministerial statements concerning their and Latin American visits display a remarkable similarity. The discussion always revolves around trade, mainly in commodities but also, if possible, in energy deals whereby Russia either invests in the other state’s energy firms or explores for energy there This dichotomy between a professed economic agenda and serious efforts to make deals with Latin American states, and Moscow’s increasingly transparent strategic objectives, appeared during Medvedev’s 2008 trip. His private talks seemingly emphasized trade opportunities, but his public rhetoric strongly stressed hopes for Latin American support for a multipolar world. Russian warships sailed into a Venezuelan port greeted by a 21-gun salute and an eager welcome as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War Chavez, basking in the support of a powerful ally and traditional U.S. rival, wants Russian help to build a nuclear reactor, invest in oil and natural gas projects bolster his leftist opposition to U.S. influence in Latin America Chavez also wants weapons - he has bought more than $4 billion in Russian arms, Russia's deployment of the naval squadron is widely seen as a demonstration of Kremlin anger over the U.S. decision to send warships to deliver aid to Georgia If the Venezuelans and the Russians want to have a military exercise, that's fine. But we'll obviously be watching it very closely When Russia sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela in September, some drew comparisons to the Soviet Union's deployments to Cuba during the Cold War the warships will participate in exercises enabling sailors to practice reconnaissance, anti-drug patrols, anti-terrorism and search and rescue operations. Russia has an economic interest in selling more weapons and boosting business in Latin America, and Venezuela can help "open the doors, It's a win-win relationship for the two countries Russia gains in terms of its international power and its presence, and Venezuela gains in terms of having an ally
|
Challenging Russia on the economic front is critical --- it uses commercial ties and energy deals to secure its political interests
| 7,288 | 131 | 2,426 | 1,115 | 21 | 379 | 0.018834 | 0.33991 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,561 |
Nevertheless, Russia's activities in the region cannot be ignored. Prime Minister Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have said that "Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in the chain of the multipolar world that is forming."" And while neither Russia nor Venezuela will challenge the US militarily, e.g. with Russian bases in Cuba, their individual and collective goals entail the substantial worsening of East-West relations and of the acute instabilities already existing on the continent. Moscow's purposes in engaging Latin America economically and diplomatically have developed from the concept formulated by Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov in 1997 when he visited Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica. At that time, Primakov stated that as a great power Russia should naturally have ties with all continents and all regions in the world. Continuing this policy, then President Putin wrote in a 2001 telegram to participants in a conference on Latin America that political dialogue and economic links with the region were important and would be mutually beneficial. He cited the establishment of links in science, education, and culture as particular areas of focus." Finally in 2006 Lavrov wrote that: "In recent years the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean Basin (LACB) occupy an increasingly noticeable place in the system of contemporary international relations. Our contacts with them […] are an important component of the international efforts of Russia in tackling the problems common to the entire world community. Thus the quest for great power status vis-a-vis Washington and for a multipolar world that constrains American ability to upset Moscow's concept of global and regional strategic stability drives Russian policy. To those ends Russia uses areas of comparative economic advantage (energy, arms sales, space launches, sales of nuclear reactors) to leverage political support for Russian positions against American interests. Russian interest in recovering or gaining positions in Latin America preceded the more recent notion that it will show the US that if it intervenes in the CIS Moscow can reciprocate in Latin America. That idea has only become possible by virtue of Russia's recovery in 2000-08 and the corresponding and coinciding decline of US power and prestige due to the Bush Administration's disastrous policies. The current economic crisis plus new policies from the Obama Administration should lead to less public emphasis on that particular rationale for Russian policy in Latin America. Instead Moscow may attempt to identify its foreign policy with the clear preference of Latin American security elites for the following principles: -Latin America should be impervious to challenges to security outside the region and should respect the principles of international law as established in the charters of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN). -Any initiative for the employment of joint forces (with the US or other states) must comply with decisions of the UN. Integration initiatives must similarly be based on shared multilateral objectives, e.g. opposition to unilateral operations involving the use of force." While these points accord with Russian rhetoric, Latin American elites overwhelmingly prefer cooperation with the US based on its acceptance of their needs and interests, as well as genuine appreciation of their views. They do not want to be pawns in a new version of the cold war." Indeed, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently expressed his hope that President Obama will implement a "preferential" relationship with Latin America.
|
Blank, 9 - Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (Stephen, “Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood”, Ifri, April 2009, www.ifri.org/downloads/ifriblankrussiaandlatinamericaengapril09.pdf)//KG
|
Russia's activities in the region cannot be ignored Putin have said that "Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in the chain of the multipolar world that is forming. Moscow's purposes in engaging Latin America economically and diplomatically have developed the quest for great power status vis-a-vis Washington and for a multipolar world that constrains American ability to upset Moscow's concept of global and regional strategic stability drives Russian policy Russia uses areas of comparative economic advantage energy, arms sales to leverage political support for Russian positions against American interests. Russian interest in recovering or gaining positions in Latin America preceded the more recent notion that it will show the US that if it intervenes in the CIS Moscow can reciprocate in Latin America.
|
Economic ties allows for Russian expansionism
| 3,672 | 45 | 818 | 561 | 6 | 124 | 0.010695 | 0.221034 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,562 |
MOSCOW—Somewhere in the North Atlantic, a squadron of Russian warships is steering toward the Caribbean. Led by the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, the ships are on their way to joint naval exercises with Venezuela. U.S. officials say they'll be watching when the vessels finally arrive in a few weeks. Russia has beefed up its presence in Latin America in recent months, inking military and business deals amid a drive to reassert its status as a major world power. "Russia is adopting the course that any superpower should have," says Boris Martynov, deputy director of Moscow's Institute of Latin America. Latin America seems an obvious partner. Russia's relations with the West are strained following the Georgia conflict, while some left-leaning governments in the region, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, are looking for allies after clashing with the United States. But it's up for debate what Russia truly wants in the region and whether it has the capacity to become a major player there. This is not the first time Russians have sought close links with Latin America. In 1962, the stationing of Soviet missiles in Cuba nearly precipitated nuclear war with the United States. The Soviets also funded regional communist parties and invited students from the region to study in Soviet universities. But after the 1991 Soviet collapse, Russia broke off most of its ties. The recent developments are one more sign of its oil-fueled resurgence, which has only recently been slowed by the global credit crunch. The upcoming naval exercises will be the first time since the end of the Cold War that Russia has had a major military presence in the Caribbean. They follow a training visit to Venezuela by two Russian bombers in September. Russia will also provide Venezuela with a $1 billion military loan, and President Hugo Chá vez, who has visited Russia twice since June, has said Russian and Venezuelan oil and gas producers will form a global energy "colossus." Meanwhile, a top Russian minister close to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Igor Sechin, traveled to Latin America to bolster links with Cuba, where Russia has said it will build a space center, and Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the only country apart from Russia to have recognized the independence from Georgia of the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In the energy sphere, state-owned gas firm Gazprom announced in September that it plans to invest $4.5 billion in a Bolivian natural gas project along with French firm Total. It also intends to participate in the Venezuelan and Brazilian sections of a pipeline that will cross the South American continent. Still, it's not yet clear whether Russia's involvement in Latin America is more about furthering its own global ambitions or about sending a message to the United States, which Russia considers to have interfered in its sphere of interest during the August conflict with Georgia. Russia is partly motivated by a desire to regain the global influence it lost after the Soviet collapse. In this vein, it has also been fostering ties with Iran, resumed the long-range air patrols over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans that ended with the Soviet Union, and even dispatched a warship to Somalia after a Ukrainian boat carrying 33 tanks was seized by pirates there in September. Links with Latin America may also help further Russia's aim of becoming a counterweight to the United States on the international stage. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have criticized the United States for causing the financial crisis and fostering global instability, particularly as a result of the Iraq war. Additional sore points are U.S. involvement in the Georgia conflict and the missile defense system it plans for eastern Europe. And, like the United States and China, Russia hopes to benefit from Latin America's raw materials and energy deposits. All of this plays into the hands of the left-leaning Latin American nations that are looking to pull out of the United States' orbit. U.S.-Venezuelan tensions have ratcheted up since Chávez came to power, and in September, Bolivia expelled the U.S. ambassador after accusing the United States of fomenting unrest in the country.
|
Gee, 8 - San Francisco-based journalist and has written for the Economist, the New York Times, and the Lancet (Alastair, “How Russia Is Trying to Regain Influence in Latin America”, US News, 10-14-08, http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/10/14/how-russia-is-trying-to-regain-influence-in-latin-america)//KG
|
a squadron of Russian warships is steering toward the Caribbean. Led by the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, the ships are on their way to joint naval exercises with Venezuela Russia has beefed up its presence in Latin America inking military and business deals amid a drive to reassert its status as a major world power Russia is adopting the course that any superpower should have Latin America seems an obvious partner left-leaning governments in the region, such as Venezuela are looking for allies after clashing with the United States The recent developments are one more sign of its oil-fueled resurgence, which has only recently been slowed by the global credit crunch The upcoming naval exercises will be the first time since the end of the Cold War that Russia has had a major military presence in the Caribbean Russia will also provide Venezuela with a $1 billion military loan Chá vez has said Russian and Venezuelan oil and gas producers will form a global energy "colossus it's not yet clear whether Russia's involvement in Latin America is more about furthering its own global ambitions or about sending a message to the United States Russia is partly motivated by a desire to regain the global influence it lost after the Soviet collapse Links with Latin America may also help further Russia's aim of becoming a counterweight to the United States on the international stage Putin have criticized the United States for causing the financial crisis and fostering global instability, All of this plays into the hands of the left-leaning Latin American nations that are looking to pull out of the United States' orbit
|
Venezuela critical to Russian expansion in Latin America
| 4,239 | 57 | 1,645 | 690 | 8 | 274 | 0.011594 | 0.397101 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,563 |
<Similarly Putin also stated that “Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in the chain of the multipolar world that is forming – we will pay more and more attention to this vector of our economic and foreign policy.”9As before, energy and arms sales are the main instruments of this foreign policy. The biggest recent deal concerns Brazil, not surprisingly, in view of the aforementioned “strategic partnership.” In July, the Russian oil company TNK-BP bought 45% of the Petra Energia project in the Amazonian micro-region of Alto-Solimões for about $1 billion. This project comprises 21 exploration blocks over an area of about 48,000 square kilometers in the Solimões river basin in the upper reaches of the Amazon, 11 of which are already being exploited.10 Paraguay, the least-explored Latin American country for hydrocarbons, just sent a delegation to the Russian company Gazprom 3which is interested in forming a joint venture with the Paraguayan state-run company Petropar, should it find reserves. Money is allegedly no object and Gazprom is ready to conduct all phases of the operation: exploration, exploitation, transport and commercialization. Gazprom has already established joint ventures (JVs) with Bolivia and Venezuela, and its Bolivian deal could possibly give it entrée into Brazil’s electricity market.11 Beyond existing deals, Gazprom is also eyeing a 20% stake in Bolivia’s ACERO project and mulling “joint energy projects” with Peru.12 More broadly in the Russia’s relation plans with Latin America economic sphere, Russia is one of the states with which Ecuador is currently negotiating for loans.>
|
Blank 11 – Professor of Strategic Studies at United States Army War College (August 18, 2011, “Russia’s Second Wind in Latin America” https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Perspectives_on_the_Americas/Blank-Latam2011-FINAL.pdf)
|
Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in the chain of the multipolar world we will pay more and more attention to this vector of our economic and foreign policy. in view of the aforementioned “strategic partnership.” More broadly in the Russia’s relation plans with Latin America economic sphere, Russia is one of the states with which Ecuador is currently negotiating for loans.
|
Latin America provides a critical role in Russia’s quest for a multipolar world
| 1,627 | 80 | 385 | 251 | 13 | 63 | 0.051793 | 0.250996 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,564 |
Nonetheless, Russia does have genuine interests in Latin America. Those interests are commercial and political: the former being a means to secure the latter. In regard to Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua those interests are more strategic and overtly aimed at countering US influence in Latin America. Whether visiting the region or hosting Latin American officials in Moscow, Russian officials take every opportunity to make rhetorical declarations on a congruence or identity of interests with their interlocutors on current issues in world politics, including construction of a multipolar world order." In all cases discussion revolves around the following issues: trade, mainly in commodities but in high-tech and industrial products where possible; energy, whereby Russia either invests in the other state's energy firms or explores for resources there; attempts to gain leverage for each sides' investment in the other's country; Russian offers of arms sales and space launch services (particularly to Brazil and Venezuela). Russia’s anti-American campaign appeared to conform with Latin American interests, as a result of the turn to leftism in several Latin American states beginning around 2006, combined with growing awareness of China’s penetration of the region and Latin American economic opportunities. Latin American economic integration through MERCOSUR allegedly appeals to Russia, but mainly because it implies support for a multipolar world." This dichotomy between a professed economic agenda with serious efforts to sign deals with Latin American states and the increasingly transparent strategic objectives was equally visible during Medvedev's 2008 trip. Medvedev's private talks appear to have emphasized trade opportunities, but his public rhetoric expressed hopes for Latin American support for a multipolar world." To support this economic and strategic agenda Moscow has made extensive economic overtures to Latin American governments. Russia has offered them all deals with respect to oil, gas, nuclear energy, uranium mining, electricity generation, weapons sales, high-tech defense technology, agriculture and cooperation with regard to space. The geographical scope of these offers covers the whole Latin American world from Mexico, Cuba, and Trinidad in the Caribbean to Argentina and Chile in the South although the mixture of goods and services under consideration naturally varies from state to state.
|
Blank, 9 - Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (Stephen, “Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood”, Ifri, April 2009, www.ifri.org/downloads/ifriblankrussiaandlatinamericaengapril09.pdf)//KG
|
Russia does have genuine interests in Latin America. Those interests are commercial and political: the former being a means to secure the latter In regard to Venezuela those interests are more strategic and overtly aimed at countering US influence in Latin America Russian officials take every opportunity to make rhetorical declarations on a congruence or identity of interests with their interlocutors on current issues in world politics, including construction of a multipolar world order. energy, whereby Russia either invests in the other state's energy firms or explores for resources there Russian offers of arms sales and space launch services Russia’s anti-American campaign appeared to conform with Latin American interests public rhetoric expressed hopes for Latin American support for a multipolar world To support this economic and strategic agenda Moscow has made extensive economic overtures to Latin American governments. Russia has offered them all deals with respect to oil, gas, nuclear energy weapons sales, high-tech defense technology,
|
Ties with Venezuela allow Russia to counter US influence in Latin America
| 2,436 | 73 | 1,057 | 354 | 12 | 156 | 0.033898 | 0.440678 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,565 |
MOSCOW – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Latin America needs strong friendship with Russia to help reduce U.S. influence and keep peace in the region. The interview aired as a Russian Navy squadron prepared to sail to Venezuela. Venezuela recently hosted a pair of Russian strategic bombers and is preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise with Russia. Russian media say Chavez plans to visit Moscow Friday, his second trip in just over two months. "Not only Venezuela, but Latin America as a whole, needs friends like Russia now as we are shedding this (U.S.) domination," Chavez told Russia's Vesti 24 television. "We need Russia for economic and social development, for all-around support, for the life of the peoples of our continent, for peace." During the Cold War, Latin America became an ideological battleground between the Soviet Union and the United States. The Kremlin has moved to intensify contacts with Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American nations amid increasingly strained relations with Washington after last month's war between Russia and Georgia. The weeklong deployment of a pair of Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venezuela — and the plan to send a navy squadron there — mark a projection of Russian military power to the Western Hemisphere unprecedented since the Cold War. The nuclear-powered Peter the Great missile cruiser, accompanied by three other ships of Russia's Northern Fleet, was preparing to sail from its base on a cruise that will include a joint exercise with the Venezuelan Navy, Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said on Vesti 24 television. The RIA Novosti news agency quoted the Northern Fleet command as saying the ships will likely leave early Monday. Russian officials had said earlier that the squadron was to head to Venezuela in November. They would not explain the change. Russia's intensifying military contact with Venezuela appears to be a response to the U.S. dispatch to Georgia of warships carrying aid after its war with Russia. Russian officials harshly criticized the U.S. deployment to Georgia's Black Sea coast. President Dmitry Medvedev warned this month that Russia could follow its dispatch of bombers to Venezuela by deploying forces to other friendly nations. Under Chavez, Venezuela has cultivated close ties with Moscow and placed big orders for Russian jets, helicopters and other weapons. Chavez has repeatedly warned that the U.S. poses a threat to Venezuela. Russia has signed weapons contracts worth more than US$4 billion with Venezuela since 2005 to supply Sukhoi fighter jets, Mi-17 helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. Chavez's government is in talks to buy Russian submarines, air defense systems and armored vehicles and more Sukhoi jets. Russian and Venezuelan leaders have also talked about boosting cooperation in the energy sphere to create what Chavez has called "a new strategic energy alliance." Russian companies Gazprom and Lukoil have signed agreements with Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA to jointly explore several Orinoco fields. Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who visited Venezuela last week, announced that five of Russia's biggest oil companies are looking to form a consortium to increase Latin American operations. State-controlled Rosneft, Lukoil, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP hope to build a US$6.5 billion refinery to process Venezuela's tar-like heavy crude. Such an investment could help Venezuela, the world's ninth-biggest oil producer, wean itself from the U.S. refineries on which it depends to process much of its crude. Already, Chavez has moved to reduce the involvement of private companies, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, while striking new oil development agreements with state companies from Iran and China. "The level of our development allows us to conduct strategic projects in Latin America," Sechin said in remarks broadcast Sunday on Vesti 24 television. And he warned the United States that it should not view the region as its own backyard: "It would be wrong to talk about one nation having exclusive rights to this zone.”
|
Associated Press, 08 (“Chavez: Latin America Needs Russia to Reduce U.S. Influence, Keep Peace”, Fox News, 9-21-08, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/21/chavez-latin-america-needs-russia-to-reduce-us-influence-keep-peace/)//KG
|
Chavez said that Latin America needs strong friendship with Russia to help reduce U.S. influence and keep peace in the region Venezuela recently hosted a pair of Russian strategic bombers and is preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise with Russia Not only Venezuela, but Latin America as a whole, needs friends like Russia now as we are shedding this (U.S.) domination We need Russia for economic and social development, for all-around support, for the life of the peoples of our continent, for peace During the Cold War Latin America became an ideological battleground between the Soviet Union and the United States The Kremlin has moved to intensify contacts with Venezuela amid increasingly strained relations with Washington The deployment of a pair of Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venez mark a projection of Russian military power to the Western Hemisphere unprecedented since the Cold War Russia's intensifying military contact with Venezuela appears to be a response to the U.S. dispatch to Georgia of warships carrying aid after its war with Russia Russia could follow its dispatch of bombers to Venezuela by deploying forces to other friendly nations , Venezuela has cultivated close ties with Moscow and placed big orders for Russian jets, helicopters and other weapons Russia has signed weapons contracts worth more than US$4 billion with Venezuela since 2005 to supply Sukhoi fighter jets, Mi-17 helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles Russian and Venezuelan leaders have also talked about boosting cooperation in the energy sphere to create what Chavez has called "a new strategic energy alliance. Such an investment could help Venezuela wean itself from the U.S. refineries on which it depends to process much of its crude. The level of our development allows us to conduct strategic projects in Latin America he warned the United States that it should not view the region as its own backyard
|
Russian expansionism with Venezuela show attempts to counter US influence in Latin America
| 4,166 | 90 | 1,921 | 651 | 13 | 308 | 0.019969 | 0.473118 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,566 |
President Dmitriy Medvedev made a tour 22-27 November of countries of Latin America. Having taken part in the APEC summit in Peru, he visited Brazil, Venezuela, and Cuba. The tour was of very different levels: the Russian leader endeavoured within it to contribute to the unification of efforts in the fight against the world financial crisis and the expansion of energy cooperation and also to interaction in the military and military-technical spheres. Among the countries that Medvedev visited there are both those that are radically anti-American (Venezuela and Cuba) and those controlled by centre-left governments that distance themselves from the United States, but have no intention of marring relations with the Americans - Peru and Brazil. The tour was seen by observers as Russia's return to Latin America, which harmonizes perfectly with Russia's overall foreign-policy concept: furtherance of the formation of a multipolar world, countermeasures to "US hegemony," Russia's consolidation on premier world markets, and the expansion of export possibilities. The "return" to Latin America is infused with both geopolitical (Russia's arrival in a region that is particularly "sensitive" for the United States as an "symmetrical response" to the United States for the presence on the post-Soviet territory), and important economic, meaning. This was initiated under Putin, when he, as president, also made a tour of Latin American countries. Now the Russian regime is attempting to develop this vector at a new level. Several areas of Russia's cooperation with Latin American countries simultaneously have been actively developed against this background. Primarily power industry. The governmental steward of the Latin American direction is now Deputy Premier Igor Sechin, which has to do primarily with Russia's aspiration to become established in the region economically (chiefly via the fuel and energy complex). Responsible in the cabinet for the real sector (aside from the military-industrial complex), Sechin has taken up in the earnest the promotion of the energy and other projects of the biggest Russian producers. Brazil is of interest from the perspective of the as yet unexplored oil reserves on Brazil's marine shelf. But energy relations are being developed more actively for the time being with Venezuela - the biggest oil producer. The central topic of energy cooperation was the plan for the formation of an energy consortium promoted by Igor Sechin. The consortium is being formed by Russian oil companies, primarily for operations in Venezuela (exploration for and recovery of energy resources). The head of the RF Ministry of Energy said earlier that the Venezuelan PDVSA national company would have the controlling interest in the consortium, Russia would be represented by the Big Five energy companies: Gazprom, Rosneft, LUKOIL, TNK-BP, and Surgutneftegaz. Igor Sechin subsequently specified that "this consortium could tackle projects in third countries also, the companies are considering the possibility of cooperation with Cuba as well, and this is a pretty darn good structure, in my opinion."
|
BBC Worldwide Limited, 08 - the commercial arm of the BBC for media and entertainment (“Latin America no longer just part of US-Russia game – website”, BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, 12-4-08, Proquest, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/abicomplete/docview/460459398/13F72D736344C819FE5/1?accountid=14667)//KG
|
The tour the Russian leader endeavoured within it to contribute to the expansion of energy cooperation and also to interaction in the military and military-technical spheres Among the countries that Medvedev visited are radically anti-American (Venezuela The tour was seen by observers as Russia's return to Latin America, which harmonizes perfectly with Russia's overall foreign-policy concept: furtherance of the formation of a multipolar world, countermeasures to "US hegemony Russia's arrival in a region that is particularly "sensitive" for the United States as an "symmetrical response" to the United States for the presence on the post-Soviet territory Several areas of Russia's cooperation with Latin American countries simultaneously have been actively developed against this background Primarily power industry energy relations are being developed more actively for the time being with Venezuela - the biggest oil producer The central topic of energy cooperation was the plan for the formation of an energy consortium promoted The consortium is being formed by Russian oil companies, primarily for operations in Venezuela
|
Increased Russian ties attempt to counterbalance US hegemony in the region
| 3,130 | 74 | 1,131 | 477 | 11 | 165 | 0.023061 | 0.345912 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,567 |
Emboldened by Venezuela’s vast oil resources and his close relationship with Iran and Russia, Chávez has laid claim to the leadership of the anti-American movement in the region. The collapse of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro’s illness and Cuba’s weak economy thrusted the leadership of Latin America’s left onto Chávez. If Fidel was the godfather of revolutionary/terrorist/anti-American groups, Chávez is the trusted “capo.” The Venezuelan leader has manipulated past elections, and will manipulate future ones. He is increasingly deepening his Bolivarian revolution by weakening and subverting Venezuela’s democratic institutions. At best, Venezuela’s weapons purchases from Russia are leading to a major arms race in the region, with Colombia acquiring U.S. weapons and Brazil turning to France. Other countries, such as Ecuador and Peru, are also spending their much-needed resources in the acquisition of weapons. A coalition of Venezuela and its allies, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, may develop into a club of well-armed, anti-American regimes exercising influence in the region by intimidating its neighbors. Over the years, U.S. policy has either ignored or mildly chastised Chávez for his extremism. That policy is no longer viable or prudent. The United States needs to develop policies that undermine the Chávez regime, organize the opposition and accelerate the end of his rule. Covert operations to strengthen opposition groups and civil society need to be implemented. Vigilance and denunciation of Venezuelan-Iranian activities and Chávez’s meddling in Colombia and elsewhere are critical to gain international support for U.S. policies.
|
Suchlicki, 12 - director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami (Jaime, “Iran’s influence in Venezuela: Washington should worry”, InterAmerican Security Watch, 8-6-12, http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/irans-influence-in-venezuela-washington-should-worry/)//KG
|
Emboldened by Venezuela’s vast oil resources and his close relationship with Russia, Chávez has laid claim to the leadership of the anti-American movement in the region If Fidel was the godfather of revolutionary/terrorist/anti-American groups, Chávez is the trusted “capo ” The Venezuelan leader has manipulated past elections, and will manipulate future ones. He is subverting Venezuela’s democratic institutions Venezuela’s weapons purchases from Russia are leading to a major arms race in the region, with Colombia acquiring U.S. weapons and Brazil turning to France Other countries, such as Ecuador and Peru, are also spending their much-needed resources in the acquisition of weapons A coalition of Venezuela and its allies may develop into a club of well-armed, anti-American regimes exercising influence in the region by intimidating its neighbors. Over the years, U.S. policy has either ignored or mildly chastised Chávez for his extremism. That policy is no longer viable
|
Weapons from Russia lead to arms race escalation in Latin America
| 1,662 | 65 | 981 | 244 | 11 | 147 | 0.045082 | 0.602459 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,568 |
Table 1 shows the military expenditures of each Latin American state, in millions of U.S. dollars. As can be observed, the highest proportion of the military expenditures within Latin America for the period of 1996 through 2006, is concentrated within the following nation-states: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. This could lead some scholars to think that there is not a general arms race underway in this region. However, the fact that the military expenditures are concentrated within just a few countries is not a reason to ignore these increases. Some nation-states, such as Chile, have increased military spending in constant dollars during this time period by 114.5 percent. Venezuela increased its spending by 76 percent followed by Columbia with 64.7 percent. Even a mini-arms race may exacerbate tensions between Latin American nations, making it easier for minor disputes to escalate to war. On other hand, if increasing military expenses never result in war, this expense constitutes a waste of resources that these nation-states could redirect to problems such as poverty and starvation. There are differing opinions about whether or not the percentage of GDP within Latin American states wasted on weapons is meaningful. Some researchers tend to belittle the importance of military expenditures within this region. Obviously, it is relatively small in comparison to the world’s spending for military purposes. Table 2 illustrates the economic effort spent for building military capacity. This indicator is better than the first because it measures the nation’s economic effort in military expenditures as a proportion of its total economic capability. Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that differences exist between the development levels within the Latin American nation-states. By focusing on the group of nation-states in Table 1 that have the biggest military expenditures, note that the Venezuelan military expenditures, as a percentage of its GDP, has increased 80 percent while this indicator remains almost constant by the other countries. The third indicator, shown in Table 3, measures the military expenditures related to these Latin American countries based on population size. Some nation-states have decreased their ratio during this time period: Argentina, 73 percent, Paraguay, 50 percent; and Uruguay, 30 percent. Other nation-states, however, have increased their spending per capita during the same time period: Chile, 111 percent; Colombia, 47.7 percent; Ecuador, 85 percent; and Venezuela, 79 percent.
|
Molero, 9 – Ball State University (Luis Nava, “Factors Affecting Increasing Military Expenditures in Latin America, 1996-2006”, Indiana Journal of Political Science, Winter 2008/2009, http://www.indianapsa.org/2008/article6.pdf)//KG
|
the highest proportion of the military expenditures within Latin America is concentrated within the following nation-states Venezuela. This could lead some scholars to think that there is not a general arms race underway in this region. the fact that the military expenditures are concentrated within just a few countries is not a reason to ignore these increases Venezuela increased its spending by 76 percent Even a mini-arms race may exacerbate tensions between Latin American nations, making it easier for minor disputes to escalate to war if increasing military expenses never result in war, this expense constitutes a waste of resources that these nation-states could redirect to problems such as poverty and starvation Some researchers tend to belittle the importance of military expenditures within this region Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that differences exist between the development levels within the Latin American nation-states Venezuelan military expenditures has increased 80 percent
|
Latin American arms races escalate to war
| 2,570 | 41 | 1,004 | 387 | 7 | 150 | 0.018088 | 0.387597 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,569 |
For the American political and media establishment, US-Russian relations always begin yesterday—without the pre-history of the relationship and thus without its essential political context. Of this we now have a new and increasingly dangerous example. As Washington and Moscow sink deeper into another familiar cold war–like conflict, this time over Syria, American policy-makers and commentators, Democrats and Republicans alike, declare that President Obama’s “reset” of relations with Moscow has failed. With equal unanimity, they blame only Moscow, in particular President Vladimir Putin, while entirely deleting Washington’s longstanding role in the deteriorating relationship, as they have done for more than a decade. But as I pointed out in this Nation article a year ago, Obama’s reset was all but doomed from inception because it was based on the same bipartisan, winner-take-all triumphalism that had guided US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since the 1990s. As before, Obama’s “new” policy meant “selective cooperation”—that is, concessions from Moscow without US reciprocity. Until the US-Russian conflict over Syria erupted this year, the Obama White House wanted three major concessions from the Kremlin as part of the reset: support in the US confrontation with Iran (new negotiations are under way in Moscow this week); assistance in supplying NATO forces in Afghanistan; and then withholding Russia’s veto of a UN Security Council resolution for a “no-fly zone” over Libya. The Obama administration got all three concessions. In return, Moscow wanted a compromise on the administration’s plan to place missile defense installations near Russia’s borders; an end to NATO expansion in the direction of Ukraine and Georgia; and a curtailment of US interference, known as “democracy promotion,” in Russia’s internal politics. The Kremlin got none of these. In short, another chance for expansive cooperation in US-Russian relations, even the partnership possible after the Soviet Union ended in 1991, has again been squandered in Washington, not in Moscow. That the historical and political analyses set out in my 2011 article, as well as the concerns expressed there, have been amply justified by events gives me no satisfaction. Nor to add that a year later, things have only gotten worse. The three US policies to which Moscow reasonably objected before the reset have become more aggressive, and indeed, in the Kremlin’s view, have been supplemented by Washington’s policy of selective military “regime change” in the Middle East. In response, as I also warned, anti-American forces in Russian politics have continued to grow, along with the possibility of “another escalation of the arms race,” about which both Putin and former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, on whom Obama unwisely based the reset, warned. Meanwhile, Obama’s challenger for the presidency, Mitt Romney, has declared that Russia is again America’s “number-one geopolitical foe,” thereby confirming my worst concern—that we are on the verge of, or already in, a new cold war.
|
Cohen, 12 - professor emeritus at New York University and Princteon University (Stephen, “Is the US Returning to the Cold War With Russia?”, The Nation, 6-18-12, http://www.thenation.com/article/168460/us-returning-cold-war-russia#)//KG
|
As Washington and Moscow sink deeper into another familiar cold war Democrats and Republicans alike, declare that President Obama’s “reset” of relations with Moscow has failed Obama’s reset was all but doomed from inception because it was based on the same bipartisan, winner-take-all triumphalism that had guided US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since the 1990s things have only gotten worse three US policies to which Moscow reasonably objected before the reset have become more aggressive anti-American forces in Russian politics have continued to grow, along with the possibility of “another escalation of the arms race,” about which Putin warned
|
Russian expansionism escalates to an arms race and war – reset of relations fails
| 3,066 | 81 | 653 | 467 | 14 | 99 | 0.029979 | 0.211991 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,570 |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States fears recent weapons purchases by Venezuela could fuel an arms race in South America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. "They outpace all other countries in South America and certainly raise the question as to whether there is going to be an arms race in the region," Clinton said about Venezuela's arms deals, after a meeting with Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez. The Russian government Monday extended $2.2 billion in credit to Venezuela to finance arms purchases, including 92 Soviet-era T-72 tanks and short-range missiles with a reach of 55 miles (90 kilometers). Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also said his nation will purchase an anti-aircraft weapons system with a range of 185 miles (300 kilometers). The planned arms purchases come at a time when Venezuela is at odds with neighboring Colombia over negotiations that would give U.S. troops access to Colombian military bases. Chavez has said his military buildup is in response to the growing U.S. presence in the region, which he calls threatening and dangerous to Latin America. The United States is also concerned about deepening ties between Venezuela and Iran. In addition to ongoing military cooperation, Chavez said in Tehran last week that the Iranian government would help Venezuela develop nuclear technology. In exchange, Venezuela has offered to export gasoline to Iran, which would give Tehran an out if Western nations impose petroleum sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. Senior administration officials say Venezuela's attempt at "sanctions busting" is alarming. Clinton urged Venezuela to be transparent about its weapons purchases. Venezuela, she said, "should be putting in place in procedures and practices to ensure that the weapons they buy are not diverted to insurgent groups or illegal organizations like drug trafficking gangs and other criminal cartels." Vazquez voiced concern that an arms race in South America would divert funds from badly needed development in poor countries. "We should devote our energies and resources to fight against the real scourges of our societies ... such as drug trafficking and terrorism," he said. "Instead of spending it in weapons, spending it in housing, good housing for our people, and to further deepen investment, especially in the field of education."
|
Labott, 9 – CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter (Elise, “U.S. fears Venezuela could trigger regional arms race”, CNN, 9-16-09, http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/16/us.venezuela.arms/)//KG
|
The United States fears weapons purchases by Venezuela could fuel an arms race in South America Clinton said Tuesday They outpace all other countries in South America and certainly raise the question as to whether there is going to be an arms race in the region The Russian government Monday extended $2.2 billion in credit to Venezuela to finance arms purchases Chavez also said his nation will purchase an anti-aircraft weapons system with a range of 185 miles Chavez has said his military buildup is in response to the growing U.S. presence in the region, which he calls threatening and dangerous to Latin America Clinton urged Venezuela to be transparent about its weapons purchases Vazquez voiced concern that an arms race in South America would divert funds from badly needed development in poor countries We should devote our energies and resources to fight against the real scourges of our societies ... such as drug trafficking and terrorism Instead of spending it in weapons
|
Venezuelan militarization fueled by Russia escalates to arms race
| 2,341 | 66 | 984 | 364 | 9 | 163 | 0.024725 | 0.447802 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,571 |
"With the full support of a feckless policy elite and an uncritical media establishment, Washington is slipping, if not plunging, into a new Cold War with Moscow." Strong words from Professor Stephen Cohen in a January article published in The Nation, who is a lonely voice in the US academic establishment with an unpopular point of view. He has been warning for several years now that rapidly deteriorating relations between the US and Russia will lead to a new period of sustained political and military tension between the two powers. And with Russia now ratcheting up spending on re-equipping its military to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, plus the noticeably chillier tone in the security rhetoric in the last months, it could well be that historians will one day point to the current period as the start of Cold War II – though the proxy wars that characterised the first one are not much in evidence yet. President Vladimir Putin was at a military plane factory in Novosibirsk on March 6, where he said that Russia has a "historic chance" to rearm and he intends to seize it. "We will have no other historic chance to solve these ambitious tasks the country is now facing to ensure its defence capability in due time and with due quality when [the required] funds are available, thank God," Putin said. "Tomorrow we will have none of these funds, and time will be lost." Putin has clearly made a decision to try to return Russia to its Soviet-era military strength. Increasingly, it also appears that Russia has given up any hope of becoming a cooperative partner with the West. Last year, Putin said that military spending will increase by $770bn between 2014 and 2020 – more than the country intends to spend on modernising its power sector. The sum is so big that the then-finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who was noted for his fiscal prudence, protested so loudly he ended up losing his job. To put this sum into context: the Russian military budget already doubled between 2006 and 2009 from $25bn to $50bn, but under the new plan it will rise further to $128bn a year on average for the next six years, or about 3.2-3.7% of GDP. Although this still lags the US' annual defence budget of $600bn, more than all its Nato allies combined, in absolute terms it will bring Russian spending up to par with the US as a share of GDP – and at a time when some Nato members are slashing their own defence spending to as low as 1% of GDP. Nuclear Spending has already been pouring into Russia's nuclear arsenal. US President Barack Obama signed a strategic arms reduction deal with his counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, but as Medvedev's star waned so did the good relations: Cohen argues in his book, "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War", that Obama invested too much into Medvedev who was only a stand-in, and not enough into Putin to make the so-called "reset" in Russo-US relations stick. Now relations are decaying rapidly. According to Putin's chief of staff and close confidante Sergei Ivanov, the Kremlin is "no longer interested in reducing its stockpiles" of missiles. "The upgrade of our strategic nuclear forces has already finished in all key areas – from the point of view of development, trials and transfer to the Armed Forces. All modern new-generation nuclear forces have effectively been developed and tested in our country," Ivanov, a former Russian defence minister, said in an interview with the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda. "When I hear our American partners say: 'Let's reduce something else,' I would like to say to them: 'Excuse me, but what we have is relatively new'." If Ivanov's comments didn't make the Kremlin's new policy clear to Washington, then a massive Russian military exercise in February – the biggest since the fall of the Soviet Union – that included moving tactical nuclear missiles around for the first time, should have. Russia's supposed to inform Nato of its exercises but apparently this one caught the alliance by surprise. The exercises followed a recent surge in Russian strategic bomber flights that included a recent circling of the US Pacific island of Guam by two Tu-95 Bear bombers and simulated bombing runs by Tu-95s against Alaska and California in June and July. According to US reports, the Pentagon was alarmed at both the scale of the exercises and the types of weapons being deployed.
|
Aris, 13 - journalist who has lived in and reported on Russia and the former Soviet Union countries since 1993, currently reporting on the development of business, economics and finance in Russia (Ben, “Rekindling the Cold War as Russia rearms”, US-Russia.org, 3-14-13, http://us-russia.org/1085-rekindling-the-cold-war-as-russia-rearms.html)//KG
|
With the full support of a feckless policy elite and an uncritical media establishment, Washington is slipping, if not plunging, into a new Cold War with Moscow rapidly deteriorating relations between the US and Russia will lead to a new period of sustained political and military tension between the two powers. And with Russia now ratcheting up spending on re-equipping its military to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, it could well be that historians will one day point to the current period as the start of Cold War II Putin was at a military plane factory where he said that Russia has a "historic chance" to rearm and he intends to seize it Putin has clearly made a decision to try to return Russia to its Soviet-era military strength it appears that Russia has given up any hope of becoming a cooperative partner with the West Spending has already been pouring into Russia's nuclear arsenal According to Putin's chief of staff and close confidante Ivanov, the Kremlin is "no longer interested in reducing its stockpiles" of missiles. All modern new-generation nuclear forces have effectively been developed and tested in our country," Ivanov, said If Ivanov's comments didn't make the Kremlin's new policy clear to Washington, then a massive Russian military exercise in February should have
|
Russian-Venezuelan ties signal Russian expansionism – increasing tensions lead to Cold War II
| 4,403 | 93 | 1,310 | 755 | 13 | 218 | 0.017219 | 0.288742 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,572 |
The last time a Russian Navy ship plied the azure waters of the Caribbean for major joint maneuvers with an anti-US country was during the cold war. But in a move out of Cuban leader Fidel Castro's historical playbook, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez announced this week that his nation will host four Russian warships and 1,000 troops in November for joint military exercises. That was followed Wednesday by the arrival in Venezuela of two Russian long-range bombers. Although Latin American leaders so far have shrugged off the moves as another act of bravado in Mr. Chávez's push against what he calls "Yankee hegemony," some diplomats and US officials see the potential for real trouble. The US typically ignores the leftist leader's angry tirades, and is playing down the news. Still, an extensive military relationship between Venezuela and Russia could heighten tensions and signal the start of a new regional cold war. "This is a risky step that could provoke the US," says retired Navy Vice Admiral and former Vice Minister of Defense Rafael Huizi Clavier. "Any incident, any error, could bring problems." This week, Russia announced that it will send a naval squadron, including the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, as well as long-range patrol planes for the upcoming joint exercises with Venezuela. On Wednesday, two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela for training. Russian officials say they will leave in four days. Commenting on the deployment, Mr. Chávez dismissed comparisons to the cold war, but said he had hopes of flying one of the Russian planes. Addressing Mr. Castro, the Cuban leader is a close friend and mentor, Chávez said: "I'm going to fly a Tu-160. Fidel, I'm going to fly low past you there." The announcements, and the arrival of Russian bombers, come as Venezuela has stepped up military purchases from Russia, including fighter jets, helicopters, and Kalashnikov rifles. And it's not just Russia that Venezuela has become close to. Venezuela has developed political and commercial alliances with China, Cuba, and Iran, three key US competitor. China is helping Chávez put a communications satellite in orbit this year. "The objective is clear: to tell the world 'we are sovereign,' " says Hector Herrera, a retired lieutenant colonel of the National Guard and founder of the Bolivarian Civic Military Front, a pro-Chávez organization that works on security and defense issues. "Venezuela is a free and sovereign nation and can have friends and enemies." US-Russian ties grow tense The joint military exercises come at a time of tension between the US and Moscow, after the two went head-to-head over the brief war between Georgia – an ex-Soviet republic – and Russia last month. The US has pushed for Georgia to enter NATO, and US plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe are seen as a threat by Russia. Russia has denied the latest moves with Venezuela are a tit-for-tat response to the recent deployment of US warships to the Black Sea. Mervin Rodriguez, head of the International Studies department at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas, says that the move to align so explicitly with Russia at this time could be perceived as "taking sides." Historically, he says, Venezuela has taken on a pacifist and neutral position in world affairs, maintaining official neutrality for most of World War II. Politically, the announcement pays off for both Russia and Venezuela. "This is probably a mutual thing," says Robert Work, the vice president for strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "Russia was upset that US and NATO were moving into what they consider their near abroad [with Georgia]. And anything Chávez can do to vex the Americans is a good thing from his perspective." Chávez also sends a message to the US that he has outside support if the US attempts an invasion, a notion the socialist leader has claimed since the US tacitly supported a 2002 coup that briefly ousted him from power. Claims of US intimidation in the region grew recently with the US Navy reactivation of its Fourth Fleet, more than 50 years after it was disbanded, to conduct missions in the Caribbean. Pushing for a multi-polar world The Russian Navy visit likely is meant as a response to the US reactivating the Navy fleet, says Steve Ellner, the Venezuela-based author of "Rethinking Venezuelan Politics." "Chávez has, from the beginning, very clearly pushed this idea of a multipolar world in response to US domination," says Mr. Ellner. "So this move is not inconsistent and not surprising." But taking Russia's side doesn't necessarily serve Venezuela's interests, some analysts say. It runs contrary to the South American country's past neutrality. "That language of multipolarity contradicts our foreign policy," says Mr. Rodriguez. "It's a fallacy. Now we are simply becoming followers of one side. Just as we criticize the Fourth Fleet." On his weekly Sunday TV show, Chávez attempted to play down the geopolitical angle, focusing on supporting the work of a "strategic ally." That position was reiterated by his administration. "The objective is to unify the ties of friendship and cooperation between both navies," said Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas, the head of naval intelligence for Venezuela, according to a statement on the Information Ministry website. But the geopolitical message is clear, says Larry Birns, the director of the left-leaning Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington. "The new patterns of military relationships [in Latin America] are a function of the drift away of Latin America from the US," says Mr. Birns. That no one seemed riled in the region is even more proof, says Mr. Birns. "After all these years," he says, "it is not pariah nations that have become isolated; it's Washington."
|
Orozco and Llana, 8 - freelance journalist based in Caracas AND European Bureau Chief based in Paris for the Christian Science Monitor (Jose and Sara Miller, “Cold war echo: Russian military maneuvers with Venezuela”, The Christian Science Monitor, 9-12-08, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2008/0912/p01s05-woam.html)//KG
|
Chávez announced that his nation will host four Russian warships and 1,000 troops in November for joint military exercises Although Latin American leaders so far have shrugged off the moves as another act of bravado in Mr. Chávez's push against what he calls "Yankee hegemony," some diplomats and US officials see the potential for real trouble an extensive military relationship between Venezuela and Russia could heighten tensions and signal the start of a new regional cold war This is a risky step that could provoke the US "Any incident, any error, could bring problems." Russia announced that it will send a naval squadron, including the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, as well as long-range patrol planes for the upcoming joint exercises with Venezuela the arrival of Russian bombers, come as Venezuela has stepped up military purchases from Russia, including fighter jets, helicopters, and Kalashnikov rifles The joint military exercises come at a time of tension between the US and Moscow, after the two went head-to-head over the brief war between Georgia the move to align so explicitly with Russia at this time could be perceived as "taking sides anything Chávez can do to vex the Americans is a good thing from his perspective Claims of US intimidation in the region grew recently with the US Navy reactivation of its Fourth Fleet to conduct missions in the Caribbean. Chávez has very clearly pushed this idea of a multipolar world in response to US domination," The new patterns of military relationships [in Latin America] are a function of the drift away of Latin America from the US it is not pariah nations that have become isolated; it's Washington
|
This Cold War escalates to a regional war
| 5,834 | 42 | 1,684 | 949 | 8 | 277 | 0.00843 | 0.291886 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,573 |
A recent visit to Russia by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez sparked worried speculation about a closer, more strategic relationship between the two countries. 30-Second Summary Hoping to create a closer diplomatic and economic collaboration between himself and newly inaugurated president Dmitry Medvedev, Chavez traveled to Moscow to discuss an increased Russian oil presence in Venezuela and to seal a €1.25 billion arms deal for his country. Moreover, Chavez took the opportunity to promote a more cohesive force against what he sees as an economic and possibly military threat from the United States. “Russia and Venezuela must become strategic allies in the oil sphere and in military-technical cooperation,” Chavez announced. “This will guarantee the sovereignty of Venezuela because we are now threatened by the United States.” Chavez followed up that as a part of the oil agreement, Russian armed forces would be welcomed and supported in Venezuela. While both presidents took pains to note that their visit was strictly a business affair, some observers have become suspicious of what a Russia-Venezuela alliance could mean for the United States. A U.S. State Department spokesman remarked that developing ties between the two nations had possible implications for “regional stability” in South America. However, one regional expert remarked that given the U.S. presence in a number of former-Soviet republics, including Georgia, it was hardly surprising for Russia to try to make in-roads in South America.
|
Coats, 8 - B.A. in Journalism and Latin American Studies from the University of Texas (Christopher, “A rms, Oil and a Global Alliance Drive Chavez’s Visit to Russia”, Finding Dulcinea, 6-24-08, http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/international/July-08/Arms--Oil-and-a-Global-Alliance-Drive-Chavez-s-Visit-to-Russia.html)//KG
|
A recent visit to Russia by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez sparked worried speculation about a closer, more strategic relationship between the two countries Chavez traveled to Moscow to discuss an increased Russian oil presence in Venezuela and to seal a €1.25 billion arms deal for his country Chavez took the opportunity to promote a more cohesive force against what he sees as an economic and possibly military threat from the United States Russia and Venezuela must become strategic allies in the oil sphere and in military-technical cooperation Chavez announced. “This will guarantee the sovereignty of Venezuela because we are now threatened by the United States Russian armed forces would be welcomed and supported in Venezuela some observers have become suspicious of what a Russia-Venezuela alliance could mean for the United States that developing ties between the two nations had possible implications for “regional stability” in South America it was hardly surprising for Russia to try to make in-roads in South America
|
Expanding relations with Venezuela signals Russian expansionism – causes regional instability
| 1,517 | 94 | 1,033 | 231 | 11 | 161 | 0.047619 | 0.69697 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,574 |
The dispatch by Moscow of the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great and three other ships to Venezuela on Monday has made the resurgence of the Cold War between the United States and Russia imminent, if it has not actually began. As in the original Cold War, which began with the fall and split of Germany in World War II in 1945 and ended with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany in 1990, Latin America is turning out to be an important battleground for the two superpowers. Russia has recently intensified its contacts with Venezuela -- an oil-rich nation that has been a pain in the neck for the US -- Cuba and other South American nations following the heightening of tensions between the two superpowers in the dispute over Georgia. The incident brings to mind the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 when the world came closest to a nuclear war, and which ended when American President John F. Kennedy and United Nations Secretary General U Thant reached an agreement with Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev to dismantle Soviet missiles in Cuba in exchange for a no-invasion agreement and the removal of US missiles in Turkey. The emerging new Cold War is starting in almost the same manner as the old one. In 1945, shortly after Germany surrendered to the Allies and was split into West and East Germany, Russia, fearing another invasion from Western Europe after Germany had tried to invade it three times in the last 150 years, formed a buffer zone from Western Europe by exerting its might over what later became known as the Iron Curtain – Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania. These countries, along with the Soviet Union, formed the Warsaw Pact, the formation of which was in response to the formation of the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). With the Soviets ready to extend its sphere of influence to Greece and Turkey in 1947 – with the Greeks in the midst of a civil war and the Turks needing help to modernize its society -- then US Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson called on Congress to come to the assistance of the two countries, arguing that if these countries fall into the hands of the communists, the neighboring nations would also subsequently fall. This later became known as the Domino Theory. Thus, the Cold War intensified as the two major victors of the Second World War raced to claim the spoils of war. The Cold War was characterized by satellite wars, foremost of which were the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The score was tied in the Korean War, with Korea being divided into North and South Korea, but the communists prevailed in the Vietnam War, with Hanoi overpowering Saigon after the US abandoned its ally. The Cold War also saw the emergence of the Nuclear Arms Race, with both the Soviets and the Americans battling to have more and superior nuclear bombs; the Space Race, which was dominated by the Soviets early on until the Americans beat them to the moon; the close calls to disaster during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis; and the calming policy that came to be known as détente. The Cold War put the world constantly on the edge of fear and devastation for 45 years while the two superpowers expanded their spheres of influence to wide parts of the globe and threatened to annihilate each other. With the emergence of a rationale leader in the Soviet Union in the 1980s in the person of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Cold War began to thaw. Gorbachev declared, upon assuming the position of general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that beyond a certain point, which, according to him, had been reached and passed at that time, increases in military power were useless. Gorbachev launched his glasnost (openness) and perestroika (economic restructuring) policies that triggered the end of the Cold War, and eventually of the once powerful Soviet Union. I was lucky to witness the Soviet Union’s transformation at that time when the Novosti Press Agency invited fellow journalist Maritess Vitug and I in August of 1988 to visit the cities of Moscow and Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in Russia, Tbilisi in the Georgian Republic, and Baku in the Azerbaijan Republic. A couple of years later, the arms race came to an end and Gorbachev abandoned the Brezhnev Doctrine, which declared that no satellite country in Eastern Europe would be allowed to defect. Within months, democratic movements emerged in these Iron Curtain countries and their authoritarian governments fell one by one, ironically like dominoes. The Cold War ended where it started, with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the reunification of the two Germanys. With Russia now trying to create another buffer zone around its southern borders, and the United States racing to exert influence over these former Soviet republics around the Caspian Sea, which incidentally hold a huge reserve of oil and natural gas and host major oil pipelines to the East and to Central Asia, it was inevitable that history would repeat itself. For years after the break-up of the once powerful Soviet Union, Russia was pictured by the West as a defeated country. Crippled by the sudden turn of events, the Russians were faced with domestic problems – rising crime rates, government corruption, separatism, economic depression, rising poverty and social discontent. But since the financial collapse of 1998, Russia’s economy has taken a major rebound, powered by its huge oil and gas reserves. It is the world’s eighth largest oil producer, the world’s top natural gas producer, has the world’s fifth largest foreign reserves at $600 million, and has the world’s fifth largest gold reserves. It supplies 30% of Europe’s oil needs and 40% of its gas. Its economy grows by an average of 6 to 7 percent annually since 1999, and its stock market index increased by 83 percent last year. In contrast, the US economy is experiencing the biggest turmoil since the Great Depression with its financial institutions in serious jeopardy, its stock market in chaos, its economy teetering on the precipice of a deep recession or worse, another depression, its body politic currently immersed in extremely divisive political campaign, and more importantly, its credibility and influence among the world’s nations in serious doubt. Unlike the first Cold War, the Second Cold War is not a race for political influence but is a battle for the world’s dwindling oil and gas reserves. It is not coincidental that it started in an area where vast oil and gas reserves sit – the Caspian Sea region. And it’s not merely symbolic that Russia has decided to intensify it by sending a part of its naval fleet to oil-rich Venezuela. The Second Cold War’s satellite wars will not be fought in Korea or Vietnam, but is now being fought in Iraq and soon in Iran, both oil-producing countries. Don’t expect insurrections and skirmishes in Cuba. They will occur in oil-producing countries, such as Venezuela, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and possibly the oil-rich region of Brunei, Indonesia, the Spratlys in the China Sea, and Mindanao. While the economy and the Iraq problem are the central issues in the US presidential campaign, there is a need to recognize that the Second Cold War has begun and should, therefore, be an important parameter in the choice of this great nation’s next leader. Should we elect a leader who will be firm and strong, but who will gently and calmly steer us through the troubled waters of the Second Cold War, or should we choose one who has for years ruled out conciliation with Russia, wanted Russia out of the stabilizing economic group G-8, and who has been itching for a direct confrontation with the long-time Cold War rival? Should it be Barack Obama or John McCain? The debates on this important foreign policy matter have not begun. But the Second Cold War is well way off the starting gate.
|
Abelgas 08, Writer for Ang Peryodiko, a newspaper based in Canada(Valeria, "The Second Cold War" 10/2/08, Ang Peryodiko, Original Site (link not working): http://www.angperyodiko.ca/opinion_columns/val_abelgas/abelgas_ vol6no19.html Article was found at: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32652464)//AD
|
the resurgence of the Cold War between the United States and Russia imminent, if it has not actually began Latin America is turning out to be an important battleground for the two superpowers. Russia has recently intensified its contacts with Venezuela -- an oil-rich nation that has been a pain in the neck for the US -- Cuba and other South American nations following the heightening of tensions between the two superpowers in the dispute over Georgia The emerging new Cold War is starting in almost the same manner as the old one Russia, fearing another invasion from Western Europe after Germany had tried to invade it three times in the last 150 years, formed a buffer zone from Western Europe by exerting its might over what later became known as the Iron Curtain With the Soviets ready to extend its sphere of influence to Greece and Turkey in 1947 – with the Greeks in the midst of a civil war and the Turks needing help to modernize its society -- then US Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson called on Congress to come to the assistance of the two countries, arguing that if these countries fall into the hands of the communists, the neighboring nations would also subsequently fall. The Cold War also saw the emergence of the Nuclear Arms Race, with both the Soviets and the Americans battling to have more and superior nuclear bombs; the Space Race, which was dominated by the Soviets early on until the Americans beat them to the moon; the close calls to disaster during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis For years after the break-up of the once powerful Soviet Union, Russia was pictured by the West as a defeated country. Crippled by the sudden turn of events, the Russians were faced with domestic problems – rising crime rates, government corruption, separatism, economic depression, rising poverty and social discontent But since the financial collapse of 1998, Russia’s economy has taken a major rebound, powered by its huge oil and gas reserves. the Second Cold War is not a race for political influence but is a battle for the world’s dwindling oil and gas reserves. It is not coincidental that it started in an area where vast oil and gas reserves sit – the Caspian Sea region. And it’s not merely symbolic that Russia has decided to intensify it by sending a part of its naval fleet to oil-rich Venezuela. The Second Cold War’s satellite wars will not be fought in Korea or Vietnam, but is now being fought in Iraq and soon in Iran, both oil-producing countries. Don’t expect insurrections and skirmishes in Cuba. They will occur in oil-producing countries, such as Venezuela, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and possibly the oil-rich region of Brunei, Indonesia, the Spratlys in the China Sea, and Mindanao. While the economy and the Iraq problem are the central issues in the US presidential campaign, there is a need to recognize that the Second Cold War has begun and should, therefore, be an important parameter in the choice of this great nation’s next leader the Second Cold War is well way off the starting gate.
|
Russia's expansion into Venezuela is setting the state for a second Cold War--tensions are escalating
| 7,936 | 101 | 3,058 | 1,347 | 15 | 529 | 0.011136 | 0.392725 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,575 |
So much for the direct effects. As Table 3 indicates, the policy of managed stability also has indirect negative effects. The effects are indirect because they do not bear directly on the liberal performance of the targeted republics, but instead strengthen what Levitsky and Way call their coercive state capacity. 38Coercive state capacity is paramount for autocratic resilience; only by holding the capacity to quell opposition and reinforce elite cohesion can a regime withstand the external and internal pressures for change, and only this way can authoritarianism be consolidated Thus, Russia’s policy of managed stability strengthens the incumbents’ coercive state capacity by helping them sustain stability, order, and control. The help is, primarily, channelled through economic levers such as favourable subsidies, credits, and lower energy prices. A well-known example is the arbitrary differences in Russian gas prices – differences that in 2008 ranged from US$280/mcm (the Baltic republics), over US$230 (Georgia), US$191 (Moldova), and US$179 (Ukraine), to US$119 (Belarus) and US$110 (Armenia).39 This vital economic support to authoritarian regimes makes it easier for incumbents to keep the economy running, finance the necessary welfare goods, pay salaries to the coercive state apparatus, and to distribute rents to the ruling elite to secure support. While the former two guarantee a minimum of stability, the latter two ensure that order and control are upheld. Even though economic levers are the most important tools for the policy’s indirect negative effect, military and political levers serve the purpose as well, although only as a supplement. By supporting and cooperating with the incumbent regime on both bilateral and multilateral terms, Russia minimizes the costs of possible Western isolation. Thus, by cooperating with the regime, Russia adds legitimacy to it and offers an alternative to Western integration – an integration that would, ceteris paribus, be conditioned on democratic improvements.40 All in all, Russian support on the military, political, and economic levels can be said to minimize the costs of being authoritarian. Without Russia’s protection, many of the authoritarian regimes in the ‘Near Abroad’ would be much worse off due to bad performance on all three levels of security, legitimacy, and welfare. And this would, ceteris paribus, make it more difficult for the incumbents to uphold a strong coercive state apparatus that can rig elections to ensure legitimacy, curtail political and civil rights to quell the opposition, and help concentrate power in the executive to consolidate authoritarianism. In brief, Russia’s policy of managed stability makes it easier to be authoritarian – in the words of Ambrosio, Russia bolsters the authoritarian regimes.41 Now let me turn to the policy of managed instability.
|
Tolstrup, 9 - Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark (Jakob, “Studying a negative external actor: Russia’s management of stability and instability in the ‘Near Abroad’”, Routledge, 10-2-09, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/5806/Tolstrup_-_Studying_a_Negative_External_Actor.pdf)//KG
|
Coercive state capacity is paramount for autocratic resilience; only by holding the capacity to quell opposition and reinforce elite cohesion can a regime withstand the external and internal pressures for change Russia’s policy of managed stability strengthens the incumbents’ coercive state capacity by helping them sustain stability, order, and control The help is, primarily, channelled through economic levers such as favourable subsidies, credits, and lower energy prices. A well-known example is the arbitrary differences in Russian gas prices military and political levers serve the purpose as well By supporting and cooperating with the incumbent regime on both bilateral and multilateral terms, Russia minimizes the costs of possible Western isolation by cooperating with the regime, Russia adds legitimacy to it and offers an alternative to Western integration – an integration that would be conditioned on democratic improvements Russian support on the military, political, and economic levels can be said to minimize the costs of being authoritarian Without Russia’s protection, many of the authoritarian regimes would be much worse off due to bad performance on all three levels of security, legitimacy, and welfare make it more difficult for the incumbents to uphold a strong coercive state apparatus that can rig elections to ensure legitimacy, curtail political and civil rights to quell the opposition, and help concentrate power in the executive to consolidate authoritarianism
|
Increased Russian influence kills democracy – props up authoritarian states
| 2,865 | 75 | 1,494 | 433 | 10 | 221 | 0.023095 | 0.510393 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,576 |
Turning to the indirect effects of the policy of managed instability, the stability dimension once again shows its importance. While Russia is trying to stabilize the targeted republics under the policy of managed stability, the opposite is the case with the policy of managed instability. This instability has two consequences for the republics’ liberal performance. First, military, political, and economic sanctions raise the costs of continuing reforms or choosing them in the first place. This is because reform-minded elites will have a harder time convincing the electorate of the rightness of pursuing democratic ideals when they cannot secure order and prosperity. Second, Russian sanctions and their effects make the democratizing states look unstable and unfit for integration in the eyes of the West. This not only prolongs the integration process but potentially also weakens the support and enthusiasm of the West and thereby the Western push for further reforms. Let me explain how this is done. Militarily, Russia is destabilizing the Western-oriented republics in several ways. Apart from the already mentioned support to secessionist regions, relevant levers are military threats, interventions, and strategic use of military bases within the countries.48 While it is evident how military invasions, like the one against Georgia in August 2008, are devastating for a country’s political and economic stability, it is less clear how exactly Russian military bases affect the stability dimension. One example is the Russian naval base in Sevastopol in Crimea, Ukraine. Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the ownership of the naval base (and of Crimea) has remained a disputed issue that Russia again and again has used to question Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity.49 By repeatedly questioning Ukraine’s sovereignty, Russia acts as a constant nuisance factor for regime consolidation, and, furthermore, makes the country look less attractive as a partner in the eyes of the West (which is sceptical about importing territorial conflicts). Politically, Russia is working fiercely to delegitimize the Western-oriented governments, while at the same time supporting more Russia-oriented elites in the opposition or in secessionist parts of the country. When Russia weakens the incumbent and strengthens the opposition, the political situation in the country is destabilized and maybe even deadlocked, as is the case in Ukraine. This pattern of support and sanctions very much follows the already mentioned procedure that is used during elections with interference on the diplomatic, the financial, and the media level. Therefore, it will not be discussed further here. Financially, Russia is destabilizing the republics in the ‘Near Abroad’, first and foremost through its aggressive energy policy – a policy that consists of supply cut-offs, non-transparent models of price increases, and attempts to take control of strategic pipeline routes, infrastructure and energy-producing and distributing companies. Tellingly, from 1991 to 2006, 55 incidents of supply interruptions occurred in the post-Soviet region that were purely motivated by political or economic reasons.
|
Tolstrup, 9 - Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark (Jakob, “Studying a negative external actor: Russia’s management of stability and instability in the ‘Near Abroad’”, Routledge, 10-2-09, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/5806/Tolstrup_-_Studying_a_Negative_External_Actor.pdf)//KG
|
Russia is trying to stabilize the targeted republics under the policy of managed stability military, political, and economic sanctions raise the costs of continuing reforms or choosing them in the first place This is because reform-minded elites will have a harder time convincing the electorate of the rightness of pursuing democratic ideals when they cannot secure order and prosperity Russian sanctions and their effects make the democratizing states look unstable and unfit for integration in the eyes of the West This not only prolongs the integration process but potentially also weakens the support and enthusiasm of the West and thereby the Western push for further reforms Russia is destabilizing the Western-oriented republics in several ways relevant levers are military threats, interventions, and strategic use of military bases within the countries Russia acts as a constant nuisance factor for regime consolidation, and makes the country look less attractive as a partner in the eyes of the West Russia is working fiercely to delegitimize the Western-oriented governments, while at the same time supporting more Russia-oriented elites in the opposition or in secessionist parts of the country Russia weakens the incumbent and strengthens the opposition, the political situation in the country is destabilized and maybe even deadlocked Russia is destabilizing the republics through its aggressive energy policy – a policy that consists of supply cut-offs, non-transparent models of price increases, and attempts to take control of strategic pipeline routes, infrastructure and energy-producing and distributing companies.
|
Russia kills democracy – destabilizes democratic regimes
| 3,206 | 56 | 1,632 | 477 | 7 | 242 | 0.014675 | 0.507338 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,577 |
Waves approaching 6 meters high pounded ships plying the Kerch Straight connecting the Black and Azov seas on November 11. The "Volganeft-139," carrying about 4,000 tons of oil, split in two in the course of the storm, causing it to spill about half of its contents into the narrow straight. Four ships sank to the bottom, including two vessels carrying a combined 7,000 metric tons of sulfur. The devastation left in the wake of the storm was staggering. At least five seamen were lost on the day and tens were missing. Endangered species such as the Dalmatian pelican and the great black-headed gull were seen coated in oil, as the region awaits the arrival of thousands of migratory birds that nest along the waterways during winter. Fish caught in Kerch Straight have been deemed unsafe to eat, threatening the livelihoods of locals. And dolphins swimming the waters are threatened by waters registering oil pollution 30 times higher than normal. Soiled Image Russian state television broadcast images of officials from the Emergency Situations Ministry rushing to the scene to mount a rescue effort and massive clean-up operation. Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov flew to the scene the day after the disaster to survey the damage. A presidential decree was issued calling for all means to be used to protect the local fauna. The Russian government has applauded the swift response to the country's worst-ever oil spill, but environmentalists are citing the disaster as the latest example of an inherited legacy of ecological ineptitude. The "Volganeft-139," for example, was a 1970's designed single-hulled tanker that was licensed only for river transport. It was not intended for use on the open sea. Igor Chestin, director of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Russia, says one of the ill-fated vessels carrying sulfur has a similar history. "The other vessel, 'Volganeft-123' -- according to the register it didn't exist actually, so that ship was already outdated and had been taken off all the lists," Chestin says. "That vessel simply shouldn't have been in that area." Most distressing to many environmentalists, is that such oversight is a result of a system that has long polluted Russia's collective mindset when it comes to the environment. The waters of the region -- the Black and Azov seas and the Kerch Straight -- were by no means pristine before what is now being called Russia's worst oil spill. A report by the United Nations Environment Program outlines threats to the Black Sea from chronic overfishing, high levels of pollution, large discharges of raw sewage, damaging levels of coastal erosion, and the suffocating impact of sludge and mud dredged from nearby ports. For Sergei Tsyplyonkov, the executive director of Greenpeace Russia, there is a simple explanation. "In my opinion, the situation that surrounds this catastrophe illustrates the general attitude of the Russian government to questions of ecology," Tsyplyonkov says. "Beginning at the end of the 1990s and the start of 2000, the Russian leadership has clearly demonstrated the direction it intends to follow. And it is this: that the Russian government is prepared to pay the ecological price for economic development." The Soviet era, he adds, was catastrophic for the environment. High world oil prices in the 1970s and 1980s meant the Soviet leadership had at its disposal vast sums of money, which it spent on nuclear reactors and diverting rivers to increase irrigation. Legend has it that one Soviet official, when questioned about the construction of a giant and potentially lethal paper mill on the shores of the world's largest freshwater lake, said that "even Lake Baikal must work for the advancement of the Soviet regime."
|
Arnold, 7 - freelance journalist based in Baku, Azerbaijan (Chloe, “Russia: Oil Spill Highlights Tragic Environmental Legacy”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, 5-26-13, http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079207.html)//KG
|
Russian state television broadcast images of officials from the Emergency Situations Ministry rushing to the scene to mount a rescue effort and massive clean-up operation The Russian government has applauded the swift response to the country's worst-ever oil spill, but environmentalists are citing the disaster as the latest example of an inherited legacy of ecological ineptitude The "Volganeft-139," for example, was a 1970's designed single-hulled tanker that was licensed only for river transport. It was not intended for use on the open sea That vessel simply shouldn't have been in that area such oversight is a result of a system that has long polluted Russia's collective mindset when it comes to the environment the situation that surrounds this catastrophe illustrates the general attitude of the Russian government to questions of ecology the Russian leadership has clearly demonstrated the direction it intends to follow. And it is this: that the Russian government is prepared to pay the ecological price for economic development.
|
Russian oil development leads to spills that devastate the environment
| 3,723 | 70 | 1,044 | 606 | 10 | 161 | 0.016502 | 0.265677 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,578 |
It's on the scale of a Deepwater Horizon spill every 2 months - except that it's considered the cost of doing business. Aging pipes, lax oversight and inclement weather all combine to make an estimated 5 million tons of annual spillage. While the weather is harsh, AP also looks at drilling in Canada and Norway and even Nigeria, where spills result in part from rebel attacks, but none are on the scale of the world's largest oil producer. While aging pipelines are a major cause, outdated technology is also a great contributor - even new pipelines begin leaking shortly after operation. Total spillage is estimated at 1% of annual production. "It is happening everywhere," Ivan Blokov, campaign director at Greenpeace Russia, said. "It's typical of any oil field in Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country." That observation was corroborate by Russian researchers. "Oil and oil products get spilled literally every day," said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Water Problems. The results are vast dead stretches of forest, tundra, rivers, and lakes. The Russians estimate that 10-15% of the leakage runs into rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean. Russia is already making plans to drill in the Arctic though its clear that their technology is not prepared for it. "Over the past years, environmental risks have increased more sharply compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with them have advanced," Barenboim said.
|
Dawid, 11 - Sierra Club activist, having worked in transportation, land use, and now air quality (Irvin, “Environmental Devastation From Russia's Oil Drilling Considered Routine”, Planetizen, 12-20-11, http://www.planetizen.com/node/53204)//KG
|
It's on the scale of a Deepwater Horizon spill every 2 months - except that it's considered the cost of doing business Aging pipes, lax oversight and inclement weather all combine to make an estimated 5 million tons of annual spillage. While aging pipelines are a major cause, outdated technology is also a great contributor - even new pipelines begin leaking shortly after operation. Total spillage is estimated at 1% of annual production "It is happening everywhere," Ivan Blokov, campaign director at Greenpeace Russia It's typical of any oil field in Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country Oil and oil products get spilled literally every day," said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Water Problems The results are vast dead stretches of forest, tundra, rivers, and lakes. The Russians estimate that 10-15% of the leakage runs into rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean environmental risks have increased more sharply compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with them have advanced,
|
Russian development leads to massive oil spills – outdated tech
| 1,568 | 63 | 1,136 | 259 | 10 | 187 | 0.03861 | 0.722008 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,579 |
Yesterday afternoon, Russia's RIA Novosti Spanish wire service reported on the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and Rosneft Chairman Igor Sechin to Caracas, Venezuela. The reason for the trip of Russia's energy czar (and leader of the "siloviki" network of former KGB officers), according to the Kremlin news outlet, was to prepare for Hugo Chávez's upcoming visit to Moscow and a high-level inter-governmental commission to be held in St. Petersburg. By the end of the day, Sechin had already inked many deals, conveniently for himself and for Russia, with the Venezuelan government -- Bloomberg reports that Russia and Venezuela signed wide-ranging cooperation accords on energy, military, and agricultural cooperation, including the formation of a joint venture between PDVSA-Services and Gazprom's Latin America division. What does Sechin personally get out of the trip? He took a trip with his PDVSA counterpart Rafael Ramirez out to the Orinoco Belt to see an oil field which was once owned by U.S. firm ConocoPhillips before expropriation, announcing plans to unveil another joint venture to develop it with with Rosneft in September. Joint ventures and big-sounding cooperation agreements are a familiar sight to observers of Russia-Venezuela relations, and the two countries have even formed a $4 billion development bank. But other than arms purchases, the trade volume hasn't yet caught up. Venezuela still exports some 60% of its oil to the United States, comprising 11% of U.S. supply. The U.S. is by far their largest trade partner, and Russia's volumes don't even yet compete with China's business with Venezuela. The reason for all this fuss, of course, is that the relationship is highly political. For the Russians, there is a clear desire to poke Washington in the eye after Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to the Ukraine and Georgia -- Sechin seems dead-set on proving Hillary Clinton right that no spheres of influence exist. More than just the immense enjoyment that Chávez must feel in passing an oil field taken directly from an American company into the hands of a Russian company, there is also a strong and growing military dimension to the relationship to the tune of $4.4 billion. A Swedish think tank estimates a 900% growth in arms purchases in the last five-year period, making Venezuela the #1 buyer of Russian arms in the world. Hugo Chávez should be honored to have such a high ranking official from the Kremlin to help him "prepare" for his next visit to Moscow -- Sechin is estimated by many Kremlinologists to have much more clout, and many more billions, than President Dmitry Medvedev himself. Sechin is the main figure running Russia's Latin America policy, as he is rumored to be fluent in both Spanish and Portuguese from his KGB days in Africa. Controversy seems to follow the man wherever he goes. Many point to him as being the main conspirator and beneficiary behind the Kremlin's takeover of the Yukos oil company - a multi-billion dollar daylight robbery. The Rosneft chairman has also come under fire for what many believe to be a non-sensical deal with the Chinese, passing them control of the future of Russian oil. The economist Konstantin Sonin has written that "Sechin's contract with China might go down in history like the notorious privatization auctions of the early 1990s." The timing of his visit -- along with the high tensions over Honduras following the coup -- raises some concerns over the uptick in military hardware transfers between Moscow and Caracas. The Venezuelan President recently made several comments about doubling his orders of T-90 battle tanks from Russia. The Kremlin recently sent the battleship Peter the Great to carry out war games with Venezuela in the Caribbean. Venezuela is the only country in Latin America with a license to manufacture their own Kalashnikovs, a fact which is very worrying to the Colombian government when so many of these small arms seem to go missing. A Colombian newspaper also ran a report this month about a Venezuelan contact attempting to sell 20 Russian-made surface-to-air missiles on the black market. What the United States may be worried about with this visit is Russia's potential acquiescence to Chávez's apparent plan to disrupt the attempts to broker a deal on behalf of former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Under instructions from Chávez, Zelaya has ignored all advice from Arias, and made many high risk stunts, including crossing over the border for a few minutes amid teeming crowds this past weekend (Christopher Sabatini from the Council of the Americas describes Zelaya's actions as "tragic silliness"). Many observers believe that Chávez and Zelaya "need more dead Hondurans" to produce the outcome they are looking for. There can be no doubt of two facts: this level of arms purchases by Chávez defeats the narrative that he is about protecting the interests of the poor and underprivileged of Venezuela, and secondly, there are individuals seeking improper personal enrichment through their powers of office. The grotesque level of corruption in both Russia and Venezuela should stimulate the discussion as to whether the predatory nature of both states constitutes not only an international crime, but as well a breach of fundamental human rights for which there may indeed be remedies under international law.
|
Amsterdam, 9 - International Lawyer on emerging markets, politics of business, and rule of law (Robert, “Are Russia's Arms Deals to Venezuela Destablizing Central America?”, Huffington Post, 7-28-09, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-amsterdam/are-russias-arms-deals-to_b_245993.html)//KG
|
Bloomberg reports that Russia and Venezuela signed wide-ranging cooperation accords on energy, military, and agricultural cooperation Joint ventures and big-sounding cooperation agreements are a familiar sight to observers of Russia-Venezuela relations, and the two countries have even formed a $4 billion development bank the relationship is highly political For the Russians, there is a clear desire to poke Washington in the eye More than just the immense enjoyment that Chávez must feel in passing an oil field taken directly from an American company into the hands of a Russian company, there is also a strong and growing military dimension to the relationship this level of arms purchases by Chávez defeats the narrative that he is about protecting the interests of the poor and underprivileged of Venezuela there are individuals seeking improper personal enrichment through their powers of office. The grotesque level of corruption in both Russia and Venezuela should stimulate the discussion as to whether the predatory nature of both states constitutes not only an international crime, but as well a breach of fundamental human rights
|
Increased relations lead to crime and human rights violations
| 5,359 | 62 | 1,143 | 869 | 9 | 176 | 0.010357 | 0.202532 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,580 |
When Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez touches down in Moscow on July 22 to meet with the duumvirate of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev, he will be ready for more than the usual diplomatic photo-op. This odd trio will be well-positioned to plan substantial international mischief. A Russian-Venezuelan axis is a 21st-century throwback to the Cold War Soviet-Cuban alliance. Such a partnership bodes ill for energy security, for freedom in both nations, and for the Western Hemisphere. Despite differences in culture, language, and geography, the rulers of Russia and Venezuela are increasingly rejecting civil society and narrowing political space in their respective countries. They drive out foreign investors and erode market mechanisms. Both governments have mounted sustained attacks on the rule of law in an effort to exert control over energy resources, excessively strengthen the state, and expand geopolitical clout. Putin and Chávez are promoting an alternative vision to that of the U.S. and the West and are comfortable with the progress they are making toward this end. Redistribution of Global Power The Russia-Venezuela condominium is emblematic of geopolitical forces rising to challenge U.S. leadership and influence. Chávez and the Russian duo want to redistribute global power as expediently as possible. In pursuit of this "world without the West," the two governments are dumping the dollar in favor of the Euro during energy transactions, using energy as a geopolitical weapon, and calling for the creation of "new economic and financial institutions" to supplant the post-Bretton Woods order. They also are cooperating in launching a natural gas OPEC-style cartel, led by Russia. For Russia, this new relationship is part of a larger effort to recover its great power status lost as the result of the Soviet Union's precipitous collapse. Chávez, on the other hand, seeks to realize Simón Bolivar's dream of a united Latin America capable of challenging the "Colossus to the North." Such geopolitical ambitions reflect the buoyancy found in oil- and gas-rich nations riding the crest of $135 per barrel oil. Russia and Venezuela, together with Iran, are among the trend-setters in the democracy roll-back taking place since the late 1990s, especially in petro-states. The rise of oil prices has accelerated this process and helped precipitate the rise of statism and the decline in democratic governance, while energy revenues provide the means to buy off political opponents and the media, build up internal security forces, and insulate regimes from any domestic and international criticism. While Russia is supporting Iran-both diplomatically and militarily-and buying European politicians with Gazprom jobs, Chávez is working to undermine stability in the Western Hemisphere. For instance, Chávez provides covert support for the narco-terrorism of the FARC, suitcases of clandestine cash for political candidates, friendship with Hezbollah, and a permissiveness or inattention that has allowed Venezuela to become a major transit point for cocaine. Sprawling and Increasingly Statist Economies Chávez and the Putin-Medvedev duumvirate both preside over sprawling and increasingly statist economies, gorged upon freshly nationalized industries and deeply dependent on resource nationalism. Russia has forced Western energy companies out of massive development projects in Siberia and the Far East, pressured British Petroleum to sell a major stake in a large Siberian gas field to Gazprom, and squeezed Royal Dutch Shell in the giant Sakhalin Island project. The current dispute between BP and Russian TNK-the only remaining major oil venture in Russia with 50 percent foreign ownership-is also consistent with Russia's continuing commitment to de-privatization. Yet Russian state control is not limited to natural resources. State control has also been mounting over metals, the arms sector, and the automotive industry. Moreover, despite resistance within the Kremlin, President Medvedev has just approved the transfer of the state's assets in 426 companies to a single "national champion"-state-owned Rostekhnologii or Russian Technologies. As it so happens, Rostekhnologii is run by Sergey Chemezov, Putin's intelligence community comrade. This transfer of assets and the ongoing dispute between British Petroleum and Russian TNK directly contradict Medvedev's rhetoric of liberal economics and legal reform. In the last 18 months, Chávez has also increased the tempo of nationalizations with several "my way or the highway" deals. By allowing for increased importation, skyrocketing oil prices mask-temporarily-economic mismanagement and the deeper shortcomings of anti-market economic policies. In modern-day Venezuela, crime, corruption, and inflation rise and while the quality of life of the average citizen declines or stagnates. Crony capitalism, coupled with lack of transparency and accountability, makes life difficult for the ordinary Russian or Venezuelan. Scarce wonder that, according to The Heritage Foundation's 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, Russia stands 134th out of 157 ranked nations, while Venezuela has descended to the bottom 10 at 148th out of 157. Energy as a Geopolitical Weapon The Kremlin is skilled at using energy as a foreign policy tool. It has cut off supplies to six countries over the last seven years and uses energy dependence as leverage to divide Europe on key issues. Most recently, after the signing of an agreement between Prague and Washington for an anti-missile defense radar station, a Russian company sharply reduced the flow of oil to the Czech Republic. Mimicking the Russians, Caracas relishes using oil for geopolitical leverage and influence. In recent months, Chávez has bolstered oil subsidies and a financing facility known as Petrocaribe. Using the oil bonanza, Chávez has pledged assistance that eclipses U.S. aid in the Western Hemisphere. Even democratic Costa Rica cannot resist the seduction of relief at the pump. At the working level, Russia's energy giant Gazprom and Venezuela' national petroleum company, PDVSA, are cementing an energy partnership in South America. As the chief of PDVSA recently reported, "We want to make [PDVSA] like Gazprom, but with a social role." Chávez seeks to deepen cooperation with the Kremlin and its state-run enterprises. He has invited Russian firms to exploit the Orinoco River basin-potentially the world's largest oil deposit, holding 1.2 trillion barrels of extra-heavy crude. Gazprom is also involved in a proposed Venezuelan initiative to construct an 8,000-kilometer trans-South American gas pipeline that will link Venezuela's oil and gas fields to Argentina via Brazil, with potential spurs going to Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina. According to Chávez, these Russian state-run firms are part of the vanguard of the Bolivarian revolution. Arms sales-which Russia uses to gain friends and influence governments-are key components of the Kremlin's relationship with Venezuela. Flush with cash, Chávez is buying as much military hardware as possible. For instance, in 2006, Chávez sealed a $3 billion arms package with Russian state-owned arms trader Rosoboronexport that included 100,000 Kalashnikov AK-103 series automatic rifles, 24 advanced Sukhoi (SU-30) fighter jets, and 53 military helicopters. A Russian Kalashnikov rifle plant and munitions factory should be operational in Venezuela by 2010. Caracas is also interested in Russian air defense systems and diesel submarines. Chávez increasingly relies on Russia to provide the weaponry he insists is needed to defend Venezuela against the bogey of a U.S. invasion. The July 22 visit will yield more arms, including a possible submarine deal. While Washington tends to focus on Chavez's ties to the FARC or Iran and Hezbollah, Venezuela's rapidly solidifying relationship with Russia opens up previously unexplored avenues for diplomatic, military, and perhaps nuclear cooperation between the two. Whether in Eurasia or the Western Hemisphere, these actors are playing a broad geopolitical game into which they hope to lure China, India, Brazil, and other rising powers. A Multi-Pronged Strategy The next administration will have to devote more attention to the Western Hemisphere, as well as to the increasing threat of resource nationalism from Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other energy-rich countries. Specifically, the next administration must develop a multi-pronged strategy committed to: Promoting market access and the rule of law among energy producers; Promoting greater cooperation between energy consumers; and Developing alternative sources of energy consumers want. These are trying days for the globe's democracies, yet greater threats were defeated in the past.
|
Cohen and Walser, 8 - Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security AND Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies (Ariel and Ray, “The Russia-Venezuela Axis: Using Energy for Geopolitical Advantage”, The Heritage Foundation, 7-21-08, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-russia-venezuela-axis-using-energy-for-geopolitical-advantage)//KG
|
Despite differences in culture, language, and geography, the rulers of Russia and Venezuela are increasingly rejecting civil society and narrowing political space in their respective countries Both governments have mounted sustained attacks on the rule of law in an effort to exert control over energy resources, excessively strengthen the state, and expand geopolitical clout. Putin and Chávez are promoting an alternative vision to that of the U.S. and the West and are comfortable with the progress they are making toward this end The Russia-Venezuela condominium is emblematic of geopolitical forces rising to challenge U.S. leadership and influence the two governments are dumping the dollar in favor of the Euro during energy transactions, using energy as a geopolitical weapon They also are cooperating in launching a natural gas OPEC-style cartel, led by Russia For Russia, this new relationship is part of a larger effort to recover its great power status lost as the result of the Soviet Union's precipitous collapse Russia and Venezuela are among the trend-setters in the democracy roll-back taking place since the late 1990s The rise of oil prices has accelerated this process and helped precipitate the rise of statism and the decline in democratic governance, while energy revenues provide the means to buy off political opponents and the media, build up internal security forces, and insulate regimes from any domestic and international criticism. Chávez provides covert support for the narco-terrorism of the FARC, suitcases of clandestine cash for political candidates, friendship with Hezbollah, and a permissiveness or inattention that has allowed Venezuela to become a major transit point for cocaine Russia has forced Western energy companies out of massive development projects In modern-day Venezuela, crime, corruption, and inflation rise and while the quality of life of the average citizen declines or stagnates. Crony capitalism, coupled with lack of transparency and accountability, makes life difficult for the ordinary Russian or Venezuelan The Kremlin is skilled at using energy as a foreign policy tool Russia's energy giant Gazprom and Venezuela' national petroleum company, PDVSA, are cementing an energy partnership in South America. Chávez seeks to deepen cooperation with the Kremlin and its state-run enterprises. He has invited Russian firms to exploit the Orinoco River basin-potentially the world's largest oil deposit Arms sales-which Russia uses to gain friends and influence governments-are key components of the Kremlin's relationship with Venezuela Chávez is buying as much military hardware as possible Chávez increasingly relies on Russia to provide the weaponry he insists is needed to defend Venezuela against the bogey of a U.S. invasion While Washington tends to focus on Chavez's ties to the FARC or Iran and Hezbollah, Venezuela's rapidly solidifying relationship with Russia opens up previously unexplored avenues for diplomatic, military, and perhaps nuclear cooperation between the two. The next administration will have to devote more attention to the Western Hemisphere, as well as to the increasing threat of resource nationalism from Russia, Venezuela
|
Increased Russian influence in Venezuela crowds out the US and promotes crime, corruption, and terror
| 8,808 | 101 | 3,212 | 1,313 | 15 | 483 | 0.011424 | 0.36786 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,581 |
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores. The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow. The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them. The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said. The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines. A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment. One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month. “The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official. “It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines. The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles. “Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar. “Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email. The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States. Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity. The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow. Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States. Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.” The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity. The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017. The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection. In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska. Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given. A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets. That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2. It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe. Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis. Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory. The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula. Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin. Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states. Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: “We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends.” The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website. Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba. Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers. Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force. The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines. The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.
|
Gertz, 12 - senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon, was a national security reporter, editor, and columnist for 27 years at the Washington Times (Bill, Silent Running: Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say”, The Washington Free Beacon, 8-14-12, http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/)//KG
|
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow. The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month The Akula was built for one reason To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst Polmar the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces Putin has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past adopted growing hardline policies against the United States. Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses Under the terms of the START arms accord exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills No such notification was given Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030 Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and also can lay mines.
|
Russian navy encroaching on US influence in Latin America – training exercises with Venezuela
| 7,462 | 93 | 2,505 | 1,197 | 14 | 391 | 0.011696 | 0.32665 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,582 |
Why Are Most Americans Oblivious to These Terrifying Facts? There are many reasons: 1. In today's society, where hundreds of stories compete for attention, a story must be reported over and over again, and repeated by several different types of media (such as TV and newspapers and news magazines) before it penetrates the public consciousness. 2. The establishment press has not regularly reported on military developments in Russia. Most media have unthinkingly swallowed the Clinton line that "Russia and China are our friends" hook, line and sinker 3. Media omissions and distortions, coupled with Clinton administration propaganda about "our friend Russia" and "our friend, China," has left the overwhelming majority of those in Congress and the military totally ignorant of the new military threat posed by the Russians and Chinese. 4. US military leaders who are aware Russian rearmament and US disarmament in their particular area of expertise (for instance strategic bombers), may be unaware of the big picture, i.e., how extensive those trends are. Further, military officials may want to speak out, may fear being fired or blacklisted from employment bv defense contractors after they leave the military. Many probably also buy the official line that "the Cold War is over" so there's no reason to be concerned about Russian military exercises or overflights of the US or the closure of US military bases. Others may believe, with some justification, there is no one in the mainstream they can turn to who will honestly report Russian rearmament and US disarmament. 5. Russia appears to be making most of its preparations in the open, so as not to arouse suspicion, lulling US observers into a false sense of security. After all, if the Russians are conducting military exercises out in the open and announcing redeployment of missiles to the seas, there can't be anything sinister about it, can there? 6. The idea of a REAL nuclear war that would destroy America is so alien to most Americans, that most can't even imagine it much less try to stop it. Unfortunately this is not the case in Russia which discussed and threatened nuclear war against the United States for 50 years. Russian strategic military planning has been based on a nuclear war with the US for decades. Unlike Americans who believe that "there are no winners in nuclear war," Russia's leaders believe they can win a nuclear confrontation. Having lived through repeated invasions bv foreign enemies, such as the Nazi destruction of Stalingrad, the Russian people know from first-hand experience thev and their nation can survive and recover from enormous military devastation. 7. America's Intelligence Agencies can not be totally relied upon. Clinton has drastically reduced the number of CIA personnel in covert operations - the cloak-and-dagger spies necessary for getting first hand information. The United States has unquestioned technical spying ability. However, there are limits to what we can discern about Russian intentions and plans from spy satellites. That's when it counts to have a man in the Kremlin. However, the US has never had a top-level spy in Russia's intelligence services above the rank of colonel. No senior members of the Politburo or any members of the Russian general staff have ever defected to the West. Even in Fast Germany and Cuba, all our "top" spies have all turned out to be double agents for the communists.
|
Christopher Ruddy, Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, “Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 8: Why are Most Americans Oblivious to These Terrifying Facts?,” NEWSMAX, March 17, 1999, http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/17/151001.
|
1. In today's society, where hundreds of stories compete for attention, a story must be reported over and over again, and repeated by several different types of media before it penetrates the public consciousness. 2. The establishment press has not regularly reported on military developments in Russia. Media omissions and distortions, coupled with Clinton administration propaganda about "our friend Russia" and "our friend, China," has left the overwhelming majority of those in Congress and the military totally ignorant of the new military threat posed by the Russians and Chinese. . US military leaders may be unaware of the big picture, i.e., how extensive those trends are military officials may want to speak out, may fear being fired or blacklisted from employment bv defense contractors after they leave the military. there is no one in the mainstream they can turn to who will honestly report Russian rearmament and US disarmament. 5. Russia appears to be making most of its preparations in the open, lulling US observers into a false sense of security. The idea of a REAL nuclear war that would destroy America is so alien to most Americans, that most can't even imagine it much less try to stop it. America's Intelligence Agencies can not be totally relied upon.
|
Their authors are wrong – we are right
| 3,427 | 38 | 1,276 | 558 | 8 | 209 | 0.014337 | 0.374552 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,583 |
But the reader must stop and set all this aside. In Russia all facts are attended by a bodyguard of fiction. Wild opinions bearing the character of insanity, mixed with conspiracy theory, mixed with rumor, mixed with fantastic speculations and a dash of truth -- leaves everyone hypnotized by an illusory parade of vivid images. In Filin's account of the Arctic Sea, everything is probable except for the concluding details; and nothing is independently verified. The story is about a superpower struggle involving the Middle East, but ends up centering on the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The president of Ukraine, who was poisoned by the KGB five years ago, is fighting against pro-Russian forces in the Ukrainian government. He struggles against pro-Russian voices in the Ukrainian media. He struggles against a parliament dominated by Russian agents. Is it not outrageous that American special forces siezed the Arctic Sea? Is it not outrageous that Ukraine's president should take the side of the United States? One may assume there were negotiations between Moscow and Washington, and a resolution of the matter. (Perhaps the missiles would have to return to Russia.) But the truth of the matter? If you want to find the truth about Russia, if you want to penetrate the reality of Russia's KGB regime, then you should not seek the truth among the paid minions and military hangers-on of the Soviet past. The truth, in our time, is more likely to come from people who have no ties to Russian military intelligence, no professorships, no large book deals, and no part in Moscow's ongoing disinformation campaign. On the American side, the situation is no different. The deepest truths do not appear in the major media, at the offices of the CIA or NSA, or within Congress, or the State Department.
|
Nyquist ‘9 [J.R, renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, “Never Ask the Wolves to Help You Against the Dogs,” 8-21, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.html //GBS-JV]
|
In Russia all facts are attended by a bodyguard of fiction One may assume there were negotiations between Moscow and Washington, and a resolution of the matter. If you want to find the truth about Russia, if you want to penetrate the reality of Russia's KGB regime, then you should not seek the truth among the paid minions and military hangers-on of the Soviet past The truth, in our time, is more likely to come from people who have no ties to Russian military intelligence, no professorships, no large book deals, and no part in Moscow's ongoing disinformation campaign. On the American side, the situation is no different. The deepest truths do not appear in the major media, at the offices of the CIA or NSA, or within Congress, or the State Department.
|
The only sources that aren’t tainted by the KGB are those that have no connection with Russian military intelligence, professorships or large book deals
| 1,806 | 152 | 758 | 301 | 24 | 133 | 0.079734 | 0.44186 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,584 |
In early 1998, Nyquist predicted that authorities in Russia would deliberately implode their own economy to advance their political and military agendas. There were several reasons. First, that would divert attention from the theft of billions of dollars by government officials from "privatized" companies, and provide a convenient explanation why none of them were making any money. Second, by engendering Russia's economic collapse and blaming the West, the necessary psychological atmosphere for war against the US would be created. Another outcome of Russia's economic collapse, Nyquist said, would be the emergence of a series of progressively stronger and more militarist Russian leaders. Primakov -- Yeltsin's Prime Minister -- perfectly fits Nyquist's prediction. He's a former hard-line, anti-American KGB general. Nyquist also predicted that Russia would ally with China. That, too, has now taken place, as you'll see below. Finally, Nyquist predicted that Russia would stockpile huge quantities of food and other supplies for war, and begin moving their nuclear weapons on to their naval ships where they are much more difficult to monitor and deter. All of this has occurred.
|
Ruddy ’99 [Chris. Hoover Institution Fellow of War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford. “Russia May Launch a Surprise Attack Against the US” www.newsmax.com, 12 March 99]
|
Nyquist predicted that authorities in Russia would deliberately implode their own economy to advance their political and military agendas by engendering Russia's economic collapse and blaming the West, the necessary psychological atmosphere for war against the US would be created. Another outcome of Russia's economic collapse would be the emergence of a series of progressively stronger and more militarist Russian leaders Primakov fits Nyquist's prediction. He's a former hard-line, anti-American KGB general. Nyquist predicted that Russia would ally with China. That, too, has now taken place Nyquist predicted that Russia would stockpile huge quantities of food and other supplies for war, and begin moving their nuclear weapons on to their naval ships where they are much more difficult to monitor and deter. All of this has occurred.
|
Nyquist is right about Russia
| 1,188 | 29 | 840 | 180 | 5 | 127 | 0.027778 | 0.705556 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,585 |
<Still, while Russia will continue expanding its ties to Latin America, Russia’s capacities for deep involvement are less than it wants, as is Latin American states’ ability to support Russian goals. This is especially true for countries like Venezuela that depend on energy or commodities revenues, as their capabilities have also declined due to the global economic crisis. Thus Russia will only partially, if at all, meet Latin American expectations for support, even in stricken economies like Cuba. Likewise, Russian companies charged with developing relations with Latin America recently acknowledged that little or no economic expansion will occur anytime soon. For example, even though Russia and Venezuela ostentatiously agreed to create oil and gas companies, Russian companies have few liquid assets for investing in Latin America. Indeed, Russia habitually makes grandiose claims and then fails to implement them, as we can see in Moscow’s energy programs in Siberia, the Far East and Central Asia. Not surprisingly, even Venezuela displays skepticism about Russia’s ability to transform its ties to Venezuela, which are mainly in arms sales, into a relationship based on large-scale investment and diplomatic coordination.>
|
Blank 10 – Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S Army War College (April 13, 2010, “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf)
|
while Russia will continue expanding its ties to Latin America, Russia’s capacities for deep involvement are less than it wants, as is Latin American states’ ability to support Russian goals. This is especially true for Venezuela Russian companies charged with developing relations with Latin America recently acknowledged that economic expansion will occur anytime soon. even though Russia and Venezuela ostentatiously agreed to create oil and gas companies, Russian companies have few liquid assets for investing in Latin America Russia habitually makes grandiose claims and then fails to implement them, as we can see in Moscow’s energy programs in Siberia, the Far East and Central Asia. even Venezuela displays skepticism about Russia’s ability to transform its ties to Venezuela, which are mainly in arms sales, into a relationship based on large-scale investment and diplomatic coordination
|
Doesn’t solve the case --- Russia will not be able to successfully expand energy coop with Venezuela
| 1,236 | 101 | 897 | 185 | 17 | 134 | 0.091892 | 0.724324 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,586 |
<While these points accord with Russian rhetoric, Latin American elites overwhelmingly prefer cooperation with the United States based on its acceptance and appreciation of their needs interests and views. They refuse to be pawns once again in a new version of the Cold War. Indeed, Brazilian President Inacio “Lula” da Silva openly expressed his hope that President Obama implements a ‘preferential’ relationship with Latin America. Unfortunately, Russian and Venezuelan foreign policies, albeit for different reasons, aim to embroil the continent in a contest with the United States. Russia still covets a global, or even superpower, status equal to that of the United States and therefore wants to join every international club that exists, whether or not it has any real interests in the area.23 Thus Russia expressed to Argentina its interest in becoming an observer at the South American Defense Council that is part of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). Russia also wants to participate as an observer in the Latin American Association of Training Centers for Peace Operations (Alcopaz).This craving for status lies at the heart of Russian foreign policy. Consequently Russian policy in Latin America is ultimately an American policy. It aims to instrumentalize Latin America as a series of countries or even a weak, but still discernible,political bloc to support Russian positions against U.S. policy and dominance in world affairs. Therefore Russia argues that Latin American states that wish to challenge America need to rely on Moscow. Thus President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua pledged to Russia Nicaragua’s opposition to a “unipolar” world and welcomed Russian presence in Latin America as a sign of opposition to that unipolarity by saying “extreme conditions are being created in Latin America and all the governments are welcoming Russia’s presence.” Chávez’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia had similar objectives in mind.>
|
Blank 10 – Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S Army War College (April 13, 2010, “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf)
|
Latin American elites overwhelmingly prefer cooperation with the United States based on its acceptance and appreciation of their needs interests and views. They refuse to be pawns once again in a new version of the Cold War. Obama implements a ‘preferential’ relationship with Latin America. Unfortunately, Russian and Venezuelan foreign policies, albeit for different reasons, aim to embroil the continent in a contest with the United States.
|
Latin America prefers cooperation with the US instead of Russia
| 1,961 | 64 | 443 | 302 | 10 | 67 | 0.033113 | 0.221854 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,587 |
<Nicolas Maduro said that America’s military attaché, David Delmonaco, would be removed because he was destabilizing the country. A couple of hours later, the vice-president was on the TV again. “Commandante Hugo Chavez died at 4:25 p.m. local time,” he announced with a shaky voice, and called on Venezuelans to come together and wipe away their tears. “Viva Hugo Chavez,” he said, raising his fist in a symbol of victory.
|
Tarasenko and Safronov 13 (March 11, 2013, “Will Russia’s Cozy Relationship with Venezuela Die with Chavez” http://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/will-russia-039-s-cozy-relationship-with-venezuela-die-with-chavez-/venezuela-chavez-russia-oil-military-trade-weapons/c1s11149/)
|
Maduro said that America’s military attaché would be removed because he was destabilizing the country.
|
Venezuela Relations with Russia are gone with Chavez
| 423 | 53 | 102 | 70 | 8 | 15 | 0.114286 | 0.214286 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,588 |
CARACAS, Venezuela — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visited Venezuela on Friday to sign a series of military and oil agreements with President Hugo Chávez, who is seeking to expand ties with Russia as a way of countering the influence of the United States in Latin America. Mr. Putin’s one-day visit built on a relationship rooted in billions of dollars of Russian arms sales to Venezuela over the past decade. Venezuela has also emerged as one of Russia’s most vocal supporters, recognizing two Russian-backed separatist enclaves of Georgia in 2009 and applauding Russian efforts to advance the ambitions of an embryonic group of gas-rich nations. Russia’s warm ties with Venezuela are also opening the way for it to improve relations with a handful of other countries in Latin America, notably Bolivia. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, a staunch critic of the Obama administration and a major recipient of Venezuelan aid, was also expected to discuss cooperation agreements with Mr. Putin here on Friday night. Still, obstacles persist to a more assertive Russian expansion in Venezuela beyond the sphere of weapons sales and political engagement with Mr. Chávez’s allies. As if to illustrate these challenges, the highlights of Mr. Putin’s visit included the sale of 2,250 Russian-built Lada vehicles to Venezuela’s government, and the delivery of four MI-17 helicopters to Mr. Chávez’s military, even though Mr. Chávez had suggested before Mr. Putin’s arrival that the countries could cooperate ambitiously on nuclear energy and a satellite-launching base in Venezuela. Relatively low oil revenues in both Russia and Venezuela may also hamper their plans to build complex and expensive oil projects in southern Venezuela. One oil venture discussed by senior Venezuelan and Russian officials here this week would require at least $18 billion in investments. Still, Mr. Putin signaled seriousness over Russia’s oil ambitions here by agreeing to pay $600 million in signing fees. Skepticism also lingers over Russia’s capacity to expand its influence in the hemisphere after the Soviet Union, with more resources, achieved few tangible results in Central and South America during the cold war. “Russia, whatever its leaders’ ambitions, mostly lacks the wherewithal to mount an enduring diplomatic and economic offensive in Latin America,” said Stephen Kotkin, a Russia specialist at Princeton University. Disarray in Venezuela’s oil industry has contributed to intensifying electricity blackouts, not to mention undermining its ability to play a more influential role in the gas-exporters group that Russia is supporting. Venezuela still needs to import natural gas from neighboring Colombia and has been unable to increase its own natural gas output to fuel power plants around the country. Mr. Chávez insisted in a news conference on Friday that Venezuela and Russia were prepared to work together to build nuclear energy projects here to alleviate the electricity shortages (officials here have also referred to nuclear cooperation with Iran). But the timing of such projects remains vague, and the cost and scientific expertise needed to carry out such plans remain outside of Venezuela’s reach, according to studies by independent nuclear specialists.
|
Romero, 10 - Brazil bureau chief for The New York Times and covers Brazil and several other countries in South America (Simon, “Putin Visits Venezuela to Discuss Oil and Arms”, The New York Times, 4-2-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/world/americas/03venez.html?_r=0)//KG
|
Putin of Russia visited Venezuela on Friday to sign a series of military and oil agreements with Hugo Chávez, who is seeking to expand ties with Russia as a way of countering the influence of the United States in Latin America Putin’s one-day visit built on a relationship rooted in billions of dollars of Russian arms sales to Venezuela over the past decade. Venezuela has emerged as one of Russia’s most vocal supporters applauding Russian efforts to advance the ambitions of an embryonic group of gas-rich nations Russia’s warm ties with Venezuela are also opening the way for it to improve relations with a handful of other countries in Latin America obstacles persist to a more assertive Russian expansion in Venezuela beyond the sphere of weapons sales and political engagement with Chávez’s allies Relatively low oil revenues in both Russia and Venezuela hamper their plans to build complex and expensive oil projects in southern Venezuela. One oil venture would require at least $18 billion in investments Skepticism also lingers over Russia’s capacity to expand its influence in the hemisphere after the Soviet Union, with more resources, achieved few tangible results in Central and South America during the cold war Russia lacks the wherewithal to mount an enduring diplomatic and economic offensive in Latin America Venezuela still needs to import natural gas from neighboring Colombia and has been unable to increase its own natural gas output to fuel power plants around the country Chávez insisted that Venezuela and Russia were prepared to work together to build nuclear energy projects But the timing of such projects remains vague, and the cost and scientific expertise needed to carry out such plans remain outside of Venezuela’s reach, according to studies by independent nuclear specialists
|
Russian expansionism fails – costs, expertise, and lack of real influence
| 3,270 | 74 | 1,811 | 505 | 11 | 290 | 0.021782 | 0.574257 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,589 |
<So the future of Russo-Venezuelan relationship depends on two things. One is how Nicolas Maduro chooses to pursue his foreign policy should he win the upcoming election, which looks ever more likely. The other, and more important factor, is the international events which occur in the near and further future. The unfolding North Korean crisis suggests that Russia may co-operate with the US to achieve de-escalation, continuing its quest for greater involvement in the Korean Peninsula which will also allow it to influence events and be seen as a mediator. Obviously Venezuela holds less clout internationally, but in the case of a Maduro victory it seems likely that anti-US rhetoric will continue. As such, all indications point to continued Russo-Venezuelan co-operation, in the spheres of trade and energy, however that the relationship will evolve to one with greater international influence seems unlikely. Instead, it suits both parties to focus on their co-operation at the micro-level. This allows Russia influence in South America, a trade market and access to Venezuela’s highly sought after energy supplies. For Venezuela it means the access to arms, but more importantly the claim to a major international ally. In all it is a relationship of convenience for both and one which looks set to continue.>
|
Christou 13 – London School of Economics and Political Science with an MSC in International Relations. (April 21, 2013, “Russia and Venezuela after Chavez” http://blog.futureforeignpolicy.com/2013/04/21/russia-and-venezuela-after-chavez/)
|
The unfolding North Korean crisis suggests that Russia may co-operate with the US to achieve de-escalation all indications point to continued Russo-Venezuelan co-operation, in the spheres of trade and energy, however that the relationship will evolve to one with greater international influence seems unlikely. Instead, it suits both parties to focus on their co-operation at the micro-level.
|
Russian-Venezuelan cooperation will be limited --- won’t create more international influence
| 1,318 | 92 | 392 | 209 | 11 | 57 | 0.052632 | 0.272727 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,590 |
Despite’s Russia’s efforts to make economic inroads in South America, and especially Venezuela, in fact its actual achievements are modest, especially in view of the current global economic crisis whose repercussions are felt everywhere. Cuba may want restoration of former economic cooperation with Russia, but Russia cannot afford such cooperation beyond a few economic sectors like energy or arms sales. The Russo-Cuban relationship’s economic dimension is quite limited compared to what it was a generation ago.88 Neither is truly large-scale Russian investment in Venezuela possible. Accordingly, projects like the plan to carry gas from Venezuela to Argentina across the Amazon basin, which was under-financed to begin with and economically senseless as well, will probably not go anywhere.89 Moreover, in fact few projects have actually been signed or carried out, or will be. Additionally, there are serious problems (as is frequently the case) with the quality of Russian weapons and Venezuelan maintenance of them.90 Medvedev sidestepped Chávez’s call for a real alliance and no major agrements were signed during his trip.91
|
Blank, 10 --- Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (4/13/2010, Stephen J., “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf, JMP)
|
Despite’s Russia’s efforts to make economic inroads in South America, and especially Venezuela, in fact its actual achievements are modest, especially in view of the current global economic crisis whose repercussions are felt everywhere. Neither is truly large-scale Russian investment in Venezuela possible few projects have actually been signed or carried out, or will be. there are serious problems (as is frequently the case) with the quality of Russian weapons and Venezuelan maintenance of them Medvedev sidestepped Chávez’s call for a real alliance and no major agrements were signed during his trip.
|
Russia is not making real inroads into Latin America
| 1,135 | 52 | 607 | 170 | 9 | 92 | 0.052941 | 0.541176 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,591 |
<But despite this continuation in rhetoric and action, the international context may or may not affect how the relationship continues. Some claim, Maduro is even more anti-American than his predecessor and arguably Russia and Putin have hardened their stance towards the United States in recent years as the “reset’ in their relationship failed to take off. However, a notable difference arises when one considers the actions of both states towards the US. Russia, despite its quest for great power status has in many cases fallen in line with American foreign policy goals. North Korea is a good example. While Russia has never issued rhetoric as strong as that of the United States, Russian politicians have always stressed Russian desire to mediate in the ongoing disputes arising from North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapon capability. In fact, in the current impasse which is arising following continued North Korean provocations Russia’s Foreign Ministry essentially fell in line with the US view: “For Russia – which is a member of United Nation’s Security Council – this is completely unacceptable”. Another example where Russia has essentially fallen in line was 9/11, when Vladimir Putin pledged co-operation with the US to defeat terrorism – the link here was obviously Russian desire to justify its own actions against what is saw as domestic terrorism in Chechnya. Obviously, disagreements still exists, and serious ones at that. Syria is a major case in point, with Russia having blocked three Security Council resolutions to date. None-the-less the Russian side has called for alleviation of the crisis, and in broader terms that even the Americans would be reluctant to intervene in the conflict. But the point is that Russian foreign policy can in many cases correspond with that of the US. Russia won’t always agree with the US but its actions in the foreign policy arena suggest a mindset where domestic considerations will prevail, and even if these don’t correspond with American desires rhetoric will be strong but overly scornful.>
|
Christou 13 – London School of Economics and Political Science with an MSC in International Relations. (April 21, 2013, “Russia and Venezuela after Chavez” http://blog.futureforeignpolicy.com/2013/04/21/russia-and-venezuela-after-chavez/)
|
despite this continuation in rhetoric and action, the international context may or may not affect how the relationship continues. Some claim, Maduro is even more anti-American than his predecessor and arguably Russia and Putin have hardened their stance towards the United States in recent years as the “reset’ in their relationship failed to take off. However, a notable difference arises when one considers the actions of both states towards the US. Russia, despite its quest for great power status has in many cases fallen in line with American foreign policy goals. Russian foreign policy can in many cases correspond with that of the US. Russia won’t always agree with the US but its actions in the foreign policy arena suggest a mindset where domestic considerations will prevail, and even if these don’t correspond with American desires rhetoric will be strong but overly scornful.
|
Unlike Venezuela, Russian foreign policy interests largely intersect with those of the U.S.
| 2,055 | 91 | 888 | 330 | 13 | 143 | 0.039394 | 0.433333 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,592 |
CARACAS, Venezuela – Russia has agreed to help Venezuela draw up plans for a nuclear power plant, President Hugo Chavez said Friday. Atomic energy was one of many areas of cooperation discussed as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made his first visit to the South American country. "We're ready to start drawing up the first plan of a nuclear power plant, obviously with peaceful aims," Chavez said. Chavez had announced plans to turn to Russia for nuclear help in the past. He did not give details on how much Venezuela is prepared to invest, or how long it might take. Russia and Venezuela also launched a joint business to tap vast oil deposits in eastern Venezuela, and Chavez said Moscow has offered to help Venezuela set up its own space industry including a satellite launch site. Putin also pledged to keep selling arms to Venezuela. Chavez's government has already bought more than $4 billion in Russian weapons since 2005, including helicopters, fighter jets and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles. "We will continue supporting and developing Venezuela's defense capabilities," said Putin, who headed back to Moscow after the one-day visit. He noted Russia has agreed to lend Venezuela up to $2.2 billion for additional arms deals and said Venezuela has yet to use any of those funds. Chavez said the two governments were discussing new arms deals but did not give details. Officials signed 31 agreements during Putin's visit to deepen cooperation in areas from air transport to agriculture. Russia is sending more than 2,000 Lada cars to Venezuela, Chavez said. Putin said there are plans to eventually assemble the cars in Venezuela. Chavez has grown increasingly close to Russia, Iran and China while fiercely criticizing U.S. policies, and his calls for countering U.S. influence to create a "multi-polar world" have found resonance in Moscow. "Our objective is to make the world more democratic, make it balanced and multi-polar," Putin said. "The cooperation between Russia and Venezuela in this context has special importance." When asked by a reporter how the U.S. might view Venezuela's growing defense spending, Chavez noted Washington has barred arms sales to his government. "The Yankee empire doesn't want us to have one single little plane," he said, adding: "We don't really care what Washington thinks. We aren't making alliances here against Washington." Putin said if the United States doesn't want to sell arms to Venezuela, "well, for us that's good." Chavez said Thursday that Russia has offered to help Venezuela set up a "satellite launcher and a factory" to help Venezuela establish its own space industry. He didn't give details or say how much that might cost. Venezuela launched its first communications satellite from China in 2008. The U.S. State Department poked fun at Chavez's suggestion that Venezuela may set up a space industry with Russian help. "We would note that the government of Venezuela was largely closed this week due to energy shortages," spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters. "To the extent that Venezuela is going to expend resources on behalf of its people, perhaps the focus should be more terrestrial than extraterrestrial." Worsening electricity shortages prompted Chavez's government to decree public holidays throughout this week to save energy. A severe drought has pushed water levels to precarious lows at the dam that supplies most of Venezuela's electricity. Putin said Russia's government sees Venezuela as something of a bridge for deepening ties with Latin America, and noted that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev plans to visit Brazil soon. Bolivian President Evo Morales met in private with Putin at Chavez's presidential palace Friday night. Bolivia is requesting a loan from Russia to buy helicopters to help combat drug trafficking, Morales said. Venezuela's state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA has formed a joint venture with a consortium of five Russian oil companies to drill for and process heavy crude in the Orinoco River basin in eastern Venezuela. The five companies — Rosneft, Lukoil, TNK-BP, Gazprom and Surgutneftegas — have agreed to pay the Venezuelan government $1 billion for the right to help develop an area known as Junin 6, and Putin handed Chavez a folder containing what he said was a $600 million down payment. Venezuela also agreed to allow the companies to be involved in three other areas in the crude-rich Orinoco region. Political analysts in Moscow say Russia is drawn to Venezuela because of the its anti-U.S. rhetoric, though business deals have helped cement the growing relationship. "The only thing that really unites Russia and Venezuela is that they don't want to see a unipolar world," dominated by the U.S., said Sergei Mikheyev, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies, adding that President Barack Obama's administration hasn't done enough to lure Moscow away from Caracas. But, he said, "Without the business involved, the anti-American rhetoric wouldn't be enough to unite Russia and Venezuela." Chavez presented Putin with the Order of the Liberator — Venezuela's highest honor — and gave him a replica of a sword used by South American independence hero Simon Bolivar — the namesake of Chavez's socialist-inspired "Bolivarian Revolution." Putin kissed the replica sword and said: "Russia from the start has supported Latin America's struggle for independence."
|
AP, 10 - Associated Press (“Chavez: Russia Offers Venezuela Nuclear Help”, Fox News, 4-3-10, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/03/chavez-russia-offers-venezuela-nuclear-help/)//KG
|
Russia has agreed to help Venezuela draw up plans for a nuclear power plant, Atomic energy was one of many areas of cooperation discussed as Putin made his first visit to the South American country Russia and Venezuela also launched a joint business to tap vast oil deposits in eastern Venezuela, and Chavez said Moscow has offered to help Venezuela set up its own space industry including a satellite launch site Putin also pledged to keep selling arms to Venezuela We will continue supporting and developing Venezuela's defense capabilities," said Putin, He noted Russia has agreed to lend Venezuela up to $2.2 billion for additional arms deals Chavez has grown increasingly close to Russia while fiercely criticizing U.S. policies, and his calls for countering U.S. influence to create a "multi-polar world" have found resonance in Moscow Chavez noted Washington has barred arms sales to his government he said We don't really care what Washington thinks. Putin said if the United States doesn't want to sell arms to Venezuela, "well, for us that's good Political analysts in Moscow say Russia is drawn to Venezuela because of the its anti-U.S. rhetoric, though business deals have helped cement the growing relationship The only thing that really unites Russia and Venezuela is that they don't want to see a unipolar world Without the business involved, the anti-American rhetoric wouldn't be enough to unite Russia and Venezuela
|
Aff can’t solve – both sides are too motivated to cooperate and counter US influence
| 5,399 | 85 | 1,433 | 861 | 15 | 232 | 0.017422 | 0.269454 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,593 |
Under President Chávez, Venezuela is enjoying good relations with Russia as one of its most important trade and military partners in Latin America. By strengthening the Venezuelan-Russian ties, Hugo Chávez wants to help creating a multi-polar world, “a world that permits the rights of peoples to liberty, self-determination and sovereignty”. Over the past years, while the Russian Federation has been led by Vladimir Putin either as Prime Minister or as President, the ties between Chávez and Putin have become stronger. Both leaders are ardent patriots, proud to serve their respective countries which they love with great intensity. Both men share similar views on many topics, for example the role of the USA in global economics. Hugo Chávez agreed with Vladimir Putin’s opinion that the USA is an “economic parasite” because of its “constant instability and high debts, living far beyond its means and transferring the burden of its problems to the entire world economy.” On Venezuelan television (VTV) President Chávez repeated Vladimir Putin’s words, demanding Venezuela to “free itself from the parasite”. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves and is the fifth biggest oil exporter world-wide. In the twelve years of Hugo Chávez’ government, Venezuela transferred its international funds from US banks to other banks in different parts of the world. Furthermore Venezuela paid back all of its debts to US banks and ended its dependence on the IMF. Venezuela is a strategic business partner for Russia in the exploitation of gas and crude oil. Since 2005, Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA and the Russian oil company Lukoil have been drilling oil in the Venezuelan Orinoco Oil Belt together. Another joint venture contract was signed in 2011 between Russia’s Rosneft and PDVSA to exploit the oil reserves of the blocs Carabobo-2 North and East. Rosneft holds 40 percent, PDVSA owns the majority of 60 percent. Since 2008, PDVSA has furthermore been drilling gas jointly with Russia’s Gazprom in the Gulf of Venezuela. The Caribbean Gas Belt, which stretches along the coast of Venezuela, contains 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. President Chávez wants his country to produce its own gas with Russian help, thanks to the transfer of Russian technology and training. “It is a great advantage for Venezuela to count on Russia’s presence and Gazprom in the Gulf”, Hugo Chávez pointed out. Another shared Venezuelan-Russian enterprise is the mining of gold in Venezuela’s gold mines, Las Cristinas and Las Brisas. Both gold deposits were nationalized under the Chávez Government. The Russian firm Rusoro was granted partnership with Venezuelan state mining companies. To finance these projects, a bi-national bank was created in 2009. Russia’s Gazprombank and VTB control 51 percent, Venezuela’s PDVSA and the National Treasury own 49 percent. The bi-national bank’s headquarters are located in Moscow, with offices established in Caracas and Beijing. The bi-national bank aims to boost financial cooperation between Venezuela and Russia. According to President Chávez, this bank is a step on the way “to transform the financial architecture of the 21st century”. As Russia’s President Vladimir Putin remarked, the commercial exchange between Russia and Venezuela saw “a tenfold increase in 2011”. Russia exports busses to Venezuela, while the Russian car company Lada is looking to open up factories in Venezuela. The Latin American partner sends agricultural products to Russia: cacao, flowers and plantains (bananas). Ruso-Venezolana Orquídea S.A., a mixed Russian-Venezuelan enterprise for the export/import of Venezuelan orchids to Russia, is building a special cargo terminal in the airport of Caracas-Maiquetía (IAIM), in the state of Vargas. Ricardo Javier Sánchez, director of the enterprise, recently presented the construction project with special installations to keep the orchids beautiful and fresh while being packed and transported all the way to Russia, their final destination. In addition, Venezuela’s socialist agricultural Mission, Gran Misión AgroVenezuela, wants to export more homegrown tropical fruits to Russia: mangos, melons, pineapples. Coffee export shall also be boosted in the coming years. At the beginning of June this year, a Russian delegation, presided by Denis Manturov, Russia’s Minister of Industry and Commerce, visited Venezuela and inspected the site of Fuerte Tiuna in Caracas, where sixteen new apartment buildings were erected with Russian assistance. Each apartment measures between 60 and 70 square meters, comprising two or three rooms, bathroom and kitchen. Venezuela built 10.000 new homes with Russian materials and technology, 6.000 in Fuerte Tiuna, a barrio of the capital city, another 4.000 in Turmerito, a quarter of Turmero, in the state of Aragua. Of course, Russian-Venezuelan arms deals are the main theme of western mainstream press reports, but in reality they are only one of many areas of cooperation. “We want peace”, Hugo Chávez assures, “but in order to preserve the security and tranquility of our nation it is necessary to strengthen our defense”. In view of the alleged ending for the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the endangered socialist Syrian Arab Republic, his words acquire a special meaning. They might sound exaggerated in NATO ears but are well understood in non-aligned countries. Professor Franz J. T. Lee, who teaches political science at the University of the Andes in Mérida/Venezuela, wrote in his essay The Gaddafi paradigm and our dim chance of surviving against global fascism: “Among the grievous errors of the government of Libya are the following: if you are swimming in an ocean of oil and fresh water, you must know that no matter how you try to escape, in the end the Orwellian bloody NATO army boots will come for you. Hence prepare yourself for the coming struggle.” [1] President Hugo Chávez heard the message and is preparing himself for the coming struggle by stepping up the military training and equipment of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, mainly with Russian armament imports. In another article Franz J. T. Lee asked, “Could Venezuela see her future in the oily crystal ball in Libya?” “Nothing more than the fact of possessing the largest oil reserves of the earth, as is the case in Venezuela, can lead to belligerent invasions. Therefore, watch out, Venezuela!” [2] President Chávez seems to foresee danger for himself in the oily crystal ball in Libya. He repeatedly expressed his fears of meeting the same fate as the Jamahiriya’s Great Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi. “We see that imperialism has dropped its mask, has put aside morals and found a pretext to bomb Libyan towns, killing Libyan civilians”, Hugo Chávez stated in an interview, adding that the imperialists placed him in the same category as Gaddafi, depicting him as a “cruel dictator”. One of Venezuela’s leading intellectuals, Luis Britto García, the author of more than 70 books, explained the situation of the Jamahiriya in a poetic way, interpreting Libyan proverbs in his essay When you see Libya burning (Cuando veas arder Libia): “A Libyan proverb says, ‘Watch out for the malignance of the one to whom you give favors’. The first condition a country has to fulfill in order to be invaded is to possess crude oil and gas reserves. – ‘When cattle dies, the knives are taken out’, admonishes another Libyan proverb. The second condition for a country to be invaded is to exercise sovereignty over its natural resources.” [3] Indeed, the parallels to Venezuela are striking, only a blind person would be unable to see them. President Chávez certainly does not suffer from blindness and is taking precautions. As early as September 2008, Russia sent Tupolev TU-160 bombers for training flights to Venezuela. In November 2008, both countries held joint naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea. The Russian flotilla, including the nuclear-powered warship “Peter the Great”, was dispatched from Russia’s arctic base in Severomorsk. The Russian Federation sells various kinds of weapons and military equipment to Venezuela, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, attack helicopters, combat aircraft, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, multiple rocket launchers, self-propelled howitzers, self-propelled mortars, assault rifles, sniper rifles, ammunition. According to The Voice of Russia, the latest Russian armament shipment reached Puerto Cabello, Venezuela’s overseas port, in May this year, carrying tanks of the types BTR-80A and BMP-3M, multiple rocket launchers “Smerch” and anti-aircraft missiles S-300V. The Venezuelan Government also received various kinds of ammunition and training simulators. A Russian state official, Sergei Goreslavski, confirmed that the Russian Federation is constructing a maintenance center for military equipment in Venezuela, specialized on repairing helicopters of the types Mi-17B5, Mi-26T2 and Mi-35M2. Meanwhile, Venezuela is not merely an importer any more, but has started producing its own armament and military equipment with Russian help. The country produces two types of “Catatumbo” rifles with Russian design. The first type is modeled after the famous Russian assault rifle Kalashnikov AK-103, designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1994 and manufactured by Izmash in Russia. The Venezuelan Army uses the standard issue of this weapon which is now manufactured in the state of Maracuy. The aim is to produce 50.000 units per year. The Venezuelan assault rifle has a caliber of 7.62x39 mm, the same as AK-103. It has a range of 400 meters and can be used with or without telescope, General Morales of the Venezuelan Armed Forces informed. The second type is modeled after the Russian Dragunov rifle, designed by Yevgeny Dragunov between 1958 and 1963, manufactured by Izmash in Russia as well. The “Snayperskaya Vintovka Dragunova” (SVD) is a semi-automatic sniper rifle, designed as a squad support weapon. The Venezuelan equivalent has a caliber of 7.62x51 mm, an effective range of 800 meters and a maximum range of 1300 meters with telescope. The series of rifles, made in Venezuela, is named “Catatumbo”, after a river that flows into Lake Maracaibo in the state of Zulia. “Catatumbo” lightning occurs over the marshlands at the Maracaibo mouth of the Catatumbo river during storms at night. The very strong light can be seen up to 400 kilometers away and has been used for ship navigation. It was therefore also called the “Maracaibo Beacon”. The beacon of the Venezuelan Armed Forces is its series of “Catatumbo” rifles. The newest feat which President Chávez proudly presented a few days ago is Venezuela’s fist unarmed drone, built with joint Russian – Iranian – Chinese technology and assistance. “It is one of three aircraft that we have made, and we will continue to manufacture them”, he announced. The drone has a range of 100 kilometers, can reach an altitude of 3000 meters and stay aloft for up to 90 minutes. It transmits real-time video and images. The 3x4 meter drone is part of Venezuela’s defense system, aimed at the monitoring of dams, pipelines and other infrastructure. Venezuela has begun to sell weapons and military vehicles to other Latin American countries within the alliances of ALBA and UNASUR. Julio Morales Prieto, director of Cavim (Companía Anónima Venezolana de Industrias Militares), where the Venezuelan drone is built, says that other Latin American states want to buy the drone. During a meeting on the 9th of June, when the Russian delegation visited the Miraflores Palace in Caracas, President Chávez said that “Venezuela has the right to defend itself. We have the constitutional obligation to keep our Armed Forces well equipped, well trained and in high spirits morally for national defense.” On Venezuelan TV the President remarked that the Venezuelan-Russian meeting was a “signal of both governments’ political will to continue strengthening bilateral relations and with these to contribute to a balanced world”. In the cultural area, Russian-Venezuelan cooperation has been intensified as well. The Russian language is taught in national education centers of Venezuela, supervised by the Agency of Cooperation with Russia. These centers organize activities to introduce Russian culture and history in Venezuela, for example with exhibitions, seminars and workshops. Thus, on the 15th of April 2012, a Russian Music Festival was inaugurated in the Art Center Daniel Suárez of Caracas. Tatiana Rusakova, a Russian specialist in Venezuela, pointed out that interest in the Russian culture is growing. “This is due to the fact that Russian-Venezuelan ties have been intensified during the last ten years. In 2011, a group of Venezuelan students visited a number of Russian cities with the program Simón Bolívar 2007-2013.” Tatiana Rusakova also emphasized that more and more Venezuelans are enrolling in Russian language courses. The Central University of Venezuela in Caracas trains future teachers of the Russian language. The Government of the Russian Federation offers scholarships to Venezuelan students who are interested in studying at Russian universities. Last but not least, Venezuela is promoting tourism in Russia. In March 2012, the Bolivarian Government participated in Moscow’s International Tourism Fair (MITT). A group of the Venezuelan Ministry of Tourism (Mintur) presented touristic points of interest in Venezuela to Russian travel agencies. The ten people of the delegation attended more than 190 meetings with international travel agents from Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russia, handing out brochures and promotional videos of Venezuela. They also met with officials of tourist magazines: TTG, Voyage, Travel Magazine, News Outdoor, and the internet portal travel.rian.ru. President Chávez promotes cooperation with Russia in other Latin American countries, just like the Russian Federation greeted the recent founding of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), launched in Caracas, in December 2011. A spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry lauded “this emblematic step that our Latin American partners have made”. Russia supports the desire of Latin American countries for unity and the consolidation of their identity, of which Hugo Chávez is the first and foremost representative.
|
Kroth, 12 - Pravda journalist (Olivia, “Venezuela’s partnership with Russia : An emblematic step”, Voltairenet, 7-16-12, http://www.voltairenet.org/article174988.html)//KG
|
Venezuela is enjoying good relations with Russia as one of its most important trade and military partners in Latin America. By strengthening the Venezuelan-Russian ties, Chávez wants to help creating a multi-polar world, “a world that permits the rights of peoples to liberty, self-determination and sovereignty Both leaders are ardent patriots, proud to serve their respective countries which they love with great intensity Chávez agreed with Putin’s opinion that the USA is an “economic parasite” because of its “constant instability and high debts, living far beyond its means and transferring the burden of its problems to the entire world economy. On Venezuelan television Chávez repeated Putin’s words, demanding Venezuela to “free itself from the parasite” Venezuela is a strategic business partner for Russia in the exploitation of gas and crude oil. PDVSA has furthermore been drilling gas jointly with Russia’s Gazprom in the Gulf of Venezuela Chávez wants his country to produce its own gas with Russian help, thanks to the transfer of Russian technology and training Another shared Venezuelan-Russian enterprise is the mining of gold in Venezuela’s gold mines The Russian firm Rusoro was granted partnership with Venezuelan state mining companies the commercial exchange between Russia and Venezuela saw “a tenfold increase in 2011 Russian-Venezuelan arms deals are the main theme of western mainstream press reports, but in reality they are only one of many areas of cooperation Chávez assures in order to preserve the security and tranquility of our nation it is necessary to strengthen our defense The Russian Federation sells various kinds of weapons and military equipment to Venezuela, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, attack helicopters, combat aircraft, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, multiple rocket launchers, self-propelled howitzers, self-propelled mortars, assault rifles, sniper rifles, ammunition the latest Russian armament shipment reached Puerto Cabello, Venezuela’s overseas port, in May The Venezuelan Government also received various kinds of ammunition and training simulators the Russian Federation is constructing a maintenance center for military equipment in Venezuela, specialized on repairing helicopters Venezuela is not merely an importer any more, but has started producing its own armament and military equipment with Russian help The country produces two types of “Catatumbo” rifles with Russian design The newest feat which President Chávez proudly presented a few days ago is Venezuela’s fist unarmed drone, built with Russian technology and assistance Venezuela has begun to sell weapons and military vehicles to other Latin American countries within the alliances of ALBA and UNASUR Chávez said that “Venezuela has the right to defend itself. the President remarked that the Venezuelan-Russian meeting was a “signal of both governments’ political will to continue strengthening bilateral relations and with these to contribute to a balanced world Russian-Venezuelan cooperation has been intensified as well The Russian language is taught in national education centers of Venezuela, interest in the Russian culture is growing. “This is due to the fact that Russian-Venezuelan ties have been intensified during the last ten years Venezuela is promoting tourism in Russia. In March 2012 A group of the Venezuelan Ministry of Tourism presented touristic points of interest in Venezuela to Russian travel agencies President Chávez promotes cooperation with Russia in other Latin American countries, just like the Russian Federation greeted the recent founding of CELAC
|
Aff can’t solve – Russia and Venezuelan cooperation is multifaceted and both are determined to challenge the US
| 14,382 | 111 | 3,660 | 2,227 | 18 | 538 | 0.008083 | 0.241581 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,594 |
To support this economic and strategic agenda, Moscow has made extensive economic overtures to Latin American governments from Mexico to Argentina and Chile. Russia has offered them all deals with respect to oil, gas, nuclear energy, uranium, electricity, weapons sales, high-tech defense technology, agriculture and space launches. Indeed, Medvedev’s trip and talks with local leaders appear to have focused principally on economic issues. 47 Nonetheless, certain patterns are clear. For example, Russia fully understands Brazil’s importance as South America’s largest economy and power and seeks much closer economic ties with it. Since at least 2006, Moscow has been pursuing what it calls a “technological alliance” with Brazil, allegedly because together they can initiate world-class technological projects.48 Russia also wants to take part in a projected gas pipeline from Argentina to Bolivia, as well as other key energy projects with Venezuela and other states.49 One important reason why Moscow included countries like Brazil and Peru is to expand its “commercial beachhead” in South America beyond traditionally anti-American governments and compete more vigorously with the United States, both commercially and politically.50
|
Blank, 10 --- Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (4/13/2010, Stephen J., “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf, JMP)
|
To support this economic and strategic agenda, Moscow has made extensive economic overtures to Latin American governments from Mexico to Argentina and Chile. Russia has offered them all deals with respect to oil, gas, nuclear energy, uranium, electricity, weapons sales, high-tech defense technology, agriculture and space launches. Russia fully understands Brazil’s importance as South America’s largest economy and power and seeks much closer economic ties with it Russia also wants to take part in a projected gas pipeline from Argentina to Bolivia, as well as other key energy projects with Venezuela and other states. One important reason why Moscow included countries like Brazil and Peru is to expand its “commercial beachhead” in South America beyond traditionally anti-American governments and compete more vigorously with the United States, both commercially and politically.
|
Plan doesn’t solve --- Russia is trying to secure deals with lots of Latin American countries
| 1,238 | 93 | 885 | 179 | 16 | 130 | 0.089385 | 0.726257 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,595 |
Furthermore, Chávez has sought to engage Moscow not just in a formal alliance, which it has so far resisted, but also in participation in the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribean (ALBA). Medvedev has indicated Russia’s willingness to discuss participation in this organization, since it accords with Russia’s ideas about a multipolar world and international division of labor. 84 Neither has Moscow forgotten about its military partnership with Cuba. Russia has pledged to continue military-technological cooperation (arms sales) with Cuba.85 Russian officials continue to say Cuba holds a key role in Russian foreign policy and that Russia considers it a permanent partner in Latin America.86
|
Blank, 10 --- Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College (4/13/2010, Stephen J., “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-13-10.pdf, JMP)
|
Neither has Moscow forgotten about its military partnership with Cuba. Russia has pledged to continue military-technological cooperation (arms sales) with Cuba. Russian officials continue to say Cuba holds a key role in Russian foreign policy and that Russia considers it a permanent partner in Latin America.
|
Can’t solve --- Russian military coop with Cuba
| 714 | 47 | 309 | 107 | 8 | 46 | 0.074766 | 0.429907 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,596 |
Russia is displaying its military power in America's back yard, sending a convoy of warships to Venezuela for joint naval exercises, the first such deployment since the Cold War. The Kremlin is becoming increasingly cozy with Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American countries unhappy with the United States, in apparent response to thorny issues such as U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, NATO's eastern expansion, and U.S. warships dispatched to Georgia. "Some of this is the Russians wanting to get even. They see American warships close to their shore; they're going to put Russian warships close to us," said Russian military expert John Pike of globalsecurity.org. The fleet of ships headed toward the Caribbean includes some of Russia's finest, like the nuclear-powered Peter the Great cruiser and the anti-submarine warship Admiral Chebanenko. Pike said that while these vessels are impressive, they are no match for the American Navy and pose little threat to the United States. "They have obsolete technology. They would simply be no match for American warships in a one-to-one combat," he said. Nonetheless, this deployment adds to the tension created earlier this month when two Russian Tu-160 nuclear long-range bombers arrived in Venezuela, also for military exercises. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a vocal critic of the United States, greeted the Russian pilots with a blunt message for Washington. "Venezuela is not alone! Russia is with us," he said. "They are our strategic partners. The Russian Tu-160 bombers on our land are a warning to the empire of the U.S.A.!" Chavez is increasing Venezuela's ties with Russia. He arrived in Moscow on Thursday for his second trip there in the past two months. Russia, meanwhile, has sold Venezuela more than $4 billion in arms. U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell says the Pentagon is not fazed. "Russia is certainly within its rights to conduct exercises with its allies. What's the old saying? You're sort of known by the company you keep. If they wish to hang out with the Venezuelan navy, that's their business," he said. But Russia knows the United States is watching, and that seems to be the idea, Pike said. "The Russians, sort of from here on out, every couple months are going to come up with some sort of new event, some sort of new exercise, some sort of new provocation to keep us focused on them," he said
|
McIntyre and Ure, 8 - former Senior Pentagon correspondent for CNN AND CNN Congressional Producer in the Pentagon (Jamie and Laurie, “Expert: Russia-Venezuela military exercises reaction to U.S. moves”, CNN World, 9-25-08, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/25/russia.venezuela/)//KG
|
Russia is displaying its military power in America's back yard, sending a convoy of warships to Venezuela for joint naval exercises The Kremlin is becoming increasingly cozy with Venezuela and other Latin American countries unhappy with the United States, in response to thorny issues such as U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, NATO's eastern expansion, and U.S. warships dispatched to Georgia Some of this is the Russians wanting to get even. They see American warships close to their shore; they're going to put Russian warships close to us this deployment adds to the tension created earlier this month when two Russian Tu-160 nuclear long-range bombers arrived in Venezuela Chavez , greeted the Russian pilots with a blunt message for Washington Venezuela is not alone! Russia is with us," he said. "They are our strategic partners. Chavez is increasing Venezuela's ties with Russia. Russia, has sold Venezuela more than $4 billion in arm Russia knows the United States is watching, and that seems to be the idea
|
Alt cause – US missile defense, NATO expansion, Georgian war
| 2,406 | 60 | 1,027 | 396 | 10 | 167 | 0.025253 | 0.421717 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,597 |
<Chávez is also using Venezuela’s oil wealth for other purposes. Chávez’ support for Cuba exceeds $7 billion per year in subsidized petroleum shipments and investments in Cuba’s oil infrastructure. The Venezuelan regime supports a variety of leftist, anti-American regimes in Latin America including Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. And Chávez has spent more than $6 billion in purchasing Russian weapons, creating a long term Venezuelan dependency on the Russian military. Venezuela remains an open back door for Cuba’s acquisition of sophisticated Russian weapons.
|
Suchlicki 12 – Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami (August 5, 2012, “Venezuela- Iran- Iran’s influence in Venezuela: Washington should worry” http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/05/2930050/irans-influence-in-venezuela-washington.html)
|
Chávez is using Venezuela’s oil wealth for other purposes. And Chávez has spent more than $6 billion in purchasing Russian weapons, creating a long term Venezuelan dependency on the Russian military.
|
Venezuela uses its oil revenues from the US to purchase Russian arms
| 565 | 68 | 199 | 82 | 12 | 31 | 0.146341 | 0.378049 |
Venezuela Russia Adv and Answers - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
3,598 |
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing “unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill.” The formal statement of administration policy backs the “goal” of the bill that’s coming to the House floor Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. But it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. “As a practical matter, this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said. The White House statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says the administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill. Click here for much more on the House bill and its controversial exemption from rules required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. The Senate version of the implementing bill, sponsored by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate’s energy committee, does not include the exemption from the Securities and Exchange Commission payment disclosure rules. But proponents of the House measure say the carve-out is needed to prevent a collision with confidentiality provisions in the U.S.-Mexico accord. The underlying 2012 U.S.-Mexico accord, which has support from Republicans and the administration, is designed to enable cooperation in development of oil-and-gas along a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. “Implementing this Agreement will offer significant opportunities for responsible and efficient exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources in an expanded area along the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary as well as significant new opportunities for U.S. companies,” the White House said. In a separate statement Tuesday, the White House threatened to veto a separate GOP bill coming to the House floor Wednesday that would require a major expansion of offshore oil-and-gas leasing.
|
Geman 13 (Ben, reporter for the Hill, White House ‘cannot support’ House US-Mexico drilling bill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-white-house-cannot-support-house-us-mexico-drilling-bill#ixzz2arSPe2T1, 6/25/13)
|
The White House opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing “unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill.” it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. “As a practical matter, this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts it "cannot support" the measure. It says the administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill. the House bill and its controversial exemption from rules required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. The Senate version of the implementing bill, sponsored by the Senate’s energy committee, does not include the exemption from the Securities and Exchange Commission payment disclosure rules. But proponents of the House measure say the carve-out is needed to prevent a collision with confidentiality provisions in the U.S.-Mexico accord. the White House threatened to veto a separate GOP bill coming to the House floor
|
The plan sparks partisan political battles over financial disclosure provisions
| 2,499 | 79 | 1,382 | 365 | 10 | 203 | 0.027397 | 0.556164 |
Politics Links Supplement - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
3,599 |
New Senate legislation to implement a U.S.-Mexico energy accord omits House language that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial regulations that force them to disclose payments to foreign governments. The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee introduced legislation Thursday to enable the Interior Department to implement the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. The accord, which U.S. and Mexican officials signed in 2012, is designed to enable cooperation in development of oil-and-gas along a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. The Senate plan does not include language in the House version that would create a limited exemption from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure rules. Republicans and oil industry groups say the exemption is needed because of confidentiality provisions in the U.S.-Mexico deal. Click here for much more on the House plan. The American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil industry lobbying group that’s battling the SEC rules in court, is pushing for the House language to prevail.
|
Geman 13 (Ben, reporter for the Hill, Senate bill on US-Mexico drilling lacks Dodd-Frank exemption, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/296451-senate-bill-on-us-mexico-drilling-lacks-dodd-frank-exemption-#ixzz2arSr6Vuq, 4/26/13)
|
New Senate legislation to implement a U.S.-Mexico energy accord omits House language that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial regulations that force them to disclose payments to foreign governments The Senate plan does not include language in the House version that would create a limited exemption from (SEC) disclosure rules. Republicans and oil industry groups say the exemption is neede The (API), battling for the House language to prevail.
|
Ensures lobbies are brought in to fight GOP battles
| 1,096 | 51 | 475 | 162 | 9 | 72 | 0.055556 | 0.444444 |
Politics Links Supplement - Northwestern 2013 6WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.