LeDucMin - Diplomatic Capital DA - GDI 13

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA
***Dip Cap DA***
***Syria Scenario***
1NC Syria
Syria is the focus of Kerrys agenda and recent trips Diplomatic capital is key to effectiveness
Stearns, DoS Correspondent, 7-2, (Scott Stearns, Voice of America, Kerry Talks Syria With Davutoglu, Lavrov July 02, 2013,
<http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-talks-syria-with-davutoglu-lavrov/1693301.html> Accessed: 7-13-2013, BK) BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, BRUNEI U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
met separately with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Tuesday for talks about Syria's civil war. The meetings came on the sidelines of a forum of South East Asian nations in Brunei. A senior State Department official says Kerry and Davutoglu focused on ways to strengthen opponents of Syrian President Bashar alAssad and to expand humanitarian assistance for civilians displaced by the fighting. Both men expressed concern over attacks by Assad loyalists against civilians in the city of Homs and over what a U.S. official called "Hezbollah's continued violent and destabilizing interference in Syria." Turkey is a front-line ally among countries backing the rebellion, especially those, such as the United States, who now say they will help arm Assad opponents. Russia, on the other hand, is arming Assad forces and says those who would give weapons to rebels risk having those weapons fall into the hands of terrorists. While backing opposing sides in this conflict, Kerry and Lavrov continue to work toward Syrian talks on a transitional authority to end the civil war. That was the focus of their meeting here in Brunei . Kerry says he and Lavrov agree there can not be a military solution to the Syrian crisis. The secretary of state began this trip 12 days ago, meeting with Syrian opposition supporters in Doha, all of whom agreed to increase their support for the rebellion, nine of the eleven agreeing to provide
weapons.
Plan forces a trade-off

Anderson & Grewell, Research Associate and Political Economy research Center and professor of economics at Montana State, 2002
[Terry and J. Bishop, The Greening of Foreign Policy, http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps20.pdf 7/12/13 RC]
Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension.
Foreign policy is a bag of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms trading to human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening the focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between issues. Increased environmental regulations could cause countries to lessen their focus on international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border conflicts between nations. As countries must watch over more and more issues arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary to deal with traditional international issues . As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is critically important that the United States focus its diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation. Traditionally, these priorities have been opposing hostile domination of key geographic
regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources, and ensuring access to foreign economies.
Failure of diplomacy sends a signal of weakness crushes US credibility
CSM 13, an international news organization, 13 (Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 2013, Why US must stop
Russian missiles for Syria, http://www.csmonitor. com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0528/Why-US-must-stop-Russianmissiles-for-Syria, //RM, 7/13/13, AR)
Thats far from the approach of Russia regime shows
under Vladimir Putin. His decision this week to send sophisticated S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Syrias embattled a moral indifference to human suffering and popular demands for democracy. The surface-to-air missiles not only prop up the ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad against the majority of Syrians who seek freedom, their 125-mile range also puts Israels civilian aircraft at risk. Mr. Putins foreign policy consists mainly of seeking practical interests for Russia. The S-300s will prevent some hotheads (namely, the West) from setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, as one Russian official put it. They will help maintain access for the Russian Navy to the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean. Most of all, if the Assad regime survives, that will help Iran in its desire for influence in the region and keep the United States tied down in solving Middle East problems. The US will then be less focused on
Russia and its growing dictatorship and meddling with its neighbors. RELATED OPINION: Five things the international community must give Syria after Assad These kinds of amoral geopolitical moves by Putin come out of Russias historical feelings of vulnerability as a large and exposed
China, too, feels encircled by US forces in Asia. It has supported Moscows policy toward Syria as one way to prevent the US from focusing more on China and its aggressive attempt to usurp American influence in Asia. Putin also knows that President Obama and the US public have little appetite for military intervention in Syria , despite any American outrage over a
landmass. war that has taken more than 80,000 civilian lives and forced 1.5 million to flee. Only Britain and France show a strong interest in sending arms to anti-Assad rebels. The Russian decision to send the missiles could end up being merely symbolic. Israeli war jets will likely take them out before they become operational. Twice this year, Israel destroyed lesser-quality missiles in Syria as they were shipped from Iran to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. And deployment of the S-300 missiles could take up to a year. MONITOR'S VIEW: Syria's war can't drift into holy war Putin could be seeking only a temporary diplomatic advantage in the run-up to talks being planned in Geneva aimed at a negotiated settlement for Syria. Nonetheless, his decision sets up a stark contrast

between a moral approach toward ending Syrias slaughter and the kind of amoral posturing by Russia for its basic interests. With
the US now inclined to focus more on building up its economy, Russia and others see the US legacy of acting on humanitarian or idealist grounds as in decline despite the 2011 military intervention in Libya. In the global maneuvering of big powers, weakness is provocative, as former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once warned. The US need not militarily intervene in Syria. But it cannot afford to create the impression of moral indifference toward the mass killing of Syrians. Indifference invites meddling by other powers. At the very least, the US must somehow convince Putin not to send the S-300 missiles. Then it must step up its diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus.
US credibility solves extinction

Reiffel, Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution, 5 (Reiffel, December 27,
2005, Lex, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas, www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf, 7/13/13, AR)
The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world uncomfortable. In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on
helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully, by and large, and it gained friends in the process. By contrast, the first five years of
the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter of hours from
gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led
coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which
has only partially recovered since then. The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries. Internal pressure to turn America's back on
the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic problems such as the growing number of
Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use its overwhelming military
power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world's population and pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run. Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of "hard" instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on "soft" instruments.
***Syria UQ***
2NC UQ Syria Focus Now
2NC Syria 1st

Kerry is stretched thin diplomatic capital is key to success in Syria
Klapper & Lee, 6-22-13 (Bradley Klapper and Matthew Lee, Top diplomat Kerry battles to deliver on big ideas, Yahoo News via Associated Press, June
22nd 2013, <http://news.yahoo.com/top-diplomat-kerry-battles-deliver-big-ideas-134244552.html> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver. In the Middle East, he has raised hopes his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough ending six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict. He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad's government to heel and to work with Russia to end Syria's civil war. He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. He has hinted at possible
In four months as secretary of state, John one-on-one talks between the U.S. and the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help. Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as America's top diplomat, Kerry has issued several as yet undelivered and perhaps undeliverable pledges to allies and rivals alike, proving a source of concern for Obama's policy team. It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering Kerry has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy
since President Barack Obama's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscow's resistance to Kerry's Syria strategy. All the officials interviewed for
statements have come. The White House quickly distanced itself from both Kerry's North Korea remarks and has now, this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to evaluate Kerry's performance publicly. Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions. Clinton
Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the world's thorniest foreign policy conundrums. Kerry, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "believes this difficult moment in the world requires a willingness to address complicated issues. He believes the risk of high-stakes, personal diplomacy are far less than the risk of leaving difficult situations to fester or spiral out of control. That's why he has invigorated our efforts in critical areas such as North Korea, Syria and the Middle East peace process and has personally invested time and effort to move the ball forward." No challenge may now be bigger than Syria, where a two-year civil war has killed at least 93,000 people. Signaling a shift from the cautious approach of Obama's first term, Kerry announced his first trip abroad would focus on changing Assad's belief that he could prevail militarily and on pushing him into eventually relinquishing power. Since then, however,
still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say the fighting has only gotten worse. Thousands more have died as Assad firmed his grip over much of the country and the U.S. hasn't even delivered all the nonlethal aid Kerry promised Syria's rebels, let alone any of the weapons or ammunition that Obama recently authorized. Having failed to reshape the war, that Clinton engineered in June 2012 but had been all but forgotten in the months since. In Moscow, Kerry boasted that the former Cold War foes just accomplished "great things when the world needs it" by deciding to convene an international conference, perhaps by the end of May, that would include Syria's government and opposition. That conference has been delayed until at least July, and maybe August, and it might never come off at all given the opposition's refusal to negotiate while it is losing land to Assad and getting so little help from the United States and other Western powers. That failure falls directly on Kerry, who as part of the U.S.-Russian approach was tasked with delivering the opposition to the bargaining table. Russia may have lived up to its end of the bargain by guaranteeing the Assad government's attendance at
Kerry changed strategy by going to Moscow to re-launch a peace process for Syria
Putin and the Kremlin also have been undermining peace efforts by sending more weapons to help the Syrian government's counteroffensive. Kerry's one-man diplomacy in Syria is in some ways emblematic of his tenure. Officials say he opted to revive the U.S.-Russian strategy for a Syrian transitional government during his walk in the backyard of a Moscow
any future peace conference. But guesthouse with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, informing aides only after of his decision. Afterward, he insisted he wasn't simply rewinding the clock by a year because the U.S. and Russia were now going to find ways to put the plan in place. More than two months later, there has been no progress. On Middle East peace, too, . Refusing to avoid one of the world's most difficult conflicts, as Obama and Clinton largely did over the second two years of the first administration, Kerry has made four trips to the region to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior government members from both sides. Kerry will visit the region again this coming week to try to push the two sides back into talks, despite little to show so far for his efforts. Kerry insists his quiet diplomacy is making headway, a claim that only he, Netanyahu and Abbas truly can substantiate because most of the discussions are one-on-one. Several senior Israeli and Palestinian officials have suggested otherwise in highly critical comments to local and international media. Few American officials, however, seem to know what is going on because they say Kerry rarely briefs even the most experienced U.S. negotiators in that part of the world on his talks. At times, the process has seemed ad hoc. In Jordan last month, Kerry announced a sketchy $4 billion economic revitalization strategy for the West Bank that would accompany his peace plan. No details were provided, and U.S. officials even sent reporters to aides of U.N. peace mediator Tony Blair for more information. Blair's staff wouldn't provide information or even confirm that the outline of an economic plan exists. Officials say Kerry's friend, investor Tim Collins, is handling the portfolio, though it's unclear if any money has been secured. On Mideast peace, Kerry is largely fighting the battle alone. Since Obama's visit to Israel in March, Kerry has gotten almost no public displays of support from the president, with the White House appearing reluctant to stake political capital in an endeavor that so often has proved a disappointment. Some U.S. officials have scoffed at the notion that Kerry is getting anywhere, though they allow that the White House has given him until roughly September to produce a resumption of negotiations. Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, praised Kerry's efforts thus far. "None of these are issues that you can solve in a few months," Rhodes said. "The fact that he is taking these on with the energy he has is a great
Kerry has put his credibility on the line
Kerry's individualist approach to foreign policy is partly a matter of circumstances and partly intentional. With few Senate-confirmed senior officials in place at the State Department, Kerry has been short of aides at the highest level who might act as envoys to drive forward his agenda in his absence. Among others, Clinton had George Mitchell to push Mideast peace and Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kerry lacks any such high-profile figures at his side. Those who've worked closely with Kerry say the approach also reflects the great stock he puts in his personal diplomacy and the belief, perhaps more widely shared in the rarified air of the Senate, that leaning on his close relationships with foreign leaders and dignitaries can deliver more results than delegating authority to capable bureaucrats. That has left Kerry doing much of the work himself, from ordering up policy papers to envisioning new initiatives, while traveling the world or publicly regaling foreign ministers in Washington with stories of their past encounters or meals in exotic capitals.
asset to the administration. These are the toughest challenges we have."
Syria is at the top of Kerrys to-do list

The Independent 13 (The Independent, News Source, Editorial: John Kerry's priority must be Syria, 2-21-13,
<http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/editorial-john-kerrys-priority-must-be-syria-8505689.html> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
The terrible car bombing in Damascus underlines the most immediate priority for John Kerry. The new US Secretary of State arrives in
London on Monday at the start of his first foreign trip, one that will take him to nine countries across Europe and the Middl e East. Whatever else, it will not be a getting-to-know-you affair Mr Kerry knows most of his counterparts well already. And with little need for introductions, Syria
will be top of the agenda. What to expect, then? With a CV that includes
28 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an unsuccessful presidential run, and discreet service to Barack Obama as a troubleshooter in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, Mr
Kerry brings more direct experience to the job than almost all his predecessors. Secretary of State is the office he has long coveted, and one for
which he is well suited. Amid the speculation over the future of Hillary Clinton, Mr Kerrys arrival has been low key. Only three weeks into his tenure did he deliver his first major spee ch, urging the importance of maintaining the US aid programme, despite pressure to cut spending. These days, US foreign policy is ultimately shaped in the White House, and Mr Kerry may well like Ms Clinton before him be charged with selling decisions rather than taking them. Nonetheless, his choice of topic gives a clue where his inclinations lie, favouring
negotiation and the use of soft power over force. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr Kerry has seen the horrors of war up close. Like Mr Obama, his instinct will be to keep the US out of the Syrian conflagration. During this trip, he will meet his Russian equivalent, Sergei Lavrov, the Syrian opposition, as well as key Arab leaders in Egypt and the Gulf. A few faint hopes have emerged of talks to end the crisis. Failing these, however, the decision for Mr Obama
and his new Secretary of State will be whether to arm the rebels and risk making an already bloody civil war even bloodier still.
Kerry is diving head first into diplomacy in Syria without any help, hes stretched extremely thin
Luce 5-19 (Edward Luce, Journalist for the Financial Times, John Kerrys Vaulting Ambitions for US diplomacy, 5-19-2013,
<http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/09986762-be1f-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html#axzz2XHfTkjzH> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
But from someone who in 2004 almost took the White House and still believes he could have such bold diplomatic initiatives should come as no surprise. As Joe Biden, the vice-president, recently joked to a European gathering, the new US secretary of state has an
Mr Kerry offers a welcome break from the passivity that had descended on US diplomacy in the Middle East and beyond. For one reason or another often because she was blocked by an instinctively cautious White House Hillary Clinton took a back seat on the Muslim worlds big challenges, Syria and Afghanistan included. Mr Kerry is diving in headfirst. Amid
eye on the Nobel Peace Prize. He will have to get used to derision. Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper , last week ran a story likening Mr Kerrys efforts to a bull in a china shop. It also quoted a senior Israeli official calling him messianic. Yet awareness of his steep odds, there is also encouragement. Kerry has the makings of being a strategic secretary of state in con trast to Hillary Clinton, whom I would describe as more cause-oriented global issues, human rights, gender, and so on, says Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He is taking on the issues that shape the international system. This will make him a very serious player in my view. Even people close to Hillary Clinton agree that Mr Kerry is likely to be much less risk-averse. Mrs Clinton outsourced the AfPak portfolio to the late Richard Holbrooke and passed on the ill -fated Arab-Israeli initiative to George Mitchell. Mr Kerry has not yet farmed out anything. This raises the chances that he will fall flat on his face.
Kerry has come to terms with the fact that he is a silver medallist this is probably his last big job and he wants to make an impact, says a former senior US diplomat. For Hillary, there was always the sense that gold remained a possibility. Mr Kerry faces two immediate problems. The first is flying solo. Almost all the key players in Mrs Clintons state department, including Jeffrey Feltman, who was in charge of the Midd le East division, Kurt Campbell, who headed Asia, and Philip Gordon, who managed Europe relations, have left and are yet to be replaced. Others include Robert Hormats, who was in charge of US economic diplomacy, and Robert Einhorn, the point man on proliferation. Replacing such a team will not be easy. At the very least, Mr Kerry must prod a dilatory White House into submitting nominations. It is almost June yet the State Department remains half empty. Having spent barely two weeks in the building since early February,
He seems to have decided the risks are worth it. Mr Kerry has yet to master things back in Washington. Likewise he will need to figure out how to navigate an unusually White House-centric administration. He cannot rely indefinitely on the free rein he has been given by President Barack Obama. The White House has been distracted by rolling domestic crises all year. Once things are calmer, the president is likely to put tighter curbs on Mr Kerrys freelancing. Friends of Mr Kerry also worry that he has no executive experience. After 30 years on Capitol Hill, he is used to talking rather than doing. Each senator likes to play sun to their own solar system and Mr Kerry chaired the Senate foreign policy committee. Now he must adjust to being a planet. With Kerry there is always a danger he will get too far ahead of Obama, says a senior
the situation facing new US secretaries of state to being in a garden with an apple tree. They believe if they pluck the fruit of Middle East peace they will gain immortality. Although they will be banished if they fail, few can resist trying. In contrast, Mrs Clintons focus was the pivot to Asia. It would be an irony if we swapped Middle East wars for equally fruitless Middle East diplomacy at the expense of the bigger strategic challenges, says Mr Rothkopf. At the end of the day, he adds, Mr Kerrys greatest weakness is also his biggest strength an immense self-confidence. Since February, there has been a new sense of purpose to US diplomacy. No one should be surprised that Mr Kerry is reaching for that apple.
European diplomat. Most of all, the former senators allies hope that he does not get wrecked by the Middle East, as probability dictates. David Rothkopf, chief executive of Foreign Policy and a former senior official under President Bill Clinton, likens
Kerry has invested all his efforts to Syria now

DAWBER, correspondent for The Independent, 6-19 (ALISTAIR DAWBER, Independents Jerusalem correspondent. The papers former
foreign editor and deputy foreign editor, Alistair joined The Independent in 2008 as a business correspondent, 6-19-2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry 'argued for air strikes on Syria chemical weapons', The Independent, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us -secretary-of-state-john-kerry-argued-for-air-strikeson-syria-chemical-weapons-8665567.html> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
John Kerry has argued for air strikes against Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles it has emerged, but faces stiff opposition among America's leading military commanders. The new Secretary of State, who has immersed himself deeply in Middle Eastern matters since
coming into office earlier this year, argued in favour of air strikes during a meeting in the White House situation room last week, according to Jeffrey Goldberg, a columnist at Bloomberg News, who is known to have close links to senior members of the Obama administration. Mr Kerry is understood to have proposed attacks on several sites held by the Syrian regime. However the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey is understood to have scotched the proposals at the same meeting. General Dempsey is believed to have asked the US's leading diplomat how he expected to deal with the situation after any strike, and accused the State Department - and by implication, Mr Kerry - of not understanding the complexity of the situation. The US, along with the UK and other Western allies, has got itself in a tangle over whether it intends to arm moderate rebel groups in Syria. There is evidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, a move that President Barack Obama said last year that he considers to be a "red line". However, the idea of arming rebel groups has come unstuck over how the West intends to arm only those groups it considers to have an acceptable ideology. "Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the US would have to neutralize Syria's integrated air-defence system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties," wrote Mr Goldberg. Mr Kerry is credited with having had a distinguished career and a deep knowledge of foreign affairs. However, recent developments also suggest a certain naivety. His other project in the region is the ambitious attempt to restart the stalled peace process between the Israelis and
Palestinians: while his efforts have not yet been concluded, they have also met derision in some quarters and few on either side of the conflict have much hope that his initiative will ultimately lead to a lasting peace deal.
Kerry is currently dominated by the Syrian issue.

Phillips, senior research fellow at the heritage foundation, 13 (James Phillips senior research fellow for middle eastern affairs @ the
heritage foundation, New York Times, 3-27-13, Focus on Syria and Iran Instead, <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/27/what -can-obama-accomplishin-the-middle-east/obama-should-focus-on-syria-and-iran-instead-of-israeli-palestinian-peace>
Although Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants to catalyze Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, he will find that urgent issues spawned by Iran and Syria will demand much of his focus.
Kerrys first trip in his new job was dominated by the Syrian issue. The planned highlight of his tour, the Friends of Syria conference in Rome, was nearly disrupted by a threatened boycott by Syrian opposition leaders, who are disgruntled by a perceived lack of meaningful support from the United States. Kerry averted the threatened boycott by promising to deliver enhanced nonlethal aid to opposition forces directly rather than through nongovernmental organizations, but this alone will not prevent a disastrous collapse of U.S. policy on Syria. Kerry, who has favored arms aid to the opposition, must convince President Obama that the risks of providing light
10
weapons to vetted factions of the opposition have been eclipsed by the risks of remaining on the sidelines while the opposition falls under the growing influence of Islamist extremists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Syria is the core issue Kerry is currently invested in

Gordon, Military correspondent for the NYT, 6-24 (Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, June 24, 2013, Histo ry with Obama
gives secretary a foreign policy edge, <http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T17684455887&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T17684455840&cisb=22_T17684455890&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8357&docNo=1> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
Undaunted, Mr. Kerry
arrived in Qatar on Saturday to meet with his European and Middle Eastern counterparts and try again to cobble together an effective strategy to bolster the opposition; prod the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to yield power; and end the fighting, which has already killed more than 90,000 people. The whirlwind trip, Mr. Kerry's ninth as secretary of state, will
also include stops in Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and India and a meeting in Brunei. While his predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a global celebrity and is possibly a future president, Mr. Kerry is striving to carve out a legacy as one of the most influential secretaries of state in recent years by taking
on some of the world's most intractable problems. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, a defeated rival who was persuaded to take the job by President Barack
Obama and for all her star power was often frustrated that policy was made in the White House, Mr. Kerry came into his administration with strong ties to Mr. Obama, whose presidential campaign he helped begin at the 2004 Democratic convention. Mr. Kerry, 69, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the son of a Foreign Service officer, had long aspired to be secretary of state. He arrived at a time when Mr. Obama has said the United States is at a ''crossroads'' in its relations with the world, with the Pentagon focused on ending the war in Afghanistan, the C.I.A. charged with refocusing its efforts against terrorism and the president calling for a new focus on diplomacy. But there are also some potential obstacles for Mr. Kerry. One is the centralization of foreign policy decision-making in a White House that has steadfastly maintained a tight grip on foreign policy - so much so that before taking the job, Mr. Kerry received an assurance that he would be consulted before major foreign policy decisions were made. And a major one is the priorities he has set for himself, particularly Syria. ''I believe that the
Syria issue will be the test of John Kerry,'' said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, Mr. Kerry's friend and former colleague. His other
priority, reviving the Mideast talks, has proved intractable for far longer. With the Palestinians warning that they may underscore their claim to statehood by seeking membership in the International Criminal Court and other international agencies and the possibility that the Israelis' informal settlement freeze may lapse, Mr. Kerry is in a race to begin negotiations over a two-state solution before the window he is struggling to crack open is slammed shut. Critics of the Obama administration see Mr. Kerry's focus on the Middle East as an implicit acknowledgment that the White House's widely advertised ''rebalancing'' to Asia is premature, and perhaps even a wishful evasion of unwelcome foreign policy realities. Supporters, though, insist that there is not a contradiction. ''If you are really going to pivot to Asia, you cannot leave the Middle East in flames,'' said Strobe Talbott, the head of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board at the State Department and president of the Brookings Institution. ''With regard to Egypt, the Arab-Israel peace process, Syria, Iraq, Iran - all of that has to be manageable.'' Mr. Kerry has been tight-lipped about his strategy to jumpstart direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the main elements appear to include a way to address Israel's security concerns if new borders are agreed on, the lure of millions of dollars in investment if a Palestinian state is established and securing support from Arab nations for an eventual accord. One precept that he
has carried over from his years as a senator is that the best and perhaps only way to achieve a breakthrough is to tackle core issues as quickly as possible while avoiding getting bogged down in tangential debates over preconditions for talks. But the dominant view among Middle East experts is
that the negotiations would be an uphill struggle at best, because of divisions among the Palestinians, the hard-line cast of the Israeli government and the deep skepticism each side harbors about the other's intentions. Robert M. Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Kerry's diplomacy was based on the belief that ''the price of inaction is too high, but the parties don't seem to share that sense of urgency.'' To the issues he faces, Mr. Kerry brings a worldwide list of contacts, a dogged belief in personal diplomacy and no small measure of self-confidence. ''Kerry believes that the time for Middle East envoys is over, that by using his personal relationship with the key principals he can move the negotiating process out of the rut it has been in for four years,'' said Martin S. Indyk, who served as ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration. Mr. Kerry's hands-on approach was evident during a March visit to Turkey. After Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared to undermine the prospects for an Israeli-Turkish entente by casting Zionism as a ''crime against humanity'' at a U.N. meeting, Mr. Kerry sought to defuse the controversy. To make the point that Zionism was a valid nationalist movement and avoid turning the dispute into a test of wills, Mr. Kerry, who has known Mr. Erdogan since he was the mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s, took out an iPad and ran a Web search on the term. For several minutes the two sides pored over the definition in Turkish and English, and the minicrisis was smoothed over. But it is Syria that may prove his most difficult
test. With Mr. Kerry emphasizing the importance of changing Mr. Assad's ''calculation'' that he can keep power, the possibility of negotiating a transitional government has been critically dependent on the military pressure Syria's opposition can put on the government. That has been a vexing issue for a White House that has proclaimed that Mr. Assad's days are numbered even as it remains anxious to turn the page on military conflicts in the Middle East. In his meeting
with Mr. Putin last month, Mr. Kerry argued that if Russia and the United States joined forces, there was no need for Syria to become another Iraq, invoking an analogy that seemed intended to appeal to the Russians, who have complained that the American intervention there led to a failed country.
Syria is the focus as of recent and will remain the top priority in the coming months, our evidence is predictive.
Reichmann, 7-2, (Debb Reichmann, Associated Press, Kerry: US, Russia want transitional government set up for Syria 'sooner than later' 7-2-2013,
<http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/213942471.html> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
said Tuesday that both the U.S. and Russia are seriously committed to having an international conference on Syria and setting up a transitional government to end the bloodshed and "save the state of Syria." Kerry said the two countries both believe the meeting should take sooner rather than later, but acknowledged it might not be possible until
August or later. Such an international meeting, which has been delayed several times before, is known as "Geneva II" because it follows a Syria meeting in the Swiss city in June 2012. Kerry spoke outside the U.S. Embassy in Brunei after a 90-minute-plus meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of an Asian security summit. Russia has been a key backer of Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime in the two-year civil war that has claimed more than 93,000 lives. But Kerry said the U.S. and Russia agreed that they have an ability to make

a difference if they can pull together. "Our
11
objective remains the same that to recognize the notion that there really isn't a military victory, per se, for Syria that keeps Syria as a country," Kerry said. "And No. 2, that we have an obligation to try to work towards a peaceful resolution because a peaceful settlement is the best way to save the state of Syria and to minimize destruction." He emphasized that the first international conference
called for a transitional government for Syria "with a neutral environment by mutual consent to a full transfer of power." Last month, Lavrov said the U.S. was sending conflicting signals to the rebels. While the U.S. said it favored a peace conference in Geneva, Lavrov said, talk about a possible no-fly zone encouraged the opposition to step up fighting instead of sitting down for talks. "The message the opposition is getting: Guys, don't go to Geneva, don't say you are going to negotiate with the regime, soon things will change in your favor," Lavrov said then. On Tuesday, Lavrov declined to sum up his meeting with Kerry, telling reporters only that their discussion was "excellent." Syria
was also the focus of Kerry's discussion with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. A senior State Department official said the two discussed ways to strengthen support to the opposition and step up plans for an international conference to resolve the crisis. The official, who spoke on condition of
anonymity to disclose details of the closed-door meeting, said Kerry and his Turkish counterpart also discussed how to expand the Syrian people's access to humanitarian aid. He said both men expressed concern over recent Assad regime attacks on civilians in the central province of Homs and the influx of fighters from the Lebanese militia Hezbollah.
Ending the violence in Syria is Kerrys top priority and will be in the future
Stearns, DoS Correspondent, 7-1, (Scott Stearns, VOA News, Kerry to Meet With Davutoglu, Lavrov on Syria July 1st 2013
<http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-to-meet-davutoglu-lavrov-on-syria/1692993.html> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, BRUNEI U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
meets separately with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Tuesday to discuss Syria's civil war. The meetings come on the sidelines of a forum of Southeast Asian nations in Brunei. In talks with Davutoglu, Kerry says they will discuss "the key role that Turkey can continue to play" with respect to Syria. Turkey is a front-line ally among those backing opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russia, on the other hand, is selling arms to President Assad's forces and is critical of opposition supporters, such as the United States, that now say they intend to arm the rebellion. But Lavrov and Kerry continue to work toward Syrian talks on a transitional authority to end the civil war, and that, Kerry says, is the focus of their meeting here in Brunei. "We remain committed, particularly given the increases in violence, to the notion that there must be a negotiation. And Ill have that
conversation in full with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and hopefully together we might have something to be able to report to you after that conversation," said Kerry. For Syrian rebels,
progress toward a negotiated solution seems especially important following battlefield gains by Assad forces and a renewed fight for control of the city of Homs.
12
The US and Russia plan on continuing to make Syria a top diplomatic priority.
Larson 6-25, (Nina Larson, Kerry, Lavrov to meet on Syria next week: UN Fox News, 6-25-2013, <http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/25/kerry-lavrov-to-meet-on-syria-nextweek-un/> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK) US Secretary of State John Kerry
and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will meet next week in Brunei to discuss how to move forward towards a new international peace conference for Syria, the UN and Russia said Tuesday. "The meeting has been informed that Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry would be meeting next week," the UN said in a statement following talks in Geneva between senior US, Russian and UN diplomats aimed at paving the way for the Syria conference. The UN did not provide more details about the meeting, but one of the participants in Geneva Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, told reporters that Kerry and Lavrov would rub shoulders at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference in Brunei. "There the discussion will be continued on further steps towards convening a conference on Syria," he said. The Geneva meeting was the second this month between UN peace envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi and top US and Russian officials. The high-level diplomats have been trying to iron out
an increasing number of obstacles towards the so-called Geneva 2 conference, which is meant to follow up on an initial meeting in the Swiss city last year that produced a never-implemented transition plan for Syria. The conference had initially been pencilled in for this month, then July, but ahead of Tuesday's meeting Brahimi acknowledged to reporters that even the later date now looked unlikely. "Frankly, I doubt that the conference will take place in July," he said, lamenting the deteriorating situation on the ground, where there "is still relentless destruction, killing, more suffering, more injustice, and more uncertainty for the future of the Syrian people." Tuesday's
meeting again failed to set a date for Geneva 2 but the UN said nonetheless "the discussions were constructive, and focused on ways to ensure that the Geneva Conference on Syria can take place with the best chances of success."
13
2NC AT: Asia

Kerrys recent acts prove hes moving away from Asia back to a more predominant foreign policy focus on Syria
Borger, editor for the Guardian, 13 (Julian Borger, Diplomatic Editor for the Guardian, 2-25-13, John Kerry looks to old allies as US foreign policy
focus moves west, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/john-kerry-foreign-policy-focus> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
The arrival of John
Kerry in London on the first stop of his first foreign trip followed by the ritual invocation of the 'special relationship' between the US and UK and a joint declaration of intent on Middle East peace all point to a return to business as usual in American foreign policy-making.
Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, made her maiden voyage as secretary of state to Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China, underlining the Obama administration's intended "pivot to Asia", where America's greatest challenges and opportunities were widely believed to lie. Events however have conspired to complicate this overarching global strategy, and the old neighbourhoods have proved hard to escape. In
the face of the Arab spring, the continuing Syrian tragedy and the Iranian nuclear challenge, Washington has found it impossible to extricate itself from the Middle East, and that in turn has reminded Washington of its dependence on tradition allies, the UK foremost, in the bid to prevail on the world stage. So Kerry, standing beside his British counterpart, William Hague,
under the gilded ceiling of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reminisced fondly about boyhood visits to Britain even getting lost, and then found, by a kindly stranger in London Zoo. He talked of the "common values and long-shared ties of family and friends" that constituted the special relationship. The rest of Kerry 's itinerary also has a familiar 20th-century feel, reflecting the enduring hold of old alliances and areas of vital American interests. He will be in Berlin on Tuesday, then Paris and Rome and Ankara, before going on to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The dominant themes will be Middle Eastern: Syria, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and the familiar challenge will be how to maintain solidarity between the west and its Gulf allies in that arena. Hague meanwhile basked in Kerry's recollection of the fights for "freedom and survival" US and Britain have shared. For a British foreign secretary, there is no higher policy goal than staying close to Washington, and Hague had bet heavily on Kerry when the then-senator from Massachusetts visited the Foreign Office while still vying for the state department with the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. The foreign secretary treated him as if he already had the job. The
two men now find common cause in seeking to persuade their governments to take a more activist stance on Syria, though both still balk for now at arming the rebels
directly. Hague also sees in Kerry a potential ally in persuading Obama to take a hands-on role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The new secretary of state did not go as far as Hague, who declared there was "no more urgent foreign policy priority in 2013", but he is committed to travelling with Obama to Israel and the West Bank next month. It is no guarantee that Washington will stay involved in the normally thankless task of Middle Eastern peacemaking, and the logic of America's long-term interests in the Pacific is as strong as ever. But
for the UK and Europe this first Kerry outing on the world stage marks a hopeful sign that the Obama administration is prepared to revisit familiar, if intractable, problems.
14
2NC AT: North Korea

Despite comments, North Korea is still not a top priority and has produced little fruit
NYT 13 (Michael Gordon, New York Times, 4-14-13, Kerry Says North Korea Talks Are Possible, but Hints at Conditions,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/world/asia/kerry-says-any-talks-rely-on-steps-by-north-korea.html?_r=0#h[]> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
Secretary of State John Kerry
said Sunday that the United States was prepared to reach out to Kim Jong-un of North Korea if he made the first move to abandon his nuclear weapons program. We need the appropriate moment, appropriate circumstance, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Tokyo. While he did not say specifically what steps would be needed, according to the long-standing United States position they might include a public commitment to denuclearization and such measures as halting the production of nuclear material, refraining from testing missiles and ceasing threats to attack its neighbors. Over the past week, there has been considerable attention on the United States vows to militarily defend its
Asian allies and its warning that North Korea should forgo a test firing a Musudan medium-range missile. But the United States has also postponed tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile and toned down its statements in recent weeks to try to create an atmosphere in which talks with North Korea might begin, a theme that Mr. Kerry emphasized Sunday. What we really ought to be talking about is the possibility of peace, he said in a joint news conference on Sunday with Fumio Kishida, Japans foreign minister. And I think there are those possibilities.
Mr. Kerry said that before talks could begin, North Korea needed to take tangible steps to demonstrate that it was serious about denuclearization. But it seemed unlikely that that precondition for talks would be met by North Korea, given the countrys announcements that it considers itself to be a nuclear state and its dedication to a military-first stance that channels resources to its armed forces. The Obama administration has been willing to conduct direct talks with Iranian officials and sought early in Mr. Obamas first term to forge a constructive relationship with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. But the White House, in a policy that some have called strategic patience, has remained unwilling to meet openly with top North Korean officials unless they first committed to denuclearization. Mr. Kerry indicated there
Sketching out his approach in his meeting later in the day with reporters, were some circumstances in which he could imagine sending a representative to talk to North Korean leaders or engaging directly with the North Koreans through a diplomatic back channel. It may be that somebody will be asked to sit down, he said. I am open personally to exploring other avenues; I particularly want to hear what the Chinese have to say, Mr. Kerry said. I am not going to be so stuck in the mud that an opportunity to actually get s omething done is flagrantly wasted. But fundamentally the concept is theyre going to have to show some kind of good faith here so that we are not going around and around, he said. They have to indicate that seriousness of purpose to g o toward the denuclearization, and there are ways that they can do that. Tokyo is the final stop on Mr. Kerrys six-nation tour and his third destination in Asia. As part of its regional diplomacy, the United States has also been urging Japan and South Korea, its two main regional allies but who remain divided by history, to cooperate on North Korea. In his news conference in Tokyo, Mr. Kerry expanded on his remarks on Saturday that the United States would be willing to withdraw some of the antimissile defenses it recently deployed if China were able to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Those remarks, made at a news conference in Beijing, were seen as a lure to elicit Chinas cooperation. The president of the United States deployed some addit ional missile defense capacity precisely because of the threat of North Korea, Mr. Kerry said. And it is logical that if the threat of North Korea disappears becaus e the peninsula denuclearizes, then obviously that threat no longer mandates that kind of posture. But there have been no agreements, no discussions; there is nothing actually on the table with respect to that, he added. So far, Mr.
Kerrys comments and his endorsement of South Koreas efforts to open a dialogue with the government of Kim Jong-un in the North have produced nothing but scorn from North Koreas leaders. On Sunday, North Korea rebuffed a South Korean proposal for dialogue, calling it empty and a cunning trick.
Kerry has rejected North Koreas first proposal for talks and its still not a top priority
Raw Story 13 (Agence France-Presse, The Raw Story, 4-18-13, John Kerry says North Korea talks conditions unacceptable,
<http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/john-kerry-says-north-korea-talks-conditions-unacceptable/> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
US Secretary of State John Kerry Thursday dismissed a set of pre-conditions laid out by North Korea for talks as unacceptable, calling them an opening gambit from Pyongyang. The isolated North on Thursday responded for the first time to an offer from Kerry during his weekend visit to the Korean peninsula to return to the negotiating table in a bid to defuse heightened nuclear tensions. The demands by the Norths main military body included the withdrawal of UN sanctions and a permanent end to South Korea-US joint military drills. Thats the first word of negotiation or thought of that weve heard from them sinc e all of this has begun, Kerry told US lawmakers. So Im prepared to look at that as at least a beginning gambit not acceptable, obviously, and we have to go further. The Norths offer followed a month of increasingly hostile exchanges between Pyon gyang, Seoul and Washington that have included threats of nuclear war and precision missile strikes. During a trip to Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo, Kerry repeatedly stressed Washington was ready to talk to Pyongyang provided it was serious about reining in its nuclear program. The US would not return to past cycles of heres a little food aid, heres a little of this, then well talk, Kerry told the Senate foreign relations
committee, adding weve got to make some fundamental determinations here.
The direction of Foreign policy is away from talks with Pyongyang right now, talks are just lip service.
Whiton, Former DoS adviser, 13 (Christian Whiton - Former State Department adviser, Fox News, 2-6-13, After New York blows up in North Korea
video, will Obama, Kerry and Hagel take the bait?, <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/06/after -new-york-blows-up-in-north-korea-video-will-obama-kerryand-hagel-take/> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)

Furthermore, Pyongyangs cooperation with U.S. adversaries on nuclear matters is not just a theory. It helped Syria build a carbon copy of North Koreas Yongbyon nuclear facility, before the Israelis thankfully blew it up in 2007. There are also media reports of North Korean scientists present at Irans nuclear-weapons-related facilities. One day, a bomb made with Pyongyangs help could go off in an American or allied city, whether launched, or perha ps more likely, smuggled in. While
15
Washington pays lip service to this threat, it clearly is not prepared to do much about itat least nothing serious. In the un-serious category, Washington is likely to try negotiations with North Korea again. To her credit, Hillary Clinton never fell for this trap. Having seen the State Department suckered by North Korea during both her husbands administration and the tenure of her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, she refused to be drawn to the negotiating table at which North Korea is the master of trading fake promises for real cash.
16
2NC AT: Middle East Peace Process

The complete focus is on Syria rather than the Middle East peace process
KUNA 13 (Kuwait News Agency, 6-21-13, Kerry to focus on Syria in Gulf talks, first Kuwait visit as Sec. of State,
<http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2318215&language=en> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
WASHINGTON, June 21 (KUNA) -- US Secretary of State John Kerry
departed for Qatar on Friday to kick off an 11-day trip to the Gulf, Middle East and India, where the main focus of his talks in the Gulf will be the situation in Syria and the humanitarian crisis in that country. A State Department senior official told reporters during a briefing Friday via teleconference that in the first stop of his trip, Kerry is expected to meet with senior Qatari officials, as well as the Amir and Prime Minister, to focus on the ongoing Syrian conflict. Doha will also be hosting the London 11 foreign ministers meeting, in which Kerry will participate to address how the international community can support the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and to what extent the rebels will be armed. Kerry will then head for New Delhi, India, where his talks with the government will involve economic
and trade issues, clean energy, innovation and higher education. He is also expected to discuss "opportunities for progress" between India and Pakistan, as Islamabad's new government settles into office. From India, Kerry
will return to the Middle East on his second visit as Secretary of State to Saudi Arabia. He is expected to meet with senior Saudi officials for talks on regional challenges including Syria and Iran. Concerns about extremists in Syria and foreign fighters from Iran and Hezbollah will have a heavy focus, according to the official. On June 26, Kerry will be visiting Kuwait, which is his first trip as Secretary of State. In Kuwait, the focus is "on reinforcing the strength of the US-Kuwaiti relationship." The official affirmed that Kuwait is "a strategic ally and partner in the Gulf," shedding light on the Syria donors conference Kuwait hosted in January 30 during which it made USD 300 million contribution. "Throughout his stops in the Gulf he will be talking with leaders about how to support the humanitarian crisis in Syria that is resulting from Syria as well," the official stressed. Kerry will also address "how pleased he is that Kuwait and Iraq have
resolved so many of the issues that are left over from the Iraq-Iran War of almost 30 years ago," where the official affirmed "theres been dramatic progress on that very recently, and they'll be talking about that." From Kuwait, Kerry will head to Amman, Jordan, where his focus will again be on Syria, but particularly on Jordans ability to manage the influx of Syrian refugees. In addition, day trips from Amman to Jerusalem and Ramallah are expected, where Kerry will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials from the Palestinian Authority.
17
2NC AT: Sanctions Killed DOS

Sequestration didnt hurt employment and cut less than half of what was originally anticipated.
Katz, Gov. Executive news, 5-6 (Eric Katz, Government Executive News, No Furloughs at State, 5-6-2013, <http://www.govexec.com/paybenefits/2013/05/no-furloughs-state/62987/> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
Add the
State Department to the growing list of federal agencies that will not furlough any employees. State will not require its workforce to take unpaid leave impact on the agency is less than half of what was originally anticipated, having to cut just $400 million rather than initial estimates of $850 million.
in fiscal 2013, the Associated Press has reported. Sequestrations
18
***Syria Internals***
19
2NC Internals Diplomacy solves conflict/arming the rebels

Focus is vitalonly diplomacy solves and the alternative is arming the rebels and expanding conflict
Shank and Zager 5/28 (Michael and Kathy, Fox News, The Only Way Forward on Syria, 5/28/13,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/28/way-forward-on-syria, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) United States-Russia diplomacy is finally making headway on Syria. Monday, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met in Paris to discuss their joint proposal for peace talks, they were encouraged by news over the weekend that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will attend the talks. If all goes according to plan, next month's peace
conference in Geneva will bring together the Syrian government and opposition leaders to broker a ceasefire and establish a transitional government. We are finally witnessing the kind of U.S. diplomatic engagement that is desperately needed in the region, irrespective of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's vote last week to arm Syrian rebels, a decision which directly undermines diplomacy efforts. For too long we have disengaged -- recalling our ambassadors from Damascus when we needed them most -- a strategy that has left the U.S.-Syria diplomatic relationship woefully weak, manifested little in terms of peaceful progress, and ultimately failed at preventing violent conflict . Nevertheless, the solution to the Syrian crisis does not lie in a U.S. military intervention, despite what many in Congress are calling for. Instead, Congress should be backing the best possibility of peace presently on the table: a negotiated settlement among Syrian regime officials, internal factions and other regional actors in the conflict. The goal of next month's conference in Geneva is a transitional government with members chosen by mutual consent. Secretary Kerry should have a green light from the Obama administration to offer a comprehensive diplomatic settlement among all parties, while continuing to offer generous humanitarian aid to millions in need. This is how we make headway. And it is critical that these diplomatic efforts include sustained communication with all who are party to the conflict. That means we must engage every nation that has a stake in Syria, whether its Iran, Israel, or Lebanon, not just Russia, Turkey and Iraq. Going forward, there are three particular avenues we must pursue: First, the U.S. diplomatic agenda with Iran should be broadened beyond the nuclear issue to address the crisis in Syria. Iran has critical influence on the Syrian regime and could play a strong role in getting Bashar al-Assad and his government to accept a political transition. Weve rightly engaged Russia at the highest levels of statecraft. Now we must engage Iran similarly. Until all key actors are included at the negotiating table, the present political tensions will only escalate. Second, if the U.S. is serious about supporting diplomatic engagement, the U.S. should push for a rapid and seamless replacement of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N.-Arab League envoy for Syria who has indicated he will resign from his position this month. To leave this post vacant will send the wrong message to Damascus about the U.S.s commitment to diplomacy and would weaken the diplomatic effort. Third, the U.S. should offer generous humanitarian aid to accountable actors. Our priority in Syria should be to ease the suffering of Syrian civilians. At least 6.8 million are currently in need of humanitarian assistance. Proposals from Senator John McCain and others to administer aid through the Syrian Opposition Coalition would be disastrous, however, as it politicizes the aid and further endangers civilians. It is essential that humanitarian aid be politically neutral, and it must be delivered to impartial humanitarian organizations. These three areas are where
Washington should spend its energy and effort. And yet, the drumbeat for war proceeds apace, not unlike it did with Libya, with some in Congress calling for the same military aid and the same no-fly zone. Military intervention -- whether through a U.S.-enforced
no-fly zone over Syria, U.S. troops on the ground, or arming of the opposition -- would undoubtedly escalate the bloodshed. Further militarizing the conflict would destabilize an already volatile region, and it would undermine the potential for successful diplomacy. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pointed out, imposing a no-fly zone is technically and effectively an act of war. Establishing a no-fly zone would begin with the U.S. bombing Syrias antiaircraft system. Given the widespread presence of Syrias anti-aircraft systems, this would severely endanger millions of already-vulnerable civilians. The only way forward at this point is through engagement of all of Syrias neighbors including Iran, continuing high-level U.N. diplomacy post-Brahimi, and assisting civilians with humanitarian aid, but only through trusted impartial international aid organizations. These are the next--and only--steps. Any other option comes with too much risk and too much additional bloodshed -- and would not leave behind a stable, strong, or safe Syria.
Only diplomacy can solve Syrian civil war- military aid will just add fuel to the fire.
Cortright 13 (David, 6/11/13, director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dames Kroc Institute for International Peace
Studies, Best way for Obama to help Syria is with aid and diplomacy- not weapons, The Christian Science Monitor,
Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0611/Best-way-for-Obama-to-help-Syria-is-with-aid-and-diplomacy-notweapons/(page)/2//, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
20
Giving military aid to Syria's rebels however just their cause will only prolong the civil war and increase the risk of sectarian conflagration in the region. A better way to help the Syrian people is to pursue diplomatic efforts to end the conflict and provide more humanitarian aid. With US involvement growing and escalation likely, pressure would build for stronger action. A no-fly zone? Drone strikes against Syrian tanks and artillery? Boots on the ground? The US might find itself dragged into another even more dangerous Middle East war. Rather than pursuing uncertain and dangerous military solutions, the US should use its influence to continue to press for a diplomatic settlement. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov announced recently in Moscow the convening of a conference in Geneva to end the fighting and begin negotiations for a transitional government. UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi welcomed last weeks communiqu as the first hopeful news concerning that unhappy country in a very long time." The Syrian government has said it will attend the conference, but the now militarily weakened rebels are balking and say they will not participate without weapons and ammunition from the West. The Obama administration is using the prospect of military
assistance for the rebels as leverage to gain Russian and Syrian government support for the talks, and as an inducement for the rebels to participate. Its a delicate balancing act that will require Mr. Kerry to pressure the Syrian government into allowing an
open transition process and the rebels into pursuing their goals through political and diplomatic means rather than armed struggle.
21
2NC Internals ME Coaltion

US diplomacy is vitalit coordinates a diverse Middle East coalition for peace
Middle East Online, 6-25 (Middle East Online, Middle Eastern News service, 6-25-13, Kerry adds stop in UAE to his marathon
tour on Syria war, Middle East Online, http://www.middle -east-online.com/english/?id=59683, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) KUWAIT CITY - US Secretary of State John Kerry will go to the United Arab Emirates on Saturday, adding a stop to his marathon tour aimed at coordinating support for Syria's rebels, an official said. Kerry, who arrived in Kuwait on Tuesday evening after a lightning stop in Saudi Arabia, will visit Abu Dhabi to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahayan, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. He has been touring Sunni Arab states, which are mostly opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to expand US support for the rebels. The United States took the decision after concluding that Assad defied warnings and used chemical weapons, but Obama remains wary
of a large US involvement in an increasingly sectarian conflict that has claimed nearly 100,000 lives. Kerry will stop in Abu Dhabi between visits to Jordan, where he will make his latest attempt to encourage the Middle East peace process, and the Southeast Asian petro-state of Brunei, where he will attend an Asian conference. He is likely to hold tense talks in Brunei with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Russia is a key supporter of Assad and has entered a new showdown with Washington after Edward Snowden, a former contractor who leaked details of US surveillance, flew to Moscow in hopes of reaching asylum in Latin America. During his trip, Kerry also visited Qatar, a top supporter of the Syrian rebels, and India, where he pledged a new effort to build relations between the world's two largest democracies. The Abu Dhabi crown prince visited Washington in April, where he spoke to Obama about the Syrian crisis. Saudi Arabia on Tuesday pressed for global action to end Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, telling US Secretary of State John Kerry that the civil war had turned into "genocide". Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told Kerry that Assad, a secular leader who belongs to the
heterodox Alawite sect, has waged "unprecedented genocide" through the more than two-year conflict that has claimed nearly 100,000 lives. "The kingdom demands a clear, unequivocal international resolution that bans any sort of weapons support for the Syrian regime and declares null and void the legitimacy of that regime," Faisal said at a joint news conference. "The regime's illegitimacy eliminates any possibility of it being part of any arrangement or playing any role whatsoever in shaping the present and future," he said. Faisal also voiced dismay at the role of Iran, which has poured assistance to Assad to save its main Arab
ally. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim backed by Iran, has increasingly fought alongside government forces in Syria. "Along with the regime's genocide against its own people, this adds an even deadlier element in the form of an all-out foreign invasion," Faisal said of Iran's role. Despite Faisal's stance, Kerry said that the United States supported an agreement last year in Geneva that would create a transitional government that includes both the rebels and regime, although not Assad himself. "We believe that the best solution is a political solution in which the people of Syria have an opportunity to be able to make a choice about their future," Kerry said. "We believe that every minority can be respected, there can be diversity and pluralism and that the people can do so in a climate of peace," he said. Saudi Arabia, while a longstanding US ally, practices a puritanical form of Wahhabi Islam. US officials have in the past voiced concern about money from Gulf Arabs funding Sunni hardliners in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Kerry also paid his day trip to Jeddah to compare notes on the Middle East peace process -- one of his key priorities -- and on the chaotic politics of Egypt, where Saudi Arabia is considered to hold key influence.
That solves the conflictinternational actors are driving Sunni/Shiite war

Fisk 6-16 (Robert Fisk, Robert Fisk is a multiple award-winning journalist on the Middle East, based in Beirut., Iran to send 4,000
troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aidpresident-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html//, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
Washingtons decision to arm Syrias Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni -Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region. For the first time, all of Americas friends in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obamas rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East. The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran even before last weeks presidential election to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assads forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years. Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assads regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republics security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new Syrian
22
front on the Golan Heights against Israel. In years to come, historians will ask how America after its defeat in Iraq and its
humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for 2014 could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism,
between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohameds wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George
Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between Papists and Protestants. Americas alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of
Syrian refugees may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle. Up to 3,000 American advisers are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria no-fly zone opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries will turn a crisis into a hot war. So much for Americas friends. Its enemies include the Lebanese Hizballah, the Alawite Shiite regime in Damascus and, of course, Iran. And Iraq, a largely Shiite nation which America liberated from Saddam Husseins Sunni minority in the hope of balancing the Shiite power of Iran, has against all US predictions itself now largely fallen under Tehrans influence and power. Iraqi Shiites as well as Hizballah members, have both fought alongside Assads forces. Washingtons excuse for its new Middle East adventure that it must arm Assads enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them convinces no-one in the Middle East. Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bushs claim that Saddams Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. For the real reason why America has thrown its military power behind Syrias Sunni rebels is because those same rebels are now losing their war against Assad. The Damascus regimes victory this month in the central
Syrian town of Qusayr, at the cost of Hizballah lives as well as those of government forces, has thrown the Syrian revolution into turmoil, threatening to humiliate American and EU demands for Assad to abandon power. Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf not to be sustained.
23
2NC Internals US Key
US assistance would deter Assad from lethal weapons, create safe areas, and provide ground assistance
Tabler July/August 2013 (Andrew J. Tabler, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of In
the Lions Den: An Eyewitness Account of Washingtons Battle With Syria, Syria's Collapse And How Washington Can Stop It, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139457/andrew-j-tabler/syrias-collapse#
Neither the war-weary American public nor the Syrian opposition wants to see a full-scale U.S. land invasion to topple Assad and install a U.S.-backed government; both fear that a massive intervention would mean a repeat of Iraq. But that doesnt mean the United States lacks options. Washington should pursue a measured but assertive cour se, one aimed at preventing Assad from freely using his most lethal weapons, establishing safe areas for civilians on Syrias borders, and supporting vetted elements of the armed and civilian opposition with weapons, intelligence, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction assistance. The end goal (as opposed to the starting point, as the Obama administration now favors) should be
negotiations, led by the UN or another party, that lead to the departure of Assad and his entourage and the reunification of the country.
If the United States wants a Syria that is united, stable, and eventually more democratic -- and perhaps no longer allied with Iran -- this is the least bad way to get there. By tipping the balance on the ground toward the opposition, Washington can convince the regime -- or at least its patrons in Moscow -- that the conflict will not end by force alone.
The United States should start by deterring the regime from using its most lethal tools, namely surface-to-surface missiles and chemical weapons. Such deterrence will require taking out the bombs filled with sarin gas that, according to The New York Times, were placed last year near or on Syrian air bases. Destroying those bombs would allow Washington to signal to Assad
that preparing to use his advanced weapons will carry a cost. This would likely reduce the death toll and give Syrian civilians caught up in the fighting fewer reasons to flee their homes, thus helping stem the refugee crisis. But a limited approach focused on border regions would be less perilous, since the regimes planes and missiles could be shot down using Patriot missile batteries based in Jordan and Turkey or by aircraft flying there. And the safe areas would still allow civilians to take shelter from Assads onslaught, keep refugees from flooding into neighboring countries, and enable the international community to funnel in humanitarian aid on a scale that local nongovernmental organizations cannot match. Carving out these safe areas would also necessitate U.S. air or missile strikes on nearby artillery -- Assads tool of choice for killing civilians and a possible method of delivering chemical weapons -- and air defense systems. But these, too, could be conducted from over the border. To be sure, the United States could not protect the safe areas from ground assaults by Assads forces. But by eliminating the threat of death from above, whether from missiles or aircraft, a remote no -fly zone could give the rebels in these areas a fighting chance and the space they needed to safeguard civilians on the ground.
Similarly, this over-the-border approach would not be as effective in preventing civilian casualties as sending U.S. aircraft over Syria, but it would carry substantially fewer risks of U.S. planes being shot down by Syrian antiaircraft batteries. If the conflict markedly
worsened or the regime began using its chemical weapons wholesale against the opposition, Washington would also be able to expand the safe areas toward the center of the country and create a larger no-fly zone. But both the limited, remote
option and an expanded no-fly zone could be constrained by the introduction of sophisticated Russian S-300 antiaircraft missile systems, which reportedly could be operational in Syria as early as August -- another reminder of the costs of waiting.Third, Washington needs to work directly with opposition forces on the ground in Syria (as opposed to just those outside it) to push back the governments forces, deliver humanitarian assistance, and, most important, check the growing influence of Islamic extremists. This should include the provision of arms to vetted armed groups on a trial-and-error basis, with Washington monitoring how the battalions use the intelligence, supplies, and arms they receive. The initial aid should be funneled through non-Salafi figures in the
Supreme Military Council, such as Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Akidi, head of Aleppos Revolutionary Military Council and of the armaments committee of the Supreme Military Councils Northern Front. (It was through Akidi that the United States
recently channeled its nonlethal assistance, including the bulletproof vests.) At the same time, Washington should encourage members of the National Coalition to enter liberated areas and work together with the armed groups and local councils to build a new viable political leadership on the ground based on local elections. None of this work would require American boots on the ground in an offensive capacity, but it could involve Americans wearing other types of footwear. The United States should immediately establish secure offices in southern Turkey and northern Jordan as centers devoted to working with the Syrian opposition, adding to the discussions that are currently taking place between Washington and some rebels via Skype and through periodic visits of U.S. officials to the border. As soon as their safety can be reasonably well assured, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers
24
should be sent into the safe areas that the United States has established in Syria, with protection, to meet directly with civilian and armed opposition members, activists, and relief workers. Esta blishing close relationships with players in Syria would free the United States from having to work through Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which have in the past directed assistance
into the wrong hands; Saudi-purchased Croatian arms, for example, were seen earlier this year in the possession of Jabhat al-Nusra. A more direct approach would, admittedly, put some American lives at risk, so every possible security precaution would need to be taken to avoid an attack along the lines of the 2012 assault in Benghazi that killed Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Still, establishing a presence on the ground would be worth the risks, allowing the United States to work directly with Syrian armed groups to contain the Assad regime and ultimately influence the character of the opposition. One way to exert such influence
would be to condition assistance on the opposition groups political orientations and their respect for civilian leadership and human rights. The United States should also try to influence Syrian politics on the local level to prevent the total collapse of governance in rebel-held territories. Once the opposition fully liberates an area, Washington should require elections to select a civilian leadership. T his process would help avoid chaos as the regime crumbles and expose local attitudes and sympathies, allowing U.S. officials to assess the influence of various extremist groups. Those who oppose increasing U.S. aid to the opposition tend to point to its uglier elements, particularly to fighters affiliated with al Qaeda. But only by getting involved can the United States shape the opposition and support its moderate forces. Although anti-Americanism is
growing among the rebels, there is still time for a ground-up strategy to win back their trust. This could be achieved through backing the more liberal, secular, and nationalist battalions and isolating -- and possibly launching drone strikes against -- those extremist forces that refuse to accept civilian authority during the transition. With U.S. help, there are good reasons to believe that
moderates within the opposition can prevail. At its core, the Syrian revolution is a nationalist one. Of the three main currents in the opposition -- secularists, moderate Islamists (including those in the Muslim Brotherhood), and Salafists -- the first two are more nationalist in orientation; their goals are more political than religious, and their agendas do not extend beyond Syria. Several Salafi and extremist groups, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, have transnational goals, such as the creation of an Islamic state or caliphate beyond Syrias current borders. The main reason such groups have come to play such a big role in the opposition is that the anti-Assad forces have had to turn to the Gulf states for weapons and money -- and the sources there have favored the Salafists, which according to some estimates account for up to a quarter of all the opposition fighters. The United States could earn the influence it seeks by providing intelligence, military training, and weapons of its own. Another factor that will likely check the influence of radicals in the opposition is the diversity of Syrias Sunni community and the countrys historic tolerance of minorities. Syrias Sunnis, who make up the majority of the opposition, have long identified with their region
or tribe rather than their religion. Whereas Salafists have been able to win some support in the religiously conservative northwest, Damascene Sunnis are more moderate, in keeping with their citys mercantile culture. In the south and the east, affiliations with large families and tribes, even those that stretch into Iraq, tend to matter the most. What this means is that religiously motivated atrocities against minorities throughout Syria are not inevitable and that the Sunnis will need to learn to work with one another as much as with non-Sunnis. To be sure, the prominent role of the Alawites in the regimes campaign could lead to retribution in areas where Assads forces retreat. But so far, there have been remarkably few cases of opposition forces killing minority civilians en masse.
Only diplomatic resources and US involvement can solve Syria

Tabler 13 (Andrew J. Tabler, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of In the Lions Den:
An Eyewitness Account of Washingtons Battle With Syria, Syria's Collapse And How Washington Can Stop It, July/August, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139457/andrew-j-tabler/syrias-collapse#
A more active United States could help keep it this way, including by insisting that the opposition follow certain rules of conduct in order to receive U.S. assistance. Finally, after stepping up its involvement, Washington should seek talks between the regime and moderate opposition forces, sponsored by either the UN or, given the UNs poor track record, another party, such as Switzerland or Norway. The timing of such talks, which would need to come on the heels of a cease-fire,
would largely be dependent on the course of the war and on when Russia and the United States could arrive at a common vision for the transition and an understanding of how to get to that point. Only by raising the costs of diplomatic intransigence for both the
Syrian government and Russia, with a clear show of U.S. support for the opposition, is Washington likely to persuade the Kremlin to play a constructive role in the conflicts endgame. What is more, such increased U.S. support for the opposition would give the Americans more leverage to bring the rebels to the negotiating table. Only by getting involved can the United
States shape the opposition and support its moderate forces. At first, any talks would have to focus on getting Assad, his security chiefs, and his top generals to step down and leave the country. The ultimate goal would be the reunification of the country within a democratic and decentralized structure that recognized regional differences. Ideally, Syrias current division into 14 provinces would be maintained. But in areas of the country that are less ethnically homogeneous, such as the province of Homs, the provinces might have to be split along the lines of manatiq (counties) or nahawi (townships). Despite such changes, maintaining the
Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA provinces as the building blocks of a democratic system would emphasize regionalism over sectarian identities, encouraging all Syrians to work together toward regional and, eventually, national reconciliation. Solidifying this order would require
25
Washington to get Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to cut off support to their clients in Syria, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi groups, in favor of local and regional elected representatives. These countries will no doubt be tempted to continue backing their preferred political fronts in Syria, but Washington should push them to recognize that this approach has failed to bring about Assads downfall and has allowed for the proliferation of dangerous nonstate actors. The United States now has an opportunity to play the role that these countries have asked it to play from day one of the crisis: to lead a coalition to get rid of the Assad regime and take Syria out of Irans orbit. In return, Washington should make clear that it expects their cooperation.
Its try or die US DOS aid is the only way to stop sectarian war spillover
Chulov 6/15/13 (Martin Chulov, Martin Chulov covers the Middle East for the Guardian. He has reported from the region since
2005, Threat of sectarian war grows in Syria as jihadists get anti -aircraft missiles, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/syrian-jihadists-anti-aircraft-missiles-video, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
Sunni jihadist groups in northern Syria have secured a large supply of the type of anti-aircraft missiles that the Obama administration has urgently tried to keep away from rebel groups fighting the civil war, video footage shows. The missiles, believed
to be shoulder- launched SA-16s, are displayed in a video allegedly made by a Chechen-dominated jihadist group of foreign fighters. They are known to pose a potent risk to most types of aircraft and have been urgently sought by all rebel groups as a means of breaking the dominance over Syrian skies enjoyed by President Bashar al-Assad's air force. The English speaker on the jihadist video, who calls himself Abu Musab, does not specify where the missiles came from, but it is believed they may have been seized during a raid on the Brigade 80 military base, on the outskirts of Aleppo airport, in February. Separate reports suggest some
opposition groups may have found an alternative supply line from outside Syria. However, while some light weapons are allowed into Syria, the CIA has led intensive efforts to ensure anti-aircraft missiles, such as the SA-16s, are not allowed across the Turkish or Jordanian borders. The video emerged as Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi announced he had cut all diplomatic ties with Damascus. He also said he would back a no-fly zone over Syria, an intervention western diplomats say is being considered by Washington. The video underscores the increasing organisation of foreign jihadists in the north of the country and the prominent role they are playing in some areas of the conflict almost one year after they first arrived. The Chechen-dominated group is comprised solely of foreigners who see the civil war in Syria as an important theatre for global jihad not a battle fought to change the leadership of a nation state. Their presence, along with homegrown Syrian jihadists, has been a key reason for the reluctance of US and other western states to support the military opposition in Syria, which remains outgunned by the regime and is struggling to hold on to parts of the country it seized during fighting over the past 12 months. Peter Bouckaert, the emergencies director for Human Rights Watch, said the foreign groups have become more organised in recent months. "There is increasing evidence that foreign fighters are gathering under a more unified umbrella in Syria, and that the umbrella organisation may have a strong Chechen leadership," he added. The foreign jihadists have a broadly similar worldview to the al-Qaida-aligned Jabhat al-Nusra, but operate largely independently from the group. All groups, along with the more mainstream nationalistic organisations, contest fiercely for power in northern Syrian society. As community structures have steadily decayed over the past year, battlefield results have become an
important benchmark for those seeking influence. Both the foreigners and al-Qaida groups make no secret of their determination to install an Islamic state in Syria. The White House's decision to send military support to vetted areas of the opposition comes at the same time as extremist groups on both sides of the conflict al-Qaida and foreign Sunni jihadists on one side, Hezbollah and Shia militants from outside Syria on the other are playing a sharply increasing role in the conflict. Western officials in Beirut said the decision to arm some rebels, after two years of refusal to do so, is designed largely to drive a wedge between
both sides and stymie a slide into outright sectarian war that would spread beyond Syria's now fragile borders. "The US does not want Chechens or anyone else getting their hands on these missiles, or Hezbollah getting its hands on important parts of the country," one official said.
***-2NC ILAT: No Solution***
26
Kerrys fully invested the lack of public detail is PROOF hes now fully invested and all in
Politico 6-22 (Politico Associated Press, John Kerry: Syria urgently needs solution, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/johnkerry-russia-must-help-on-syria-93187.html, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
Unless the bloodshed in Syria stops, the region could descend into a chaotic sectarian conflict , Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday, as he called for an urgent political resolution to the war that has dragged on for two years and claimed 93,000 lives. The top U.S. diplomat and his counterparts from 10 Arab and European nations agreed at a daylong meeting in Qatar to step up military and other assistance to the Syrian rebels. But Kerry would not disclose details of the aid, saying only that it would re-balance the fight between the rebels and President Bashar Assads better-equipped forces that are increasingly backed by Iranian and Hezbollah fighters. The continued bloodshed at the hands of the Assad regime and the increasing involvement of Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, threaten the very prospects of a political settlement and of peace, Kerry said, adding that the U.S. and other nations are not backing the rebels to seek a military victory in Syria. (PHOTOS: John McCain visits Syria) We do so to find a political settlement, he said. Reliable civilian governance and a stronger and more effective armed opposition will better enable the opposition to be able to provide the counterweight to the initiative of Assad to reach out across borders to bring Iranians and to bring Hezbollah again, a terrorist organization to the table. Rebels say they have already received new weapons from allied countries but not the U.S. that they claim will help them to shift the balance of power on the ground where regime forces have scored recent military victories. Experts and
activists said the new weapons include anti-tank missiles and small quantities of anti-aircraft missiles. Our information from Doha says that five countries have decided to start arming us immediately, and four other countries will give us logistical and technical support and, at a later stage, arm the Free Syrian Army, a spokesman for the opposition fighters, Loay AlMikdad, said in an interview with Qatars Al-Jazeera TV. He said the nations were both Arab and non-Arab, but he would not elaborate. It was Kerrys first meeting with his counterparts about aid to the Syrian rebels since President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would send lethal aid to the opposition despite concern that the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists in Syria . That decision was partly based on a U.S. intelligence assessment that Assad had used chemical weapons, but Kerry expressed deeper concern about how Iran and Hezbollah fighters had joined the fight. That is a very, very dangerous development, Kerry said. Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran. Hezbollah in addition to that is a terrorist organization. Kerry blamed Hezbollah and Assad with undermining efforts to negotiate a settlement and set up a transitional government. Were looking at a very dangerous
situation, that has transformed into a much more volatile, potentially explosive situation that could involve the entire region, Kerry said. The war already has spilled into neighboring countries and is increasingly being fought along sectarian lines, pitting Sunni against Shiite Muslims and threatening the stability of Syrias neighbors. Kerry said top U.S. diplomats are ready to go to Geneva to meet with U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and other officials next week to advance the political process. Doha was the first stop on Kerrys two-week trip through the Mideast and Asia. He is to discuss a wide range of bilateral issues on Sunday and Monday with Indian officials in New Delhi, just one stop on a sevennation tour where he will tackle prickly U.S. foreign policy issues, from finding peace between the Israelis and Palestinians to trying to gain traction on U.S. talks with the Taliban to end the Afghanistan war. James Dobbins, U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrived in Doha on Saturday, but talks with the Taliban, which were supposed to take place in coming days, have not been scheduled. They are to be held at a controversial new political office the Taliban just opened in Doha. Kerry said the Americans and Qataris were on board to help negotiate a political resolution to the war, but it was up to the Taliban to come to the table. We are waiting to find out whether the Taliban will respond, Kerry said, lowering expectations about the prospects for negotiation. We will see if we can get back on track. I dont know whether thats possible or not, Kerry said. If there is not a decision made by the Taliban to move forward in short order, then we may have to consider whether the office has to be closed. At the close of the meeting, the 11 nations (the U.S., Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Britain, Germany, France and Italy) expressed concern about the growing sectarian nature of the Syrian conflict, renewed their call on the regime to let U.N. investigators probe the reported use of
chemical weapons and condemned the intervention of Hezbollah militias and fighters from Iran and Iraq. In a joint press conference in Tehran, Iran Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and his Lebanese counterpart Adnan Mansour lambasted Western powers that arm and support Syrian opposition fighters. I am shocked to see how Western powers speak of human rights and act otherwise when it comes to Syria - where they arm cannibals who fought in Syria so that they [opposition fighters] continue their atrocities more than before, Salehi said. In their communique, the ministers expressed support for a transitional governing body that would take charge of military and other government institutions. But they added that Bashar Assad has no role in the transitional governing body or thereafter. That is a sticking point with Russia, a key Assad ally that has resisted calls for his removal. Russia may have worked to assure Assad governments attendance at any future peace conference, but Moscow also has been undermining peace efforts by sending more weapons to help the Syrian governments counteroffensive against the rebels.
27
Russian leaders warn that if Assad steps aside, the resulting power vacuum could be quickly filled by Al-Qaeda connected rebels, who are well-armed and aggressive.
28
***Syria Impacts***
29
***Intervention Scenario***
30
2NC Module
Diplomacy in Syria reduces bloodshed and prevents US military Intervention.
Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 Recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order, 2013
[Trita, 5/16, The Daily Beast, Why Now Is the Time For Syria Diplomacy, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/16/why-now-is-the-time-for-diplomacy-in-syria.html, 7/13/13, JZ]
A peaceful and sustainable resolution to the Syrian crisis is not within reach in the short-term. But a significant reduction in the violence and bloodshed can be achieved because the appetite for diplomacy is stronger now than at anytime in the past two years. The peace summit prepared by the U.S. and Russia can achieve this if they bring all the parties to the table. What started as peaceful struggle for
political reform in Syria has been hijacked by geopolitical rivalries at the regional and global levels. Today, it is above all a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the U.S. and E.U. on the one hand, and Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and the Assad regime on the other. Several factors have led to a situation in
which the desire for diplomacy among most of these parties is at a climax. First, despite expectations of imminent downfall, the Basher al-Assad regime has managed to survive and even regain military momentum. Whereas talks could have provided Assad with an undeserved lifeline in the past, there is a different perception of the regimes sustainability today which in turn has reduced the perceived risk of talking. Moreover, Assads military gains and the likelihood of it having used chemical weapons has strengthened the chorus of voices demanding U.S. military intervention at a time when the U.S. is dead set against such a move. Few factors would strengthen the President's ability to resist military intervention than a productive diplomatic process. As the push for military action has increased, so has Obama's appetite for diplomacy. Similarly, Assad's side is realizing that while the Syrian regime can survive, it cannot prevail. At best, it can hold on to territory around Damascus, Homs and the areas bordering Lebanon. Indeed, it has focused on ethnically cleansing those
areas of Sunnis to create an Alawite mini-state. Tehrans interest, in turn, is not necessarily to hold onto all of Syria, but to secure Iran's link to Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are indications that Tehran is inclined to pursue a compromise precisely because it realizes that a complete Assad victory isn't in the cards. Moreover, the continuation of the conflict further adds to Tehran's massive soft power losses in the region and strengthens the Sunni-Shia narrative as the meta-frame for all regional conflicts. While Tehran and Assad currently enjoys a better negotiating hand due to recent military gains and the international community's Syria fatigue, they realize that this momentum can easily be lost. We have called for talks between the Syrian government and the peaceful opposition to form
a transitional government, Irans Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said during a visit to Jordan on May 7. We have advised the Syrian government to sit with the opposition but not with Al-Nusra, he added, referring to the Syrian offshoot of Al Qaida in Iraq. Similarly, supporters of the rebels such as Turkey and Jordan recognize the increased risk of the conflict spreading into their
own territories. Even if violence and radicalism don't cross the border, the cost of the refugee crisis is becoming unbearable for them. This leaves three elements with more questionable attraction to the idea of talks: the Free Syrian Armys preference is to compel the West to intervene militari ly; negotiations would be tantamount to succumbing to the idea that Assad can survive and that some form of temporary coexistence is unavoidable; the rebels correctly fear that once the violence has reduced, the likelihood of Western intervention will lower as well. The rebels are not ready to even tactically relinquish the objective of destroying the Alawite core of the Syrian state. Moreover, while negotiations may not affect the stream of support Al-Nusra receives from the Persian Gulf Arab states, potentially leaving the FSA weaker vis-vis foreign fighters. Saudi Arabia and some of the Persian Gulf states interests in Syria that arguably render the idea of negotiations unattractive. First, the bloody experience in Syria has served as deterrence against further uprisings challenging sitting dictators in the Arab world. After Syria, few populations are as eager to risk civil war for the sake of political change. Second, the uprising in Syria is bleeding the Iranians dry in every sense of the word. Tehran is loosing funds, arms and, perhaps most importantly, influence throughout the Muslim world due to its commitment the survival of the Assad government. No measure has been as successful in making the Shia-Sunni narrative stick at the popular level than the images of Tehran supporting Assads slaughter of Sunnis. The longer this goes on, the more Irans rivals in the Persian Gulf benefit. Finally, the spread of Salafi radicals is a problem for the region as a whole, including some of the Arab states that directly or indirectly fund them. In Saudi Arabia, reports have emerged that the state itself is killing two birds with one stone by actively encouraging radicals to join the fight in Syria. Whether the radicals get killed or kill Assad forces, the Saudi state wins. The Israelis also disfavor negotiations at this point, particularly if they include Iran. While the continuation of the fighting may carry with it a high price for Israelsince Al Qaeda strengthens its presence on Israels bordersthe Jewish state is also opposed to any outcome that enables Tehran to salvage its bridge to Hezbollah. Including Iran in the solution to Syria will also reduce Washingtons commitment to confronting Iran on the nuclear issue, Israel fears. At the same time, there are significant limitations to what talks can achieve. Neither power-sharing nor a transitional government is realistic. At best, talks can help significantly reduce the bloodshedwhich in and of itself is a worthy objective at a time
where people are being slaughtered in the thousands simply to sustain an unsatisfactory stalemate.
Intervention in Syria would worsen relations; diplomacy would increase regional influence.
Sylvia, Author for Policymic, 2013
[Camaj, 2/13/13, Policymic, War With Syria Would Be A Disaster Let's Seek A Diplomatic Solution, http://www.policymic.com/articles/25320/war-with-syria-would-be-a-disaster-let-s-seek-a-diplomatic-solution, 7/7/13, JZ]
A "Made in America" intervention in the Middle East is probably the last thing the U.S. needs now. Such a military intervention would only end up enflaming the already divided region. For now, the U.S. should continue to emphasize that other nations need to play a role in crafting a solution to the Syria problem, especially key strategic allies like Turkey and Iraq. Turkey is a
31
NATO ally and is also able to potentially provide the best safe haven for Syrians fleeing the conflict zone. Iraq has strong economic ties to Syria and the U.S. could use its leverage with the Iraqi government to gain international support for isolating the Assad regime in Syria. Syrias civil war poses the greatest risk to
regional actors involved by threatening to draw them into a wider battle; therefore, key regional players need to take the leading role in the Syria conflict, with the U.S. acting as a guiding mentor. To be sure, the U.S. should remain engaged and prepared, but any military solution from Washington is unnecessary and unwise. Syria is surrounded by wealthy and well-armed neighbors, who, unlike the U.S., have a greater possibility of being directly affected by whats unfolding in Damascus. The U.S. has less than 5% of the worlds population and the biggest debt burdena weak position to be in when telling the other 95% of the people in
the world how to behave.
32
***Credibility Scenario***
33
1NC Module
Failure of diplomacy sends a signal of weakness, crushing US credibility
CSM 13, an international news organization, 13 (Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 2013, Why US must stop
Russian missiles for Syria, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the -monitors-view/2013/0528/Why-US-must-stop-Russianmissiles-for-Syria, //RM, 7/13/13, AR)
Thats far from the approach of Russia regime shows
under Vladimir Putin. His decision this week to send sophisticated S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Syrias embattled a moral indifference to human suffering and popular demands for democracy. The surface-to-air missiles not only prop up the ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad against the majority of Syrians who seek freedom, their 125-mile range also puts Israels civilian aircraft at risk. Mr. Putins foreign policy consists mainly of seeking practical interests for Russia. The S-300s will prevent some hotheads (namely, the West) from setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, as one Russian official put it. They will help maintain access for the Russian Navy to the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean. Most of all, if the Assad regime survives, that will help Iran in its desire for influence in the region and keep the United States tied down in solving Middle East problems. The US will then be less focused on
Russia and its growing dictatorship and meddling with its neighbors. RELATED OPINION: Five things the international community must give Syria after Assad These kinds of amoral geopolitical moves by Putin come out of Russias historical feelings of vulnerability as a large and exposed
China, too, feels encircled by US forces in Asia. It has supported Moscows policy toward Syria as one way to prevent the US from focusing more on China and its aggressive attempt to usurp American influence in Asia. Putin also knows that President Obama and the US public have little appetite for military intervention in Syria , despite any American outrage over a
landmass. war that has taken more than 80,000 civilian lives and forced 1.5 million to flee. Only Britain and France show a strong interest in sending arms to anti-Assad rebels. The Russian decision to send the missiles could end up being merely symbolic. Israeli war jets will likely take them out before they become operational. Twice this year, Israel destroyed lesser-quality missiles in Syria as they were shipped from Iran to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. And deployment of the S-300 missiles could take up to a year. MONITOR'S VIEW: Syria's war can't drift into holy war Putin could be seeking only a temporary diplomatic advantage in the run-up to talks being planned in Geneva aimed at a negotiated settlement for Syria. Nonetheless, his decision sets up a stark contrast between a moral approach toward ending Syrias slaughter and the kind of amoral posturing by Russia for its basic interests. With the US now inclined to
focus more on building up its economy, Russia and others see the US legacy of acting on humanitarian or idealist grounds as in decline despite the 2011 military intervention in Libya. In the global maneuvering of big powers, weakness is provocative, as former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once warned. The US need not militarily intervene in Syria. But it cannot afford to create the impression of moral indifference toward the mass killing of Syrians. Indifference invites meddling by other powers. At the very least, the US must somehow convince Putin not to send the S-300 missiles. Then it must step up its diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus.
US credibility is key to check proliferation and extinction level impacts

Reiffel, Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution, 5 (Reiffel, December 27,
2005, Lex, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas, www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf, 7/13/13, AR)
The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world uncomfortable. In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on
helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully, by and large, and it gained friends in the process. By contrast, the first five years of
the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter of hours from
gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led
coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which
has only partially recovered since then. The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries. Internal pressure to turn America's back on
the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic problems such as the growing number of
Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use its overwhelming military
power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world's population and pose the
34
gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run. Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of "hard" instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on "soft" instruments.
35
2NC Wall
Perception that the US is Vulnerable results in great power warfare
Hanson, Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History , 9 [ Hanson, December 7, 2009,
Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Answers from Victor Davis Hanson, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson121609.html, 7/13/13, AR]
VDH are three letters that may appear random to the general public, but for conservatives they have definite meaning. They s ignify the person of Dr. Victor Davis Hanson. The scholar, professor, and political pundit is especially well known to readers of PJ Media. His blog consistently enriches the homepage and enlightens friend and foe. Dr. Hansons latest book, How the Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security, illustrates the peril that
Americas leftist, superficial commander-in-chief has produced. Both President Obamas ignorance and ideology now endanger the nations autonomy along with the worlds peace. BC: Dr. Hanson, first off, let me ask: do you think the president believes in the
concept of American exceptionalism? Dr. Hanson: Well, he answered that already: we Americans are exceptional only to the degree that every other country thinks it is exceptional: e.g., who can say whether Venezuelans, Iranians, or North Koreans are any different, better, or worse than
Americans? Not in Obamas multicultural, morally equivalent, and utopian world. (Privately, of course, Obama assumes that the White
House, the big Air Force One jet, the Chicago mansion, and all the Obamas perks, past and present, accrue to those who live in an exceptional place, which operates on principles that are a little different from those found in Nigeria, Peru, or Albania.) BC: Do you regard President Obama as an isolationist? Dr. Hanson: Yes and no. He is a multicultural internationalist who yearns for the supremacy of the United Nations or its enlightened epigones, who would go around the world fining or arresting miscreant nations that leave too great a carbon footprint, are too profit-minded, or have committed an array of politically incorrect sins. But in terms of America
trying to maintain a global postwar order based on free commerce, consensual government, free markets, and personal freedom, well, yes, hes opposed to that in theory, and in the concrete certainly would not have supported things like past intervention in Panama, Grenada, the Balkans, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Europe will soon at last get their wish of a truly multilateral America, where we are just one of many NATO partners which may or may not support them in the United Nations. And that should be interesting: they have not had an American president to the left of them since Franklin Roosevelt. BC: Are we currently sending a message of weakness to our foes and allies? Can anything good result from
President Obamas marked submissiveness before the world? Dr. Hanson: Obama is one bow and one apology away from a circus. The world can understand a kowtow gaffe to some Saudi royals, but not as part of a deliberate pattern. Ditto the mea culpas. Much of diplomacy rests on public perceptions, however trivial. We
are now in a great waiting game, as regional hegemons, wishing to redraw the existing landscape whether China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. are just waiting to see whos going to be the first to try Obama and whether Obama
really will be as tenuous as they expect. If he slips once, it will be 1979 redux, when we saw the rise of radical Islam, the Iranian hostage mess, the communist inroads in Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc. BC: With what country then Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc. do you believe his global repositioning will
cause the most damage? Dr. Hanson: I think all three. I would expect, in the next three years, Iran to get the bomb and begin to threaten ever so insidiously its Gulf neighborhood; Venezuela will probably cook up some scheme to do a punitive border raid into Colombia to apprise South America that U.S. friendship and values are liabilities; and Russia will continue its energy bullying of Eastern Europe, while insidiously pressuring autonomous former republics to get back in line with some sort of new Russian autocratic commonwealth. Theres an outside shot that North Korea might do something really stupid near the 38th parallel and China will ratchet up the pressure on Taiwan. Indias borders with both Pakistan and China will heat up. I think we got off the back of the tiger and
now no one quite knows whom it will bite or when.
Image of weakness creates scenarios for extinction in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia
Peters, Former Foreign Area Officer in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 8 . [Peters, October 20, 2008, New
York Post, AMERICA THE WEAK: US RISKS TURMOIL UNDER PREZ O, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_GS5vnNwCO6UjfBPf3uobyM. 7/13/13, AR]
IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our re public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness. Add in Sen. Joe Biden - with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years - as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we'd face a formula for strategic disaster. Where would the avalanche of confrontations come from? * Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on
terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their
blood. * Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against "their" terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can't control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan - and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind. * Iran.

Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect
36
a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. * Israel. In the Middle East, Obama's election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate. *
Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad.
Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too. * Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia's new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko - a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator - the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.
37
***Chemical Weapons***
38
1NC Module
US Diplomacy is key to prevent widespread chemical weapons use
Juul, Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 13 (Juul, April 30, 2013, News Opinion, U.S. Must Launch a
Diplomatic Offensive in Syria, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-obama-administration-do-more-in-syria/us-mustlaunch-a-diplomatic-offensive-in-syria//RM, 7/13/13, AR)
The news that the Assad regime in Syria has likely used sarin nerve agent on a small scale should change the Obama administration's policy calculus. While it is important, as the administration has argued, to get all the facts and get them right before declaring that the Assad regime has crossed President Obama's "red line,"
there are other significant steps the Obama administration can take to hold the Assad regime accountable for its actions and ameliorate the regional consequences of Syria's ongoing civil war. First, the United States can launch a diplomatic offensive in the U.N. Security Council. An already-assembled U.N. inspection team is idling in Cyprus, waiting Assad's permission to enter the country and investigate reports of chemical weapons use. The U.S. should call an emergency Security Council session to demand these inspectors be allowed unrestricted access to sites of possible sarin use, and force Russia to stop shielding the Assad regime . Second, the United States should begin planning with NATO and regional partners to prepare a response in the event of further chemical weapons use by the Assad regime. Planning should be accelerated if it is not already under way. Action will require precision planning, definitive American leadership and direction and the participation of a broad alliance prepared to preclude any further chemical-weapons use by destroying appropriate military targets, including delivery systems, logistics, and applicable command and control. The focus should remain on punishing or preventing chemical weapons use, and avoid involvement in Syria's civil war to the extent possible. Finally, the United States should push for NATO to plan a major humanitarian relief mission for Syrian refugees in Jordan. That country is already starting
to show the social and economic strains of hosting half a million Syrian refugees, and NATO should be ready to help relieve these strains with a major multinational military relief effort that would involve the alliance's airlift, ground transportation, medical assistance, and security capabilities. The Assad regime's likely
use of chemical weapons reinforces the fact that there are no good policy options in Syria. However, the United States can take important steps forward by making an all-out diplomatic effort in the U.N. Security Council to further investigate the regime's likely chemical weapons use and solidifying and accelerating NATO planning on relevant issues.
Chemical warfare leads to extinction DUJS, Dartmouth forum for sharing undergraduate research and enriching scientific knowledge, 09 [Dartmouth Undergraduate of
Science, May 22, 2009, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinctionthe-uncertainty-of-our-fate#.UcyTn8pFUoy, 7/13/13, AR)
Man will destroy himself. Another possibility is the death of mankind at the hands of its own weapons. One threat lies in the use of weapons of mass destruction, internationally referred to as CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) warfare. Chemical warfare revolves around the use of toxic, non-living agents (mustard, cyanides), while biological warfare involves the use of living organisms and/or toxins that they produce (anthrax, botulinum toxin) (20). Though both could potentially bring about human extinction, radiological and nuclear warfare have been referred to most often
when considering a potential Doomsday Machine/Device. Two prominent candidates for the Doomsday Machine have emerged over the last 60 years. First was the dead hand, a rumored u nderground Soviet monitoring system whose central computer Perimetr would have facilitated the automated detonation of an extensive nuclear weapons network, had the Soviet Union come under attack during the Cold War (21). Though constructed in the 1970s, dead hand is still armed and operational, according to a 2007 article in the New York Times, and has been declared a possible Doomsday Machine (22). The other contender is the theoretical cobalt bomb. Essentially, the cobalt bomb is an atomic bomb covered in cobalt-59. When bombarded with neutrons, the outer shell of cobalt-59 is converted into the highly radioactive isotope cobalt-60. Cobalt-60, as opposed to other radioactive isotopes, has a relatively long half-life of 5.3 years that would cause the deleterious effects of a cobalt bombs radiation to be both long-lasting and global if properly
while the subject of a man-made human apocalypse seems like the stuff of science fiction, it may not be so farfetched. However, for obvious reasons, it is also fair to say that these potential planet-enders have yet to be successfully tested or implemented.
dispersed a surefire recipe for global extinction (23). Thus,
39
2NC Wall
Chemical warfare causes Israel Retaliation and Middle East War
Lindsey, renowned author and columnist for WorldNetDaily, 7 [Lindsey, July 14, 2007, World Net Daily, The Samson Option,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56663, 7/13/13, AR]
Last week, WorldNetDaily reported a stunning admission from a Syrian official. He said that Syria
had learned from the Hezbollah experience last summer and we can have hundreds of missiles hitting Tel Aviv that will overwhelm Israels anti-missile batteries. He claimed Syria has proof Israel is also readying for a war . We hear about special Israeli trainings to take Damascus. We see that Israel is reestablishing bases of the Israeli army in the Golan that are unusual and not needed except for war. We believe the Israeli government has an interest in confronting Syria to rehabilitate its image of losing to Hezbollah. The WorldNetDaily report also says that Damascus believes newly-installed Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former prime minister, wants to prove he is a military expert. This
information is perfectly in line with the official statements made by both Bashar Assad and Mushen Bilal to several major Arab newspapers. Furthermore, Londons Daily Telegraph reported June 25 that Tehran was establishing a missile defense shield for Syria. Iran is also preparing to ship sophisticated military hardware, including dozens of medium-range Shahab-3 and Russian-made Scud-C missiles, together with Scud-B missiles. Syria
recently test-fired two Scud-D surface-to-surface missiles that have a range of about 250 miles. This puts virtually all of Israels population centers within range. Analysts say the planned Iranian arms shipment to Syria may be coordinated with the delivery of advanced Russian fighter jets. Syria is also known to be producing non-conventional warheads, including those containing V-X gas for delivery via the new longer range and more accurate Scuds. All Israels cities are within range of these missiles. Most of them can be reached in less than three minutes. Syria is gambling that Israels performance in the Hezbollah war of June 2006 means that it has seen all Israel has to offer. Apparently, Bashar Assad now believes Israel can be beaten. Assad is miscalculating. In the event Syria launches a gas attack on Israel, its a virtual certainty that Damascus would be instantly obliterated by Israeli nuclear weapons. The thought of being gassed evokes a visceral response among Israels Holocaust survivors and their descendants that Damascus wildly underestimates. Israel has more than 400 nuclear weapons in hidden silos in various places within its borders, as well as at least two submarines in the Mediterranean that are launch capable. And you can be certain that in the event of a massive WMD attack by the Syrians, Israel will respond in kind. There are two particular codes used by Israeli Defense Forces when planning worst-case scenario responses. One is
called the Masada Option. Masada was an ancient fortress taken by the Romans following a three-year siege. Just before they were overrun, the defending Jews committed suicide rather than be captured. The other code term, The Samson Option, refers to Samson, who said just before he pulled down the house of the Philistines on himself and them Let me die with the Philistines. Judges 16:30 records it this way: Then Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines! An d he pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life. Thats pretty clear imagery. Israel will not just meekly fade away into destruction. And it certainly wont die alone, even if it
has to destroy itself in the process of nuking the Middle East. I once encountered Ariel Sharon in the Knesset in the late 1970s. I asked him if
Israel still had a Masada Option. He boldly announced, No longer Masada Option now Samson Option. Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir almost used that Option in the first days of the Yom Kippur War, when it appeared they were going to be overrun. Dayan gave the code for its use when he told Prime Minister Meir, Arm the doomsday weapons, the Third Temple is about to fall. War with Syria threatens to bring all nations of the Middle East into
direct conflict with Israel even the supposedly moderate state of Jordan. Jordan has never recovered from the defeats it suffered at the hands of the Israelis,
particularly in 1967, in which it lost both the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Middle East War Causes Extinction

Hoffman, Staff Writer for Oakland Tribune, 06 [Hoffman, December 12, 2006, Nuclear winter looms, experts say, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061212/ai_n16906378 , 7/13/13, AR]
Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a
small regional nuclear war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in a black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice Age . " Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so than global warming ," said Rutgers University atmo spheric scientist Alan Robock. By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities , now swelled to tens of millions in popula tion, University of Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the fatalities and 100 times the climate-chilling smoke per ki loton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet Union .
For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact is n't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke from incinerated cities blo tting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even n uclear autumn, but rather an instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by
massive ozone loss and warming at the poles. That's what scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the most mo deled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold War, when the
United States and Russia mostly targ eted each other's nuclear, milit ary and strategic industrial site s, young nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and migh t go for maximum effect by using them on cities , as the United States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous cro ssroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear
weapons worldwide combined with global migration into dense megacities form what he called "perhaps the greatest
40
danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity ." More than 20 years ago , researchers imagined that a U.S.-S oviet nuclear
holocaust would wrea k havoc on the planet's climate. Their calculations showed the problem was potentially worse than they feared : Massive urban fires would flush hundreds of millions of tons of black soot skyward, wher e -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere and begin cooking off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants to damaging radiation, while
the warm soot would spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round . The hundreds of millions who would starve vastly exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and radiation.
41
More Recent Cards

Release of Syrias Chemical Stockpile Causes Terrorism and Proliferation
The Daily Star, Newspaper, 13 [The Daily Star, July 12, 2013, Ouster of Assad risks chemical catastrophe,
http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/about/, 7/13/13, AR]
Syrias huge array of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of militants if President Bashar al-Assad was toppled, with catastrophic consequences, according to a report by a committee published on Wednesday. Britains foreign intelligence services had no doubt Syria owned vast stockpiles of such weapons, including mustard gas, sarin, ricin and VX, the deadliest nerve agent, parliaments Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said in its report. There has to be a significant risk that some of the countrys chemical weapons stockpile could fall into the hands of those with links to terrorism, in Syria or elsewhere in the region if this happens, the consequences could be catastrophic, the committee said. The conflict in Syria has killed 100,000 people,
driven a 1.7 million more abroad as refugees and left swathes of urban Syria in ruins, although neither the violence nor economic collapse has truly shaken Assads power base. Nonetheless there was a risk of a highly worrying proliferation around the time of regime fall, the head of Britains Secret Intelligence Service told the committee. Both
forces loyal to Assad and rebels involved in the two-year uprising against the president have been accused of using chemical weapons during fierce fighting. Syria is one of seven countries not to have joined a 1997 convention banning chemical weapons. Last month, the United States said Assads forces had used the nerve agent sarin on a small
scale multiple times against opposition fighters, an assessment with which the British government said it agreed. On Tuesday, Russians UN envoy reported that Russian scientific analysis had indicated that Syrian rebels had also used sarin in an attack on the city of Aleppo in March. The report said that Britains spy chiefs believed al-Qaeda groups and individual militants who have gained expertise and experience in Syria posed the biggest
emerging threat to the West.
42
***Palestine-Israel Scenario***
43
1NC Palestine-Israel
Israel-Palestine relations is Kerrys first priority he could secure a breakthrough
Lander and Rudoren, 7-1
(Mark and Jodi, 7-1-13, New York Times, Chaos in Middle East Grows as the U.S. Focuses on Israel, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/world/middleeast/mideast-chaos-grows-as-us-focuses-onisrael.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 7-12-13, EB)
At the same time, in tranquil Tel Aviv, Secretary of State John Kerry
wrapped up a busy round of shuttle diplomacy, laboring to
revive a three-decade-old attempt at peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He insisted on Sunday that he had made real progress. The new secretary of states exertions reminiscent of predecessors like Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III have been met with the usual mix of hope and skepticism. But with so much of the Middle East still convulsing from the effects of the Arab Spring, M r. Kerrys efforts raise questions about the Obama administrations priorities at a time of renewed regional unrest. The Israeli -Palestinian conflict, once a stark symbol and source of grievance in the Arab world, is now almost a sideshow in a Middle East consumed by sectarian strife, economic misery and, in Egypt, a democratically elected leader fighting for legitimacy with many of his people. The moment for this kind of diplomacy has passed, said Robert Blecher, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group. Hes working with actors who have acted in this movie before, and the script is built around the same elements. But the theater is new; the region is a completely different place today. Administration officials no longer argue, as they did early in President Obamas first term, that ending the Israeli occupation and creating a Pa lestinian state is the key to improving the standing of the United States in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now just one headache among a multitude. And yet Mr. Kerry, backed by Mr. Obama, still believes that tackling the problem is worth the effort: five visits to the region in the last
three months. The most recent trip involved nearly 20 hours of talks, stretching almost until dawn, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. Former administration officials defend that conviction. Mr. Kerrys focus, they say, makes sense precisely because of the chaos elsewhere. With little leverage over Egypt and deep reluctance about intervening in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one place that the United States can still exert influence, and perhaps even produce a breakthrough. You dont have instability between the Israelis and Palestinians right now, said Dennis B. Ross, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East. But if you dont act, theres a risk that the Palestinian Authority will collapse, leaving a vacuum. And if we know one thing about vacuums in the Middle East, they are never filled with good things.
Plan forces a trade-off

Anderson & Grewell, Research Associate and Political Economy research Center and professor of economics at Montana State, 2002
[Terry and J. Bishop, The Greening of Foreign Policy, http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps20.pdf 7/12/13 RC] Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension . Foreign policy is a bag of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms trading to human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening the focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between issues. Increased environmental regulations could cause countries to lessen their focus on international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border conflicts between nations. As countries must
watch over more and more issues arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary to deal with traditional international issues. As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is critically important that the United States focus its diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation.
Traditionally, these priorities have been opposing hostile domination of key geographic regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources, and ensuring access to foreign economies.
Kerrys departure would signal the end of peace negotiations, which drives new members to Hamas
JPost, 7-13
(Jerusalem Post, 7-13, Nablus mayor: If talks fail, Palestinians will take to streets, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacyand-Politics/Nablus-mayor-If-Kerry-peace-bid-fails-Palestinians-will-take-to-streets-319695, accessed 7-13-13, EB)
Israel and the Palestinians are headed toward another round of street clashes if peace efforts spearheaded by US Secretary of State John Kerry fail, the mayor of Nablus told Israel Radio on Saturday. Ghassan Shaka'a, who has also served as a veteran functionary in the Palestine Liberation Organization, told Israel Radio that Palestinians in the West Bank will take to the streets and demonstrate against Israel if the peace process remains stalled. "[Kerry] is a man for peace," the Nablus mayor said. "Give him the chance to succeed. By
the Palestinian
sticking to this course, we may end up losers, but we won't be the only losers." Shaka'a told Israel Radio that in the event street demonstrations do take place, the Palestinian Authority is likely to join in. He said that the combination of a stalled diplomatic process and the slowdown in
economy will lead to confrontation. "We are losing popularity," Shaka'a said. "We have always offered the people a diplomatic horizon, but now we are operating solely by dint of orders we receive from [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas]." The Nablus mayor warned that the lack of progress on the peace front is boosting Hamas' popularity in the West Bank. "Their power
44
depends on the Israeli activities," the Nablus mayor told Israel Radio. "As long as the Israeli side says "no" to peace negotiations, then it is
telling the moderate people, 'Go to [Hamas'] side'."
Expansion of Hamas sphere of influence motivates Israel to counterstrike Iran

Rubin, 2012
(Michael, 11-19-12, Commentary Magazine, Is this How the Israel-Iran War Begins? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/19/is-this-how-the-israel-iran-war-begins/, accessed 7-12-13, EB)
Experts and defense analysts agree that Iran
would respond to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities by proxy, specifically by Hamas and Hezbollah rocketry launched at Israeli towns and cities. Indeed, this is one of the reasons beyond sheer ideological spite that the Iranian leadership has gone to such great lengths to arm both Hamas and Hezbollah. The Iranian leadership may be coming very close to forcing Israels hand. If Hezbollah seeks to open a second front against Israel, then Israel could find itself in a twofront war with terrorist entities. Make no mistake, Israel would achieve its objective of destroying the majority of the longest-range and most lethal missiles supplied to Hamas and Hezbollah by Iran, Syria, and perhaps even North Korea. This might reduce the costs to Israel of undertaking a strike on Irans nuclear facilities. After all, if Hamas and Hezbollah are temporarily neutered and if the Israeli government concludes that the elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who would have command and control over any Iranian nuclear arsenal would pose an existential threat, then the Israelis may decide that their window of opportunity would never be so favorable as the present. After all, Irans air defense is only going to get more sophisticated with time, and
its missile program is advancing steadily, and so time is otherwise not on Israels side.
That culminates in extinction

Ivashov, analyst at the Strategic Culture Foundation, 2007
(General Leonid, 4-9-7, Center for Research on Globalization, Iran: the Threat of a Nuclear War, http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-the-threat-of-a-nuclear-war/5309, accessed 7-12-13, EB)
What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel
will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a International one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens,
especially in Russia and Ukraine , a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the International strife all leave no doubt that this clash will
be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII.
45
***UQ***
46
Generics
Kerry has cancelled other diplomatic trips to focus on Palestine and Israel
Riechmann, Associated Press, 6-29
(Deb, 6-29-13, Newser, Kerry continues shuttle diplomacy to coax Israel, Palestinians back into peace talks, http://www.newser.com/article/da77m1400/kerry-continues-shuttle-diplomacy-to-coax-israel-palestinians-back-intopeace-talks.html, accessed 7-12-13, EB) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry kept up a frenetic pace of shuttle diplomacy Saturday to coax Israel and the Palestinians back into peace talks. America's top diplomat was prepared to meet a third time in as many days with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas even if it could delay Kerry's arrival at an Asian conference. U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials have all declined to disclose details of the talks. "Working hard" is all Kerry would say when a reporter asked him at a photo-op whether progress was being made. Still, there are several clues that the meetings have been more than routine chats. Most of Kerry's meetings have lasted at least two hours - his initial dinner meeting Thursday night with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was clocked at four. Legal, military and other officials accompanied Netanyahu at his meeting with Kerry in a hotel suite Saturday night, perhaps an indication that discussions had reached a more detailed level. Kerry canceled a visit to Abu Dhabi on his two-week swing through Asia and the Mideast because of his extended discussions on the Mideast peace process in Jerusalem and Amman, Jordan. And just the sheer number of meetings Thursday, Friday and Saturday _ three with Netanyahu and two with Abbas _ could indicate that the two sides are at least interested in trying to find a way back to the negotiating table.
Kerry is focusing on Israel because its most open to change

The Washington Post, 7-7
(7-7-13, Washington Post, John Kerry pursues a narrow peace, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0707/opinions/40427687_1_peace-deal-palestinian-president-mahmoud-abbas-state-john-f, accessed 7-12-13, EB) The intense focus of Secretary of State John Kerry on the long-moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process when neighboring Egypt is collapsing into chaos and Syria's civil war rages unabated provokes more than a little headscratching among diplomats from the Middle East. What, they ask us, could possibly possess Kerry to so intently pursue such an unpromising initiative, even as the United States refuses to exert leadership on crises of paramount importance to the region? To be generous to the secretary of state, there is a logical -- if narrow -- answer to that question. Kerry's attempt to fashion a more robust U.S. policy in Syria has been thwarted by President Obama's refusal to countenance anything beyond symbolic help for the rebels. In Egypt, what American influence still exists is best wielded via the Pentagon, which maintains close ties with the Egyptian military. That leaves the Israelis and Palestinians, who still are responsive to U.S. diplomacy and tend to be flattered by the concerted attentions of a figure such as Kerry. Kerry banks on the support of Arab states, but two of Israel's Arab neighbors have no functioning government, while the other two -- Jordan and Lebanon -- have been all but overwhelmed by the spillover of refugees and fighting from Syria. Kerry has kept relatively quiet about his plans. We'd like to believe that he recognizes that a peace deal is not feasible now and is aiming at useful interim steps, such as the economic development plan for the West Bank he has suggested or Israel scaling back settlement construction and yielding control of more West Bank territory. Those would be achievements worth an investment of time.
47
Dip Cap High

Diplomatic capital is highClinton repaired the US image on the world stage
Hazelgrove 13 (Sam, University Think Tank on International Affairs, 2-20-13, The Senate confirms John Kerry as the
new Secretary of State Future Foreign Policy) http://blog.futureforeignpolicy.com/2013/02/20/the -senate-confirmsjohn-kerry-as-the-new-secretary-of-state/ In many ways the new Secretary of State has an even more immense task than his immediate predecessor, Ms. Clinton. Ms. Clintons objectives were defined clearly in President Obamas first term: she had to revitalise
Americas image on the world stage, repair broken alliances, and give credence to Americas soft power. Now that Ms. Clinton has significantly improved Americas diplomatic capital, it is up to John Kerry to use that capital and influence the global order.
48
AT: NK Thumper
Kerry will give up on North Korea as a result of their lack of cooperation in denuclearizing
Presse 13
(Agence, April 18, 2013, Rawstory, John Kerry says North Korea talks conditions unacceptable, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/john-kerry-says-north-korea-talks-conditions-unacceptable/, July 13, 2013 LK)
US Secretary of State John Kerry Thursday dismissed a set of pre-conditions laid out by North Korea for talks as unacceptable, calling them an opening gambit from Pyongyang. The isolated North on Thursday responded for the first time to an offer from Kerry during his weekend visit to the Korean peninsula to return to the negotiating table in a bid to defuse heightened nuclear tensions. The
demands by the Norths main military body included the withdrawal of UN sanctions and a permanent end to South Korea-US joint military drills. Thats the first word of negotiation or thought of that weve heard from them since all of this has begun, Kerry told US lawmakers. So Im prepared to look at that as at least a beginning gambit not acceptable, obviously, and we have to go further. The Norths offer followed a month of increasingly hostile exchanges be tween Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington that have included threats of nuclear war and precision missile strikes. During a trip to Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo, Kerry repeatedly stressed Washington was ready to talk to Pyongyang provided it was serious about reining in its nuclear program. The US would not return to past cycles of heres a little food aid, heres a little of this, then well talk, Kerry told th e Senate foreign relations committee, adding weve got to make some fundamental determinations here. While in Beijing, Kerry sought to persuade China, North Koreas main ally, to use its leverage to defuse the tensions.
One of the calculations I know that has been in Kim Jong-uns mind is that he can kind of do this and get away with it because he doesnt believe China will crack down on him, Kerry said. So thats a key consideration here and hopefully that in fact will be proven to be not true. White House spokesman Josh Earnest also stressed to
reporters aboard Air Force One that North Korea had to show it was serious about returning to talks. Were open to credible negotiations with the North Koreans, but we also need to see some clear evidence that the North Koreans themselves are willing to live up to their international obligations, he said. Pyongyang must demonstrate
their commitment to ending the nuclear program, something theyve promised in the past. And we havent seen that thus far.
North Korean Denuclearization is possible, but unlikely with Kerrys frustrations

Kim 13
(Hyung-Jin, July 1, 2013, John Kerry Presses North Korea On Nuclear Disarmament, Insists China Committed To Ally's Denuclearization, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/john-kerry-north-korea-disarmament_n_3529576.html, accessed 7-13-2013 LK) BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stepped up pressure Monday on North
Korea to give up its atomic weapons program, saying key regional powers, including North Korean ally China, are all "absolutely united" in demanding nuclear disarmament. Kerry made the comments on the eve of Asia's
largest annual security conference, the 27-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, which includes top diplomats from the U.S., North Korea and four other nations involved in long-dormant nuclear disarmament talks. North Korea's nuclear ambitions are expected to dominate the security forum along with other issues such as South China Sea territorial disputes. Tension on the Korean Peninsula spiked earlier this year after North Korea conducted its third nuclear test and issued a torrent of threats to attack the U.S. and South Korea in anger over toughened U.N. sanctions over the underground atomic blast. North Korea recently ratcheted down the rhetoric and offered to talk with its rivals but has repeatedly vowed to expand its nuclear arsenal in response to what it calls U.S. hostility. China, North Korea's longstanding ally and main aid provider, has shown signs of
frustration with its neighbor by supporting U.N. sanctions and cracking down on North Korean banking activity. After meeting with his counterparts from China, South Korea and Japan, Kerry told
reporters Monday that "I want to emphasize ... all four of us are absolutely united and absolutely firm in our insistence that the future with respect to North Korea must include denuclearization." "China made clear to me they have made very firm statements and very firm steps that they have taken with respect to the implementation of that policy," he said . "We
confirmed that there is a better path open to North Korea," Kerry said. He said North Korea would have a
49
chance to have normal relations with other nations if it undertakes "a serious set of steps to denuclearize and serious negotiations that could accompany that." Earlier Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the six-
nation disarmament talks need to be resumed to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. "We hope the relevant parties can work together toward the goal and bring the denuclearization back to the track of dialogues," Wang told reporters after private talks with his North Korean counterpart, Pak Ui Chun. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also expressed his opposition to North Korea possessing nuclear weapons when he met his South Korean counterpart Yun Byung-se on Monday, Yun's office said in a statement. The nuclear disarmament talks _which involve the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia have been stalled since North Korea pulled out of the negotiations in 2009 to protest international condemnation over a rocket launch.
North Korea will refuse to denuclearize unilaterally, and will only choose to do so when every other country in the world does the same
Kate and Yoon, 2013
(Daniel Ten and Sangwon, July 1, 2013, Bloomberg, Kerry Hails China in Urging North Korea to End Nuclear Programs, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-01/kerry-hails-china-moves-in-urging-north-korea-to-denuclearize.html) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry hailed Chinas efforts to push North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons
aspirations, saying such a move would help spur normal relations between Kim Jong Uns regime and the region. Kerry discussed North Koreas nuclear program in separate meetings in Brunei yesterday with Chinese Foreign
Minister Wang Yi and his counterparts from Japan and South Korea. North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun is also attending the security forum hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, All of us, all four of us, are absolutely united and absolutely firm in our insistence that the future with respect to North Korea must include denuclearization. All of us, all four of us, are absolutely united and absolutely firm in our insistence that the future with respect to North Korea must include denuclearization, Kerry told reporters in Brunei. We have major, major issues with respect to North Korea, and China is cooperating with us with respect to that, and China has helped to make a difference. The U.S.-China cooperation on North Korea contrasted with differences over the fate of Edward Snowden, an American accused of revealing secret surveillance programs allowed by Hong Kong to leave the city for Russia, as well as how to resolve disputes over territory in the South China Sea. Kerry said cooperation among the regions major powers is critical to peace and economic growth in Asia. We want North Korea to understand that the region will be better with denuclearization, Kerry said. North
Koreas ability to have normal ties with the U.S. and other countries lies at the end of engaging in a serious set of steps to denuclearize, and serious negotiations that could accompany that. China Moves Tensions had
escalated in February after North Korea conducted another nuclear test, and then eased again last month when the North proposed talks with South Korea and then the U.S. The turnaround has sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity even as North Koreas adherence to its nuclear goals remains an impediment to negoti ations resuming.After meeting Pak yesterday, Wang reiterated Chinas commitment to denuclearize North Korea and called for the resumption of
six-party talks. China, the Norths main economic and diplomatic ally, in May tightened enforcement of United Nations sanctions targeting North Koreas financial transactions. The Chinese side will continue to encourage all
the parties concerned to work together towards the common goal and create conditions for bringing the Korean nuclear issue back to the track of dialogue, Wang, in his first Asean meeting as foreign minister since President Xi Jinping took office in March, said on the sidelines of the forum. North Korea North Korea will likely hold a press conference after the Asean meetings conclude, Yonhap News reported, citing Ri Hung Sik, director of the Foreign Ministrys department of international organization. North Korea on June 16 suggested high-level talks with the U.S. on a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, less than a week after it scrapped a meeting it proposed with the South, citing a protocol dispute. Any talks between the North and the U.S. would be the first since February 2012, when the North fired a long-range rocket to break a deal for 240,000 metric tons of food in exchange for a moratorium on weapons testing.
Even so, North Korea will only denuclearize when the entire world, including the U.S., does the same, according to the regimes top envoy to the United Nations, Sin Son Ho, who spoke at a rare press conference in New York on June 21. The six-party talks, which involve North and South Korea, Japan, the U.S., Russia and China, started in 2003 as a process chaired by China. They stalled in December 2008 with North Korea officially quitting the process in 2009 and revealing a new uranium enrichment facility a year later.
50
AT: Mideast
Kerry is solely focused on Palestine, excluding other Middle East interests
Weinstein, Senior editor, 7-1
(Jamie, 7-1-13, Daily Caller, WEINSTEIN: Kerry is the Middle Easts biggest fool, http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/01/weinstein-kerry-is-the-middle-easts-biggest-fool/, accessed 7-13-13, EB) John Kerry may be the only adult in America outside the bubble of academia who thinks now is the right time to pursue peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He is certainly the only one in the Middle East who believes that. Since assuming his role as Americas top diplomat, the former Massachusetts senator has seemingly made IsraeliPalestinian peace his number one priority. He has visited the region five times since February in order to achieve this herculean task, including a recent four day visit where he shuttled back and forth between Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders. Mel Gibson has a greater chance of being named the Jewish Federations person of the year than Kerry does of achieving his goal. As anyone not named John Kerry could tell you, the condit ions on the ground arent exactly optimal for achieving a lasting peace. Whats more, Kerry is not only expending energy and the prestige of the of the United States on an adventure doomed for failure, he is doing so at the expense of many other hotspots. For example, theres every other country in the Middle East. Kerry may not have noticed, but the region is on fire in some cases literally. In Egypt, millions of Egyptians flooded the streets of cities all throughout the country Sunday demanding that their Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, resign. After winning the presidency last year, Morsi consolidated power while allowing the Egyptian economy to crater. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan President Obamas best friend in the Middle East is also facing mass protests for his increasing Islamization of the country, which threatens to permanently alter the secular nature of the state. In Syria, a peaceful uprising against the dictatorial Assad regime has turned into a brutal civil war with terrorist groups fighting on both sides. It is estimated that 100,000 people have died so far in the over two-year long conflict. An estimated 1.5 million Syrians have fled the country as refugees. In Jordan, there is some fear that the regime of King Abdullah a sensible and moderate American ally in a region where sense and moderation are in rare supply could be threatened by the turmoil engulfing the region. Among other things, Jordan faces the burden of hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Lebanon has never really been a bastion of stability, but the tensions in Syria threaten to destabilize it further as the war spills over into the country. And lest it be forgotten, one of the countrys largest political parties and perhaps its most powerful arm ed force also happens to be a terrorist organization that has pledged fealty to Iran and its Islamic Revolution (i.e. Hezbollah). But wait, theres more! Yemen is a mess and is a base for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Violence in Iraq is surging and there are fears that the country could relapse into sectarian war. Despite sanctions, Iran continues its quest for nuclear weapons, a prospect that not only gravely threatens Israel and Americas Arab allies, but the U.S. itself. So, with all the problems facing just the Middle East, why is Kerry so focused on Israeli-Palestinian peace? The reason, of course, is Kerry has apparently bought into the notions sold by many elite foreign policy hands that the key to stability in the Middle East is through Arab-Israeli peace and that the opportunity for a two state solution is rapidly fading. Most of the problems in the region (and sometimes outside the region), they argue, can be tied to the festering conflict, and if a two state solution is not achieved now, the situation on the ground may prevent it from ever being achieved.
51
AT: Syria
Negotiation talks between Syria and Kerry are unlikely other priorities
DeYoung, Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, and is the associate editor for The Washington Post, July 3, 2013
(Karen, Boston Globe, Kerry says Syria peace talks not likely until September, http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/07/02/kerry-says-syria-peace-talks-unlikely-until-leastseptember/cwufdtmfO84V5fIqGZCHuJ/story.html, accessed July 13 2013, LK) A proposed peace conference on Syria will probably not happen until at least September, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday after meeting here with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Kerry spoke privately with Lavrov for nearly two hours outside an Asian security meeting that both diplomats are attending. He said in a statement that he
concluded from the conversation that both the United States and Russia are serious, more than serious, [and] committed to ending the bloody civil conflict in Syria and working toward a negotiated peace. We both agreed that our countries have an ability to make a difference if we can pull together in that effort , Kerry said.
Lavrov put a somewhat different spin on the meeting, telling the Russian media that Kerry had recognized that consolidation of the disparate Syrian opposition is the most important goal to achieve before peace talks can take place.
Under an agreement reached a year ago in Geneva and endorsed by international governments including Russia and the United States, Syrias opposition has proposed a meeting of negotiating teams whose members were chosen by mutual consent to establish a transitional government. The United States, which has said no end to the Syrian war is possible unless President Bashar al-Assad cedes power, has since made clear the mutual consent clause ensured that Assad would not be involved. Russia, Assads main diplomatic and military
backer, has said that barring the Syrian leader from negotiations is an unacceptable precondition. In a meeting in Moscow in May, Kerry and Lavrov brushed over that disagreement and proposed that a second Geneva meeting take place within weeks between opposition and government representatives. The proposed meeting has been repeatedly postponed,
not only over Assads attendance, but also because the opposition driven by disagreements over its own leaders and attendance. has never chosen a negotiating team or agreed to be present
52
***Palestine-Isreal Internals***
53
Internals Diplomatic Capital

Diplomatic capital enables continued Israel-Palestine negotiations
Freilich, senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, deputy national security advisor in Israel, 2013
(Chuck, 3-13-13, The American Interest, Proceed With Caution: President Obama Needs to Step Lightly on Mideast Peace, http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1395, accessed 7-13-13, EB) This is not a pretty picture, but the Mideast has always been a tough neighborhood. The current no-peace, three-state reality is likely to be with us for a long time. In consequence, we may have to begin rethinking fundamental assumptions regarding the peace process and the nature of a final agreement. Circumstances do not call for passivity, for doing nothing. They do call for sober consideration of diplomatic reality; the peace process cannot afford another failure. Israelis and Palestinians have come to virtually despair of the prospects of ever reaching agreement. Another failure will merely dash whatever residual hopes and good will exist, reinforce their deepest fears, and make the prospects of a future breakthrough, if and when more propitious circumstances arise, that much harder to achieve. Moreover, American diplomatic capital is a finite resource and should not be risked unless the prospects of success are significant. The Obama Administration made a number of egregious errors in its initial handling of the peace process that it can now redress. The first was its nave acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the Israeli settlements and occupation are the heart of the conflict. They are certainly major issues to be resolved, but the true problem remains the nearly century-long Palestinian refusal to accept that a final settlement can only be based on a Palestinian state living alongside a Jewish Israel, not instead of it; that is, to finally come to terms with the concept of two states for two peoples. Understanding of this reality requires that U.S. diplomacy make a concerted effort to convince the Palestinians to finally recognize Israel for what it is, the nation-state of the Jewish people. The demand that they do so is not an Israeli negotiating ploy, but would mark a fundamental transformation of the conflict. Israel will only withdraw from territory and dismantle settlements when the Palestinians are ready for true reconciliation.
Kerry must commit diplomatic capital to Israel to broker peace deal

Washington Post, 2013
(Editorial Board, 4-12-13, Washington Post, John Kerrys efforts in Middle East could lay groundwork for success) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-12/opinions/38492300_1_netanyahu-mr-settlement-freeze, accessed 7-1313, EB) Yet Mr. Kerry dedicated himself this week to spending the next couple of months focusing intensively on . . . the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which not only has proved resistant to the diplomacy of President Obama and numberless previous secretaries of state, but also is not, for now, the source of any of the fires raging across the region. What gives? Mr. Kerry seems to have a number of reasons for investing scarce time and diplomatic capital in this perpetually failing venture. Some are unpersuasive: He says time is running out for a two-state solution, but diplomats and regional experts have been delivering that warning for at least 25 years. One is personal: A veteran of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry has developed a passion for the issue and seems to believe he can avoid the mistakes made by Mr. Obama, whose attempt to force a settlement freeze on Israel led to a rancorous three-way impasse between him, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Diplomatic capital is finite and is drained by new issues

Anderson and Grewell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, 2000
(Terry L. and J. Bishop, Property and Environment Research Center, The Greening of Foreign Policy, http://perc.org/sites/default/files/ps20.pdf, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension. Foreign policy is a bag of goods that
includes issues from free trade to arms trading to human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening the focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between issues. Increased environmental regulations could cause countries to lessen their focus on international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border conflicts between nations. As countries must watch over more and more issues arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary to deal with traditional international issues. As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is critically important that the United States focus its diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation. Traditionally, these
priorities have been opposing hostile domination of key geographic regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources, and ensuring access to foreign economies.
54
Internals Kerry Key

Only Kerry can solve Israel relations
Debusmann, former Reuters foreign affairs columnist, 13
(Bernd 4-19-13, The Daily Star, Kerry and the peace process .. Can he be the honest broker, http://www.nosratashraf.com/en/content/21806, accessed 7-7-13, EB) In theory, Kerry is in a good position to introduce a measure of even-handedness into dealing with the long-
festering problem. He is familiar with the region, having travelled there often as a member and later chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which he served for 28 years. In 2009, as chairman of the committee, he made a rare visit to Gaza. Aides say he has a personal passion for this most vexing of conflicts. Perhaps as importantly, Kerry is said to want to go down in history as one of Americas great secretaries of state. Helping settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would earn him a place in the pantheon of diplomacy and trump the achievements of many of his predecessors, including Hillary Clinton. She left office as the most widely traveled top diplomat in U.S. history but did not score a diplomatic triumph worthy of the history books. Unlike Clinton, Kerry appears to have no presidential ambitions for 2016, hence he is less constrained by domestic politics and the heated disputes often generated by the subject of Israel and the Palestinians.
If negotiation talks do not happen, then all-out war will be inevitable

Forster 10
(Len, Atlanta Foreign Policy Examiner, August 24, 2010, The Examiner, Middle east peace talks can curtail or escalate world terrorism, http://www.examiner.com/article/middle-east-peace-talks-can-curtail-or-escalate-world-terrorism, accessed 7-13-2013 LK)
After a year and a half of negotiations on agreeing to negotiate, the Palestinian Authority and the Nation of Israel have finally agreed to attempt to negotiate a peace agreement between them. Neither side trusts the other,
the Palestinians, as always, have their list of conditions that Israel must meet before they will negotiate in seriousness, and the Israelis, propelled by the conservative insanity of a very small group of the population, don't want to concede anything. So, what will happen this time? What needs to happen this time? Should they negotiate a one state solution or a two state solution? Will there be peace, or will we see a return to more of the failed policies of the past, another intifada, or, no matter what, another deluge of rockets on Israel from the Hamas extremists in Gaza? It seems likely that the going will be very slow in the beginning. Abbas figures to play for time to see what the Israelis will do with respect to construction in occupied territories and east Jerusalem. Netanyahu will dig his heels in on any concessions Abbas wants before they get down to earnest negotiations. What will make this round of peace talks different, one hopes, is that President Obama will be on top of both of them, pushing them to compromise here, give little there, and to gradually work toward a viable agreement. Many are saying that the idea of a two-state solution is dead. One thing is certain, though, and that is that the Israelis cannot afford for the two-state solution not to be on the table. A one state solution with a right of return for Palestinians would very quickly put the Israelis into a minority position within their own country. Even if Netanyahu didn't have the Haredim pushing him, he would never give in to something that would seem almost certain to doom the future of an Israeli nation-state. It seems clear that the end result, if there is one, will be that there are two states,
one Palestinian, one Israeli, with separate security forces, separate governments, and, presumably, with some means of allowing for open commerce between them without necessity for all of the security checkpoints . This
last will be very difficult to accomplish, particularly unless and until the Palestinian Authority begins to make a bonafide effort to restrict the movements and activities of members of both Hezbollah and Hamas in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank. It seems unlikely, at this point, that the territory of Gaza will be part of any peace deal, so the
deal that is negotiated will, in all likelihood, be an interim deal pending a resolution of the control of Gaza or a concession on the part of Hamas that Israel has a right to exist. As unlikely as that may seem, it is possible. Probably, the most important aspect of these peace talks is that everybody know that this is it, this is the final opportunity to negotiate a peace agreement . If an agreement is not reached that both sides can live by, we can expect to see renewed attacks on the Israelis by Hamas from Gaza, renewed attacks on the north of Israel by Hezbollah, and incursions by the IDF into both Gaza and Lebanon, in an effort to put an end to both of these Iranian financed militias. Without a peace agreement this time, war in the middle east will be a virtual certainty. That result would do nothing more than to escalate the level of terrorism on the part of Al Qaeda against the U.S.
55
President Obama and the United States need to be seen to have worked hard and long on the peace agreement and to have achieved peace that all sides can live with. That's the only way that the influence of Al Qaeda is going to
be minimized any time within the near future. No matter the outcome, these are perhaps the most important middle eastern peace talks in history, and a great deal hangs on a successful outcome.
56
***ATs***
57
AT: Impossible
Israeli-Palestinian peace is possible 8 reasons
Baskin, founder of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, 2013 (Gershon, 2-20-12, The Jerusalem Post, Encountering Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Possible http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Encountering-Peace-Israeli-Palestinian-peace-is-achievable, accessed 7/12/13, JY) This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory. Many of those who claim that a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty putting an end to the conflict is not possible are the very people who do not want it to happen. This includes those who say its too late, there are too many Israelis living beyond the green line, or too many new settlement houses have been built, and those who say there is no Palestinian partner. Until now there has been no partner for peace because the negotiations, even after 20 years of negotiating have not yet produced an agreement that is acceptable to both parties and ends the claims on all of the eight core issues of the conflict. But agreement is conceivable and after each side makes the concessions which must be made they will be able to stand up proudly before their people and declare we got the best agreement possible and it is a victory for us! Here it is in short: 1. Palestinian statehood this is already a fait accompli, clearly in the interests of both sides the territorial expression of our national identity sealed by agreement, recognized by the international community, accepted by the United Nations and fulfilling the principle laid down in UN Resolution 181 from November 29, 1947 the formal birth certificate of the two states the establishment of two states one Jewish and one Arab on the land known as Palestine/Israel. 2. The delineation of borders between the two states not based on the map of 1947 but on the armistice agreement of 1949, the border line between the two states will divide the land with Palestine on 22 percent and Israel on 78%. The line will allow Israel to annex about 4% of the West Bank enabling about 80% of the Israeli citizens in settlement blocs to remain where there are. Palestinians will get in exchange equal territory from inside of Israel proper. They will be able to use those areas as development zones and as compensation for land taken by Israeli settlements. 3. Jerusalem Israel will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Israelis live. Jewish Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole world as Israels capital. Palestine will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Palestinians live. Palestinian Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole word as Palestines capital. Jerusalem will be like Siamese twins connected at the most sensitive points and therefore will remain an open city with free movement throughout. Both parts of Jerusalem will share many aspects of infrastructure and most importantly, both sides will be responsible to work together to provide real security throughout the city. The Old City and holy places will either work on the same demographic principles or will be managed by agreement by others on behalf of both peoples. The Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif compound will see the transformation of current realities into agreements with the Muslim authorities in control on top of the Mount over the mosques there and Jewish authorities in control of the Western Wall. This arrangement can hold at least until the Messiah comes, who can make changes then if the reality allows for it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim pilgrims will be allowed to come to complete their Haj pilgrimage which brings them to Mecca and Medina and concludes in Al-Quds, Jerusalem. 4. Refugees All Palestinians, always, wherever they are will be able to become citizens of their independent sovereign state. Lands added to Palestine within the territorial swaps can be used for resettlement purposes enabling Palestine to say that there is a partial return to lands from before 1948. Israel, Palestine and the international community all have an interest to give refugees a new beginning and therefore an international donor effort will be made with generous Israeli participation that will grant all refugees in need a chance for decent modern housing, education and work. New cities like Modiin can be constructed in the West Bank. Palestinians with land deeds and businesses that were lost will be able to apply for compensation for their losses to an international commission and Israel will also generously participate in this fund. An agreed-to symbolic number of Palestinians will be able to apply for return to Israel proper (somewhere around 50,000 people) noting that they will be then living in the State of Israel, under Israeli laws and sovereignty. Israel can call this a humanitarian gesture of family reunification and Palestine can call it the implementation of the right of return. Palestinian refugees will also have the possibility to apply for citizenship in other countries that may offer such a possibility always holding onto to the option of becoming a citizen of Palestine also and holding dual citizenship. 5. The physical crossing between West Bank and Gaza a stretch of about 40 kilometers going through the sovereign State of Israel. The best option, I believe, is the rail link offering services to carry passengers, cars and cargo with one stop in Gaza and one in the West Bank. Other possibilities include a bridge, road, tunnel, sunken road or combinations of the above. I propose beginning to build it now, as soon as possible from the West Bank towards Gaza and ending one kilometer short of Gaza. Gaza will be part of the full agreement, but it will only be implemented when the regime in Gaza agrees to all of the terms of the agreement. 6. Economic relations I believe the best option for Palestine will be an improved customs union which ends all of the leakages in the Paris protocol and enables Palestine to collect their own customs because their state will have clear and defined borders. If they would like a different trade regime they should be able to propose whatever they want
Gonzaga Debate Institute 58 Diplomatic Capital DA because the economic consequences for Israel are inconsequential. Israel should do everything possible to allow for a prosperous Palestine. 7. Water with double the amount of water available today because of desalination and reuse of waste water there is no real water conflict any more. Palestine will have to have an equitable share of all of the water available in the territory between the Jordan and the Sea and water has a wonderful characteristic enabling this it moves. The two states will probably arrive at a reallocation agreement, but I would propose, in the interest of real peace, a joint management model which states that all of the water is a shared resource, not only the water underneath the West Bank. Gaza will need a desalination plant of its own and should already be working on that today. 8. Security arrangements without security there is no agreement on any of the above. Security arrangements need to provide real security for both peoples. Primary security responsibility is in the hands of each side within its own territory. Security cooperation between the two must be robust. A multi-national force (similar to Sinai) led by the US or by NATO with Israeli and Palestinian participation will hold longterm responsibilities along the Jordan. International monitors will be on the ground to ensure full compliance of security arrangements. More there will be a Jewish minority in Palestine. The rights of the Jews in Palestine will be linked to the rights of the Arabs citizens of Israel. The borders between the two states should be as open as possible. Cooperation between the two states should be the goal of both sides in every field possible. An agreement is meant to enable a new relationship taking both sides beyond conflict toward truly peaceful relations. Our physical space is so small; we are both required to cooperate on all aspects concerning the environment and on many other issues that are cross-boundary concerns. The agreement must build bridges of cooperation and not walls of separation. Implementation of the agreement will be incremental, over time based on performance and upholding obligations within the agreements. A third party monitor/judge (likely the US) will be necessary for this purpose. This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory.
Israel and Palestine will negotiate on peace talks

Russia Today 12 (international multilingual Russian-based television network, October 10, 2012, Palestine ready to
negotiate with Israel after UN vote Abbas, http://rt.com/news/palestine-israel-negotiations-un-vote-053/, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is showing readiness for renewed talks with Israel, granted the UN gives his country non-member state status. Abbas made no mention of Israel's illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. A vote in the UN on Palestines request for nonmember state status is expected in November. On behalf of Palestine,
Abbas expressed appreciation for statements made in the European Declaration on the Middle East Peace Process, which were accepted in 2010. "We will use them in the drafting of a Palestinian resolution, which will be presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to obtain the status of a non-member state, he said while meeting EU diplomats in Ramallah Tuesday. "The statements of the European Union on our cause serve as the basis for a return to negotiations," he said. The Declaration, drafted in September 2010, reads, the European Union strongly welcomes the launch of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The EU insisted that negotiations on all final status issues should lead to a two-state solution between the State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security. The EU, meanwhile, continues to call for a complete stop to all violence, in particular rocket fire and terrorist attacks.
Current U.S. efforts bringing Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table
Deger 6-18-13 (Allison, Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net, Mondoweiss, After Kerry visit, Israeli and Palestinian
leaders quietly re-open economic negotiations, http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/palestinian-economicnegotiations.html, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) Perhaps the greatest achievement in neutralizing the Palestinian cause from its starting point, a liberation plight, was nudging it into a humanitarian project. Over the past two decades political talks have been exchanged for economic ones. The subtle change is also reflected in U.S. policy, which became clear after Israeli and
Palestinian leaders met in Jerusalem on Sunday to reopen economic collaboration that was unilaterally suspended by Israel last fall following the Palestinian bid for non-member observer status at the United Nations. This was the first official discussion between finance ministers Yair Lapid and Shukri Bishara, who took office
last month under the also-newly-appointed Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah--and seemingly it occurred at the behest of a U.S. balloon aid payment. The meeting tailed Secretary of State John Kerry's announcement that the selfappointed broker for peace would infuse $4 billion into the Palestinian economy. Unlike past endeavors, this aid did not accompany a drive for political talks; there was no demand for a Camp David, not even an Annapolis-style
Gonzaga Debate Institute 59 Diplomatic Capital DA negotiation-- talks about having talks. The aid was timed with Israeli and Palestinian leaders entering nonconditional direct economic negotiations in exchange for the funds. Or more cynically: land for money. In all practical sense, the meeting marked the U.S. abandoning political goals through diplomacy for regular meetings between Israelis, Palestinians and foreign lenders on how to best develop the West Bank. The finance ministers concluded their Sunday talk by reconvening the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), an Oslo Accords-mandated arbitration body and its sub-groups. It previously functioned as an intersection for Israeli and Palestinian leaders on industrial development programs outlined also in the Oslo-era. These include all of the big infrastructure projects in the West Bank, from manufacturing zones, to roads, to sanitation facilities (a new dump is being built now by the PA with the help of Israel, the World Bank, and the German Development Bank on land confiscated from Palestinian villagers. Like every other major project it was planned through the JEC). Additionally, Palestinian labor in Israel and VAT taxes are under the purview of the JEC. In short, it is a body for economic collaboration not political contention, ordained by peace talks but not under the same timetable. And what of the future, after the aid arrives? Without Israeli guarantees for the free flow of goods through checkpoints, doing business in Palestine will continue to be an unstable venture for foreign companies and lenders. Still the JEC talks will likely ease international supporters who are
weary that their investments will fund projects that will never be completed, like the Jericho park. It is no coincidence then that these three major foreign-backed development zones in the West Bank all received Israeli blessings in the past and that the new $4 billion from the U.S. is preceded by re-started economic collaboration. Together they mean the U.S. is doubling-down on a Kantian-style approach to international relations; foreign intervention is employing the prospect of industrialization and liberalization to usher in and end to the conflict. The Palestinians know what the price of that cash injection is: A new international effort, led by the US, is taking place in order to resume final status negotiations, the Palestinian Liberation Organization
Negotiations Affairs Department announced right after Kerry committed the funds. But again, if history is a model, Israeli collaboration will do little for the Palestinian economy, even if the PA is desperate to lock in funds. The looming pitfall is that Palestinians leaders are making a major political concession that will harm prospects of autonomy in the future. While President Mahmoud Abbas has given in on lands swaps, he is firm that a settlement freeze is a precondition for negotiations. And the Israelis in turn, are against any preconditions. Still, the JEC meeting would amount to re-
kindling negotiations, without any political demands on a final status solution. It would seem that the economic talks are mere placeholders, intended to gain international aid to keep the PA afloat. And the cost is the
larger political struggle.
Israel and Palestine will negotiate, land swaps are the current starting point
The New York Times 4-30-13 (New York Times, April 30th, 2013, Middle East, Kerry Calls Arab League Plan to
Revive Talks With Israel a Big Step, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/middleeast/kerry-welcomes-arabplan-for-israeli-palestinian-talks.html?_r=0, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) WASHINGTON Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday embraced a proposal by the Arab League to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians as a very big step forward, but initial reactions suggested that the new initiative might have difficulty penetrating the years-long impasse. Were taking more steps, Mr. Kerry said Tuesday, a day after a Qatar-led delegation of Arab states presented the initiative to him and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at a meeting near the White House. Yesterday was another step. And were going to continue to march forward and try to bring people to the table despite the difficulties and the disappointments of the past. Qatars foreign minister had suggested the revival of the Arab Peace Initiative, introduced in 2002, and for the first time eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of tweaking those
borders with a comparable and mutually agreed minor swap of the land. The Palestinians chief negotiator said the Arab Leagues proposal reflected their own position, but he reiterated longstanding conditions for resuming talks, which Israel has for the past several years rejected. A senior Israeli official welcomed the encouragement from the Arab League, but suggested that the initiatives framework was unlikely to be embraced as a starting point for talks. Israel is prepared to begin negotiations at any time, in any place and without any early conditions, and expects the Palestinian side to avoid making early conditions, this official said in a statement, repeating Mr.
Netanyahus standard line. The sides will have the opportunity to introduce their positions when the negotiations begin. Tzipi Livni, Israels new justice minister, who has a special portfolio dealing with the peace process, sounded far more hopeful on Tuesday as she, too, welcomed the Arab Leagues proposal. It is important for the Palestinians to know that they have the support of the Arab world for a negotiated peace agreement that ends the conflict , Ms. Livni, a former foreign minister and veteran negotiator, said in a statement. Its imperative for the Israeli public to
know that peace with the Palestinians means peace with the entire Arab world. A land swap plan is an encouraging and important step that has the ability to assist and restore the peace initiative, said the new
Gonzaga Debate Institute 60 Diplomatic Capital DA minister of science, Yaakov Peri, a former director of Israels internal security service and a strong advocate of a two -state solution, according to the Israeli news site Ynet. Such an announcement gives Israel the chance to continue holding on to large settlement blocs. Qatars foreign minister, Sheik Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, outlined the
proposal on behalf of the Arab League on Monday evening after a meeting at Blair House. He emphasized that peace between the Palestinians and Israelis was a strategic choice for the Arab states.
61
AT: Timeframe
Peace is possible but now is key
Maan News, 6-28
(Maan News Agency, 6-28-13, Kerry wants end to Israel-Palestinian stalemate, http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=608955, accessed 7-13-13, EB) AMMAN (AFP) -- US Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday entered two days of intense talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, voicing hope that they want peace but warning they must show progress soon. In his fifth visit in as many months, Kerry will have lunch with Jordan's King Abdullah II and then dinner in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He returns to Amman for lunch Friday with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas. US officials have cautioned against any immediate breakthroughs and Kerry has promised to show patience. But he has also warned that the long stalemate in one of the world's most intractable conflicts is unsustainable. "The time is getting near where we need to make some judgements," Kerry said Wednesday in Kuwait City before flying to Jordan, calling for action "as soon as we can". While refusing to set a deadline, Kerry was acutely aware of risks if there is no headway by September -- the annual UN General Assembly where a frustrated Abbas could rally international opinion against Israel. "Long before September, we need to be showing some kind of progress in some way, because I don't think we have the luxury of that kind of time," Kerry said. "It is urgent because time is the enemy of a peace process," Kerry said. "The passage of time allows a vacuum to be filled by people who don't want things to happen."
62
***Palestine-Israel Impacts***
63
***Hamas***
64
Iran 1NC
JPost, 7-13
(Jerusalem Post, 7-13, Nablus mayor: If talks fail, Palestinians will take to streets, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacyand-Politics/Nablus-mayor-If-Kerry-peace-bid-fails-Palestinians-will-take-to-streets-319695, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Israel and the Palestinians are headed toward another round of street clashes if peace efforts spearheaded by US Secretary of State John Kerry fail, the mayor of Nablus told Israel Radio on Saturday. Ghassan Shaka'a, who has also served as a veteran functionary in the Palestine Liberation Organization, told Israel Radio that Palestinians in the West Bank will take to the streets and demonstrate against Israel if the peace process remains stalled. "[Kerry] is a man for peace," the Nablus mayor said. "Give him the chance to succeed. By sticking to this course, we may end up losers, but we won't be the only losers." Shaka'a told Israel Radio that in the event street demonstrations do take place, the Palestinian Authority is likely to join in. He said that the combination of a stalled diplomatic process and the slowdown in the Palestinian economy will lead to confrontation. "We are losing popularity," Shaka'a said. "We have always offered the people a diplomatic horizon, but now we are operating solely by dint of orders we receive from [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas]." The Nablus mayor warned that the lack of progress on the peace front is boosting Hamas' popularity in the West Bank. "Their power depends on the Israeli activities," the Nablus mayor told Israel Radio. "As long as the Israeli side says "no" to peace negotiations, then it is telling the moderate people, 'Go to [Hamas'] side'."
Expansion of Hamas sphere of influence motivates Israel to counterstrike Iran

Rubin, 2012
(Michael, 11-19-12, Commentary Magazine, Is this How the Israel-Iran War Begins? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/19/is-this-how-the-israel-iran-war-begins/, accessed 7-12-13, EB) Experts and defense analysts agree that Iran would respond to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities by proxy, specifically by Hamas and Hezbollah rocketry launched at Israeli towns and cities. Indeed, this is one of the reasons beyond sheer ideological spite that the Iranian leadership has gone to such great lengths to arm both Hamas and Hezbollah. The Iranian leadership may be coming very close to forcing Israels hand. If Hezbollah seeks to open a second front against Israel, then Israel could find itself in a two-front war with terrorist entities. Make no mistake, Israel would achieve its objective of destroying the majority of the longest-range and most lethal missiles supplied to Hamas and Hezbollah by Iran, Syria, and perhaps even North Korea. This might reduce the costs to Israel of undertaking a strike on Irans nuclear facilities. After all, if Hamas and Hezbollah are temporarily neutered and if the Israeli government concludes that the elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who would have command and control over any Iranian nuclear arsenal would pose an existential threat, then the Israelis may decide that their window of opportunity would never be so favorable as the present. After all, Irans air defense is only going to get more sophisticated with time, and its missile program is advancing steadily, and so time is otherwise not on Israels side.
That culminates in extinction

Ivashov, analyst at the Strategic Culture Foundation, 2007
(General Leonid, 4-9-7, Center for Research on Globalization, Iran: the Threat of a Nuclear War, http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-the-threat-of-a-nuclear-war/5309, accessed 7-12-13, EB) What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a International one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russia and Ukraine , a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the International strife all leave no doubt that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII.
65
Holy War 1NC

JPost, 7-13
(Jerusalem Post, 7-13, Nablus mayor: If talks fail, Palestinians will take to streets, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacyand-Politics/Nablus-mayor-If-Kerry-peace-bid-fails-Palestinians-will-take-to-streets-319695, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Israel and the Palestinians are headed toward another round of street clashes if peace efforts spearheaded by US Secretary of State John Kerry fail, the mayor of Nablus told Israel Radio on Saturday. Ghassan Shaka'a, who has also served as a veteran functionary in the Palestine Liberation Organization, told Israel Radio that Palestinians in the West Bank will take to the streets and demonstrate against Israel if the peace process remains stalled. "[Kerry] is a man for peace," the Nablus mayor said. "Give him the chance to succeed. By sticking to this course, we may end up losers, but we won't be the only losers." Shaka'a told Israel Radio that in the event street demonstrations do take place, the Palestinian Authority is likely to join in. He said that the combination of a stalled diplomatic process and the slowdown in the Palestinian economy will lead to confrontation. "We are losing popularity," Shaka'a said. "We have always offered the people a diplomatic horizon, but now we are operating solely by dint of orders we receive from [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas]." The Nablus mayor warned that the lack of progress on the peace front is boosting Hamas' popularity in the West Bank. "Their power depends on the Israeli activities," the Nablus mayor told Israel Radio. "As long as the Israeli side says "no" to peace negotiations, then it is telling the moderate people, 'Go to [Hamas'] side'."
Hamas is a focal point of conflict with the Muslim world; the alternative is all-out Holy War
Aysha, Professor at American University in Cairo, 2006
(Emad El-Din, Summer, The Hamas Victory and the New Politics that May Come, New Politics, Vol.: 11, http://newpol.org/content/hamas-victory-and-new-politics-may-come, EB) Hamas could very well become the rallying point for Mideast Islamist activity. The Arab regimes by and large have reacted positively to the election results and seem adamant to hold Washington to task on its commitment to democracy in the region -- you made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Much has been made of the U.S. and European decision, taken rather hastily, to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their democratic right. The message coming out of the (state-owned or supervised) mosques certainly has taken this latest development onboard as part of their antiAmerican, anti-Western propaganda campaign -- where are the human rights of the Iraqis, Afghanis and Palestinians for you to call on us to respect human rights in our countries? More than just this the very animating concepts
underlying the Arab-Israeli conflict may change, resulting in an Islamicization of the confrontation between Israel and the Arabs. Helen Rizzo, a sociologist who specializes in political and social movements in the Middle East, is
of this opinion, believing that what could also come about is a pragmatic awareness that religion is a factor that can be utilized in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much as the secularist Zionist movement itself employed religion. Ideological and sectarian concerns -- many of the Marxists who set up the Palestinian factions were Christians -- always got in the way in the past, gaining sustenance from the secularism of Nasserism, Baathism, and the whole Communist bloc. They forcefully de- Islamicized the original pan-Islamic nature of the confrontation at the time of the Palestinian Hajj Amin Al-Husayni, Egyptian Hassan Al-Banna and Syrian Sheikh Abd Al-Karim Qassam.[5] The nationalist rhetoric that this is a war for national independence between the colonial West, embodied in Israel, and the Third Worlders known as Arabs will increasingly succumb to the notion that there is a religious war with a Zionist-Crusader West, to quote a bin Laden characterization verbatim. I mean, haven't the nationalists tried and failed because they were co-opted by the very Western imperialist enemy they claimed to fight against? Isn't the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third most holy mosque in Islam, under threat from Jewish extremists? Wasn't Palestine the focal point of the Vatican-launched Crusades? Arab nationalism has been in a nosedive since the 1967 war and in many ways Arafat himself was the last of that secularist, Palestine is above-any-particular-religion generation. Not to forget that we all have Samuel Huntington to thank for convincing a goodly portion of "the Rest" of the world that "the West" is in a civilizational confrontation with it. From this point onward the trials and tribulations of Hamas and the Palestinian people will be seen and presented to the Arab and Muslim worlds in religious terms, with Islam triumphing for divinely ordained reasons whenever Hamas has a victory, while failures will be understood as the result of an anti- Islamic conspiracy. This will also have a democratizing effect since the argument that democracy cannot be attained without achieving national sovereignty and autonomy first will no longer hold. Opposition parties and the attentive public will be on the move,
Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA and the first rounds have already been fired and from the most unlikely corner.
66
transforming large sectors of the Arab population into readymade audiences. A propaganda war, then, is in the offing
That results in extinction

Nassar, at the Arab Coordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, 2002 (Bahig, 11-25-2, Appointment in Cordoba, America versus the Middle East, http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/77Nassar.pdf, accessed 7-12-13, EB) It goes without saying that it is vitally important to achieve the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, and to prevent the war against the Iraqi people. But the fulfilment of these tasks goes beyond the limits of the national interests of both people. If these struggles were to be successful, a blow would be dealt to the plans of the United States to dominate the entire region. Consequently, this would hamper its global domination. Thus, support for the just causes of the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples will strengthen the struggle of all peace movements regionally and world wide. Even if the United States and its local allies temporarily impose their polices on the entire region, the people will continue to struggle to liberate their countries. Lesson No. II Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. Formerly, the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union had prevented them, under the balance of the nuclear terror, from launching war against each other. In the Middle East, the possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction leads to military clashes and wars. Instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the United States and Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them, while they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose deadly threats to other nations. But the production, proliferation and threat or use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) are among the major global problems which could lead, if left unchecked, to the extinction of life on earth. Different from the limited character of former wars, the current wars in the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them.
67
Links
Stalled peace talks empower Hamas Kerrys presence is key
Keinon, 7-12
(Herb, 7-12-13, The Jerusalem Post, 'Palestinian Authority weakened due to stalled peace process, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Palestinian-moderates-in-West-Bank-weaker-due-to-stalled-peaceprocess-with-Israel-319643, accessed 7-12-13, EB) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' failure to reach any diplomatic achievements in the peace process with Israel is weakening the moderates in the West Bank, a PA security official told Israel Radio on Friday. In the past, the peace process provided legitimacy to the PA, but the stagnation in talks causes mounting frustration in the West Bank that Hamas is taking advantage of to try and rebuild its infrastructure there, the PA official said. Hamas' success in regaining power in the West Bank is dependent on the security and diplomatic situations, he added. Israel Radio also cited a second Palestinian security source as saying that PA security forces have thwarted more than 10 terrorist attacks against Israel since the beginning of the year. US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to return to the region sometime next week in his continued attempt to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Israeli officials said Thursday.
68
Impacts
Iran-Israel war destabilizes the global sphere for decades nothing solves back
Turse, 2013
(Nick, 5-12-13, AlterNet, Unimaginable Destruction If Israel Did Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, http://www.alternet.org/world/unimaginable-destruction-if-israel-did-attack-iran-nuclear-weapons, accessed 7-12-13, EB) Cham Dallas sees the threat in even starker terms. The Iranians and the Israelis are both committed to conflict, he told me. He isnt alone in voicing concern. What will we do if Israel threatens Tehran with nuclear obliteration?... A nuclear battle in the Middle East, one-sided or not, would be the most destabilizing military event since Pearl Harbor, wrote Pulitzer Prize-winning national security reporter Tim Weiner in a recent op-ed for Bloomberg News. Our military commanders know a thousand ways in which a war could start between Israel and Iran No one has ever fought a nuclear war, however. No one knows how to end one. The Middle East is hardly the only site of potential nuclear catastrophe. Today, according to the Ploughshares Fund, there are an estimated 17,300 nuclear weapons in the world. Russia reportedly has the most with 8,500; North Korea, the fewest with less than 10. Donald Cook, the administrator for defense programs at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, recently confirmed that the United States possesses around 4,700 nuclear warheads. Other nuclear powers include rivals India and Pakistan, which stood on the brink of nuclear war in 2002. (Just this year, Indian government officials warned residents of Kashmir, the divided territory claimed by both nations, to prepare for a possible nuclear war.) Recently, India and nuclear-armed neighbor China, which went to war with each other in the 1960s, again found themselves on the verge of a crisis due to a border dispute in a remote area of the Himalayas. In a world awash in nuclear weapons, saber-rattling, brinkmanship, erratic behavior, miscalculations, technological errors, or errors in judgment could lead to a nuclear detonation and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, perhaps nowhere more so than in Iran. Not only would the immediate impacts be devastating, but the lingering effects and our ability to deal with them would be far more difficult than a 9/11 or earthquake/tsunami event, notes Paul Carroll. Radiation could turn areas of a country into no-go zones; healthcare infrastructure would be crippled or totally destroyed; and depending on climatic conditions and the prevailing winds, whole regions might have their agriculture poisoned. One large bomb could do this, let alone a handful, say, in a South Asian conflict, he told me.
69
***Resource Wars***
70
1NC
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict exacerbates water wars and drags in other countries
Ferragina, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Studies on Mediterranean Society 2007 (Eugenia, The Effects of the Irsaeli-Palestinian Conflict on Water Resources in the Jordan River Basin, http://www.globalenvironment.it/ferragina.pdf, accessed 7/13, J.Y.) An emblematic case of the connection between security and the environment in the Mediterranean is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here we find both competition for land and water the one inseparable from the other and the devastating effects of prolonged conflict on the environment and natural resources. A historical reconstruction of the water dispute in the Middle East shows that a situation of prolonged political instability has led Israel to follow a politics of appropriation of the main surface and underground resources of the Jordan basin. This politics, aimed at guaranteeing the countrys hydraulic security in a hostile regional context, has legitimized a race for the exploitation of water resources among the other countries along the lower course of the Jordan (Jordan and the Palestinian Territories); a race that has shoved into the background the issue of saving and protecting water resources. Today, the effects of global problems such as climatic change tend to be amplified at the regional scale . This is because the ancient war for water now takes place within an environmental context subjected to strong anthropic pressure and gradual parching of the soil. Water thus becomes a strategic bone of contention, capable of influencing peace and regional securities. Thus, the connection between security and the environment is increasingly influenced by current global dynamics; a challenge that would call for an environmental management at the global scale that our weak international institutions are incapable of providing. We hear many declarations of principles, but there is no consensus on the strategies to be followed to face environmental crises and their political and economic effects. The water of discord The environmental context of the geopolitics of water in the Middle East that is, the political rivalry between the countries of the Jordan basin as regards the parceling out of the rivers water and the exploitation of underground hydrogeological resources is one of aridity and scarce precipitation resulting in low-flow and highly saline watercourses. The Jordan basin extends from Mount Hermon in the north to the Dead Sea in the south. It lies within the territories of five states: Syria, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan. I will mainly focus, however, on the countries along the lower course of the Jordan, viz., Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories of Gaza and West Bank, which appear to be more dependent on the water of the Jordan river and more exposed to water scarcity. The Jordan originates from the slopes of Mount Hermon. It receives three tributaries along its upper course: the Hasbani, the Dan, and the Banyas. The river then runs across northern Israel, through Lake Tiberias, and then southward. About 6.5 kilometers from Lake Tiberias it receives its main tributary, the Yarmuk, which marks the boundary between Syria and Jordan and then that between Israel and Jordan. Immediately after its confluence with the Yarmuk, the Jordan runs in its homonymous valley for about 110 kilometers. This stretch marks the boundary between Jordan and Israel, and then that between Jordan and West Bank. The river finally flows into the Dead Sea, over 400 meters below sea level. The flow of the Jordan is subject to frequent seasonal and interannual variations. It is about 1500 millions of cubic meters per year, so a mere 2% of that of the Nile and 6% of that of the Euphrates (Fig. 1). The dispute over the Jordan basin waters precedes the Arab Israel conflict, but it intensified in the years immediately following the birth of the state of Israel , especially since 1953, when Israel began the construction of the National Water Carrier. This great aqueduct, destined to convey the waters of the Jordan stored in Lake Tiberias along the Mediterranean coast all the way to the distant and arid Negev, diverts the course of the river outside of its basin, de facto snatching it from the control of the other countries of the basin (Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan).3
Collapsing global water supplies cause extinction.

Marlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the Globalization of Water 2001 (Maude, Spring, BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water Supply, http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf. Perhaps the most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal Kravk and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravk, who has a distinguished career with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and paving on water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding. Destroying water's natural habitat not only creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically diminishes the amount of available fresh water on the planet. Kravk describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant, earth surface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water
Gonzaga Debate Institute 71 Diplomatic Capital DA falls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravk. However, if the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and continental watersheds, where it is needed by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a huge roof, or umbrella; everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. The consequent reduction in continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravk issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls the earth's "hot stains"places already drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive global warming, with the attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually, "global collapse."
72
Impacts
Water scarcity causes massive escalation of armed conflict into full-blown war
Solomon Research Manager at the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes 1998 [Hussein, , From the Cold War to Water Wars: Some reflections of the changing global security agenda- A view from the South, http://www.wcainfonet.org/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet?filename=1070020014294_WAR.pdf&refID=125884] The changes in the theoretical discourse, of course, reflected the tectonic shifts in the post-Cold War global security landscape. Freed from the straitjacket of global bipolarity, international politics is following a more turbulent trajectory. Nowhere is the saliency of this observation more clearly reflected than in the area of resource-based conflict. One such potential conflict area is scarce fresh water resources. That this is so is hardly surprising. Within the context of the developing world, water availability determines the sustainability of economic development. According to Anthony Turton even in countries where the industrial sector is weak, water consumption in the agricultural sector can be as much as 80 percent. Thus within the context of the South, water security does not simply translate into economic development but also food security and the very survival of states and their citizens. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) has concluded that such resource conflicts are likely to increase as the resources become scarcer and competition over them increases. It has been estimated that over 1,7 billion people spread over eighty countries are suffering water shortages. Available evidence also suggest that such water shortages, and conflicts over water, will intensify over the coming years. Various reasons account for this. Firstly, greater levels of pollution of our existing fresh water resources as a result of the intensification of industrialisation in the South where environmental standards tend to be weak or not implemented. Second, as a result of population growth with its concomitant increase in demand for more water. Consider the following in this regard: The worlds population stood at 5,3 billion in 1990, is expected to pass the 6,2 billion mark this year and reach 8,5 billion by the year 2025. The twist in the tale lies in the fact that those population growth levels are fundamentally uneven. Little of the projected population growth will take place in the North . The developed industrialised states share of the worlds population is decreasing dramatically. In 1950 it was 22 percent, 15 percent in 1985, and is projected to be a minuscule 5 percent by the year 2085. Conversely, much of the projected population growth will take place in the countries of the South. For instance, Ethiopias population is expected to increase from 47 million in 1990 to 112 million by 2025; Nigerias from 113 million to 301 million; Bangladeshs from 116 million to 235 million; and Indias from 853 million t o 1,446 million4. The ramification of this is the further escalation of conflict potential over scarce water resources in the developing world. A third and relatively recent factor contributing to water scarcity is the impact of the El Nino/ Southern Oscillation weather phenomenon that causes dry conditions, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa5. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that a report of the African Development Bank concluded as follows: Current calculations are that by 2000, South Africa will suffer water stress, Malawi will have moved into absolute water scarcity and Kenya will be facing the prospect of living beyond the present water barrier. By 2025, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe will suffer water stress, Lesotho and South Africa will have moved into absolute water scarcity, and Malawi will have joined Kenya living beyond the present water barrier Competition for scarce water resources will intensify . This competition for scarce water resources takes on ominous proportions if one considers that of the 200 first-order river systems, 150 are shared by 2 nations; and 50 by 10 nations all in all supporting approximately 40 percent of the worlds population, two -thirds of whom are located in developing countries. Indeed, conflicts over scarce fresh waters have already occurred. Consider here those conflicts between: Turkey, Syria and Iraq around the waters of the Euphrates river; The dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the waters of the Nile; The tensions concerning the sharing of the waters of the Colorado river between the United States and Mexico; and The dispute between Botswana and Namibia over the waters of the Okavango Delta. The above , of course, should not lead one to the erroneous conclusion that water scarcity equals armed conflict as if nothing can be done about the situation. Various measures can be implemented at various levels to ameliorate tensions arising from water scarcity.
Water Wars go Nuclear

Weiner, Proffessor.at Princetons office of population 1990 (The Next 100 Years p.270 accessed 7/13/2013, JY) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some at the 60.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
73
***Terrorism***
74
1NC
Collapsed peace process unleashes terrorism renewed negotiations solve
Slater, professor of political science at the State University of New York, 1999
(Jerome, Winter, Political Science Quarterly, "Netanyahu, a Palestinian state, and Israeli security reassessed" Vol. 112, Issue 4, EB) Israel has had to live with what I shall call conventional terrorism since the early years of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine in the 1920s. Terrible as it has been, this kind of terrorism in no way threatens Israeli national security, as distinct from the personal security of the Israeli victims. Despite the carnage of the fundamentalist suicide bombings of 1994-1996, the odds of any individual Israeli becoming the victim of terrorism--as opposed, say, to dying in Arab-Israeli wars or even in traffic accidents--have been minute. This is not to minimize the horrors of terrorism, but rather to place them in perspective. But in any case, the crucial point is that the establishment of a Palestinian state would greatly reduce the incentive for continued terrorism, most of which has been intended to force Israel out of the occupied territories. To be sure, the purpose of the fundamentalist terrorism since 1993 goes beyond that, for it has been designed to destroy the peace process and ultimately Israel itself. Faced with that kind of murderous fanaticism, Israel and its new-found allies in the PLO have no choice but to crush it. Following the suicide bombings of March 1996, the Palestinian Authority decided to closely cooperate with Israeli security forces to end the terrorism. The absence of any suicide bombings in the next year-until the Arafat-Netanyahu break in March 1997, following the Israeli government's decision to build new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem--demonstrates the crucial importance of such joint efforts. A breakdown of the peace process is likely both to increase the support for the fundamentalists within overall Palestinian opinion and diminish the incentives of the Palestinian Authority to control them. Even with a political settlement, however, it is unlikely that every suicidal fanatic can be indefinitely stopped, so Israel will probably have to continue to live with some level of conventional terrorism. What does threaten Israeli national security is the possibility that terrorists may come into possession of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction. This prospect is rarely publicly discussed in Israel, which is understandable but futile and even dangerous: minimizing the risk of catastrophe makes it improbable that the necessary steps will be taken to reduce its likelihood.[8] Given the increasing availability of weapons of mass destruction, Israel has no rational choice but to assume that it is only a matter of time before its enemies acquire them. At that point, Israel's main hope of averting an unthinkable catastrophe will have to rest on deterrence--that is, the threat, explicit or simply existential, of retaliation in kind. But to whom will the deterrent threat be addressed? At present, deterrence is undercut by the very homelessness of the Palestinian people and the absence of a state that may be held responsible for nuclear terrorism. As a hostage to Israeli retaliation, however, a Palestinian state would give the Palestinian people an overwhelming self-interest in eliminating the fanatics. Continued terrorism, if conventional, would ultimately lead to Israeli reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza, putting an end to the Palestinian state. Nuclear or other forms of mass destruction terrorism would invite Israeli retaliation in kind; at the least, the Palestinian government would certainly have to make that assumption, and it would therefore go to great lengths to avoid a catastrophe that would put at risk not merely the state but the Palestinian people.
Terrorism escalates to global nuclear war

Ayson Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington 2010(Robert, , July, After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, Studies in
Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal , there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 75 Diplomatic Capital DA new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
76
Impacts
Biological terror causes extinction outweighs nuclear war Parson, Collegiate Professor of Law, Professor of Natural Resources & Environment, and (by courtesy) Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan His research examines international environmental law and policy, the role of science and technology in public policy, and the political economy of regulation., 2006(Ted Parson is Joseph L. Sax The Big One: A Review of Richard Posners Catastrophe: Risk and Response, http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdf.) For his fourth risk, in case you are not scared enough, Posner turns to bioterrorism. Biological weapons produced for terrorist purposes could be far more devastating than either chemical or nuclear weapons, or natural pathogens. A bacterium or virus with ideal killing properties a high mortality rate, a long infectious incubation period, and efficient airborne transmission and for which there was no effective vaccine ortreatment, could potentially kill most or all people on Earth . While naturally occurring organisms are unlikely to grow this lethal if you are a bacterium, it is not advantageous to kill your entire host population genetic manipulation of existing disease organisms (e.g., smallpox or other pox viruses, or the hemorrhagic viruses Marburg and Ebola) could in principle produce new bugs this bad. While the specific difficulties of creating an effective bioterrorist agent are not well known (at least publicly) and may be severe, general capabilities for the required types of genetic manipulation are widely dispersed. About ten countries are known or suspected to have bioweapons programs, and terrorist organizations have tried to develop them. Suitable lab facilities exist in dozens of countries.
77
***Genocide***
78
1NC
Failure of the peace process makes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians inevitable
Avnery 2007 (Uri, Journalist and Member of Knesset-the legislature of Israel, One State: Solution or Utopia? Future
Options, Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, Vol 14, No 12. http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=1065) Is a One-State Solution Possible? My absolutely unequivocal answer is: No. Anyone connected with the Jewish
Israeli public knows that the desire for a state with a Jewish majority, where the Jews are masters of their own fate, trumps all other aims, even the desire for a state in all of Eretz Israel. One can talk about one state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, a bi-national or non-national state; in practice it means the dismantling of the State of Israel. That must be said clearly, and thats what the public certainly the Palestinian public, as well as the
Jewish quite rightly thinks it is. We want to change many things about this state, its historical narrative, its definition as a Jewish and democratic state, the occupation outside and the discrimination inside. We want to create a new basis for the relationship between the state and its Arab Palestinian citizens. But it is impossible to ignore the basic ethos of the overwhelming majority of the citizens. There is an illusion that this can be changed through external pressure. Will outside pressure compel 99.9% of the Jewish public to give up the state? No, nothing but a crushing military defeat will
compel the Israelis to give up their state. The majority of the Palestinian people, too, want their own state to realize their most basic aspirations, to restore their national pride, to heal their trauma. Even the leaders of Hamas,
with whom we have talked, want it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is laboring under an illusion. There are Palestinians who talk about one state, but, for most, it is simply a code word for the dismantling of the State of Israel. They, too, know that it is utopian. There are also some Palestinians who believe that the possibility of one state will frighten the Israelis
into agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state. But the result of this Machiavellian thinking is quite the opposite: It pushes the Israelis into the arms of the right and raises the specter of ethnic cleansing.
Genocide outweighs everything

LANG, Professor of Humanities @ Trinity college, 1990 Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, pg13 When the push of a single button can produce cataclysmic effects, we discover an order of destruction omnicide even larger than genocide. But the opprobrium attached to the term Genocide seems also to have a connotation of corporate action as if this act or sequence of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand if not to excuse if one person rather than a group were responsible for it. A group (we suppose) would be bound by a public moral
code; decisions made would have been reached collectively; and the culpability of individual intentions would be multiplied proportionately. Admittedly, corporate responsibility is sometimes invoked in order to diminish (or at least to obscure) individual responsibility; so, for example, the quagmire effect that was appealed to retrospectively by d efenders of the United States role in Vietnam. But for genocide, the likelihood of its corporate origins seems to accentuate its
moral enormity: a large number of individual, intentional acts would have to be committed and the connections among them also affirmed in order to produce the extensive act. Unlike other corperate acts that might only be decided on but carried out by a single person or small group of persons, genocide in its scope seems necessarily to require collaboration by a relatively large number of agents acting both collectively and individually.
79
***Democracy***
80
1NC
The peace process is necessary to demonstrate a commitment to democracy in the region
Asmus et. al 5
Ronald D., Larry, Mark, and Michael, A Transatlatnic Strategy to Promote Democratic Development in the Broader Middle East, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/05spring/docs/05spring_asmus.pdf A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would clearly produce real benefits for democratic development in the region. Ending the conflict would remove a painful issue that crowds the regions political agenda and absorbs energies that otherwise could be devoted to internal reform. Autocratic Arab governments could no longer hide behind or use this conflict to deflect domestic pressures for change, and terrorists across the region could no longer exploit the situation for their recruitment efforts. The West would no longer require the cooperation of a dictatorial regime in Syria or be deterred from pushing for reform in autocratic allies such as Egypt because of their critical role in peace negotiations. Israel certainly has its own interest in the transformation of the region into a set of more democratic societies in which the forces of radicalism and terrorism are marginalized. Many today in the Arab world see a Western and especially a U.S. commitment to the peace process as a litmus test of our intentions in the Arab world more broadly, including on democracy. To them, our credibility on questions of democracy are tied to support for Palestinian political self-determination.
Democracy in Middle East prevents nuclear war

Muravchick-resident scholar at ADI 2001(Joshua, Presented before the NPEC/IGCC Summer Faculty Seminar July 1114, 2001, University of California, San Diego)
The fall of Communism not only ended the Cold War; it also ended the only universalist ideological challenge to democracy. Radical Islam may still offer an alternative to democracy in parts of the world, but it appeals by definition only to Moslems and has not even won the assent of a majority of these. And Iranian President Khatami's second landslide election victory in 2001 suggests that even in the cradle of radical Islam the yearning for democracy is waxing. That Freedom House could count 120 freely elected governments by early 2001 (out of a total of 192 independent states) bespeaks a vast transformation in human governance within the span of 225 years. In 1775, the number of democracies was zero. In 1776, the birth of the United States of America brought the total up to one. Since then, democracy has spread at an accelerating pace, most of the growth having occurred within the twentieth century, with greatest momentum since 1974. That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically
reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.
81
***Link Debate***
82
Generic Links
Resource crunch diplomatic efforts are zero-sum issue selection is vital
Kelemen, Writer @ NPR 11 [Michelle, NPR, Hillary Clinton: U.S. Diplomacy Is Stretched Thin, 8 -16,http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139678323/hillaryclinton-u-s-diplomacy-is-stretched-thin. 7/12/13 RC] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the bruising budget battles in Washington are "casting a pall" over U.S. diplomacy abroad and may hurt America's ability to influence events at a crucial moment in the Middle East. Clinton joined Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the National Defense University in Washington on Tuesday to appeal to Congress to come up with a budget deal that doesn't undercut U.S. national security interests. Speaking to a packed auditorium, Clinton said that one of her favorite predecessors as secretary of state was George Marshall. After World War II, he led the aid program to rebuild the countries America had defeated and promote stable democracies. Clinton said she would like to do the same today. "We have an opportunity right now in the Middle
East and North Africa that I'm not sure we are going to be able to meet, because we don't have the resources to invest in the new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia, to help the transition in Libya, to see what happens in Syria and so much else," she said.
A lack of resources is just one of her problems. Clinton said the budget battles in Washington, or, as she put it, "the sausage making," has hurt America's global image. In her remarks, Clinton also talked about the need to look holistically at national security spending. She and Panetta seemed in sync on many of these issues. That pleased one audience member, former Republican Sen. John Warner. "We are fortunate to have these two individuals," he said. "Historically, the secretaries of state and defense have boxed each other on many issues and have been contentious." For his part, Panetta also warned that major budget cuts could inflict great damage on the military. The Pentagon is already facing one round of cuts that would amount to several hundred billion dollars over the next decade. "If they go beyond that ... that would have devastating effects on our national defense," Panetta said. The defense secretary added that such reductions would "terribly weaken our ability to respond to the threats in the world." Anne Marie Slaughter, Clinton's former policy planning director, said the U.S. was "not helping ourselves in the world at the moment." "What's been on display is the dysfunction of our political system and that really hurts us at a time when the Arab world is calling for democracy," she said. "We should be advancing our values more strongly than before and instead you have the Chinese chiding us on our inability to get problems solved." Slaughter, now back at Princeton University, calls this a bumpy time for Clinton to be representing the
United States. Some of the administration's signature aid programs are under threat and so is the effort to beef up America's diplomatic presence as troops withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. "Peace programs," she said, "are so much cheaper than military programs, but politically it is very hard to sell." Jane Harman, a former Democratic congresswoman who
attended Tuesday's discussion, said she was concerned about the ability of Congress to resolve the budget battles without further hurting America's image abroad. "I think we have to be very careful," said Harman, who is now the president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. " We can't do everything. This is a zero sum game. We have a limited number of
human resources, financial resources and brain cells and we are going to have to choose very wisely where we intervene and what we do.
Link is specifically true for Latin America

Harper 13 (Liz, Americas Quarterly, What Secretary of State John Kerry Could Mean for Latin American Affairs, 2/1/13,http://americasquarterly.org/content/what-secretary-state-john-kerry-could-mean-latin-american-affairs) 7/12/13 RC
John Kerry, the longtime Democratic U.S. senator representing Massachusetts from 1985 until this week, was confirmed on Tuesday as the next secretary of state. He assumes the post today, and has some pretty big shoes, or heels, to fill after Hillary Rodham Clintons tenure. What does this mean for Latin American affairs? What change awaits U.S. foreign policy? Not much. Based on observations from well-placed State Department sources and Kerrys nearly four-hour confirmation hearing,
however, there are a few hints of whats to come. First, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson will stay on, according to my sources. This is good news, given her masterful dexterity in bureaucratic and congressional machinations and cross-agency managementnotably regarding counternarcotic effortsin addition to her regional expertise. However, her office could become savvier with using U.S. media to present policy positions to American audiences. Not only does the United States need to win the hearts and minds of those abroad, it needs to bolster support for policies at home. Beyond this, Im not going to regurgitate the rumors of whos staying, who may be going or already gone, but I will say that the St ate Department has lost a few good minds for greener pastures, while others are staying put for now. Second, the State Department may possibly see a
more proactive stance on the outlier countries in Latin America, or a clarification of the U.S. position. It may just be my wishful thinking, but during his confirmation hearing Kerry said, Depending on what happens in Venezuela, there may really be an
Gonzaga Debate Institute 83 Diplomatic Capital DA opportunity for a transition there. Of course, many would have preferred that our next secretary of stat e called out the government of Hugo Chvez for its ties to narcoterrorists, its support for countries like Cuba, Iran and Syria, and its disregard for freedom of the press. Still, Kerry did diplomatically imply that a Chvez death would present the chance for a positive change. And, to draw a contrast to those outlier states, Kerry lauded former Colombian President lvaro Uribes leadership as a model for transfor mative leadership for other countries in the region, noting that other Andean nations neede d to make a better set of choices. As a notable aside, Kerrys past record tempers much hope hell be more assertive with authoritarian strongmen , namely with his meeting with Nicaraguas Daniel Ortega in 1985. In a recent article, the Wall Street Journal Mary Anastasia OGrady provided background to Kerrys 1985 meeting. Third, a Kerry State Department should see continued improvements on supporting the rights of women and girls in Latin America and elsewhere, namely to augment their roles as peacemakers, to use Kerrys words. Finally, and most importantly, the U.S. should expect a robust pursuit of its economic interests in the hemisphere. Kerry was quick to recognize that [m]ore than ever, foreign policy is economic policy. I am especially cognizant of the fact that we cant be strong in the world unless we are strong at homeand the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries create order, is whether America at last puts its own fi scal house in order, Kerry said in his prepared remarks. In all,
during Kerrys confirmation hearing, Latin America was mentioned seven times, and Mexico specifically 12 times. In contrast, Afghanistan was mentioned 35 times and Iran 24, according to a useful word cloud in the Wall Street Journal. Given the security flare-ups in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the instability throughout North Africa, its reasonable that the Western Hemisphere remains on the backburner. Yet, should the backburner justify a low expectation of
not much development regarding Latin American affairs? That would be unfortunate, given the potential of certain Latin American markets and the urgent imperative to get our own fiscal house in order, as Kerry said. The U.S. can strengthen its economy by
expanding on economic opportunities with fast-growing nations like Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Chile. America now faces a critical moment to seize upon todays opportunities; otherwise the U.S. will cede them to other, less friendly nations. We can do better than not much.
Latin America would consume massive amounts of Diplomatic Capital because the US has not interacted well in the region since the cold war
Osava Inter-Service Journalist who reports on S. America 05
[Mario, , June 11 2005, antiwar.com The United States Doesn't Understand Latin America, http://www.antiwar.com/ips/osava.php?articleid=6290 7/13/13 RC]
The U.S. government, whose proposal was voted down this week in the Organization of American States (OAS), is piling up defeats in Latin America because of a vision of the region that is "distorted" by its "war on terrorism," according to analysts. Washington has an erroneous perception of Latin America not only because it is concentrating its attention on other regions, like the Middle East especially the war in Iraq but also because it looks at this region "through the 'fight against
terrorism' lens," Clovis Brigagao, director of the Center of Studies on the Americas at the University of Rio de Janeiro, told IPS. The 35th OAS general assembly, which ended Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approved a declaration that discarded a U.S. proposal for the creation of a mechanism to evaluate and "oversee" democracies in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has argued that it is not enough for governments to be democratically elected; they must also govern in a democratic manner. She also noted that several countries in the region are facing crises threatening the institutions of democracy. The case of Ecuador (where then President Lucio Gutirrez was removed in April after massive protests), and the current social upheaval in Bolivia (where President Carlos Mesa offered to resign Monday for the second time in less than three months) are concrete examples. But analysts agree that the true target of such statements by Washington is Venezuela, which is ruled by left-leaning President Hugo Chvez, an outspoken critic of many of the policies followed by the George W. Bush administration. The OAS has no mandate to evaluate democracies in the region, said Venezuelan Foreign Minister Al Rodriguez. His Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim, meanwhile, said democracy "cannot be imposed, but is born of dialogue," reflecting the consensus reached in the Declaration of Florida, the final statement signed by the ministers meeting in Fort Lauderdale. But this was just the latest of a string of U.S. defeats suffered in the region since it failed to obtain Latin American support in the United Nations Security Council for its 2003 invasion of Iraq . In April,
Washington's first choice as candidate for secretary-general of the OAS, former Salvadoran president Francisco Flores, was forced to pull out of the race because of a lack of support from the rest of the hemisphere. The U.S. then shifted its backing to Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who in the end was beat out by Chilean Interior Minister Jose
Miguel Insulza. And back in November 2004, the main U.S. initiatives were voted down in the sixth conference of defense ministers of the Americas in Quito, Ecuador. Despite support from Central American nations, the proposal to make national sovereignty subordinate to the Inter-American Defense Board in security questions was not approved. Nor was the idea of concentrating resources on the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. Another proposition that was not accepted was the idea of drawing up a list of terrorist organizations, whose members would be denied visas and subject to arrest. Added to all of these lost battles was the
suspension of negotiations for the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), because of the resistance of many countries, especially Brazil, to the terms set by the United States. This series of failures is due to "waning interest,"
84
since "Latin America has become a lower priority for the United States," Rosendo Fraga, director of the New Majority Center
think-tank in Argentina, commented to IPS. "Today a defeat in the OAS is not such a big deal for Washington as it was during the Cold War," he said. For Jorge Chabat, professor of international studies at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching, " it is no longer so easy for the United States to set the agenda in Latin America," although it cannot be said that Washington no longer has influence and power in the region. "On some issues, Washington cannot make a move on its own, but seeks and needs support," because if it imposed its will, "as it did in the past, it would pay very high costs," he added. Chabat also agrees that the
region has lost importance for Washington, which is saving up on its diplomatic resources, and prefers "consensus and even an apparent defeat," because "it is not interested in spending on things that are not priorities, and Latin America no longer is, for now." The loss of interest became very evident during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2005), when Latin America
was free to "forge new alliances," like the Group of 20 developing nations in the World Trade Organization, or the Group of Three formed by Brazil, India and South Africa, said Brigagao. But there has been a change since Bush's reelection in 2004, as reflected by the Latin America tours made by Rice and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this year . The problem is that the Latin America policy of the current administration lacks direction, as it is subordinate to an "interventionist" fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, said the Brazilian analyst. Besides, "Latin America has matured," with "more balanced governments and greater confidence in democracy," as reflected in the OAS Democratic Charter and other mechanisms like the democracy clauses in subregional trade blocs, including the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Andean Community, he added. Brazil is playing a key role in that process because it has economic interests and investments in many Latin American countries today and a significant level of foreign trade with the rest of the region. That gives it an interest in stability in those countries, and has led it to "occupy part of the space that was once filled by the United States," Brigagao noted.
Diplomatic capital is limited trades off between world regions

Eaton Retired Army Journal 06
[Paul, Retired Army Journal, HEARING OF THE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE, Sept 25, Lexis] Senator, there's a theory that there is X amount of political or diplomatic capital available on the planet. It's not my theory, it's just that as one nation surrenders diplomatic capital, it will go somewhere else. Donald Rumsfeld began an isolation of the United States with his "old Europe" comment and his unwillingness to engage with allies to embark upon a mission that was held important to the United States and this administration. With that intentional displacement of potential allies, we shed and began to shed political and diplomatic capital that has found homes in other regions of the world. And you have seen it spike in the jihadist world, in these -- in the spawning of terror cells that -- and we've gone on to further exacerbate our problem by seeing it as a
monolith. And it is not. It is a lot of cells. But this administration has declared that it is a monolithic problem, and it is not a monolithic problem.
85
***Cuba Links
86
Cuba General
The focus is on the Middle East now Cuba policy *specifically* trades off (change) Luxner 12 (Larry is a news editor for The Washington Diplomat Cuba Welcomes Pope, As U.S. Slams Door on Easing
Embargo 2/29/12 http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8222:cuba-welcomes-pope-asus-slams-door-on-easing-embargo&catid=1484:march-2012&Itemid=497)SC The problem today, he explained, is that Cuba policy isn't a priority for an administration consumed with the war in Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear aspirations and continuing economic strife. "People don't care about Cuba, and you can't blame them," he said. "After all, we've got Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and a financial situation in this country that I think is as profound as the Great Depression. So it's very difficult to get Americans' attention about 11.5 million people living on an island 90 miles off the Florida Strait." Thats even more so in a presidential election year like 2012, said the retired colonel. "Karl Rove once told Colin Powell, 'Don't touch Cuba because we want Florida's 27 electoral votes,'" he recalled. "Dick Cheney also knew our Cuba policy was idiotic, but even he knew that you don't touch Cuba policy. The Obama administration is the first to get into the White House without the hard-line Cuban vote in Florida, so they have a little more flexibility with regard to that reality. However, it's still a very difficult move for the Democrats to make."
Cuban engagement is a huge diplomatic undertaking it bumps other foreign priorities Leogrande, 13 Prof @ American U (William M., professor in the Department of Government, School of Public Affairs at
American University in Washington, D.C., The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez, WPR World Politics Review, April, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez Obama took some early steps that augured well. In April 2009, he ended restrictions on Cuban-American remittances and family travel and subsequently eased regulations limiting cultural and academic exchange. At Washington's initiative, the United States and Cuba resumed bilateral talks on migration, suspended by President George W. Bush in 2004. The two governments also began discussions on other issues of mutual interest, such as Coast Guard cooperation and drug interdiction. But the momentum in Washington soon dissipated in the face of more pressing foreign policy priorities, opposition from Congress, even among
some Democrats, and resistance from an inertial State Department bureaucracy more comfortable with the familiar policy of the past -- its failure notwithstanding -- than the risk of trying something new. As a former senior State Department official explained, high-visibility foreign policy changes of this magnitude only happen if the president demands that they happen, and Obama's attention was focused elsewhere. In December 2009, Cuba's arrest of Alan Gross, a consultant for the U.S. Agency
for International Development's "democracy promotion" programs, brought all progress to a halt. At the end of Obama's first term,
relations with Cuba were not much better than at the start.
87
Cuba Link UQ
We control link uniqueness Obama is putting Cuba on the back-burner to focus on other challenges because resources are limited Grogg 13 (Patricia, 1/29/13, Grogg worked as a Correspondent and contributor for the Mexican newspapers El Da and Da
Latinoamericano, among others, and as a Reporter, Editor and Assignment Editor for the Cuban agency Prensa Latina. She also worked as a journalist for the magazine Cuba Internacional. In 1994 and 1995 Grogg was the News Director of the South American regional office of the Mexican agency Notimex in Santiago, Chile. Since 1997, she has worked as a Correspondent for the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio. She studied Spanish Literature at the University of Chile and Journalism at the University of Havana, Cuban Diplomacy Bypasses US via CELAC, International Press Service News Agency, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/cuban-diplomacybypasses-u-s-via-celac///SJ While Cuba strengthens its regional environment, expectations that its relations with the United States will improve with the second administration of Democrat Barack Obama are low. Several commentators in the interactive Caf 108 feature of the IPS Cuba website agreed that there is little chance that the U.S. will reconsider its relations with Cuba. In the opinion of political scientist Esteban Morales, the United States is facing a difficult time, both on the domestic and on the international front, and in that context a change in attitude towards its socialist neighbour is highly unlikely. Morales, however, does not rule
out the possibility of an indirect route, opened up as a result of the changes (in U.S. relations) with Latin America and the Caribbean. The last two years (of the Obama administration) may hold the greatest possibilities in this sense, depending on how
well Obama does now, Morales added. Journalist Roberto Molina, for his part, does not expect to see any change in the suspended state of relations between the two neighbouring nations, which have been enemies since the early 1960s. Obama has too many
pending issues to address immigration, fiscal reform, a war and other potential conflicts, and a shaky economy to be thinking of Cuba as a foreign policy priority, Boris Caro, a Cuban journalist living in Canada, said. In his last speech of 2012,
Castro announced that he will put all his efforts and energy into his role as CELAC president, but he did not fo rget to remind the U.S. government once again that Cuba is willing to sit down (with the U.S.) and find a solution to all their bilateral problems in a dialogue based on mutual respect and sovereign equality.
Comparative ev that Cuba is at the bottom of the list of diplomatic priorities Luxner 12 (Larry is a news editor for The Washington Diplomat Cuba Welcomes Pope, As U.S. Slams Door on Easing
Embargo 2/29/12 http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8222:cuba-welcomes-pope-asus-slams-door-on-easing-embargo&catid=1484:march-2012&Itemid=497)SC The problem today, he explained, is that Cuba policy isn't a priority for an administration consumed with the war in Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear aspirations and continuing economic strife. "People don't care about Cuba, and you can't blame them," he said. "After all, we've got Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and a financial situation in this country that I think is as profound as the Great Depression. So it's very difficult to get Americans' attention about 11.5 million people living on an island 90 miles off the Florida Strait." Thats even more so in a presidential election year like 2012, said the retired colonel. "Karl Rove once told Colin Powell, 'Don't touch Cuba because we want Florida's 27 electoral votes,'" he recalled. "Dick Cheney also knew our Cuba policy was idiotic, but even he knew that you don't touch Cuba policy. The Obama administration is the first to get into the White House without the hard-line Cuban vote in Florida, so they have a little more flexibility with regard to that reality. However, it's still a very difficult move for the Democrats to make."
88
Cuba Link Wall

a. Baggage Cuba will try to add other issues that are highly controversial and timeconsuming Hanson and Lee 13 (Brianna Lee and Stephanie Hanson, Senior Production Editors at the Council on Foreign
Relations,http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, US-Cuba relations // OP) Given the range of issues dividing the two countries, experts say a long process would precede resumption of diplomatic relations. Daniel P. Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue says that though "you could have the resumption of bilateral talks on
issues related to counternarcotics or immigration, or a period of dtente, you are probably not going to see the full restoration of diplomatic relations" in the near term. Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. "Whatever we call it-normalization, dtente, rapproachement--it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue," says
Sweig.
b. Cuba will initially balk at the offer to save face that creates a long, protracted diplomatic game Planas 12 (Roque Planas, Associate Editor for HuffPost and Fox News, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/07/usembargo-on-cuba-turns-50/ US Embargo on Cuba Turns 50 // OP) Sweig said the Castro government probably never thought Obama intended to lift the embargo. Instead, Cuban officials likely arrested Gross in order to bring attention to U.S. funding of pro-democracy programs that are prohibited on the island, she said. Sweig did not think the Gross decision indicated Cuban disinterest in normalizing trade relations. If we were to put on the table a major framework for political dialogue, the Cubans would be at the table tomorrow, Sweig said. We havent done that yet. But the Gross episode left others thinking that Cuban officials may not want to end the embargoat least not all at once. The ball is really in the Cuban court right now and they may not want to play it, Sabatini said, noting that an end
to the sanctions would suddenly inundate the long isolated island with U.S. tourists and investment dollars that Cuban officials may find disruptive.
Cuba-US engagement is slow moving and exhaustive Haven 13 (Paul is a writer for WPTV. Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles
6/21/13 http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/Cuba-US-try-talking-but-face-many-obstacles-) They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials - a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the
89
two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress ," said
Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are
equally high ."
Cuban engagement is time-consuming and, even if the plan is small, Cuba will demand follow-up on a full list of grievances AP 13 (Associated Press, 6/21/13, Cuba, US try talking, but face many
obstacles, npr.org, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=194196059//SJ) Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These recent steps
indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. " These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high." Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being
an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba. Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms. Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents. Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba. To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel. For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. And then there is Gross, the 64-yearold Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something Washington has said it won't consider. Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history. "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough ," he said.
Immense effort required to engage Cuba diplomatically Hare 10 (Paul, Brookings Institution, U.S. Public Diplomacy for Cuba: Why Its Needed and How to Do
It?,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/3/us%20cuba%20diplomacy%20hare/201003_us_cuba_diplomacy_ hare.pdf)//LA
U.S. PUBILC DIPLOMACY WITH CUBA or the United States engaging with cuban public opinionis an intriguing subject. The principal reason for this is because it has never been tried. There was no attempt before the 1959 Revolution because
the United States had no need to convince the cuban government and people of why the United States mattered to them. In almost every aspect of life it was impossible to conceive of cuba without the United States. Fidel castros Revolution changed that. and since the Revolution, the castro regime has carefully molded the United States as the arch enemy of the cuban people. Successive U.S. administrations have made little effort to banish that impression while U.S. public diplomacy has been
Gonzaga Debate Institute 90 Diplomatic Capital DA largely aimed at the cuban-american exile community. The public diplomacy challenge for the United States with cuba is exciting but also formidable. The cuban Government has had many years experience of controlling access to information and
shackling freedom of expression. The public diplomacy messages that the United States will send will be distorted and blocked. Nevertheless there are growing signs that cubans on the island are accessing new technologies so information does get
through, particularly to residents of the major cities. Expansion of people-to-people exchanges and a lifting of the travel ban on ordinary americans would greatly assist any public diplomacy campaign. but public diplomacy can start without this and the cuban governments capacity to block messages is no argument for not transmitting them. The concept of modern public diplomacy
goes well beyond branding the achievements of your own country and transmitting them to another. It needs a tailored strategy taking into account image deficits, the target sectors and should draw on consistent and complementary themes. There is no one size fits all approach for every country. Public diplomacy involves listening to what the foreign audience is saying about you and crafting simple messages backed up by actions. an effective public diplomacy campaign succeeds in engaging with an overseas public. It implies neither an endorsement of actions of the overseas government nor any wish to micromanage developments in that country.
91
***Mexico Links
92
Mexico General
Engagement with Mexico is empirically zero-sum with other priorities status quo talks focus on drug-trafficking and not relation-building like the Aff
Lanham, 10 (Kipp Lanham is a political communications strategist who has worked on Capitol Hill and K Street as an intern and
communications professional. Kipp has been published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and The Hill. U.S.-Mexico relations: No spring break, The Daily Caller, 3 -23, http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/u-s-mexico-relations-no-spring-break/, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
The timing of the meeting in Merida comes at a tenuous time for foreign policy in the United States. Relations with Israel and Russia have been rough due to settlement and nuclear issues. President Barack Obama had to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia due to health care legislation on the verge of potential passage in Congress. The State Department emphasized in a press release that the meeting had been previously planned over many months. Relations with Mexico only add to the difficulties as both sides try to overcome the shadow cast from the violence in Ciudad Juarez. Espinosa and Clinton plan to discuss the shared goals of breaking the power of drug trafficking organizations; strengthening the rule of law, democratic institutions and respect for human rights; creating a 21st century border; and building strong and resilient communities . Excluded from these shared goals is resumption of the Cross-Border Trucking Services Demonstration Program as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last year, the U.S. suspended this program unilaterally. In response, Mexico suspended trade benefits for a number of U.S. products. Mexico seeks that the U.S. comply with NAFTA and resume the Cross-Border Trucking Services Demonstration Program. The focus of the meeting will most likely be on stopping the violence and drug trafficking rather than resetting trade relations. President Obama already appears confident in Mexican President Felipe Calderns efforts as he has been invited to a state dinner in May. Meanwhile, Congressmen from near the Texas-Mexico border have already been involved in talks with Mexico as they met with Arturo Sarukhan, Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Congressman including Solomon P. Ortiz, Harry Teague, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar and Ruben Hinojosa expressed their commitment to assisting Mexico with drug-related violence on the U.S.Mexico border. The U.S. has also pledged around $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico to fight drug trafficking.
93
Mexico Energy
Energy reform in Mexico requires DOS effortunderstaffing triggers tradeoffs
Goldwyn 4/11 (David L., President of Goldwyn Global Strategies, April 11, 2013, The Impact of the Tight Oil and Gas Boom on
Latin America and the Caribbean: Opportunities for Cooperation, Presented to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 4/11/13, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20130411/100622/HHRG-113-FA07Wstate-GoldwynD-20130411.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
The D epartment o f S tate has significantly increased its capabilities to conduct energy diplomacy through the establishment of the E nergy and N atural R esources B ureau, led by Ambassador Carlos Pascual. Its programs should be robustly funded. We should also deepen the international energy diplomacy capacity of the Department of Energy. The
Department of Energys relationships with civil servants in ministries across the globe provide a bridge across changes in government here and there. They can talk when the politics of non-energy issues obstruct dialogue among the foreign ministries. It is easier to get Energy Ministers together for regular meetings than Secretaries of State. Their staff should be expanded and serious program budget established to make our cooperation more than rhetorical. For true reform to be achieved, foreign
ministers and heads of government will have to be involved, as this will be the key to integrating energy security into foreign policy. The three countries that need robust attention at this time are Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Mexico is considering major reforms and we have much we can share at a technical level on gas markets, unconventional oil and gas technology, safe regulation of the deepwater, and energy efficiency. We should create a quiet bilateral mechanism for sharing this information with Mexican ministries, its nascent regulator and PEMEX. Changing global markets also impact Brazil, and we should ensure that the Strategic Energy Dialogue is reactivated as soon as new officials are on board at the Department of Energy. Venezuela is trickier because it is in political transition and there is a great deal of rhetorical hostility. But the US had a technical dialogue with Venezuela that lasted over 30 years. We need to know the new
officials at the Ministry and PdVSA and to share our view of market realities, even if we may not agree on them. Sometime in 2013,
after the Venezuelan elections, this technical dialogue should be revived, perhaps at the Assistant Secretary, or Deputy Assistant Secretary level.
94
Mexico LNG
Empirics prove the DOS would be involved in natural gas interactionsprefer our evidence its from a DOS insider
Sullivan 7 (Daniel S., Former Assistant Secretary for Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, Energy and U.S. Foreign Policy:
Security Through Diplomacy, Speech @ Energy Council's Federal Energy & Environmental Matters Conference Meeting Jointly with Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) and Leadership of Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), 3/9/7, http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/rm/2007/82171.htm, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) On natural gas there are several proposed LNG terminals in the U.S. and some in Canada and Mexico designed to serve the U.S. market. Of course we do have significant reserves of natural gas in the U.S. particularly in Alaska. The Department of State will play a role in bringing North Slope gas to the lower 48 markets. In February of last year, we in concert with other federal agencies worked out an M.O.U. that establishes a framework for cooperation among participating federal agencies
with responsibilities related to the approval of an Alaska natural gas transportation project. It requires each agency to prepare and to submit an implementation plan, to coordinate with FERC, to share data and to maintain coordination with other agencies in connection with the project. The Department would negotiate any side letters/agreements with the Government of Canada concerning Alaska natural gas transportation projects, including the negotiation of new agreements or any modifications to existing agreements. This effort is in keeping with our larger work to actively promote greater energy integration and facilitate cross border energy trade with two of our four largest oil suppliers, Canada and Mexico. We
are also doing so trilaterally through the North American Energy Working Group, which is part of our broader Security and Prosperity Partnership we have with Canada and Mexico. We also have an annual strategic dialogue bilaterally with Canada called the Energy Consultative Mechanism. Its purpose is to explore how our two governments can enhance and facilitate the largest cross border energy relationship in the world.
95
Mexico Renewables
Energy transformation and poverty initiatives require immense diplomatic capital empirics. Also, prefer our ev, its from Hillary
Clinton 12 (Hillary Rodham, Former US Secretary of State and Future President of the USA swag, Energy Diplomacy in the 21st
Century, Speech Delivered at Georgetown University 10/18/12, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/10/199330.htm, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Now, in addition to these examples of energy diplomacy, were also focused on our second area of engagement: energy transformation helping to promote new energy solutions, including renewables and energy efficiency, to meet rising demand, diversify the global energy supply, and address climate change. The transformation to cleaner energy is central to reducing the worlds carbon emissions and it is the core of a strong 21st century g lobal economy. But we know very well that energy transformation cannot be accomplished by governments alone. In the next 25 years, the world is going to need up to $15 trillion in investment to generate and transmit electricity. Governments can and will provide some of it, but most will come from the private sector. Now, thats not only a huge challenge, but a huge opportunity. And I want to make sure that American companies and American workers are competing for those kinds of projects. After all, American companies are leaders across the field of energy leaders in renewables, high-tech, smart-grid energy infrastructure, bioenergy, energy efficiency. And in the coming decades, American companies should have the chance to do much more business worldwide, and by doing so, they will help to create American jobs. At the same time that were pursuing energy transformation, however, we have to take on the issue of energy poverty. And thats the third area of engagement I will mention. Because for those 1.3 billion people worldwide who do not
have access to a reliable, sustainable supply of energy, it is a daily challenge and struggle. It also runs counter to energy transformation, because these people are burning firewood, coal, dung, charcoal, whatever they can get their hands on. Theyre using diesel generators, and no electricity is more expensive than that. And besides, these are dirty forms of energy bad for peoples health, bad for the environment. But it doesnt have to be that way. We have the technology and know-how that can help people leapfrog to energy that is not only reliable and affordable, but clean and efficient. So energy transformation and ending energy poverty really do go hand in hand.
96
Mexico Transboundary
Empirics prove transboundary agreements require massive diplomatic effort prefer our ev, its from Hillary
Clinton 12 (Hillary Rodham, Former US Secretary of State and Future President of the USA swag, Energy Diplomacy in the
21st Century, Speech Delivered at Georgetown University 10/18/12, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/10/199330.htm, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) I want to mention one additional diplomatic challenge were focused on: how to manage resources that cross national
boundaries. Boundaries are not always clearly delineated, especially at sea. If oil or gas is discovered in an area two countries share or where boundaries are inexact, how will they develop it? Earlier this year, after a long negotiation led by the State Department, the United States and Mexico reached a groundbreaking agreement on oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and we will be sending it to Congress for action soon. The agreement clearly lays out how the United States and Mexico will manage the resources that transcend our maritime boundary.
97
Mexico AT: State Dpt Doesnt do Transboundary

The State Department would be involvednormal means
US DOS No Date (The Department of State Website, Presidential Permits for Border
Crossings,http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/permit/, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Under Executive Order 11423, as amended, the Secretary of State has the authority to receive applications for and to issue
Presidential permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of certain facilities at the borders of the United States with Canada and Mexico. Permits are required for the full range of facilities at the border, including land crossings, bridges, pipelines, tunnels, conveyor belts, and tramways. This authority applies to all new border crossings and to all substantial modifications of existing crossings at the international border. Working with federal agencies such as the
Department of Transportation, the General Services Administration, the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State determines whether a proposed border-
crossing project is in the U.S. national interest. The Department coordinates closely with concerned state and local agencies, and invites public comment in arriving at this determination. Within the context of appropriate border security, safety, health, and environmental requirements, the Department believes that it is generally in the national interest to facilitate the efficient movement of legitimate goods and travelers across U.S. borders. The Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs receives permit applications for most facilities at the Canadian and Mexican borders, except: the
Department of State's Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy for liquid pipelines, the Department of Energy for electrical transmission lines, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for natural gas pipelines.
98
Mexico Link Wall

Mexico is NOT a top diplomatic priority now, we indict your evidence.
Roberts and Walser, research fellow and senior policy analyst 13 (James Roberts and Ray Walser, Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth Center for
International Trade and Economics (CITE) and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1-7-13, Latin America and the Caribbean: A Wish List for 2013, <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/us foreign-policy-wish-list-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-in-2013> Accessed: 7-12-2013, BK)
Mexicos ongoing fight against organized crime has cast a doleful shadow over U.S.Mexican relations. New Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto promises to restore citizen security and continue overhauling Mexicos police and judiciary. Often overlooked in the U.S. is Mexicos emerging economic statusthe worlds 11th largest and gathering steam. Serious energy reforms could reverse an alar ming decline in oil production and tap massive shale gas deposits. In short, the bilateral relationship is strong but not entirely healthy. President Obama should make ties with Mexico a serious priority by helping Mexico fight organized crime through the Merida Initiative, enhance military-to-military ties, and act jointly in troubled Central America. The President
needs to assume White House ownership of the ambivalent muddle over marijuana legalization and U.S. drug consumption. Real border security cooperation and immigration reform with a viable temporary work visa program are other prescriptions for a healthier relationship.
99
***Venezuela Links
100
Venezuela General
Diplomatic row proves Venezuela engagement gets heated quickly we control empirics
Lopez 13 (Juan Carlos, Catherine E Shoichet, CNN correspondents in Latin America, US expels 2 Venezuelan diplomats, CNN,
3/11/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/us/venezuela-diplomats-expelled//, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Washington (CNN) -- Diplomatic tensions between the United States and Venezuela showed no signs of slowing Monday as the State Department announced that two Venezuelan diplomats had been expelled. Orlando Jose Montanez Olivares and Victor Camacaro Mata were declared personae non gratae and ordered to leave the country in response to the South American nation's decision to kick out two U.S. officials last week, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters. "Around the world, when our people are thrown out unjustly, we're going to take reciprocal action," she said. "We need to do that to protect our own people." "In the day or days that followed there was some pretty heated rhetoric coming in our direction," Nuland said Monday. "I think I called it at one point a page from the old 'Chavista' playbook that we were hoping was going to change. ... There is work that we would like to do together, particularly in the areas of counter-terrorism, counter narcotics, economics and energy relations, but it's going to take a change of tone from Caracas." The expelled U.S. officials, both air attaches at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, were accused of having meetings with members of the Venezuelan military and encouraging them to pursue "destabilizing projects," Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said. "We will not allow any foreign interference in our country," Jaua said last week. Nicolas Maduro, then vice president and now Venezuela's interim leader, also suggested as he criticized the U.S. Embassy officials last week that someone had deliberately infected Chavez with cancer. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell denied the accusations. "This fallacious assertion of inappropriate U.S.
action leads us to conclude that, unfortunately, the current Venezuelan government is not interested an improved relationship," he said. It isn't the first time that diplomatic tensions have surged between the two countries. Last year the State Department declared Venezuela's consul general in Miami persona non grata -- Latin for unwelcome or unacceptable person -- and expelled her from the United States. In 2008, Venezuela expelled the U.S. ambassador to the South
American country. A day later, the United States said it was expelling the Venezuelan ambassador.
101
Venezuela Energy
Energy reform in Venezuela required DOS effortunderstaffing triggers tradeoffs
Goldwyn 4/11 (David L., President of Goldwyn Global Strategies, April 11, 2013, The Impact of the Tight Oil and Gas Boom on
Latin America and the Caribbean: Opportunities for Cooperatio n, Presented to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 4/11/13, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20130411/100622/HHRG-113-FA07Wstate-GoldwynD-20130411.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) The D epartment o f S tate has significantly increased its capabilities to conduct energy diplomacy through the
establishment of the E nergy and N atural R esources B ureau, led by Ambassador Carlos Pascual. Its programs should be robustly funded. We should also deepen the international energy diplomacy capacity of the Department of Energy. The
Department of Energys relationships with civil servants in ministries across the globe provide a bridge across changes in government here and there. They can talk when the politics of non-energy issues obstruct dialogue among the foreign ministries. It is easier to get Energy Ministers together for regular meetings than Secretaries of State. Their staff should be expanded and serious program budget established to make our cooperation more than rhetorical. For true reform to be achieved, foreign
ministers and heads of government will have to be involved, as this will be the key to integrating energy security into foreign policy. The three countries that need robust attention at this time are Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Mexico is
considering major reforms and we have much we can share at a technical level on gas markets, unconventional oil and gas technology, safe regulation of the deepwater, and energy efficiency. We should create a quiet bilateral mechanism for sharing this information with Mexican ministries, its nascent regulator and PEMEX. Changing global markets also impact Brazil, and we should ensure that the Strategic Energy Dialogue is reactivated as soon as new officials are on board at the Department of Energy. Venezuela is trickier because it is in political transition and there is a great deal of rhetorical hostility. But the US had a technical
dialogue with Venezuela that lasted over 30 years. We need to know the new officials at the Ministry and PdVSA and to share our view of market realities, even if we may not agree on them. Sometime in 2013, after the Venezuelan elections, this technical dialogue should be revived, perhaps at the Assistant Secretary, or Deputy Assistant
102
Venezuela Oil
Empirics prove US state department will be involved in Oil fights w/ Venezuela

Pecquet 4/23 (Julian, The Hill, US clarifies sanctions talk after Venezuela threatens to cut oil exports, 4/23/13,
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/295595-us-backs-off-sanctions-talk-after-venezuela-threatens-to-cut-oil-exports, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)
The State Department on Tuesday vehemently denied the United States was considering sanctions against Venezuela after the oil-rich country threatened to cut energy exports to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Roberta Jacobson told CNN's Spanish channel over the weekend she did not know either way if the Obama administration would consider sanctions if the country does not have a full recount of last week's disputed presidential election. Foreign Minister Elias Jaua responded with a promise to retaliate if that happens, prompting State Department Spokesman Patrick Ventrell's remarks on Tuesday. I think the Venezuelan side may have looked at that and read into [it that] we're considering something, Ventrell said at his daily press briefing. I'm saying that that's not something that we're currently contemplating at this moment. Jaua had promised to counter with trade, energy, economic and political measures as we deem necessary to respond forcefully to this unacceptable threat. We do not accept any empire threats, he told Venezuela's Telesur. You can be sure that faced with any kind of sanctions, we will respond with economic , political, social and diplomatic actions to defend the sacred rights of the Venezuelan people.
103
Venezuela AT: State Dpt Doesnt do Venezuela
Empirics prove the DOS would be involved

Van Auken 6/7 (Bill, World Socialist Website, Venezuelas Maduro reaches out to big business and Washington, 6/7/13,
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/07/vene-j07.html, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Maduro has repeatedly charged in recent months that US imperialism was conspiring to bring down his government and was the guiding hand behind a wave of political violence that followed his narrow election victory against right-wing candidate Henrique Capriles in April. Yet Venezuelas Foreign Minister Elias Jaua was all smiles Wednesday, following a 40-minute meeting in Guatemala with US Secretary of State John Kerry. The two, who met privately on the sidelines of the Organization of American States General Assembly meeting in Antigua, Guatemala, declared their commitment to, in Kerrys words, establish a
more constructive and positive relationship. This is to include resuming the exchange of ambassadors, which has been suspended since late 2010. It was Venezuela that requested the meeting. We agreed today there will be an ongoing, continuing dialogue between the State Department and the Foreign Ministry, and we will try to set out an agenda by which we agree on things we can work together, said Kerry. For his part, Jaua declared that A good relationship between the government of
President Nicolas Maduro and the gover nment of President Barack Obama is what suits both peoples, its the guarantee of peace and stability for our peoples.
104
Venezuela Link Wall
More ev that we control empirics - former missteps mean the plan is especially challenging
Johnson 05 (Stephen, expert and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 23 rd, 2005, U.S. Diplomacy Toward
Latin America: A Legacy of Uneven Engagement, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/us-diplomacy-toward-latin-america-alegacy-of-uneven-engagement, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Nowhere has Washington had more difficulty than in dealing with Venezuela's populist leader Hugo Chvez. In 2002,
Chvez took advantage of a popular uprising against him to temporarily disap-pear from office, smoke out his enemies, and return consolidating his grip on power. The Bush Admin-istration was embarrassed by statements that appeared to accept Chvez's ersatz ouster. Seeking a dignified exit, Secretary of State Colin Powell turned to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the Organization of American States to broker a ref-erendum on Chvez's presidency. Although Chvez held a recall vote, Carter accepted limits on moni-toring, declined to comment on the regime's mas-sive effort to pad voter lists, and hastily reported a free and fair result. The administration was forced to accept a flawed assessment.
Defer Neg their authors all inaccurately believe the U.S. can paper over history, which is impossible
Roberts and Walser 1/7/13 [James and Ray, Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth
Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE) and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Latin America and the Caribbean: A Wish List for 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/us -foreign-policy-wish-list-for-latin-americaand-the-caribbean-in-2013 , accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Although slated to begin another six-year term on January 10, President Hugo Chavez appears to be losing his battle against cancer. According to the constitution, Chavezs incapacitation or death will trigger new presidential elections. While a post-Chavez Venezuela will remain polarized and deinstitutionalized, the next presidential election should be free and fair. The Obama
Administration is reportedly contemplating restoring relations at the ambassadorial level. It cannot, however, paper over the adversarial nature of current relations. The U.S. should seek concrete commitmentsincluding a firm renunciation of terrorism and an agreement on combating narcotics trafficking before sending a new ambassador to Caracas. A strategy of long-term democracy support should focus on civil society, youthful democratic leaders, and victims of Chavista misrule. The Obama Administration should also focus U.S. intelligence capabilities on probing and countering Iranian penetration into Venezuela and uncovering the misdeeds of corrupt narco-generals and high officials.
The plan creates a huge resource demand of top level officials - there's NOTHING for Venezuela now
Merco Press 13 (an independent news agency which focuses on delivering news related to Mercosur-member countries, covering
an area of influence which includes the South Atlantic and insular territories., Venezuelan overture to the US: time to res ume diplomatic representation at the highest level, http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/21/venezuelan -overture-to-the-us-time-to-resumediplomatic-representation-at-the-highest-level, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) *Elias Jaua is the foreign minister of Venezuela The first thing would be to resume diplomatic representation at the highest level added Jaua. The country's late populist president Hugo Chavez was a staunch critic of the United States, and his successor Nicolas Maduro is still feeling out its footing with Washington. Chavez for more than 14 years unleashed verbal broadsides on US leaders before his death in March.
The United States and Venezuela since 2010 have not even had ambassadors in their embassies in their respective capitals. Maduro, who earlier said his government would like to increase dialogue with the United States, has selected lawmaker Calixto Ortega as its potential US envoy. US President Barack Obama however has not congratulated Maduro for his controversial, razor-thin April 14 election, as Maduro's opposition rival Henrique Capriles presses claims that the Venezuelan presidential election was marred by irregularities. Maduro meanwhile slammed Obama the top leader of devils after he commented on post-election unrest in Venezuela, but has since lowered the tone of his speeches both towards Capriles and to the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 105 Diplomatic Capital DA US. Apparently during his quick visit round of Mercosur countries in search for support and food supplies (extremely short in Venezuela including toilet paper), Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff suggested better relations with the opposition and the business community. She even had him interviewed on a Brazilian television program where Maduro admits to be willing to talk even with the devil (Capriles), for the sake of peace and stability in Venezuela. It must also be added that despite the bad blood, Venezuela sells about 900,000 barrels of oil every day to the United States.
106
107
***Aff***
108
***General Aff Answers***
109
Dip Cap Low

Kerry has too much on his plate
Klapper, journalist for the Japan Times, 7/1
(Bradley, 7/1/13, The Japan Times, Talk is cheap: Kerry battles to deliver results: After promising great things, top U.S. diplomat now needs to act, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/01/world/talk-is-cheap-kerry-battles-to-deliverresults/#.UdHKxCqF_6k//, accessed 7/13/13, JA) In his four months as U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver.
He has raised hopes in the Middle East that his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough to end six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict. He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assads regime to heel and to work with Russia to end Syrias civil war. He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. And he has hinted at possible one-on-one talks between the United States and reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help. In his current round of breakneck shuttle diplomacy to coax Israel and the Palestinians back into peace talks, Kerry flew to the West Bank on Sunday to hold a third meeting in as many days with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. American, Israeli and Palestinian officials have declined to disclose details of the past three days of closed-door meetings, but Kerrys
decision to fly from Jerusalem to Ramallah to see Abbas again before he leaves the region was an indication that the top U.S. diplomat believes there is a chance of bringing the two sides together. Working hard is all he would say when a reporter asked him if any progress was being made. Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as head of the State Department, Kerry has issued several as-yet undelivered and perhaps undeliverable pledges to allies and rivals, proving a source of concern for President Barack Obamas policy team . It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering he has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy statements have come. The White House quickly distanced itself from both Kerrys North Korea remarks and has now, since Obamas meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscows resistance to Kerrys Syria strategy. All the officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they werent authorized to evaluate Kerrys performance publicly. Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions. Clinton still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream, after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the worlds thorniest foreign policy conundrums. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that Kerry believes this difficult moment in the world requires a willingness to address complicated issues. He believes the risk of high-stakes, personal diplomacy (is) far less than the risk of leaving difficult situations to fester or spiral out of control, Psaki said. That is why he has invigorated our efforts in critical areas, such as North Korea, Syria and the Middle East peace process, and has personally invested time and effort to move the ball forward. No challenge may now be bigger than Syria, where the two-year civil has killed at least 93,000 people. Signaling a shift from the cautious approach of Obamas first term, Kerry announced his first trip abroad would focus on changing Assads belief that he could prevail militarily and on pushing him into eventually relinquishing power. Since then, however, the fighting has only gotten worse. Thousands more have died as Assad firmed his grip over much of the country and the U.S. hasnt even delivered all the nonlethal aid Kerry promised Syrias rebels let alone any of the weapons or ammunition that Obama recently authorized. Having failed to reshape the conflict, Kerry changed course by going to Russia to re-launch a peace process for Syria that Clinton engineered in June 2012 but had been all but forgotten in the months since. In Moscow, Kerry boasted that the former Cold War foes just accomplished great things when the world needs it by deciding to convene an international conference, perhaps by the end of May, that would include Syrias government and opposition. That conference has been delayed until at least July, and possibly August, and it might never come off at all given the Syrian oppositions refusal to negotiate while it is losing land to Assad and getting so little help from the United States and other Western powers. That failure falls directly on Kerry, who as part of the U.S.-Russia approach was tasked with delivering the opposition to the bargaining table. Russia may have lived up to its end of the bargain by guaranteeing the Assad governments attendance at any future peace conference. But Putin and the Kremlin also have been undermining peace efforts by sending more weapons to help the Syrian governments counteroffensive. Kerrys one-man diplomacy in Syria is in some ways emblematic of his tenure. Officials say he opted to revive the U.S.-Russia strategy for a Syrian transitional government during his walk in the backyard of a Moscow guesthouse with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, informing aides only after of his decision. He afterward insisted he wasnt simply rewinding the clock by a year because the United States and Russia were now going to find ways to put the plan in place. More than two months later, there has been no progress. On
Gonzaga Debate Institute 110 Diplomatic Capital DA Middle East peace, as well, Kerry has put his credibility on the line. Since Obamas visit to Israel in March, Kerry
has gotten almost no public displays of support from the president, with the White House appearing reluctant to stake political capital in an endeavor that so often has proved a disappointment. With few Senate-confirmed senior
officials in place at the State Department, Kerry has been short of aides at the highest level who might act as envoys to drive forward his agenda in his absence. Among others, Clinton had George Mitchell to push for Mideast peace and Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kerry lacks any such high-profile figures at his side. Those who
have worked closely with Kerry say his approach also reflects the great stock he puts in his personal diplomacy and the belief, perhaps more widely shared in the rarefied air of the Senate, that leaning on his close relationships with foreign leaders and dignitaries can deliver more results than delegating authority to capable bureaucrats. That has left Kerry doing much of the work himself, from ordering up policy papers to envisioning new initiatives, while traveling the world or publicly regaling foreign ministers in Washington with stories of their past encounters or meals in exotic capitals.
Kerry is spending diplomatic capital on China

The Fiscal Times, 13
(1-29-13, The Fiscal Times, John Kerrys China Problem: How Tough Can He Get?, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/01/29/John-Kerrys-China-Problem-How-Tough-Can-He-Get.aspx#page1, accessed 7/13/13, JA) American carmakers are already part of the collateral damage. The U.S. has launched investigations, continued existing duties, and filed complaints at the World Trade Organization, on a number of other Chinese products as well over the past year, the D.C.-based lobbying shop ML Strategies wrote in its 2013 outlook. In response, China has taken similar actions on American products, most notably certain automobiles imported from the U.S. The coming year will likely see a continuation of trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Will there be a battle over island territory? The World Economic Forum, the Swiss nonprofit that sponsors Davos, warns that China and Japan could be headed for a
naval confrontation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Never heard of these five islands and three rocks in the Pacific Ocean? Its a major headache for Kerry. He might have to defuse the nationalist tensions of both countries, spending diplomatic capital on security issues instead of economic ones. After all, the United
States briefly had control of these islands after World War II and gave them to the Japanese in 1972, the same year China and Taiwan claimed ownership.
Kerry is trying to do too much- his agenda is ridiculous

AFP, Agence French Press, 7-1
(7/1/13, Global Post, Restless Kerry puts the shuttling in diplomacy, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130701/restless-kerry-puts-the-shuttling-diplomacy, accessed 7/13/13, JA) After a dinner lasting nearly until Sunday dawn with Israel's premier and ahead of talks with the Palestinian
president and flying to Asia, John Kerry had a window of just a few hours. But instead of slipping under the covers to sleep, the US secretary of state decided to see Jerusalem instead. With aides and bodyguards, Kerry took a 4 am stroll in a nearby park, enjoying the cool morning air of the hotly contested Holy City. Kerry finally had a
brief rest and drove to Ramallah, where he voiced delight over Palestinian singer Mohammed Assaf's victory in the "Arab Idol" TV competition before speaking cheerfully to reporters on the prospects for peace talks. The round-the-clock pace, and agile shifts in focus, has become emblematic of Kerry's style of diplomacy as he shows a willingness -even an eagerness -- to toss aside routines and schedules and enmesh himself in the gritty details. Kerry, who has
flown to the Middle East five times in as many months on a mission to solve one of the world's most emotive conflicts, spent four days talking to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas. Whatever the outcome, Kerry's initiative involves no small number of logistical headaches, with his staff and accompanying reporters sometimes left guessing in the morning where they will end up that night.
Kerry met three times each with Netanyahu and Abbas from Thursday through Sunday, journeying by motorcade, his own plane and Jordanian military helicopters, which gave him a lift between meetings with Abbas in Amman. He also scrapped entire stops. A visit to Islamabad, announced by Pakistan, was postponed so he could focus on the Syria crisis. And then an announced dinner in Abu Dhabi to discuss Syria was also put off so he could spend more time shuttling between Netanyahu and Abbas. His gruelling pace inevitably draws comparisons to his predecessor Hillary Clinton, who visited a record 112 countries during her four years as secretary of state during President Barack Obama's first term. Both secretaries of state have key issues -- Clinton pressed for women's empowerment, while
111
Kerry is passionate about climate change. But Clinton mostly stayed out of the notoriously divisive task of Middle
East peacemaking, instead relying on a special envoy as Netanyahu butted heads with Obama. Few expect that Kerry, who at 69 has a long Senate career and failed presidential bid behind him, will run again for office. The son of a diplomat, Kerry has always been passionate about the need to try talks, even with US adversaries . Kerry was optimistic that his intense efforts could eventually restart talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state.
112
DOS Fails
State department cant solve anything.
Glain, 11 [Stephen, Freelance writer focusing on US military and leadership, July 31,
2011,http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/07/31/state_vs_defense_stephen_glain_excerpt/index.html, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) Quietly, gradually and inevitably, given the weight of its colossal budget and imperial writ the Pentagon has all but eclipsed the State Department at the center of U.S. foreign policy. The process began just over a century ago, gathered pace with World War II, and hit its stride during the Cold War with a global empire that not only survived the collapse of the Soviet Union but was greatly enhanced by it. Even before terrorists struck the nation on September 11, America was spring-loaded for
conflict on many fronts. A decade later, U.S. troops are engaged in the countrys longest war in addition to counterinsurgency and developmental assistance work throughout the world. At the same time, the capability of the nations diplomatic and foreign aid agencies has dramatically diminished. While four-star generals wield enormous influence among U.S. allies, ambassadors and senior USAID officials are regarded more and more as functionaries and contractors. They are saddled with chronic staff shortages, eroded language skills, and low morale. In an era of endless war, a growing share of diplomats and aid workers are assigned to missions in areas so hazardous they require armed escorts when traveling. And unlike their uniformed counterparts, they lack replacement staff for regular rotations. In the increasingly tight competition for humanitarian and development funds, they are losing out to the Pentagon, now the federal governments fastest-growing source of foreign aid.
113
Diplomacy Fails
US diplomacy is ineffective countries will say no and conflicts are escalating now.
Miller 10 (Aaron David, public-policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2/3/10, The End of
Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/03/the_end_of_diplomacy?page=full, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) Back in the day, there was a time when American diplomacy did big and important things. No more, it seems. The world's gotten complicated, America is a good deal weaker, and the U.S. administration is handicapping itself with a dysfunctional
bureaucratic setup that makes it harder to focus and find its footing. Effective American diplomacy may well be going the way of the dodo , and the sad fact is there may be little Barack Obama can do about it. America never ran the world (an illusion the left, right, and much of the third and fourth worlds believe; but there were moments (1945-1950, the early 1970s, 1988-1991) when the United States marshaled its military, political, and economic power toward impressive ends. There were, or course, disasters and plenty of dysfunction during these years, including the Vietnam War and out-ofcontrol CIA operations. But there were also brilliant achievements: the Marshall Plan, NATO, effective Arab-Israeli diplomacy,
dtente with the Russians, opening to China, a competent American role in the acceleration and management of the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War. For most of the last 16 years, however -- under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- America has
been in a diplomatic dry patch. In the face of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, wars of choice, and nasty regional conflicts, conventional diplomacy has either not been tried or not been very successful. The image of the shuttling secretary of state pre-empting crises or exploiting them to broker agreements, doggedly pursuing Middle East peace, achieving dramatic breakthroughs with spectacular secret diplomacy seems a world away. The Obama administration wants to do this kind of stuff. And it has done pretty well in managing the big relationships with Russia and Europe, though it has had its share of problems with China. But frankly, these are the easy ones. It's not from the big that the president's problems come; it's from the small. In garden spots like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, the problems are four parts military, five parts nation-building, and maybe one part diplomacy. And America is unlikely to prevail in any meaningful sense of the word where corrupt, extractive regimes are unable to control their own territory and cut deals with anti-American elements and place their security and political concerns first. Even in areas where diplomacy might seem to work on paper -- Kashmir, Arab-Israeli peacemaking -- the United States is hampered by conflicts driven by deep ethnic and religious hostility and by internal politics in which its own allies (Israel, Pakistan, and India) can't be of much help. And in one of the cruelest ironies of all, the U.S. president who has gone further to engage Iran than any of his predecessors is watching any hope for diplomacy being ground up by a regime under siege in Tehran. What's more, the power of the small is being matched by the weakening of the big. You don't have to be a declinist (I'm not) to see how far the image of American power has fallen.
Forget the economic meltdown, which has much of the world wondering about what kind of great power the United States really is.
America's currently fighting two wars where the standard for victory is not whether it can win but when it can leave.
Whether it's an inability to get tough sanctions from the international community against Iran, bring Tehran to heel, make North Korea play ball, get the Arabs and the Israelis to cooperate, or push the Pakistanis to hit the Taliban and al Qaeda in a sustained way, the world has gotten used to saying no to America without cost or consequence. And that's very bad for a great power. Finally, there's the issue of how the country organizes itself. A new bureaucratic flowchart won't replace skill and luck, better marshal American power, or create genuine opportunities for success abroad. But if you don't have the right structure, it makes success all that much harder. And the United States has departed from the one model that has proven successful: the strong foreign-policy president empowering the strong secretary of state who rides herd over subcabinet-level envoys in real time and in close coordination with the president on strategy. Instead, the Obama administration has created an empire of envoys with power concentrated in
the White House but without real purpose or strategy. The nation's top diplomat (the secretary of state) seems to be everywhere and nowhere in terms of owning issues and finding a way to take on some of the nastiest challenges, which is what secretaries of state are supposed to do. It's still early, and maybe the Obama administration will get lucky. Perhaps the Iranian regime will collapse or the Arabs and Israelis will do something good by themselves. But the next several years are more likely to be tough ones for American diplomacy. And the image that comes to mind isn't a terribly kind one: America as a kind of
modern-day Gulliver tied up by tiny tribes abroad and hobbled by its inability to organize its own house at home.
114
Venezuela Link Turn

Isolating countries like Venezuela costs tons of capital and results in US diplomatic failure
Bennis 6 (Phyllis, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, A
Project of the Institute for Americas Future, United Nations v. United States, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/28/united_nations_v_united_states.php, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) At the end of the day, both Guatemala and Venezuela agreed to step down in favor of a third candidate giving the victory to Panama. In the broader U.S.-U.N. power struggle, this one would have to be called a draw: Venezuela wasnt able to win majority supp ort, and some diplomats attributed the failure to Chavezs speech at the September 2006 General Assembly, when he famously referred to Bush as the devil. The remark brought not only laughter from the bored -with-diplomatic-oratory diplomats filling the Assembly Hall, but a huge ovation as wellleading embarrassed U.N. protocol officers to rush into the seats urging decorum. But even among
some governments eager for greater challenges to U.S. unilateralism, there were fears that Chavezs rhetorical excesses might undermine the potential for building strategic alliances against Washingtons power. On the other hand, despite its huge investment of high-profile diplomatic capital, the U.S. couldnt get its way either. Perhaps it failed because the General Assembly votes were taken by secret ballots, so U.S. threats had less resonance. Perhaps it failed because in 2006 Latin America is the center of a rising bloc of progressive governments ready to challenge U.S. economic and political strategies, and with the political and economic clout to do so safely. But whatever the reason, the U.S. defeat was a far cry from the most famous example of U.S. pressure at the U.N., the so-called Yemen precedent, still spoken of in whispers throughout U.N. headquarters. In that instance, during the November 1990 U.S. effort to win unanimous Security Council support for its resolution endorsing war against Iraq, U.S. bribes and threats had won a large majority of support in the Council. (Even China, which had long threatened to veto the resolution, was bribed into abstaining rather than using a veto.) But two countries voted noCuba, which opposed the war on principle, and Yemen, the sole Arab country on the Council. No sooner had the Yemeni ambassador put down his hand after voting against the resolution, the U.S. ambassador was at his side saying that will be the most expensive no vote you ever cast. The remark was picked up on an open U.N. radio microphone, and broadcast throughout the building and ultimately around the world. So three days later, when the U.S. cut its entire aid budget to Yemen, the world took notice.
115
Cuba Link Turn

Turn- lifting the embargo boost diplomatic capital
Houston Chronicle, 2007
(August 18, 2007, Houston Chronicle, Peacemaking for profit: U.S. shouldn't wait to ratchet down Cuba embargo, http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Peacemaking-for-profit-U-S-shouldn-t-wait-to-1529000.php, accessed 7/13/13, JA) This time last summer, Cuban President Fidel Castro was very sick and many backers of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba were very happy. Since it began in 1962, the embargo has done nothing to achieve its goal of a Cuban democracy. But, it briefly seemed, nature itself might do the trick, dethroning Castro and prompting political turmoil and transformation, followed by an influx of triumphant exiles from Miami. Instead, Fidel lived and the regime he founded remains solidly in power. The embargo, on the other hand, has become an outstanding example of squandered U.S. diplomatic opportunities opportunities all the more precious the longer we are at war. Starting now, gradually dismantling the embargo would open our doors to an eager trading partner. It would also send a crucial message about the United States' ability to coexist with peaceful governments all over the world . Easing the embargo would not mean condoning Cuba's dictatorship. Even under the stewardship of Castro's brother Raul, Cuba is unmistakably a police state. The sole political party is the Communist Party; spies and informants dog citizens' every activity. Amnesty International reports that Cuba detains 81 political prisoners. Worse for most Cubans, though, is communism's restriction of the economy. A government worker makes an average of $16 a month, and most university graduates can't find work that makes use of their skills. U.S. economic sanctions mainly affect ordinary Cubans, depriving them of affordable imports and work opportunities. The United States has suffered little from the embargo. True, we once were Cuba's main trading partner; today, Texas in particular could benefit from Cuban oil, agriculture and shipping ventures. But most presidential candidates see these as glancing losses next to the political payoff from Florida's CubanAmerican voting bloc. What the United States does need, and urgently, is diplomatic capital . Free of charge,
our Cuba embargo has given Castro and his protege, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an enemy straight from Central Casting with which to justify their regimes. The embargo also alienates people throughout Latin America, including many who risked their lives fighting for democracy in their own countries. For many, the embargo is the disproportionate wrath of the Americas' Goliath toward a country that dared to defy it. Ratcheting down the embargo, and the assumptions about it, would echo positively around the world . Venezuela, though,
might be the most immediate logjam to unstick. President Chavez wants nothing more than an old-time Cold War enmity with the United States. The drama therein provides him with material for countless speeches, and endless distractions as he mines at democratic institutions. Imagine how his rhetoric and policies might be retooled if Cuba and the
United States suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism, counter-narcotics and technical exchange projects. Even before Castro's illness, Cuban officials signaled openness to such associations. Castro even warned Chavez not to make a permanent enemy of the United States. Ice breakers such as counterterrorism or other information exchanges could be first steps to ending the trade and travel embargoes. But the administration and,
most recently, Congress reject this approach. President Bush actually tightened the travel embargo, forbidding CubanAmericans to visit family members there more than once every three years. This is the opposite of how we should be approaching Cuba. Our Cold War freeze demonstrably did nothing to strengthen democracy there. It has,
however, bolstered a widespread and dangerous view that the United States can only see the world in terms of "us" and "them." Made available to Cuba, American ideas, travelers and trade could neutralize that view globally , at a time when we badly need the change.
116
***AT: Israel-Palestine Scenario***
117
Thumpers Syria
Kerry is mainly focused on Syria Palestine is a sideshow
Beale, 2013
(Andrew, 4-16-13, Policy Mic, Kerry Middle East Trip: Palestine is a Side Trip, the Real Focus is Syria, http://www.policymic.com/articles/34073/kerry-middle-east-trip-palestine-is-a-side-trip-the-real-focus-is-syria, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Much of the media coverage of Secretary of State John Kerry's current round of trips to the Middle East has focused on his half-hearted attempts to kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But it's highly likely that the real purpose of his trip has little to do with peace and a lot to do with war: specifically, the war in Syria. It's true that Kerry made a perfunctory visit to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But aside from some vague neoliberal investment talk, he offered little in the way of solutions to the conflict (such as insisting the Israelis freeze settlement construction.) Given these facts, Kerry's pronouncement that the talks with Netanyahu and Abbas have been "very constructive" sounds rather unconvincing. Much more significant is the time Kerry has spent in Israel, Turkey, and Jordan. And more significant still is Kerry's meeting with Syrian rebel leaders in London. Since Syria is at the "top of the agenda" at the G8 meeting in London, there's little doubt what Kerry is talking to Turkey and Jordan about. Viewed through this lens, it starts to make sense that Obama made it a priority to stabalize relations between Turkey and Israel during his visit to Israel last month. Turkey, Israel and Jordan are all crucial to regional security, and as the situation in Syria continues to spiral out of control, it's important that Israel and Turkey can work together.
118
Thumpers Asia
Kerry left the Middle East hes touring Asia
Riechmann, 6-30
(Deb, 6-30-13, Yahoo! News, Kerry's focus switches to North Korea, Syria, http://news.yahoo.com/kerrys-focusswitches-north-korea-syria-032733260.html, accessed 7-13-13, EB) BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei (AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's diplomatic portfolio switched from Mideast diplomacy to North Korea and the Syrian crisis when he landed Monday in Brunei for a Southeast Asia security conference. The tiny sultanate in the South China Sea, where he will attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, is the last stop on Kerry's two-week tour of seven countries in Asia and the Middle East. He landed Monday morning in Brunei's capital, Bandar Seri Begawan, after flying overnight from Tel Aviv, where he spent four days in long meetings trying to get Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. On the sidelines of the ASEAN conference, Kerry is scheduled to have a lengthy chat with Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that likely will center on the Syrian crisis and Moscow's decision not return National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden back to the U.S. to face espionage charges. "I am actually anxious to get there and to engage with him because the situation in Syria is grave," Kerry said Sunday in Tel Aviv. Russia is a key backer of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is fighting rebel forces who have been being armed by the U.S. and other nations. "Clearly, part of my conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russians will be how we can maximize our efforts together to have an impact on this," Kerry said. "I'm not going to go into greater detail with respect to that conversation, but I very much look forward to meeting with Sergey Lavrov when I get there." Kerry is also slated to have talks on the sidelines of the meeting with his counterparts in China, Japan, South Korea and other Asian nations.
119
Thumpers India
Diplomatic efforts towards India thump the disad
India today 6-24
(6/24/13, India Today, Civilian nuclear deal, Iran on the agenda as John Kerry meets Salman Khurshid, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/john-kerry-in-indian-salman-khurshid/1/285075.html, accessed 7/13/13, JA) US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid began the 4th round of the joint India-US Strategic Dialogue on Monday in New Delhi. The higlights of of their meeting included: An announcement that American Vice President Joe Biden will visit India in late July. The US Secretary of State the nuclear agenda, Kerry said, "I look forward to the early implementation of the civil nuclear deal". The Indo-US relationship, as President Obama said, is one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century: Kerry. All appropriate countries have been notified about Snowden's status legally that he is an indicted person and wanted in the US: John Kerry. Kerry, who arrived here Sunday on a three-day visit, has said he was keen to push forward
reaffirmed that India and the USA share common interests in Asia, Indian and Pacific Oceans and share similar visions of peace. India is equipped to take on some of the biggest challenges of our time, said Kerry. Moving forward on
implementation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal and for more defence co-production and co-development, besides cooperation in higher education and other issues. The India-US Strategic Dialogue, inaugurated in 2009, is
a forum to discuss the full range of US-India cooperation on bilateral and regional issues, reflecting the strong strategic partnership between the two countries. The topic for discussion during Kerry's visit will also include bilateral and
regional economic engagement, regional security and defence, science and technology, climate change, and other global issues such as women's empowerment, non-proliferation and space cooperation. Afghanistan, the
drawdown by the US-led international forces, the US' proposal of talks with the Taliban, the elections there next year are also expected to figure as well as other regional matters, including relations with Pakistan. However, one of the highlights of the meet was US approval of India's actions towards Iran. The United States sees India's
reductions in imports of oil from Iran as an "important step" in bringing pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme, Secretary of State John Kerry said.
120
Thumpers Laundry List

Kerrys attention towards South Asia, the Middle East and Global Warming thumps the disad
India today, 6-24
(6/24/13, India Today, John Kerry urges India to work with US on resolving global warming issue, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/john-kerry-urges-india-work-with-us-resolving-global-warming-indiatoday/1/284955.html%20/, accessed 7/13/13, JA) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday urged fast-growing India to work with the United States on global warming before it's too late. "The irreversible climate challenge is speeding towards us, crying out for a global
solution," he said. Kerry spoke on climate change in a speech in New Delhi, the second stop on his two-week swing through the Mideast and Asia, just two days before President Barack Obama is to unveil his long-awaited plan for the United States on the issue. "The world's largest democracy and its oldest one must do more together, uniting not as a threat to anyone, not as a counterweight to a region or some other countries, but as partners building a strong, smart future in a critical age," Kerry said in a reference to how India is often viewed as a
counterbalance to China. People consulting with White House officials on Obama's plan say they expect the president to put forth regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by coal-fired power plants that are already running. Environmental groups have been pleading with Obama to take that step, but the administration has said it's focused first on controls on new power plants. More than half of India's power comes from coal and while the U.S. has emission issues of its own, it wants to see India and other nations in the region rely less on old, coal generation facilities. The U.S. is backing a
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline that would bring energy to a power-starved region.
Speaking at a convention center to a crowd of several hundred businessmen, students and others, Kerry noted that federal scientists in May reported that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million - a level never before experienced by man. "When the desert is creeping into East Africa, and ever more scarce resources push farmers and herders into deadly conflict... then this is a matter of shared security for all of us... When the Himalayan glaciers are receding, threatening the very supply of water to almost a billion people, we all need to do better," he said. During his first trip to India as secretary of state, the top U.S. diplomat was expected to discuss a myriad of other
topics, including enhancing security in the region and prospects for finding a political resolution to the war in Afghanistan. As NATO troops leave, India fears the country could fall into the hands of a Taliban-led regime,
endangering many of India's interests there. Kerry reassured India, which has invested more than $2 billion to reconstruct Afghanistan, that the U.S. commitment to the Afghan people will not end at the close of next year when NATO-led combat troops complete their withdrawal. In meetings before Kerry heads to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday , the U.S. expects Indian officials will want to query Kerry about prospects for peace talks with the Taliban. U.S. talks were scheduled to begin in coming days, but a last-minute diplomatic rift over how the Taliban rolled out their new political office in Doha, Qatar, has threatened to scuttle the talks. "Obviously, we are very realistic about the
difficulties of making progress. Making peace is never easy, and a final settlement may be long in coming," he said. "And let me be clear: Any political settlement must result in the Taliban breaking ties with al-Qaida, renouncing
violence and accepting the Afghan constitution, including its protections for all Afghans, women and men. Afghanistan cannot again become a safe haven for international terrorism." Kerry also spoke about India's archrival, Pakistan.
There is widespread hope that Pakistan's new President Nawaz Sharif will try to improve relations with its Indian neighbor, thus reducing the chance of a fourth major war between the nuclear-armed foes. But India has
been frustrated by Pakistan's failure to crack down on Islamic extremists, which have strong historical links with Pakistani intelligence. Kerry called on Pakistan to continue normalizing trade relations with Pakistan. "Just last year, bilateral trade increased 21 percent," he said. Washington wants New Delhi to speed up economic reform to increase U.S.
business and trade opportunities with India. Amanpour et al., 1/31
Kerry must focus on Syria, Iran, North Korea, Israeli-Palestinian relations and Egypt
(Christiane Amanpour, Mary-Rose Abraham, David Miller, and Brian Fudge, 1/31/13, Yahoo News, Around the World: Art and Craft of Diplomacy: Secretary of State John Kerry Faces Complex Agenda, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/around-the-world-abc-news/art-craft-diplomacy-secretary-state-john-kerry-faces124949495.html, accessed 7/13/13, JA) In her four years as the 67th Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled nearly a million miles, visited 112 countries and had 1,700 meetings with world leaders. Besides a grueling travel schedule, the presidents chief foreign affairs adviser
Gonzaga Debate Institute 121 Diplomatic Capital DA must wield all the tools of a negotiator: the art and craft of diplomacy. This week Clinton steps down from her post. Taking her place is Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The new
secretary of state faces plenty of challenges: the crisis in Syria, Iran, North Korea, Israeli-Palestinian relations. And thats just to name a few. So how does the craft of diplomacy help the U.S. negotiate our increasingly complex geopolitical relationships? In this episode of Around the World, Christiane speaks with R. Nicholas Burns.
He served for 27 years in the U.S. foreign services, including as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2005 to 2008. Burns is now a professor at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, where he also teaches a course on diplomacy. I think Secretary of State Kerry is going to face the most complex agenda an American secretary of state is going to face in a very long time, said Burns. First and foremost on that agenda, Burns said, is a set of
issues in the Middle East which are so troubling to American security. That includes a brutal, nearly two-year civil war in Syria; the nuclear threat from Iran; and an Egypt which is wrought with social tension and strife. Each of these issues will call on Kerrys expertise as a diplomat. In the case of Iran, that may mean a carrot and stick
approach. The U.S. must apply sufficient economic and political pressure on Iran that it would convince Iranians that it's in their best interest to negotiate, Burns said. Both presidents (George W.) Bush and Obama struggled with this, he said. We often talk about the fact that the most skillful negotiators will make sure that the group of people across the table have an exit door, a way to define this as successful for them. As many secretaries of state have done before him, Kerry will also need to examine the state of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians . Burns believed more must be done. The United States has not tried, both in the Obama administration and in the first six years of the Bush administration, he said. Another diplomatic test is the 22-month uprising in Syria, in which the United Nations said the death toll has passed 60,000. Burns said the U.S. must step up as a more active leader to reinforce the coalition of countries against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and do a lot more to aid the
hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees who have fled to countries such as Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.
122
No Internals Kerry
Kerrys peace talks to amend Israeli-Palestinian relations are bound to fail
Siegman, president of the US/Middle East Project and professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2013
(Henry, July 11, The Nation, Secretary Kerry's Mission Impossible in Israel -Palestine, http://www.thenation.com/article/175220/secretary-kerrys-mission-impossible-israel-palestine#axzz2YwzKSigY, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Secretary of State John Kerrys valiant exertions to renew Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are bound to failfor precisely the same reason previous efforts have failed: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israels political establishment value territory above peace, or believe they need not choose between the two because they can have both. The reason they hold this belief is because despite the many diplomatic initiatives the United States
has launched over the years to persuade Israeli governments they should not continue to defy international law and opinion by denying Palestinians both the right to independent statehood and the right to equal citizenship in a Greater Israel, Washington never mustered the courage to do the one thing that would have worked: inform Israeli
governments that such continued behavior would have consequences, beginning with Americas inability to defend Israels annexationist policies in the United Nations and in international courts. Not only have we not done that, we have done the exact oppositegoing to great lengths in assuring Israeli governments and the Israeli public that we would continue to defend them no matter what they do. When President Obama dispatched
Vice President Joseph Biden to Israel in March 2010 to register with Netanyahu and his government his administrations opposition to its violations of a settlement freeze that Netanyahu had agreed to, and Israeli officials used the occasion to humiliate the vice president and the man who sent him by announcing publicly further violations of the freeze, Biden assured Netanyahu that the Israeli-US relationship would remain so solid that no daylight, no daylight (no, this not a typo; he said it twice) would come between them. The president repeated his assurances of the unbreakable nature of the US alliance with Israel in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2011 and again in his speech to AIPAC of March 2012, and yet again during his recent trip to Israel. And in a particularly effective recent speech by Secretary Kerry before an American Jewish audience, warning that the course Israels government is on now will lead to apartheid and to the delegitimization of the Jewish state, Kerry concluded with the assurance that despite differences, we will always have Israels back. One might have thought that an Israeli version of apartheid would be seen by the United States as radically inconsistent with the shared values regularly invoked as the foundation of and justification for the unprecedented closeness between the two countries. Apparently that is not the case. The assurance that we will always
come to Israels defense, irrespective of whether or not we find its behavior objectionable or even against Americas interests, in effect serves as an American guarantee to Netanyahus government that no Palestinian state will emerge from renewed peace talks. To this day, US policymakers take comfort in the commitment to
Palestinian statehood that Netanyahu made in his Bar Ilan speech of June 2009. But even 6-year-olds in Israel did not need to be told what Tzipi Hotovely, a leading Likud Knesset Member, recently declared that Netanyahus two-state solution speech was tactical, intended for the world. He has no intention of carrying it out.No one in Israel thought otherwise. Yet spending time in Israel, as I have been doing, one cant help hearing from the most unlikely sourceslike longtime peace activiststhat Netanyahu seems to have softened his opposition to a two-state outcome. A recent New York Times editorial cited a Haaretz report that Mr. Netanyahu has shifted and is now serious about the peace process and a two-state solution. Would that this were true, and not an illusion born of desperation. What seems to have eluded these optimists is Netanyahus bitter opposition to beginning territorial talks with Palestinians at the pre -1967 border. This opposition is not a tactical ploy for an Israeli advantage in resumed negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas. It is in defense of what Netanyahu considers to be a strategic principlethat the West Bank is not occupied territory but disputed territory, to which Israel has as much a claim as Palestinians. Netanyahus uncompromising adherence to this principle was evidenced by his recent appointment of the so-called Levy Commission to determine the status of the West Bank. His choice of chair and members of this commission assured the commissions conclusionthat Israels military subjugation of the West Bank is not an occupation, notwithstanding the unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice to the contrary in July 2004. Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50! Similarly, the effrontery of Netanyahus demand that President Obama omit from a speech on US Middle East policy at the State Department on May 19, 2011, any reference to the 1967 border as a starting point for territorial negotiations can only be understood in terms of his determination to assert the primacy of Israels claim to all of the historic Land of Israel. President Obama did not yield to Netanyahus demand in 2011. That Netanyahu renewed that demand by rejecting terms of reference, proposed by Secretary Kerry, for resumed peace talks that provide they begin at the pre-1967 linesand that this time the United States accommodated him by offering to make that statement about the 1967 lines as an American understanding, thus leaving Netanyahu off the hook tells us all we need to know about prospects for an alleged shift in Netanyahus views or about prospects for the outcome of Kerrys efforts to save the two -state solution. An American
123
understanding that would have been followed by an American initiative in the UN Security Council affirming the pre-1967 lines as the starting point for equal territorial exchanges with the Palestinians would have been a game changer. Americas refusal to make such a commitment is a declaration of failure before the proposed talks even begin.
The last thing we need is for Kerry to intervene in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations he will only do damage
Miller, member of the U.S. Advisory Council of Israel Policy Forum, aPublic Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and an advisor to six Secretaries of State, 2013
(Aaron, Feb. 7, New Republic, Chill Out, John Kerry, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112351/john -kerry-israelpalestinian-peace-process-not-race#, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
The last thing we need (or Kerry needs) is another abortive effort to get talks going. The inconvenient truth is that if you put Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in a room tomorrow, their talks would fail galactically. The gaps on the two least contentious issues (borders and security) are large; the divide on the identity issues (Jerusalem and refugees) are yawning. Whats required now are separate discussions conducted by
the U.S.low key and quietnot noisy enterprises generated by secretarial trips and visits to the White House. Diagnose the problem before you rush toward fixing it. Maybe youll have a chance of producing a better outcome. The Israeli coalitions negotiations may take weeks; it makes little sense for Kerry to go out to the region before the next government is formed. The coalition hasnt hammered out its terms on the peace issue yet, and an American
effort to somehow influence them will backfire. Maybe Obama and Kerry believe they can influence these terms with the announcement of the presidents trip; and with talk of negotiations over unity between Hamas and Fatah picking up steam, perhaps Kerry believes that an early trip will allow him to warn Abbas what to avoid or embrace in this complex Egyptian-orchestrated tango. He cant. Weve never had much success in playing Palestinian or Israeli politics when it comes to these internal matters. In fact, we can do damage, particularly on the Israeli side. Kerry needs to find a way to at least test the proposition that he can work with Netanyahu not
corner him. There may well come a time when the U.S. needs to try shape public opinion, but not this early in the game. thats better left to Obama when he visits in march.
Negotiations are failing despite Kerrys massive effort Even after long peace talks there hasnt been any headway
Brennan, principally assigned to the State Department, Margaret Brennan also serves as a CBS News general assignment correspondent based in Washington, D.C., 2013
(Margaret, June 30, CBS News, Despite failures, Kerry optimistic on Mideast peace talks, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57591692/despite-failures-kerry-optimistic-on-mideast-peace-talks/, accessed 7/13/13, CBC) For Secretary of State John Kerry, it may be better to be caught trying. The former Massachusetts senator was unable to
achieve a breakthrough to restart long-stalled peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders despite an intense four-day round of shuttle diplomacy. Yet he left Tel Aviv with a lot of optimism and promised that he is close
to progress. "I believe that with a little more work the start of final status negotiations could be within reach," he told reporters. "We started out with very wide gaps and we have narrowed those considerably. We have some specific details and work to pursue." The negotiations failure thus far is not for lack of effort. The secretary met separately a
total of three times with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. He invested a lot of time and energy in these discussions, having spent a total of thirteen hours talking with Netanyahu in recent days, a large portion of that in one-on-one meetings. He spent around seven hours with Abbas, along with some senior advisers, including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. "There is some progress but we can't say there's a breakthrough," Erekat said. Yet Kerry said he saw enough progress to
warrant leaving behind top staffers, including Frank Lowenstein, his former Senate Foreign Relations chief of staff, to continue working with both parties over coming days. He pointed to that decision as proof of progress and said "we have something serious to work on." Kerry said that he would like to stay behind himself to continue the talks but was unable to do so because of prior commitments to attend a conference in Asia. Kerry pointed to the hours of work that all parties had been willing to put in as a sign of commitment from all sides. Netanyahu was not as optimistic. He did not highlight any headway made during the discussions. During his weekly cabinet meeting address, the prime minister assured Israeli leaders that any potential agreement would need to be submitted to the Israeli people for a referendum. He did try to deflect blame for the stalled talks.
124
There is no end in sight for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leaders are not willing to compromise
Hever, economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour, 2013
(Shir, Apr. 22, The Real News, Kerry's Attempt to Restart Negotiations in Israel/Palestine Has Failed, http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid= 74&jumival=10076, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Shortly after President Obama's visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, Secretary of State John Kerry began a series of visits and talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Kerry returned in an effort to speak with both sides and restart the negotiations. The negotiations have been stuck since September 2010. While the Israeli government claims to be eager to continue the negotiations and blames the Palestinian side of refusing to talk, it continues to expand the illegal colonies in the West Bank and to place severe restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territory. Netanyahu has also added an additional demand: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. As Israel didn't need the recognition of other countries in order to define itself according to its own laws, Netanyahu's demand is perceived as a tactic to further delay negotiations. The state of Palestine, formerly known as the Palestinian Authority, has placed a single condition to resume talks: that Israel will freeze the construction in the illegal colonies. President Mahmoud Abbas has also demanded the release of Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails. But the Palestinian public is wary of broken promises. Even if Israel meets these conditions, what is to guarantee that it will not be yet another delaying tactic? Negotiations have begun in 1992, and the end of the Israeli occupation is still nowhere in sight. Obama gave a rousing speech in Jerusalem, calling on Israelis to respect Palestinian rights. He did not give a similar speech directed at Palestinians. ~~~ BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT: I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You can be you have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future. Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine. That is true. ~~~ HEVER: But despite the powerful speech, why would another initiative to resume negotiations now succeed when countless such initiatives failed in the past? Secretary of State John Kerry seemed certain that this time it would work. The U.S approved the resumption of aid to the Palestinians, enabling the State of Palestine to pass its budget for 2013 at the very last moment. Kerry's multiple visits and meetings also sent the message that efforts to reach a compromise are at full force. Perhaps the U.S is concerned that the legitimacy of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is declining the longer they are unable to make any achievements in ending the occupation. Perhaps the growing involvement of Qatar in the region and the cordial relations forming between the Qatari government and the Hamas party, which currently controls Gaza, is a threat to U.S. monopoly in its influence over the region. The current strategy of President Abbas and the Fatah Party is to appeal to international organizations the UN, the International Court of Justice, etc. in order to accumulate international legitimacy and expose the illegality of Israel's policies. The Israeli government is very concerned about these moves, because in addition to condemnations by the UN, it could lead to the arrest of Israeli soldiers and former soldiers on suspicions of war crimes when they travel outside of Israel. But President Abbas agreed to postpone the next move in appealing to the International Court of Justice, to give the U.S-brokered peace initiative a chance. Perhaps he was also concerned that making such a move while Kerry is visiting will reflect badly on the Palestinian's willingness to negotiate in good faith. Kerry therefore achieved a small victory for Israel: a further delay in making Israel accountable for its actions in the Occupied Territory. Kerry has reportedly offered economic benefits to the State of Palestine in exchange for restarting the negotiations. For example, he suggested that a few economic projects for Palestinians could be permitted in Area C of the West Bank (which comprises about 66 percent of the West Bank), something which Israel currently forbids. Kerry then proceeded to mention the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. The initiative, nicknamed the Saudi Initiative, was accepted unanimously by the Arab League in 2002 and has been ratified every year ever since. The initiative offers Israel a package deal: Israel will return to the internationally recognized '67 borders, will reach an agreement with the Palestinians for the resolution of the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees from 1948, and in exchange all Arab countries will sign peace treaties with Israel. The initiative is in many ways the embodiment of the most sought-after goal of the Zionist movement. Israel will become secure, recognized, and peaceful. But as Israel's borders have expanded
125
in military occupation, so have its ambitions. The Israeli government refuses to discuss the Arab Peace Initiative. Kerry suggested that the Palestinians change the initiative so it will suit Israel, perhaps by allowing Israel to retain some of the territory it occupied in 1967, or by denying the rights of Palestinian Refugees. The fact that Kerry also made efforts to bridge the gaps between Israel and Turkey further demonstrate the point that Kerrys visit to the region has coincided with Israeli interests, not with Palestinian interests.
126
No Internals Hamas
Kerrys unified government will empower Hamas and cause Israel backlash, crushing negotiations
The Tower, 7-1
(The Tower, 7-1-13, Hamas Official: Kerry Peace Talks A Catastrophe, http://www.thetower.org/hamas-official-kerrypeace-talks-a-catastrophe/, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Yousef Rizqa, a key adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, evaluated last week ongoing efforts by U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table with Israel. Hes not pleased: Dr. Yousef Rizqa, political adviser to Gaza prime minister, warned against a new catastrophe similar to the Oslo Accord catastrophe, in light of PAs willingness to resume negotiations with the Israeli side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry began a new tour in the region to push for the resumption of negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian parties. He will arrive to the Palestinian territories on Thursday. The international community has sought to forge a Palestinian government capable both of living up to its signed obligations with Israel and of governing the territories Palestinians reserve for a future state. Currently those territories are split between the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and Fatah-controlled areas of the West Bank. The inability of a single Palestinian government to control all Palestinian territory would almost by definition constitute a failed state. Efforts to establish a unity government that would control both the Gaza Strip and West Bank, however, have consistently failed, in part due to animosity between Fatah and Hamas. Should they succeed, Hamass consistent refusal to recognize Israels right to exist
would deadlock Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and undermine the new governments international legitimacy.
Western officials have emphasized that Hamass participation in any unity government must be ac companied by the group meeting signed Palestinian obligations, including the recognition of Israel. Contemporary statements by Hamas officials rejecting negotiations, more over, have the potential to undermine current negotiations between the Jewish state and the Western-backed, Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. Anticipating a future unity government which includes rejectionist Hamas elements willing to abbrogate past treaties, Israeli negotiators may be loathe to make irreversible territorial concessions in current negotiations.
Hamas point-blank refuses calls for unity

Maan, 6-30 (Maan New Agency, 6-30-13, Albawaba News, Hamas: peace talks are 'futile, http://www.albawaba.com/news/hamaspeace-talks-are-futile-503009, accessed 7-13-13, EB) The Hamas movement said Saturday that peace negotiations with Israel were 'futile', as US Secretary of State John Kerry extended his shuttle diplomacy between Israeli and Palestinian leaders for a third day. The Islamist movement warned Fatah and the Palestinian Authority against the "mirage" of negotiations, and called on the PA to reject pressure from the United States to accept economic initiatives and instead focus on implementing national unity between Palestinian factions. "We in Hamas look carefully at US Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to re-launch the so-called peace process, which is based upon an American-Zionist agenda which sees settlements devour land and the Judaization of Jerusalem and holy sites," a statement read. "These negotiations will not bring anything new," the group added, warning that talks will only perpetuate national divisions.
Hamas majority means Palestine and Israel cant compromise

Israel Today, 6-28
(Israel Today, 6-28-13, Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel, http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23946/Default.aspx?hp=readmore, accessed 7-13-13, EB) Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh this week reiterated that the Palestinian Arabs as a whole will never recognize Israels right to exist, and certainly not to exist as the Jewish state. Haniyeh: Palestinians will never recognize Israel We had two warsbut Palestinians did not and will not recognize Israel, Bethlehem-based news agency Maan quoted Haniyeh as saying as he welcomed a solidarity visit by international activists. Why should anyone care what Hamas says at this point? Thats certainly the line being taken by Washington and Europe, as they once again press Israel to make peace concessions to Hamas rivals in the Palestinian Authority. But what most have conveniently forgotten is that Haniyeh is prime minister and Hamas legally controls a majority in the Palestinian parliament
because the Palestinian public voted the group into power.
127
AT: Peace Deal No Solve

No chance of peace between Israel and Palestine- the U.S. cant broker constructive talks
Plitnick, Inter Press Service, 4/19/13
[Mitchell Plitnick, Staff writer, April 19th 2013, Inter Press Service, U.S.: KERRY'S MIDEAST TRIP SEEN AS GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS, Lexis, Accessed 7/8/13, CB]
Despite repeated pledges of his determination and enthusiasm for resolving the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian impasse,
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's recent trip to the region has provoked more scepticism than hope among observers in Washington. Speaking in Tel Aviv on Apr. 9, Kerry called his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "very constructive", but left with little to show for his efforts. Kerry trumpeted commitments from Netanyahu to help bolster the economy in the West
Bank, but such efforts appear dimmer in the wake of the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. "Economic growth will help us be able to provide a climate within which people have greater confidence about moving forward," Kerry told a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israel. "But I want to emphasize - I emphasize this very strongly: This is not in lieu of, or an alternative to, the political track. It is not a substitute. The political track remains the primary focus. But this is in addition to, in a way that could help to facilitate that track, and I believe will begin to take hold immediately." But this positive view was not shared by many
long-time observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It stirred echoes of previous failures with incremental, confidence building measures, and, despite Kerry's words to the contrary, raised concerns about the efficacy of economic measures without political progress. Ambassador Philip Wilcox, former U.S. consul general to Jerusalem and current president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, told IPS that economic measures like the ones Kerry devoted much of his time to in the Middle East are not going to lead to renewed negotiations. "Small steps like removing checkpoints or allowing more liberalised trade and transit would be welcome but won't alter Palestinian attitudes very much," Wilcox said. "Not unless there were a parallel halt in settlement building accompanied with Israeli assurances that such was their policy." John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the famous book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", believes both Kerry, who served as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for four years, and President Barack Obama know there is no hope for a negotiated solution with the current Israeli government. "It's hard to
believe that either Kerry or President Obama believes that there is any chance of getting a two-state solution," Mearsheimer told IPS. "They surely know that Netanyahu is bent on creating a Greater Israel and there is hardly anything the United States can do to stop it. "That makes me think that Kerry was simply going
through the motions in his recent trip to the Middle East, so he could get rebuffed and then use that as an excuse to put the Israel-Palestine conflict on the back burner and focus instead on Asia." Obama endured steady criticism for his handling of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict throughout his first term in office. He was frequently attacked by political opponents for being insufficiently supportive of Israel, and now is being criticised for not paying enough attention to it. His first visit to Israel as president was intended to allay these criticisms. Kerry also made trips to the region both before and after Obama's visit. But Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Palestine Center in Washington, remains convinced that Obama does not plan to spend his energy and political capital on this issue. "The Obama administration has essentially given up on Israel-Palestinian peace," he told IPS. "They tried - very gently - in the first term to engage and, like administrations before them, failed to do so in an even-handed way. It's clear that Obama is resigned on this issue. It takes too much political capital domestically and, with other pressing foreign affairs matters around the globe,
Palestine is on the backburner." Wilcox believes that all of this activity is meant more to address the political attacks than to truly reinvigorate the peace
process. In fact, he says, without genuine political progress, even economic improvements may prove elusive. "The [Obama] administration feels vulnerable to the attack that it's surrendered and it has to be seen as active and managing a conflict that is not amenable to a solution right now," Wilcox said. "But even to achieve effective economic measures there is not easy. In the absence of investor confidence of peace in the future, you're not going to get a lot of investment in the Palestinian economy." Munayyer's belief that "Netanyahu is very happy" with the ongoing stalemate was bolstered by senior Israeli officials
who told the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz that, contrary to Kerry's requests, ""Israel opposes placing the issues of borders and security at the preliminary stage of negotiations, and we said this to Kerry. On this issue, there is full consent among all the ministers dealing with the Palestinian subject." Combined with Fayyad's resignation mere days after Kerry's visit and economic talks, statements such as these cast serious doubt on Kerry's positive description of his trip. Even the apparent breakthrough that President Obama ushered in between Israel and Turkey, ending close to three
years of diplomatic freeze between the countries, is drawing scepticism.
Public Opinion in Israel is key to peace in Iran and between Israel and Palestine
Makovsky, Policy Project on the Middle East Peace Process Director, 13
[David, Ziegler Distinguished fellow and director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Project on the Middle East Peace Process, March 25th 2013, The Jerusalem Report, Getting the public on his side, Lexis, Acc essed 7/8/13, CB]
US PRESIDENT Barack Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East has sparked speculation about why he is keen on making such a visit at this time. For one, 2013 is the year in which Obama would like to translate his replenished political capital into hard-won domestic legislative achievements - particularly in the areas of immigration, gun control, income inequality and climate change. Obama's advisors may tell him that he will have the remainder of his second term until 2016 to focus on foreign policy and that if he does not score domestic achievements in 2013 while he enjoys renewed political capital, he will be a weaker foreign policy president in his final years. So their advice might be that in the meantime he should focus on the domestic agenda and leave much of the foreign policy to Secretary of State John Kerry. But there is a Middle East foreign policy issue that cannot wait beyond 2013: Iran and the question of whether there is
128
a diplomatic breakthrough or breakdown. If it is a breakdown, the immediate question would be how this affects Obama's policy of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Will the US attack? Will Israel attack? These weighty questions will
test the Obama relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2013 in a way no other issue has since their rocky relationship began in 2009. In this context,
connecting with the Israeli public during his visit can only help Obama in his dealings with the Netanyahu government during this crucial year. The Obama Administration has noticed that on major decisions, Netanyahu is very mindful of domestic public opinion. Netanyahu saw polls on trading Hamas prisoners for Gilad Shalit and went ahead with it despite his opposition to the move; he also acceded to public opposition to a limited apology to Turkey in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara affair, despite a wide array of Israeli security and other officials calling for an apology to improve ties with Ankara. In short, given the power of public opinion, persuading the Israeli public of his commitment to Israel's security could significantly help Obama in dealing with Netanyahu over the Iranian issue. INDEED, WHILE the Iran issue may be more urgent for Obama, he could also use his visit to convince the Israeli and Palestinian publics not to give up hope in the pursuit of peace and a two-state solution. Top Obama Administration officials are well aware that Israeli and Palestinian polling demonstrates overall support for a two-state solution, but that each side believes the other is not committed and that therefore it will not happen. While there is awareness in Washington that the peace issue did not drive the
Israeli election campaign, the Lapid vote seems to suggest that Israelis do see progress on the Palestinian issue as a ticket for greater economic normalcy and for avoiding growing isolation and delegitimization. Obama is aware that the master of outreach to the public when it comes to the Mideast was President Bill Clinton. He was unique among American leaders in being able to persuade Israelis that he was pro-Israeli and Palestinians that he was pro-Palestinian, and there was no contradiction in his ability to project genuine empathy with both sides. Obama hopes to be able to follow suit. Indeed, it is possible to win public opinion, without overtly using the public to score points against the incumbent leadership - but rather as a constructive force going forward. Israelis tend to want to see American presidents with a multi-tiered identification with Israel, recognizing its historic attachment to the land, its aspirations for peace, its security and economic needs, and the fact that for now the Mideast is not Switzerland and that therefore Israel requires strong ties with the US. At the moment, however, public opinion
among both Israelis and Palestinians is fatigued, skeptical and downright cynical about the intentions of the other side. If these negative trends continue, even the incremental progress Secretary Kerry might attempt during 2013 - with Obama coming in more extensively at a later date - will be that much harder. Indeed, urging both publics not to give up on a two-state solution is
more urgent than a specific policy initiative, especially since the Obama Administration does not yet know what sort of coalition will be configured in Israel, nor who will emerge as the key players on the Israeli side. Therefore, it is unlikely that Obama will come with a detailed diplomatic plan at this
time. Kerry can always bring more substantial ideas in the coming months when hopefully public opinion on both sides will be more receptive.
129
AT: Middle East War

No spillover or great power draw-in ----self preservation outweighs
Cook 7 fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Steven A., and Ray Takeyh (fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations), Suzanne Maloney (senior fellow at Saban Center) Brookings Institution, International Herald Tribune, Why the Iraq war won't engulf the Mideast, 6 -28, www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/opinion/edtakeyh.php
It is abundantly clear that major outside powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey are heavily involved in Iraq. These countries have so much at stake in the future of Iraq that it is natural they would seek to influence political developments in the country. Yet, the
Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq. The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: selfpreservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus
have little capability for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries. In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally, there is
no
precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's fight. Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight. As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have long preferred to press their interests through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite militias, a massive crossborder incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary. So Iraqis will remain locked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders of Iraq. The Middle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts, the region has also developed an intuitive ability to contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire Middle East.
No mideast war- empirically it will not escalate

Ferguson 06 Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History @ Harvard [Niall This might not be a world war, but it still needs a sense of
urgency July 23rd, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3626545/This-might-not-be-a-world-war%2C-but-it-still-needs-a-senseof-urgency.html]
Such language can -- for now, at least -- safely be dismissed as hyperbole. This crisis is not going to trigger another world war. Indeed, I do not expect it to produce even another Middle East war worthy of comparison with those of June 1967 or October 1973. In 1967, Israel
fought four of its Arab neighbors --
Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Such combinations are very hard to imagine today . Nor does it seem likely that Syria and Iran will escalate their involvement in the crisis beyond continuing their support for Hezbollah. Neither is in a position to risk a full-
scale military confrontation with Israel, given the risk that this might precipitate an American military reaction . Crucially, Washington's consistent support for Israel is not matched by any great power support for Israel's neighbors. During the Cold War , by contrast, the risk was that a Middle East war could spill over into a superpower conflict . Henry Kissinger, secretary of State in the twilight of
the Nixon presidency, first heard the news of an Arab-Israeli war at 6:15 a.m. on Oct. 6, 1973. Half an hour later, he was on the phone to the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin. Two weeks later, Kissinger flew to Moscow to meet the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev. The stakes were high indeed. At one point during the 1973 crisis, as Brezhnev vainly tried to resist Kissinger's efforts to squeeze him out of the diplomatic loop, the White House issued DEFCON 3, putting American strategic nuclear forces on high alert. It is hard to imagine anything like that today. In any case, this crisis may soon be over. Most wars Israel
has fought have been short, lasting a matter of days or weeks (six days in 1967, three weeks in 1973). Some Israeli sources say this one could be finished in a matter of days. That, at any rate, is clearly the assumption being made in Washington.
No regional escalationempirically denied
Drum 7 (Kevin, Washington Monthly Writer, The Chaos Hawks,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012029.php, Having admitted, however, that the odds of a military success in Iraq are almost impossibly lo ng, Chaos Hawks nonetheless insist that the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why? Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a
Gonzaga Debate Institute 130 Diplomatic Capital DA bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe. Needless to say, this is nonsense. Israel has fought war after war in the Middle East. Result: no regional conflagration. Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest wars of the second half the 20th century. Result: no regional conflagration. The Soviets fought in Afghanistan and then withdrew. No regional conflagration. The U.S. fought the Gulf War and then left. No regional conflagration. Algeria fought an internal civil war for a decade. No regional conflagration.
A Mideast war would not escalate or go nuclear

Stevens 2 [Elizabeth Stevens, September 19, 2002, http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/najournal/israelinucs.html]
Thus far, Israel has confronted continuous hostility with a strong conventional superiority . It is doubtful that it would resort to a
nuclear weapon given the fact that it could repel the attack of any one of its Arab opponents and probably a combination of them. Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt, and moderating forces in Jordan are strong. The recent peace treaty with the PLO and differences between Iraq and Syria further reduce the possibility of a united Arab attack . It would appear that Israel does
not need a nuclear arsenal.
Middle East war wont escalate

Li 1 [Prof. Li Shaoxian, an expert in the Middle East and a senior researcher in the Institute of Contemporary International Relations, August 17, 2001,
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2001/Aug/17671.htm, accessed March 9, 2007]
Although the situation in the Middle East is alarming, it will not start a war . The main reasons are: First, both the international community and international environment will not allow another Middle East war to break out . Peace and development is still the theme of todays world. No big power wants to see a new war between Arab and Israel in this area so crucial to oil production . Second, war is not in line with the interests of several countries in the Middle East. None of the Israelis (including Sharon himself) wants war, because war would again put the very existence of the country in danger ; Yasser Afrafat, as well, does not want war, because war would turn his 10 years peace efforts into nothing; Egypt and Syria, the other two big powers in Middle East, do not want war either. The
president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak firmly rejected the possibility of war in an interview with Israeli TV. Bashar al-Assad, the new president of Syria, has put most his attention on domestic affairs. Third, the countries and extremists who do want to see war have neither the capablities or means
for war.
Deterrence checks middle east conflict emperics and fear

Waltz 2k [Kenneth, prof, http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_winspr00f.html, dw: Spring 2000, da: 7-8-2011, lido]
We have this peculiar notion about the irrationality of rogue states. When he was Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin said these rogue leaders might be undeterrable. Others contend that some states may undertake courses of action even if they know that catastrophe may result.
But who would do that? Not Saddam Hussein. Not Kim Il Sung when he was ruler of North Korea. What is a key characteristic of all those rulers? They are survivors, as they struggle to live in a harsh environmentboth internally, with the constant danger of assassination, and externally, as theyre surrounded by enemies. And they survive for decades until they are carried out in a box. Are they irrational? Their behavior is ugly and nasty to be sure, but irrational? How could they survive? If they were not deterrable, how would they ever have survived? They dont run the kind of risks that would put their regime into question. Kim Il Sung wanted to pass his reign onto his son, Kim Jong Il. They obviously love to rule, but theyve got to have a country. Theyre not going to risk the existence of their country. For example, Saddam Hussein was deterred during the Persian Gulf War. He did not arm the SCUD missiles with lethal warheads and shoot them at Israel. They were nuisance attacks. Why? Because he didnt want us to pound him more heavily than he was being pounded. The allies, led by the United States, could have substantially destroyed that country without ever using nuclear weapons, and he knew it. Sure he was deterred. So how can we say irrational or undeterrable? But we do say it.
Middle East States dont want war

Shaoxian 1 [Li, prof, http://www.china.org.cn/english/2001/Aug/17671.htm, dw: 8-17-2001, da: 7-9-2011, lido]
Second, war is not in line with the interests of several countries in the Middle East. None of the Israelis (including Sharon himself)
wants war, because war would again put the very existence of the country in danger ; Yasser Afrafat, as well, does not want war, because war would turn his 10 years peace efforts into nothing; Egypt and Syria, the other two big powers in Middle East, do not want war either. The president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak firmly rejected the possibility of war in an interview with Israeli TV. Bashar al-Assad, the new president of Syria, has put most his attention on domestic affairs.
US and other western countries intervention in the middle east check conflict
Zein 9 [Mostafa, http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/61348m dw: 9-30-2009, da: 7-9-2011, lido]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 131 Diplomatic Capital DA The Westerners, especially the United States, realize this very well. They also realize that their interests in the Middle East require from them to spread stability. Besides, large international institutions view the Iranian nuclear program as a primitive one that it is still very far from manufacturing a [nuclear] bomb or weapons. Their reaction was very violent for two additional reasons. First, to confirm, on
the eve of the negotiations, that the West is united in confronting it [Iran], and that Russia which supports it, is willing to abandon it and adopt the comprehensive sanctions if Iran does not succumb to conditions. The second reason is an American one par excellence, and is aimed at covering
the retreat of Obama in front of Benjamin Netanyahu who returned from Washington and New York with a resounding victory over the White House, when he insisted on rejecting the suspension of settlement activities, on the universal recognition of the Jewish aspect of Israel, and on normalizing the relations with the Arabs to start negotiations "without preconditions". In
order to complete the picture and make everyone forget the pledges of Obama's administration regarding the Middle East, emphasis was made on demonizing Iran and its nuclear aspirations. The joint American-Israeli military maneuvers were depicted as a need to reaffirm their alliance in
the face of the imminent Iranian threat. The Western-Iranian negotiations will last a long time. Israel will be the absentpresent factor in all their details. Whenever the situation gets complicated, Israel will threaten to strike Iran. It will manipulate any
Western concession to reinforce its arsenal and consolidate its occupation. We are afraid to believe the argument of the nuclear resurrection and to build our policies accordingly.
No turkey-syria war, Syria wants to prevent military intervention and turkey fears economic harms
The Daily Star 12 (October 18, 2012, Turkey-Syria escalation: Regional war unlikely,
http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=254201, accesses 7/13/13, LLM) Despite escalation at the border, analysts say that neither side wants a regional war. The most important factor for
Assad's regime is to prevent outside military intervention in the war-torn country and not to provide a pretext for Turkey to do so, knowing it would be catastrophic for Syria. Turkey, on the other hand, does not have the political will to intervene militarily in Syria because that would adversely affect its economy. Furthermore, Turkey alone does not wish to embark on military intervention unless Nato and the US are willing to get involved militarily in Syria. Nato has learnt its lesson in Afghanistan and is no mood to intervene in Syria. The Obama
administration does not wish to be caught up in another war in the Middle East. Peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat, and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle were in Istanbul for talks with Turkish leaders on October 13 as tensions soared between Damascus and Ankara. Brahimi, who is envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League, arrived in Istanbul from talks in Saudi Arabia. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle met with his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu and praised Ankara for its measured response to Syrian shells that recently landed across the border on Turkish soil, including one that killed five civilians on October 3. He also reiterated Germany's solidarity with its Nato ally Turkey.
132
AT: Resource Wars

No resource wars empirics prove
Salehyan, professor of political science at the University of North Texas, 2008
(Idean, May 2008, From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 45, no. 3, http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver%20climate %20 change%20and%20conflict.pdf, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
First, the deterministic view has poor predictive power as to where and when conflicts will break out. For every potential
example of an environmental catastrophe or resource shortfall that leads to violence, there are many more counter-examples in which conflict never occurs. But popular accounts typically do not look at the dogs that do not bark. Darfur is frequently cited as a case where desertification led to food scarcity, water scarcity, and famine, in turn leading to civil war and ethnic cleansing.5 Yet, food scarcity and hunger are problems endemic to many countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa but similar problems elsewhere have not led to large-scale violence. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, food shortages and malnutrition affect more than a third of the population in Malawi, Zambia, the Comoros, North Korea, and Tanzania,6 although none of these countries have experienced fullblown civil war and state failure. Hurricanes, coastal flooding, and droughts which
are all likely to intensify as the climate warms are frequent occurrences which rarely lead to violence. The Asian Tsunami of 2004, although caused by an oceanic earthquake, led to severe loss of life and property, flooding, population displacement, and resource scarcity, but it did not trigger new wars in Southeast Asia. Large-scale migration has the potentialto provoke conflict in receiving areas (see Reuveny, 2007; Salehyan & Gleditsch, 2006), yet most migration flows do not lead to conflict, and, in this regard, social integration and citizenship policies are particularly important (Gleditsch, Nords & Salehyan, 2007). In short, resource scarcity, natural disasters, and long-term climatic shifts are ubiquitous, while armed conflict is rare; therefore, environmental conditions, by themselves, cannot predict violent
outbreaks. Second, even if local skirmishes over access to resources arise, these do not always escalate to open warfare and state collapse. While interpersonal violence is more or less common and may intensify under resource pressures, sustained armed conflict on a massive scale is difficult to conduct. Meier, Bond & Bond (2007) show
that, under certain circumstances, environmental conditions have led to cattle raiding among pastoralists in East Africa, but these conflicts rarely escalate to sustained violence. Martin (2005) presents evidence from Ethiopia that, while a large refugee influx and population pressures led to localized conflict over natural resources, effective resource management regimes were able to ameliorate these tensions. Both of these studies emphasize the role of local
dispute-resolution regimes and institutions not just the response of central governments in preventing resource conflicts from spinning out of control. Martins analysis also points to the importance of international
organizations, notably the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in implementing effective policies governing refugee camps. Therefore, local hostilities need not escalate to serious armed conflict and can be managed if there is the political will to do so. Third, states often bear responsibility for environmental degradation and resource shortfalls, either through their own projects and initiatives or through neglect of the environment. Clearly, climate change itself is an exogenous stressor beyond the control of individual governments. However, government policies and neglect can compound the effects of climate change. Nobel Prizewinning economist Amartya Sen finds that, even in the face of acute environmental scarcities, countries with democratic institutions and press freedoms work to prevent famine because such states are accountable to their citizens (Sen, 1999). Others have similarly shown a strong relationship between democracy and protection of the environment (Li & Reuveny, 2006). Faced with global warming, some states will take the necessary steps to conserve water and land, redistribute resources to those who need them most, and develop disaster-warning and -response systems. Others will do little to respond to this threat. While a states level of income and technological capacity are certainly important, democracy or, more precisely, the accountability of political leaders to their publics is likely to be a critical determinant of how states respond to the challenge. Fourth, violent conflict is an inefficient and sub-
optimal reaction to changes in the environment and resource scarcities. As environmental conditions change, several possible responses are available, although many journalists and policymakers have focused on the potential for warfare. Individuals can migrate internally or across borders, or they can invest in technological improvements, develop conservation strategies, and shift to less climate-sensitive livelihoods, among other adaptation mechanisms. Engaging in armed rebellion is quite costly and risky and requires large-scale collective action. Individuals and households are more likely to engage in simpler, personal, or smallscale coping strategies. Thus, organized violence is inefficient at the individual level. But, more importantly, armed violence
against the state is used as a means to gain leverage over governments so as to gain some form of accommodation, namely, the redistribution of economic resources and political power. Organized armed violence rarely (if ever) arises
Gonzaga Debate Institute 133 Diplomatic Capital DA spontaneously but is usually pursued when people perceive their government to be unwilling to listen to peaceful petitions. As mentioned above, rebellion does not distribute resources by itself, and protracted civil wars can have devastating effects on the economy and the natural environment, leaving fewer resources to bargain over. Thus, organized violence is inefficient at the collective level. Responsive, accountable political leaders at all levels of government are more likely to listen to citizen demands for greater access to resources and the means to secure their livelihoods. Political sensitivity to peaceful action can immunize states from armed insurrection.
No resource wars states are rational and strategic

Salehyan, professor of political science at the University of North Texas, 2008
(Idean, May 2008, From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 45, no. 3, http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver%20climate %20 change%20and%20conflict.pdf, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
On a fundamental level, if we acknowledge that actors faced with environmental stress make decisions strategically, then we can see that violence is generally a poor response to resource scarcity, given the alternatives. Barring the defeat, subjugation, or extermination of the other party, armed conflict by itself does nothing to resolve the underlying incompatibility over the distribution of resources. Violence is typically used as a strategy used to influence outcomes during negotiations, whether in a domestic or international setting (Filson & Werner, 2002; Wagner, 2000); eventually, actors must come to the bargaining table. Moreover, there is good reason to think that civil wars are extremely disruptive to the natural environment, leaving fewer resources than there were to begin with. Warfare is, therefore, an inefficient and costly way to resolve conflicts over resources (Fearon, 1995). Failure to find a suitable bargain and forgo fighting stems from failures in the political process, not from the absolute level of resources. Thus, while environmental degradation is certainly not a necessary condition for armed conflict, neither is it a sufficient one, since states play a key role in containing or aggravating violence.
134
AT: Terrorism
Even if terrorists get nukes, they cant transport or detonate them
Ferguson, Scientist-in-Residence at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, and Potter, Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2004 (Charles and William, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism, http://www.nti.org/c_press/analysis_4faces.pdf)
Assuming a terrorist organization could obtain a nuclear weapon and had the ability to overcome any mechanisms built into the device to prevent its unauthorized detonation, it would still face the task of taking the weapon to the group's intended target. For the scenarios of greatest concern to the United States - the use of the weapon against a city in the United States or one of its allies - the distance between the point of acquisition and the target could be quite substantial.41 If the loss of a nuclear weapon were detected, as would be expected unless a state provided one to a terrorist organization, a massive hunt for the weapon would be launched , involving law enforcement and military personnel from many nations, assisted by nuclear specialists. This effort would be accompanied by greatly intensified security over transportation links and points of entry . These factors would present considerable challenges to the terrorist organization, underscoring the need for such a group to have extensive resources and networks of collaborators. Unfortunately, intensive searches for high-value items (e.g., Osama bin Laden) and the record of U.S. efforts to interdict the massive influx of illicit narcotics is not reassuring. It also is possible terrorists might adopt strategies that minimized transportation, such as detonating the weapon at a near-by, less-than- optimal target, or even at the place of acquisition. Nuclear detonation by a non-state group virtually anywhere would terrorize citizens in potential target countries around the globe, who would fear the perpetrators had additional weapons at their disposal. The organization could exploit such fears in order to blackmail governments into political concessionsfor example, demanding the withdrawal of military forces or political support from states the terrorists opposed. Indeed, the group might achieve these results without a nuclear detonation, by providing proof that it had a nuclear weapon in its possession at a location unknown to its adversaries. Detonation If a nuclear weapon were successfully transported to its target site, and any PALs disabled, a degree of technical competence would nonetheless be required to determine how to trigger the device and provide the necessary electrical or mechanical input for detonation. Moreover, detonation could be daunting unless the detonators and the arming and firing sequence mechanisms had been preserved. Here, again, insider assistance would be of considerable help. Thus, even this seemingly straightforward aspect of the chain of causation would pose an obstacle to the terrorists' goals.
CBW not so bad

Coates, Former Adjunct Professor at George Washington University, President of the Kanawha Institute for the Study of the Future, and former President of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 2009
(Joseph F., Risks and threats to civilization, humankind, and the earth, Futures 41) Could diseases in animals be converted in a laboratory into ones transmissible among people? The answer is yes, but it is very unlikely that one could accomplish this easily and if one did have an organism that would transmit from animal to people, and then people to people, it would only be significant if that animal was widely distributed in the target area. So birds would be ideal and rats might be significant. There are few other animals around to transmit to people unless we consider pets and insects. We have pretty good protection against insects and, in a crisis, we would be ready to use somewhat more dangerous materials like DDT to fight a contaminated invasion until we developed other remedies. The serious limitation on self-propagating diseases generated for terrorists purposes is that it could be self-defeating because if it is effectively self-propagating, it will eventually bounce back to the attacking country and, presumably, have similar effects there as it has in the target country. Early detection of disease spread is fairly straightforward in terms of modern epidemiology in most parts of the world. The most dramatic effects, aside from deaths, would be in the preventive measure to reduce the propagation of the disease from spreading by extremely severe reduction in travel for both people and cargoes, domestically and internationally. This may extend for quite a time until a preventive measure or vaccine is developed, tested and proven. Even assuming that an enemy initiated an attack, there would be the problem of where and what would happen as we learned about the attack. Would it become self-limiting? Suppose they managed a release in ten cities. Those ten largest cities, perhaps, represent 10% of the population and we could take internal measures , as suggested above, to contain it in those cities. Pandemics are a credible catastrophic situation slowing and disrupting the economy and society but not threatening nationhood in the advanced nations . A high death-rate pandemic is likely to create a greater setback in Worlds 2 and 3. The Black Death in Europe 13471352 killed an estimated third of the population, 25 million people. The Spanish Flu in 1918 killed 20 50 million people and infected a billion. The latter had no lasting effects comprising a threat to stability.
135
AT: Democracy
Cant solve democracy Haass 5 (Richard, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Former Director of Policy Planning for
the State Department, Washington Post 1-24)
It is also difficult to spread democracy. It is one thing to oust a regime, quite another to put something better in its place.
Prolonged occupation of the sort the United States carried out in Japan and West Germany after World War II is the only surefire way to build democratic institutions and instill democratic culture. But as Iraq demonstrates, the rise of modern nationalism and modern methods of resistance means that such opportunities will be rare, costly and uncertain to succeed, despite an investment of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Prospects for the democratic improvement of a society can prove even worse absent occupation. Tho8se who rejoiced 25 years ago in the overthrow of the shah of Iran should reflect on the fact that unattractive regimes can be replaced by something far worse . We thus need to be measured in what pressures we place on such countries as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Here as elsewhere it is important to observe the Hippocratic oath and first do no harm. Time is a factor in another sense. There is no realistic way that democracy will arrive in either North Korea or Iran before nuclear
weapons do. And even if "freedom" were somehow to come to Tehran, it is almost certain that free Iranians would be as enthusiastic as the mullahs are about possessing nuclear weapons owing to the political popularity of these weapons and their strategic
rationale given Iran's neighborhood.
Democracy doesnt prevent war Goldstein, 11 (Joshua, is professor emeritus of international relations at American University and author of Winning the War on War: The Decline
of Armed Conflict Worldwide, Sept/Oct 2011, Think Again: War. World peace could be closer than you think, Foreign Policy)
"A More Democratic World Will Be a More Peaceful One." Not necessarily. The well-worn observation that real democracies almost never fight each other is historically correct, but it's also true that democracies have always been perfectly willing to fight nondemocracies. In fact,
democracy can heighten conflict by amplifying ethnic and nationalist forces, pushing leaders to appease belligerent sentiment in order to stay in power. Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant both believed that selfish autocrats caused wars, whereas the common people, who bear the costs, would be loath to fight. But try telling that to the leaders of authoritarian China, who are struggling to hold in check, not inflame, a popular undercurrent of nationalism against Japanese and American historical enemies. Public opinion in tentatively democratic Egypt is far more hostile toward Israel than the authoritarian government of Hosni Mubarak ever was (though being hostile and actually going to war are quite different things). Why then do democracies limit their wars to nondemocracies rather than fight each other? Nobody really knows As the University of Chicago's Charles Lipson once quipped about the notion of a democratic peace, "We know it works in practice. Now we have to see if it works in theory!" The best explanation is that of political scientists 9/29/2011 Think Again: War - By Joshua S. Goldst foreignpolicy.com//think_again_war? 6/9Bruce Russett and John Oneal, who argue that three elements -democracy, economic interdependence (especially trade), and the growth of international organizations -- are mutually supportive of each other and of peace within the community of democratic countries. Democratic leaders, then, see themselves as having less to lose in going
to war with autocracies. Democracy doesnt solve war their ev is based on flawed studies Henderson 2 (Errol Henderson, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science at the University of Florida, 2002, Democracy and War The End of
an Illusion?)
The replication and extension of Oneal and Russet (1997), which is one of the most important studies on the DPP, showed that democracies are not significantly less likely to fight each other . The results demonstrate that Oneal and Russet (1997) findings in support of the DPP are not robust and that join democracy does not reduce the probability of international conflict of pairs of states during the postwar era. Simple and straightforward modifications of Oneal and Russetts (1997) research design generate these dramatically contradictory results. Specifically, by teasing out the separate impact of democracy and political distance (or political dissimilarity) and by not coding cases of ongoing disputes as new cases of conflict , it became clear that there is no siginifant relationship between join democracy and the likelihood of international war or militarized interstate dispute (MID) for states during the postwar era. These findings suggest that the post-Cold War strategy of democratic enlargement, which is aimed
at ensuring peace by englaring the community of democratic states, is quite a thin reed on which to rest a states foreign policy- much less the hope for international peace. The results indicate that democracies are more war-prone than non-democracies (whether democracy is coded dichotomously or continuously) and that democracies are more likely to initiate interstate wars. The
findings are obtained from analyses that control for a host of political, economic, and cultural factors that have been implicated in the onset of interstate war, and focus explicitly on state level factors instead of simply inferring state level processes from dyadic level observations as was done in earlier studies (e.g., Oneal and Russett, 1997; Oneal and Ray, 1997). The results imply that democratic enlargement is more likely to increase the probability of war for states since democracies are more likely to become involved inand to initiateinterstate wars.
136
***AT: Syria Scenario***
137
Palestine-Israel Thumper
Palestine-Israel conflict thumps the DA
Hishmeh, Washington based writer, 13 (George Hishmeh 6/27/13 http://jordantimes.com/time-running-outfor-israel-kerry PB)
For days, the biggest puzzle in Washington has been what US Secretary of State John Kerry was carrying in his diplomatic bag on his way to Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan, on Thursday, and whether he would be able to launch top-level negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis. The globe-trotting secretary of state, who has probably travelled more than any of his predecessors in the first four months of running the Department of State, is short of staff several of his aides have yet to be confirmed by the Senate but, more importantly, he likes to keep his papers close to his chest. To date, he held exclusive talks with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Recent unconfirmed press reports revealed that Kerry would be meeting with Abbas and Netanyahu in Amman, alongside King Abdullah, but what is on the agenda remains undisclosed. The latest is that Kerrys deadline for launching any serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis is next September, or else a settlement to the decades long problem is out of consideration. According to The Associated Press, he has issued several as yet undelivered and perhaps undeliverable foreign policy promises, including a historic breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, the American news agency noted that Kerry has certainly promised great things [but] he has yet to deliver. This has also reportedly proved a source of concern for US President Barack Obamas policy
team, as well as, probably, for president himself. Since Obamas visit to Israel in March, the AP underlined, Kerry has gotten almost no public displays of support from the president, with the White House appearing reluctant to stake political capital in an endeavour that so often has proved a disappointment. There is no doubt that the Israeli side has been
troublesome, especially the right-wing team including Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett and Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon. Finance Minister Yair Lapid has been more forthcoming in a recent interview with The Washington Post where he called on Netanyahu to be more proactive on peace with Palestinians and said that the P alestinians must have their own country. But the issue in the projected negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis is the willingness of the latter to negotiate seriously and stick to the earlier agreements, especially the Oslo Accords, which underlined the dividing line between the two states identified in the 1967 armistice agreement. Here Kerrys arm-twisting role becomes most essential since, seemingly, Israel wants endless negotiating sessions. Speaking last Tuesday at the start of his meeting with his Georgian counterpart, Bidzina Ivanishvili, Netanyahu said that renewing Mideast peace talks is not enough; the negotiations must last long enough to bear fruit. Therefore, Kerrys role would be to drop the gauntlet and press Israel to come to a quick agreement and stop the dilly dallying. The Palestinian president is fully aware of the recent controversial steps taken by Arab governments, at the urging of the US, to sweeten the so-called Arab Peace Initiative to accommodate Israels concerns. The American secretary of state ought to realise that time is of the essence since he has to simultaneously focus his attention on the devastating civil war in Syria, where more than 93,000 Syrians perished in the 30-monthlong uprising against the regime of President Bashar Assad. If, as reported, September is Kerrys deadline for reaching a
Palestinian-Israeli settlement, he ought to be aware that a failure to do so will allow the Palestinians to take effective measures at the upcoming UN General Assembly session that month. The Palestinians wield amazing support within the UN
General Assembly, which can admit Palestine to UN membership and several other UN agencies and allow it to complain to the International Criminal Court in the Hague about Israels har sh actions against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank a step that may be devastating for Israel. Time is running out for Israel and for Kerry who may shortly face serious public criticism from within the administration and his former colleagues in Congress, where he had served admirably as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
138
Diplomacy fails
Kerrys already overstretchedleads to failure
Mohammed, analyst for Reuters, 6/2 (Arshad Mohammed 6/2/13 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/ususa-diplomacy-kerry-analysis-idUSBRE95106X20130602)//LA PB)
Reuters - Four months into his term, Secretary of State John Kerry is trying, simultaneously, to end two of the world's most intractable conflicts: the Syrian civil war and the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. The two issues, according to an aide, have consumed the vast majority of Kerry's time and energy - he has already flown more than 100,000 miles to 23 countries, including four trips to Israel - since he took office February 1. What is unclear, however, is whether all the movement will lead to progress, or whether it will go down as the quixotic, if laudable, efforts of an enthusiastic new secretary of state..
Diplomacy fail in Syria, no will to compromise

Hahn 6-25-13 (Gordon M. senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 6/25/13, Has diplomacy failed to
solve the Syrian crisis?, Russia Direct, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/has-diplomacy-failed-solve-syrian-crisis, accessed 7/13/13, LLM) For all practical purposes, the political and diplomatic solutions to the conflict in Syria have been exhausted. Even if by
some miracle the regime of Bashar al-Assad and some moderate elements in the opposition were to come to some agreement, the conflict will persist for years. If an agreement were to leave Assad and the Alawite minority to which he belongs in power of some rump state and leave the rest of the country to the rebels, then the jihadi element led by al-Qaeda allied Jabhat al-Nusra will continue to fight from eastern Syria against both the Shiite Alawite and the Sunni Syrian quasistates. If there is no agreement, then there is the risk of an escalation of the conflict, drawing in the pro-Sunni Western and Arab powers and pro-Shiite Iran and Russia. While it is not certain that either the West or Russia would be involved further, human nature and the growing distance between Washington and Moscow leaves little room for hope. Should Assad somehow survive, he is likely to be more intransigent regarding the West, will seek greater protection including arms purchases from Russia. He might even compromise on ideology, reducing the secular Baathist element of his regime for a more Iranian-style Islamism. Russian President Vladimir Putin is in no mood to compromise, and should Assad remain in power, Putin is likely to indulge him and Tehran considerably more than he has to date. Such a move would put an end to whatever partnerships remain between Russia and the West, including the dead "reset" with the United States. The worst-case scenario is that Russia goes rogue and eschews all international norms except those it finds convenient. Elena Suponina,
director, Central Asia and Middle East Center, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies So far we can still rely on diplomacy to resolve the Syrian impasse, but every day, diplomatic approaches have been falling short of their goals. This is partly due to the fact
that there is no understanding on who will participate in the negotiations on behalf of the opposition. While the Syrian government expresses its readiness to negotiate, responsibility for the delay should be shifted to the Syrian opposition to a certain extent.
Kerry already failing in Squo

Newsmax, Political Analysis on Current Events and Breaking News ,6/22 (Newsmax 6/22/13 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Kerry-BigDiplomacy/2013/06/22/id/511327?s=al&promo_code=13EB4-1 PB)
WASHINGTON In four months as secretary of state, John Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver. In the Middle East, he has raised hopes his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough ending six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict. He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad's government to heel and to work with Russia to end Syria's civil war. He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. He has hinted at possible one-on-one talks between the U.S. and the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help. Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as America's top diplomat, Kerry has issued several as yet undelivered and perhaps undeliverable pledges to allies and rivals alike, proving a source of concern for Obama's policy team. It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering Kerry has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy statements have come. The White House quickly
distanced itself from both Kerry's North Korea remarks and has now, since President Barack Obama's meeting with Russian President Vladimir
Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscow's resistance to Kerry's Syria strategy. All the officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to evaluate Kerry's performance publicly. Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions. Clinton still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the world's thorniest foreign

policy conundrums. Kerry, State address complicated issues. He
139
Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "believes this difficult moment in the world requires a willingness to believes the risk of high-stakes, personal diplomacy are far less than the risk of leaving difficult situations to fester or spiral out of control. That's why he has invigorated our efforts in critical areas such as North Korea, Syria and the Middle East peace process and has personally invested time and effort to move the ball forward."
No challenge may now be bigger than Syria, where a two-year civil war has killed at least 93,000 people. Signaling a shift from the cautious approach of Obama's first term, Kerry announced his first trip abroad would focus on changing Assad's belief that he could prevail militarily and on pushing him into eventually relinquishing power. Since then, however, the fighting has only gotten worse. Thousands more have died as Assad firmed his grip over much of the country and the U.S. hasn't
even delivered all the nonlethal aid Kerry promised Syria's rebels, let alone any of the weapons or ammunition that Obama recently authorized.
Having failed to reshape the war, Kerry changed strategy by going to Moscow to re-launch a peace process for Syria that Clinton engineered in June 2012 but had been all but forgotten in the months since. In Moscow, Kerry boasted that the former Cold War foes just accomplished "great things when the world needs it" by deciding to convene an international conference, perhaps by the end of May, that would include Syria's government and opposition. That conference has been delayed
until at least July, and maybe August, and it might never come off at all given the opposition's refusal to negotiate while it is losing land to Assad and getting so little help from the United States and other Western powers. That failure falls directly on Kerry, who as part of the U.S.-Russian approach was tasked with delivering the opposition to the bargaining table. Russia may have lived up to its
end of the bargain by guaranteeing the Assad government's attendance at any future peace conference. But Putin and the Kremlin also have been undermining peace efforts by sending more weapons to help the Syrian government's counteroffensive. Kerry's one-man diplomacy in Syria is in some ways emblematic of his tenure.
Officials say he opted to revive the U.S.-Russian strategy for a Syrian transitional government during his walk in the backyard of a Moscow guesthouse with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, informing aides only after of his decision. Afterward, he insisted he wasn't simply rewinding the clock by a year because the U.S. and Russia were now going to find ways to put the plan in place. More than two months later, there has been no progress. On Middle East peace, too, Kerry has put his
credibility on the line. Refusing to avoid one of the world's most difficult conflicts, as Obama and Clinton largely did over the second two years of the first administration, Kerry has made four trips to the region to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior government members from both sides. Kerry will visit the region again this coming week to try to push the two sides back into talks, despite little to show so far for his efforts. Kerry insists his quiet diplomacy is making headway, a claim that only he, Netanyahu and Abbas truly can substantiate because most of the discussions are one-on-one. Several senior Israeli and Palestinian officials have suggested otherwise in highly critical comments to local and international media. Few American officials, however, seem to know what is going on because they say Kerry rarely briefs even the most experienced U.S. negotiators in that part of the world on his talks. At times, the process has seemed ad hoc. In Jordan last month, Kerry announced a sketchy $4 billion economic revitalization strategy
for the West Bank that would accompany his peace plan. No details were provided, and U.S. officials even sent reporters to aides of U.N. peace mediator Tony Blair for more information. Blair's staff wouldn't provide information or even confirm that the outline of
an economic plan exists. Officials say Kerry's friend, investor Tim Collins, is handling the portfolio, though it's unclear if any money has been secured. On Mideast peace, Kerry is largely fighting the battle alone. Since Obama's visit to Israel in March, Kerry has gotten almost no public displays of support from the president, with the White House appearing reluctant to stake political capital in an endeavor that so often has proved a disappointment. Some U.S. officials have scoffed
at the notion that Kerry is getting anywhere, though they allow that the White House has given him until roughly September to produce a resumption of
negotiations. Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, praised Kerry's efforts thus far. "None of these are issues that you can solve in a few months," Rhodes said. "The fact that he is taking these on with the energy he has is a great asset to the administration. These are the toughest challenges we have." Kerry's individualist approach to foreign policy is partly a matter of circumstances and partly intentional. With few Senate-confirmed senior officials in place at the State Department, Kerry has been short of aides at the highest level who might act as envoys to drive forward his agenda in his absence. Among others, Clinton had George Mitchell to push Mideast peace and Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kerry lacks any such high-profile figures at his side. Those who've worked closely with Kerry say the approach also reflects the great stock he puts in his personal diplomacy and the belief, perhaps more widely shared in the rarified air of the Senate, that leaning on his close relationships with foreign leaders and dignitaries can deliver more results than delegating authority to capable bureaucrats. That has left Kerry doing much of the work himself, from ordering up policy papers to envisioning new initiatives, while traveling the world or publicly regaling foreign ministers in Washington with stories of their past encounters or meals in exotic capitals. Kerry makes it a point to stress the long-standing friendships he maintains all over the world. And his network of contacts may have played a role in the only tangible concession he has gained so far in the Middle East: a decision by Arab countries to sweeten their comprehensive offer to Israel for peace with the Palestinians. The Arab League's proposal now allows Israel to keep some of the land it conquered in the 1967 Mideast war on condition that Israel agrees to cede territory on its side to a future Palestine. Kerry hasn't been able to announce any commensurate move from Netanyahu, who brushed the Arab terms aside. Some U.S. officials wince at another legacy of Kerry's Senate
years: his penchant for loose or inaccurate talk. On his very first day as secretary, he recounted his childhood bike rides in postwar Berlin past Adolf Hitler's tomb. Hitler had no tomb. On more substantial issues of policy, he has made questionable claims over everything from U.S. drone policy to climate change. At other times officials have questioned his restraint, such as when he lauded America's emerging "special relationship" with communist China. For one of the United States' principal geopolitical foes, Kerry was using a diplomatic term generally reserved for ironclad U.S. allies such as
Britain and Israel. He also seemingly ad-libbed unauthorized offers of a softened military posture to China and engagement to North Korea in a bid to calm tensions, which aides believe his engagement helped achieve. On a trip to Turkey, he irritated advocates of Israel by appearing to compare the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing with the Turks killed in a 2010 Israeli commando operation on a ship trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. Days later, in Brussels, he raised eyebrows by suggesting that one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects became radicalized while on a trip to Russia, something investigators had not concluded. For all his idiosyncratic style, Kerry has not dodged any diplomatic fight. He has even spoken privately of taking on Cyprus' four-decade deadlock between ethnic Greeks in the south and Turkish Cypriots in the north. He sought to re-engage the U.S. with post-Hugo Chavez Venezuela on a trip to Guatemala this month, helping secure the release of an American filmmaker jailed for alleged espionage. Officials say other governments Washington has long seen as rogues from Cuba to Zimbabwe could get a fresh look. With no election around the corner and few worries about his image, Kerry has shown a willingness to think big. Soon, however, he'll have to produce.
140
Squo solves
The status quo solves the State Dpt has already done everything it can in the short term
DOS, 6-12 (Department of state, 6-12-13, Sanctions Eased for Syrian Opposition,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/06/210577.htm, accessed 7/13/13, LLM)
Through the Departments of State, Commerce, and Treasury, the Administration is taking several significant steps to ease U.S. economic sanctions, enable additional relief and reconstruction activities in opposition-controlled areas of Syria, and support the Syrian opposition and the people of Syria. Export Waiver for U.S.-Origin Goods Benefitting the Syrian People Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed a limited waiver of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (SAA), consistent with Section 5(b) of the Act. The waiver authorizes the export and re-export, subject to case-by-case review, of certain U.S.-origin items to liberated areas of Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people. The waiver will authorize the Department of Commerce to process license applications for export and re-exports of commodities, software, and technology, including but not limited to those related to water supply and sanitation; agricultural production and food
processing; power generation; oil and gas production; construction and engineering; transportation; and educational infrastructure.
These items are intended to help address the critical needs of the Syrian people and facilitate reconstruction in liberated areas. Of note, the export of food and medicine does not currently require a license and medical devices are covered under an existing waiver.
141
AT: Syrian Diplomacy Not Sufficient

US Needs international support for diplomacy to work.
Young, Consultant to the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East (NILI), 2013
[Ron, 5/12/13,
The Herald, U.S. should intervene on side of peace in Syria, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130512/OPINION03/705129980#.UZJ7VBy9msI.facebook, 7/13/13, JZ]
U.S. choices related to what to do now about Syria are stark. Sadly, most public debate is still focused on how or how much the Obama administration should step up aid to the rebels. There's been almost no attention to the possibility of a new comprehensive diplomatic initiative to end the war. To have a realistic chance of success, such an international intervention would have to
involve Russia -- and Iran and China -- as well as countries supporting the rebels. Twin goals of the intervention would be to halt the violence and achieve agreement on a political transition involving the rebels and elements of the current regime that would provide assurances for all of Syria's diverse internal communities and for interests of the major outside parties.
The current U.S. diplomatic initiative with Russia is worthy of public support, and should be pursued with creativity and determination.
The United States needs to intervene before diplomacy for solvency

Dorell, Foreign Affairs Reporter for USA Today, 2013
[Oren, 8:45 p.m. 6/13, USA Today, Experts: Syria rebels need weapons before diplomacy , http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/13/syria -rebels-weapons-risk/2421205/, 7/7/13, JZ]
Rebels fighters need anti-tank and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft to prevail in their fight against forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad, she said. They have also asked for a no-fly zone to ground Assad's warplanes. Assad's planes and helicopters have attacked the rebels with near immunity, and "depriving the air force of this total immunity could be a game changer," Ottaway said.
After months of battles, Assad's forces this month took a strategic region near the border of Lebanon that had been held by rebels for more than a year. Fighters from the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah have flooded the country to help Assad, and his forces have retaken parts of the rebel stronghold of Aleppo. Ottaway says the rebels have also been getting help from foreign fighters, but lack the right kind of weaponry to hold off the tanks and fighter jets of Assad's military. Michael Singh, managing director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said military assistance to the rebels
will actually help the diplomatic efforts to end the war by putting more pressure on Assad to seek a compromise or risk defeat. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to organize a peace conference in Geneva. "The United States must make clear that its assistance is conditional upon engaging productively in diplomacy and entertaining reasonable compromise," Singh wrote on his think tank's website.
Washington needs to send the same message to allies, such as Turkey, Qatar, and other regional actors, that are currently helping the rebels independently of Washington and one another, he said. " A more active and decisive U.S. policy will give these allies something to rally behind, and the United States will need to push them to unify their efforts and diplomatic positions ." Western military assistance to the rebels may also convince Russia that military victory is not an alternative to diplomatic bargaining, Singh said. "To do so, the United States must credibly put on the table the option of military intervention both direct (through airstrikes, for example) and indirect, through arming elements of the Syrian opposition whose interests are aligned with those of the United States," he said.
142
AT: Cred Impact

Cred is irrelevant Wohlforth 9Daniel Webster Professor of Government, Dartmouth. BA in IR, MA in IR and MPhil and PhD in pol sci, Yale (William and Stephen Brooks,
Reshaping the World Order, March / April 2009, Foreign Affairs Vol. 88, Iss. 2; pg. 49, 15 pgs) FOR ANALYSTS such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, the key reason for skepticism about the United States' ability to spearhead global institutional change is not a lack of power but a lack of legitimacy. Other states may simply refuse to follow a leader whose legitimacy has been squandered under the Bush administration; in this view, the legitimacy to lead is a fixed resource that can be obtained only under special circumstances. The political scientist G.John Ikenberry argues in After Victory that states have been well positioned to reshape the institutional order only after emerging victorious from some titanic struggle, such as the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, or World War I or II. For the neoconservative Robert Kagan, the legitimacy to lead came naturally to the United States during the Cold War, when it was providing the signal service of balancing the Soviet Union. The implication is that today, in the absence of such salient sources of legitimacy, the wellsprings of support for U.S. leadership have dried up for good. But this view is mistaken. For one thing, it overstates how accepted U.S. leadership was during the Cold War: anyone who recalls the Euromissile crisis of the 1980s, for example, will recognize that mass opposition to U.S. policy (in that case, over stationing intermediaterange nuclear missiles in Europe) is not a recent phenomenon. For another, it understates how dynamic and malleable legitimacy is. Legitimacy is based on the belief that an action, an actor, or a political order is proper, acceptable, or natural. An action - such as the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq - may come to be seen as illegitimate without sparking an irreversible crisis of legitimacy for the actor or the order. When the actor concerned has disproportionately more material resources than other states, the sources of its legitimacy can be refreshed repeatedly. After all, this is hardly the first time Americans have worried about a crisis of legitimacy. Tides of skepticism concerning U.S. leadership arguably rose as high or higher after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and during Ronald Reagan's first term, when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Even George W. Bush, a globally unpopular U.S. president with deeply controversial policies,oversaw a marked improvement in relations with France, Germany, and India in recent years - even before the elections of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy in France. Of course, the ability of the United States to weather such crises of legitimacy in the past hardly guarantees that it can lead the system in the future. But there are reasons for optimism. Some of the apparent damage to U.S. legitimacy might merely be the result of the Bush administration's approach to diplomacy and international institutions. Key underlying conditions remain particularly favorable for sustaining and even enhancing U.S. legitimacy in the years ahead. The United States continues to have a far larger share of the human and material resources for shaping global perceptions than any other state, as well as the unrivaled wherewithal to produce public goods that reinforce the benefits of its global role. No other state has any claim to leadership commensurate with Washington's. And largely because of the power position the United States still occupies, there is no prospect of a counterbalancing coalition emerging anytime soon to challenge it. In the end, the legitimacy of a system's leader hinges on whether the system's members see the leader as acceptable or at least preferable to realistic alternatives. Legitimacy is not necessarily about normative approval: one may dislike the United States but think its leadership is natural under the circumstances or the best that can be expected. Moreover, history provides abundant evidence that past leading states - such as Spain, France, and the United Kingdom - were able to revise the international institutions of their day without the special circumstances Ikenberry and Kagan cite. Spainfashioned both normative and positive laws to legitimize its conquest of indigenous Americans in the early seventeenth century; France instituted modern concepts of state borders to meet its needs as Europe's preeminent land power in the eighteenth century; and the United Kingdom fostered rules on piracy, neutral shipping, and colonialism to suit its interests as a developing maritime empire in the nineteenth century. As Wilhelm Grewe documents in his magisterial The Epochs of International Law, these states accomplished such feats partly through the unsubtle use of power: bribes, coercion, and the allure oflucrative long-term cooperation. Less obvious but often more important, the bargaining hands of the leading states were often strengthened by the general perception that they could pursue their interests in even less palatable ways - notably, through the naked use of force. Invariably, too, leading states have had the power to set the international agenda, indirectly affecting the development of new rules by defining the problems they were developed to address. Given its naval primacy and global trading interests, the United Kingdom was able to propel the slave trade to the forefront of the world's agenda for several decades after it had itself abolished slavery at home, in 1833. The bottom line is that the UnitedStates today has the necessary legitimacy to shepherd reform of the international system.
No impact to credibility---allies wont abandon us and adversaries cant exploit it Walt 11 Stephen M. the Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, December 5, 2011, Does th e U.S. still need to reassure
its allies?, online: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/05/us_credibility_is_not_our_problem
A perennial preoccupation of U.S. diplomacy has been the perceived need to reassure allies of our reliability. Throughout the Cold War, U.S. leaders worried that any loss of credibility might cause dominoes to fall , lead key allies to "bandwagon" with the Soviet Union, or result
in some form of "Finlandization." Such concerns justified fighting so-called "credibility wars" (including Vietnam), where the main concern was not the direct stakes of the contest but rather the need to retain a reputation for resolve and capability. Similar fears also led the United States to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons in Europe, as a supposed counter to Soviet missiles targeted against our NATO allies. The possibility that key allies would abandon us was almost always exaggerated, but U.S. leaders remain overly sensitive to the possibility. So Vice President Joe Biden has been out on the road this past week, telling various U.S. allies that "the United States isn't going anywhere." (He wasn't suggesting we're stuck in a rut, of course, but saying that the imminent withdrawal from Iraq doesn't mean a retreat to isolationism or anything like that.) There's nothing really wrong with offering up this sort of comforting rhetoric, but I've never really understood why U.S. leaders were so worried about the credibility of our commitments to others. For starters, given our remarkably secure geopolitical position, whether U.S. pledges are credible is first and foremost a problem for those who are dependent on U.S. help . We should therefore take our allies' occasional hints about realignment or neutrality with some skepticism; they have every incentive to try to make us
worry about it, but in most cases little incentive to actually do it.
143
AT: Chemical Warfare

No extinction
Easterbrook 3 (Gregg, Senior Fellow New Republic, Were All Gonna Die!, Wired Magazine, July,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=) 2. Chemical weapons! Spooky-sounding, sure. And dangerous. But bombs and bullets are dangerous, too. In actual use, chemical weapons have proven no more deadly, pound for pound, than conventional explosives. In World War I, the British and German armies expended 1 ton of chemical agents per enemy fatality. Are modern nerve agents like sarin superdeadly in a way World War I mustard gas was not? When the Aum Shinrikyo cult attacked Tokyo's subway system with that substance in 1995 - the subway being an enclosed area, ideal for chemicals 12 people died. That was 12 too many, but a conventional bomb the same size as the cult's canisters, detonated on a packed subway, would have killed more. During this winter's duct tape scare, I heard a Washington, DC, radio talk-show host sternly lecture listeners to flee if "a huge cloud of poison gas" were slowly floating across the city. Noxious clouds of death may float across movie screens, but no military in the real world can create them. Wind rapidly disperses nerve agents, and sunlight breaks them down. Outdoors, a severe chemical attack likely would be confined to a few city blocks.
The impact is small
Eland 4 (Ivan, Senior Fellow Independent Institute, Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Overrated as a Threat to America, Independent
Institute Report, 1-28, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1256) Chemical weapons have a much smaller area of contamination than do biological and nuclear arms and historically have been less deadly than even conventional bombs. Chemical weapons are best employed by the defending side if the attacking side uses
them, friendly troops would likely have to advance through the gas. Although chemical weapons are probably the easiest of the three to produce, al Qaedas efforts to date have been very crude. Some infrastructure is needed to produce chemical weapons so detection of production may be possible.
Wont cause huge casualities
Betts 98 (Richard K., Director of National Security Studies Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, January / February, Lexis)
Chemical weapons have been noticed more in the past decade, especially since they were used by Iraq against Iranian troops in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and against Kurdish civilians in 1988. Chemicals are far more widely available than nuclear weapons because the technology required to produce them is far simpler, and large numbers of countries have undertaken chemical weapons programs. But chemical weapons are not really in the same class as other weapons of mass destruction, in the sense of ability [able] to inflict a huge number of civilian casualties in a single strike. For the tens of thousands of fatalities as in, say , the biggest strategic bombing raids of World War II, it would be very difficult logistically and operationally to deliver chemical weapons in necessary quantities over large areas.
144
AT: Israel Impact

No CBW lashout Rubin 11 (Sept.6/2011 ([Israel's Strategic Situation: Plenty to Worry About but Little to Fear,2011 Barry Rubin is di rector of the Global Research in International
Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia]
Might Syria fire some chemical weapons at Israel as a last ditch to save itself? --There is no indication of that happening and the Iraqis--who had much more motive to do it--didn't follow that path in 2003. Israel would have plenty of warning time and could take countermeasures. Not a realistic scenario. Syria wont lashout against Israel Rubin 11 (Sept.6/2011 ([Israel's Strategic Situation: Plenty to Worry About but Little to Fear,2011 Barry Rubin is director of the Gl obal Research in International
Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia] What will Israel do should Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria all start firing missiles into Israel at same time ? Syria
won't. If Damascus attacked Israel it would be the end of the regime. Rather than mobilize mass support, as in the past, Syria's regime would have its armed forces heavily damaged and fall within a week or two, with very poor prospects for the life spans of its elite. As for Hizballah-Hamas cooperation, that's less likely than ever. Those two groups are now on different sides of the Sunni-Shia divide and didn't even work together in 2008-2009 when they were much closer to each other. Reportedly, Hamas asked for help and Hizballah refused, unwilling to risk its own interests to help its "brothers" in the Gaza Strip.
145
AT: Middle East War

Middle East conflict wont escalate
Maloney 7 (Suzanne, Senior Fellow Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Steve Cook, Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, and Ray Takeyh, Fellow
Council for Foreign Relations, Why the Iraq War Wont Engulf the Mideast, International Herald Tribune, 6 -28, http://www.brookings.edu/views/oped/maloney20070629.htm) Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq. The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, [and] could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries. In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally, there is no precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's fight.
Empirically denied
Yglesisas 7 (Matthew, Associate Editor Atlantic Monthly, Containing Iraq, The Atlantic, 9-12,
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/containing_iraq.php) Kevin Drum tries to throw some water on the "Middle East in Flames" theory holding that American withdrawal from Iraq will lead not only to a short-term intensification of fighting in Iraq, but also to some kind of broader regional conflagration. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, as usual sensible but several clicks to my right, also make this point briefly in Democracy: "Talk that Iraqs troubles will trigger a regional war is overblown; none of the half-dozen civil wars the Middle East has witnessed over the past half-century led to a regional conflagration." Also worth mentioning in this context is the basic point that the Iranian and Syrian militaries just aren't able to conduct meaningful offensive military operations. The Saudi, Kuwait, and Jordanian militaries are even worse. The IDF has plenty of Arabs to fight closer to home . What you're looking at, realistically, is that our allies in Kurdistan might provide safe harbor to PKK guerillas, thus prompting our allies in Turkey to mount some cross-border military strikes against the PKK or possibly retaliatory ones against other Kurdish targets. This is a real problem, but it's obviously not a problem that's mitigated by having the US Army try to act as the Baghdad Police Department or sending US Marines to wander around the desert hunting a possibly mythical terrorist organization.
No escalation their evidence doesnt take into account new developments KELLEY 2 (Jack, national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo Pittsburgh Post Gazette, April 7)
During the Cold War, there was reason to suppose an Arab-Israeli war could spark a third world war. In those days, Israel
was a client of the United States. The radical Arab states were clients of the Soviet Union. If the proxies got into a tiff, the conflict could spread to the principals. The closest we came to this was during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Egyptians, in a surprise attack, dealt a severe blow to Israeli defense forces. Only an airlift of M-60 tanks from U.S. bases in Germany kept Israel from being overrun. Once its initial battle losses had been replaced, Israel quickly regained the initiative, routing Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israeli troops were poised to take Cairo and Damascus. The Soviets were willing to permit the United States to restore the status quo ante. But they threatened to intervene to prevent a decisive Israeli victory. So we prevailed upon the Israelis to stop short of humiliating their enemies. The Yom Kippur War was a near thing for the world. Only three times in history have U.S. forces gone to DEFCON 1, the highest war footing. The Yom Kippur War was one of those times. Now the Cold War is over. Russia is a shadow of what we thought
the Soviet Union was, and is more or less an ally in the war on terror. Radical Arabs have lost their sponsor. And Egypt has, after a fashion, switched sides. There is no longer good reason to suppose a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians would spread. Another consequence of the Yom Kippur war was the Arab oil embargo. But the oil "weapon" has lost much of its bang. We are more dependent upon foreign oil now than we were then, but less dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, since new sources elsewhere have been developed. And Arab governments have become so dependent upon oil revenues that the loss of them would harm Arabs more than the loss of their oil would harm us.

LeDucMin - Diplomatic Capital DA - GDI 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LeDucMin - Diplomatic Capital DA - GDI 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

***Dip Cap DA***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Plan forces a trade-off

Failure of diplomacy sends a signal of weakness crushes US credibility

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

US credibility solves extinction

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC UQ Syria Focus Now

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC Syria 1st

Kerry has put his credibility on the line

Syria is at the top of Kerrys to-do list

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Kerry has invested all his efforts to Syria now

Kerry is currently dominated by the Syrian issue.

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Syria is the core issue Kerry is currently invested in

Undaunted, Mr. Kerry

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC AT: Asia

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC AT: North Korea

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC AT: Middle East Peace Process

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC AT: Sanctions Killed DOS

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC Internals Diplomacy solves conflict/arming the rebels

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0611/Best-way-for-Obama-to-help-Syria-is-with-aid-and-diplomacy-notweapons/(page)/2//, accessed 7/12/13, LLM)

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC Internals ME Coaltion

That solves the conflictinternational actors are driving Sunni/Shiite war

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

2NC Internals US Key

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Only diplomatic resources and US involvement can solve Syria

***-2NC ILAT: No Solution***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

US credibility is key to check proliferation and extinction level impacts

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Middle East War Causes Extinction

Gonzaga Debate Institute Diplomatic Capital DA

Dip Cap DA

-2NC ILAT: No Solution