Arctic Counterplan

Arctic Counterplan
1NC
CP text: The United States Federal Government should expand
its programs for Arctic Ocean exploration and scientific
research.
Russia cant be relied on for scientific data the US should
map the sea unilaterally
Cohen, et. Al, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 2008
(Ariel, Ph.D. and Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and
International Energy Security, Lajos Szaszdi, Ph.D. and researcher at the
Hertiage Foundation, and Jim Dolbow, defense analyst as the U.S. Naval
Institute, The New Cold War: Reviving the U.S. Presence in the Arctic,
online pdf available for download:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/executive-summary-thenew-cold-war-reviving-the-us-presence-in-the-arctic)
While paying lip service to international law, Russias ambitious
actions hearken back to 19th- century statecraft rather than the
21st-century law- based policy and appear to indicate that the
Kremlin believes that credible displays of power will settle
conflicting territorial claims. By comparison, the Wests posture
toward the Arctic has been irresolute and inadequate. This needs to
change.Reestablishing the U.S. Arctic Presence. The United States
should not rely on the findings of other nations that are mapping
the Arctic floor. Timely mapping results are necessary to defending
and asserting U.S. rights in bilateral and multilateral fora. The U.S.
needs to increase its efforts to map the floor of the Arctic Ocean to
determine the extent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
ascertain the extent of legitimate U.S. claims to territory beyond its
200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. To accomplish this, the U.S.
needs to upgrade its icebreaker fleet. The U.S. should also continue to
cooperate and advance its interests with other Arctic nations through venues
such as the recent Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland.
"Cooperation" with Russia won't produce quality clean-up

efforts - they pocket concessions and won't meaningfully
engage the US
Kramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova:
Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013
(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova:
currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap, online:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-againfalling-for-the-russian-trap/)
Nearing the end of his second term, George W. Bush sought to salvage
Russian-American relations with a visit to Sochi in April 2008, but then a
few months later, Russias invasion of Georgia brought the bilateral
relationship to its lowest point in twenty years. President Obama
came to office intent on repairing the relationship and working
together with Moscow on a range of global issues. At the start of his
second term, however, despite four years of the reset policy, Obama,
too, faces a very strained relationship with Russia. True, the United
States has made its mistakes. But the current state of RussianAmerican relations stems mostly from the Kremlins creation of
imitation democracy and its attempts to exploit the West and antiAmericanism for political survival . The Kremlins imitation game
has complicated American and Western policies toward Russia and
forced the West to pretend, just as the Russian elite does. The Lets
Pretend game allowed both sides to ignore core differences and to
find tactical compromises on a host of issues ranging from the war
on terror to nuclear safety. This concerted imitation has also had
strategic consequences, however. It has facilitated the survival of
Russias personalized-power system and discredited liberal ideals in the
eyes of Russian society. It has also created a powerful pro-Russia Western
lobby that is facilitating the export of Russias corruption to developed
countries. Despite numerous U.S. attempts to avoid irritating the Kremlin,
relations between Moscow and Washington always seem to end up
either in mutual suspicion or in full-blown crisis . That is what
happened under the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations,
and that is what happened after Barack Obamas first term in office.
Each period of disappointment and rupture in relations, which has
always been preceded by a period of optimism, has been followed
by another campaign by both Moscow and Washington to revive
relations. Who is behind these campaigns? For a quarter of a century, it has
been the same consolidated cohort of experts in both capitals, most of whom
have serious and established reputations and vast stores of experience.
(There are a few new additions to the cohort, but they walk in lockstep with
the old hands.) After every new crisis, these experts implore politicians on
both sides to think big. Each time, big thinking on the Western side
includes encouragement to avoid issues that would antagonize the Kremlin.
Thus U.S. administrations looked the other way as the Kremlin created a
corrupt, authoritarian regime.
2NC Science Co-op Bad Ext

Reliance on other nations hamstrings US policy and
compromises scientific efforts
Conley, et. Al, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012
(Heather, Senior Fellow and Director of the Europe Program, Terry Toland,
Jamie Kraut, and Andreas Osthagen, A New Security Architecture for the
Arctic: An American Perspective, online:
http://csis.org/files/publication/120117_Conley_ArcticSecurity_Web.pdf)
Unfortunately, strong capabilities as an Arctic science power do not
make up for the deficiency in the rest of U.S. coastal and security
capabilities. As stated in the Coast Guards own report to Congress in 2008,
Although the NSF is a global leader in scientific research, the Coast Guard
believes that the NSF would lack the staff and expertise to direct the multimission deployment of icebreakers employed for other USCG missions. 55 In
addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is unable to
collect and provide all the information on weather forecasting,
oceanography, and navigational charting requested by the Coast Guard, the
industries, and the local communities.56 In fact, the NSF has repeatedly
made use of Canadian, Russian, and Swedish icebreakers to
transport U.S. scientists in the U.S. Arctic, where U.S. capabilities
were nonexistent.57 This kind of arrangement has proven both
risky and inefficient. In July 2011, Sweden decided to recall its
icebreaker Oden, leased to the NSF every winter since 200607, due to
worsening ice conditions in the Baltic Sea. This recall left the United
States without the technical ability to reach and resupply McMurdo
station in Antarctica.58 Further examples illustrate U.S. dependence
on other nations as a result of its own lack of capabilities. In
December 2011, officials from Nome, Alaska, requested a Russian
fuel tanker to de- liver an emergency shipment when the city was
blocked by sea ice. Originally, the Healy was unavailable to assist with this
operation as it was returning from a previously scheduled scientific
mission.59 However, the Healy is now scheduled to break an ice channel for
the tanker once the Russian vesselis cleared to enter the Alaskan port and
will facilitate the tankers return to open water.60 As U.S. capabilities are
stretched between critical missions and its ongoing yet equally
critical scientific work, the need to address these shortfalls in
capabilities is urgent, as Alaskan Lieutenant Governor Mead
Treadwell stated in his December 2011 congressional testimony:
Without action, America is putting its national security on the line,
and we are going to miss the opportunities of the Arctic while

watching other nations advance.61
2NC Russia Co-op Bad Ext

Strategic cooperation is a trap - advocates only promote co-op
because Russia seems threating
Like the movie Groundhog Day, this is happening all over again. We are
falling for the same Kremlin trap. The demise of the reset policy has
begotten another campaign to forge yet another new era in RussianAmerican relations, this time under the banner of strategic
cooperation . Those advocating this approach present nothing new
but simply repeat the same old warnings against ignoring Russia
and downgrading relations. Proponents of this approach address only
Washington and Western policymakers; for some reason, they never seem to
prod Putin and his circle, even though Putins actions and behavior have
made the development of relations and cooperation increasingly
difficult. None of these strategists maintains that Russia deserves
to be treated differently because it could become an engine of social
and economic progress; rather, they believe Russia cannot be ignored
because it could act as a spoiler, causing massive problems for the
West.
Russias political structure makes cooperation impossible

As for the popular ideas of joint pivot to the Asia-Pacific and Arctic
cooperation, these are more of a passing fad. Russia has already
turned to the Pacific by hosting the APEC summit in Vladivostok,

which ended up costing $22 billion. The summit demonstrated Russias
ability to construct Potemkin villages (a performance it will repeat for next
Februarys Winter Olympics in Sochi, whose cost has already reached $50
billion). This turn to the Pacific benefited those who pocketed the money that
was appropriated for running the summit, while the consequences of the turn
to Asia remain unclear. What can Russia offer to the region aside from raw
materials and weapons exports? Is Russia ready to become a raw materials
appendage to Asia? This is what the turn to Asia might bring them. Does that
make the turn strategic? And is it strategic for the state, or for society?
Provided Russias corrupt state is preserved, the Arctic is another
opportunity for the Kremlin elite to funnel money out of the country
or, plainly speaking, steal it . How can the West help Russia
develop its Siberia and Pacific provinces when the countrys elite
cares only about providing for corrupt interests? Russia has to
transform itself first , and this is Russian societys main goal. Only then
can we talk to the U nited S tates and Europe about assistance in
developing Siberia and the Far East.
Russia should not be involved in U.S. shipping route

development not a good economic partner
In terms of trade, the U.S. is not a serious partner for Russia , given
the paltry level of trade between the two countries. The issue of trade
matters only to a select group of Russian and American companies that
either have decided to penetrate the American market (like Severstal and
Lukoil) or are ready to work under the Kremlins patronage (like Exxon). In
this case, calls for expanding trade between the two countries serve
the interests of select companies and the Kremlin . Until rule of law
takes rootand that wont happen under Putininvestment in
Russia will always be more difficult than it should be.
2NC Oil Spills- Unilateral Solvency

US already researching the Arctic unilaterally- key to create
response systems
Nunez, National Geographic, 4/23/14
(Christina, As sea ice melts and the oil industry prepares to exploit the
Arctic's vast resources, the United States faces big gaps in its preparedness
for an oil spill in the region, according to a report released Wednesday by the
National Research Council (NRC).)
We need to spill some oil (on purpose). Much of the existing
research on oil properties and spill response has been done for
temperate regions, the report notes. More research is needed to
understand how oil behaves in an Arctic environmentand
unfortunately, the best way to find out is to spill some in a controlled way.
Research facilities such as the Ohmsett test center in New Jersey
have simulated spills in icy conditions . But permits to deliberately
release oil into U.S. waters for research have become harder to
obtain in the United States in the past 15 years. The NRC advocates a
streamlined permit process. (Related: "As Arctic Melts, a Race to Test Oil
Spill Cleanup Technology.") 2. We need to know more about the
Arctic . The technology available for monitoring and mapping the Arctic
has improved markedly over the last decade, but there are significant holes.
"A decade ago, I think there was hope we might have filled some of
these data gaps," says Mark Myers of the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, who contributed to the report. "Fundamental, high-resolution data
that we need sometimes just isn't there." Existing nautical charts for the
Arctic shoreline are "mostly obsolete," the NRC says, with many of them last
updated in the 1950s. Less than 10 percent of the coastline, some 2,200
miles (3,540 kilometers), has adequate data on seafloor topography, Myers
says. That increases the chance a vessel could run aground and spill oil,
according to the report, and it could hamper a cleanup too. So could ice and
stormy seas, of course. The report points to a need for better real-time
data and forecasts of sea ice coverage and thickness. Though energy
companies target late summer and early fall for exploration activity, "ice-free
regions can transition to ice-covered conditions in a matter of days at the
start of a fall freeze-up," the report says. Sea ice does offer one advantage,
though, according to the report: It could help contain spilled oil in a way that
would make it easier to set fire to and burn off.
An international agreement is already in place to clean up

spills if they were to happen plans not necessary
Boyd, Barents Observer, Master of Journalism from Carleton University,
5/15/13
(Alex, graduate of the Master of Journalism program at Carleton University in
Ottawa, Canada, Bachelor of Anthropology degree from the University of
Alberta, co-recipient of the Norwegian High North Journalism Award
sponsored by the Norwegian Embassy in Canada, Binding oil spill
agreement signed, online:
http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2013/05/binding-oil-spill-agreementsigned-15-05)
The Arctic Council is an international forum for discussion and
debate on important Arctic issues. Where its sometimes less successful
is in reaching agreement. But it now has one more binding agreement
to its name. The Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution
Preparedness and Response in the Arcticthe Councils second
ever binding agreementwas signed by all eight Arctic ministers
this morning. In the event of an oil spill anywhere in the ecologically
sensitive Arctic region, this new agreement is the tool the
circumpolar countries are hoping will help them work together to
clean it up. It sets out guidelines for things like communicating
between countries, coordinating personnel and figuring out who
needs to do what. Although the product of a Arctic Council task force, the
agreement was negotiated by and agreed to by all eight countries. It also
means that the Arctic countries are required to notify each other
should there be an oil spillfrom any sourceanywhere in the
Arctic. In a presentation after the Arctic Council ministerial meeting,
Ambassador David Balton, an American marine conservation expert and the
co-chair of the task force, said the prospect of a potential oil spill event in
the Arctic is very much on peoples minds. Theres no question that a
changing Arctic means melting polar ice and a lot more open ocean. Which
means, we are anticipatingdespite what some protesters may saythat
there will be increased oil and gas development, Balton said. More oil and
gas development means more tankers in Arctic waters, which means the
possibility of an oil spill in the Arctic has moved beyond the hypothetical.
Although this is not the first agreement to attempt to sort out what
happens when oil spills in international waters, Balton said its the
first pan-Arctic agreement that combines duties and obligations
for all the Arctic countries.
Empirics prove the US can do it alone - US has enabled

exemplary spill response plans
EPA, Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, Last Updated 1/2/14
Online: http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/learning/response.htm
Despite the nation's best efforts to prevent spills, almost 14,000 oil spills
are reported each year, mobilizing thousands of specially trained
emergency response personnel and challenging the best-laid
contingency plans. Although many spills are contained and cleaned up by
the party responsible for the spill, some spills require assistance from
local and state agencies, and occasionally, the federal government.
Under the National Contingency Plan, EPA is the lead federal response
agency for oil spills occurring in inland waters, and the U.S. Coast Guard is
the lead response agency for spills in coastal waters and deepwater
ports. Whether or not it manages the response, EPA tracks all reports of oil
spills. EPA usually learns about a spill from the responsible party, who is
required by law to report the spill to the federal government, or from state
and local responders. Once the federal government receives the
report, either through the National Response Center, EPA, or
another agency, it is recorded in the Emergency Response
Notification System, or ERNS. ERNS contains historical spill information for
the entire country dating from 1986, and is currently available for
downloading.
Arctic spill response development should be unilateral

regional and state collaboration in the US solves for Arctic
response
National Academies, 4/23/14
(Oil Spill Clean Up in U.S. Arctic Waters Requires Increased Infrastructure to
Use Full Range of Response Methods, Online:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?
RecordID=18625)
The Arctic poses several challenges to oil spill response, including
extreme weather and environmental settings, limited operations and
communications infrastructure, a vast geographic area, and vulnerable
species, ecosystems, and cultures. The report finds that there is a need to
validate current and emerging oil spill response technologies under
these real-world conditions, and recommends that carefully
controlled field experiments that release oil in the U.S. Arctic be
conducted as part of a long-term, collaborative Arctic oil spill research
and development program that spans local, state, and federal
levels. A decision process such as the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis,
which weighs and compares the advantages and disadvantages of different
response options, should be used to select the response tools that offer the
greatest overall reduction of adverse environmental harm, the report says.
Key response options include biodegradation, chemical dispersants and
herders, in situ burning, and mechanical containment and recovery. While in

situ burning is pre-approved for use in the Arctic under defined conditions,
Alaska has not granted pre-approval for use of chemical dispersants.
Research areas that would improve science-based decisions about the use of
response technologies include determining the biodegradation rates of
hydrocarbons in offshore environments and which strategies can accelerate
oil degradation; evaluating the toxicity and long-term effects of dispersants
and dispersed oil on key Arctic marine species; and communicating the
limitations of mechanical recovery in both open water and ice. Due to
the range of conditions typically encountered within the Arctic, no
single technique will apply in all situations, and in some cases a
viable response option might be no response. A combination of
countermeasures, rather than a single response option, may provide
optimal protection, and so the response toolbox requires flexibility
to evaluate and apply multiple options if necessary, the report says.
Building U.S. capability for Arctic oil spill response will also
require additional infrastructure. The report finds that current personnel,
equipment, transportation, communication, navigation, and safety resources
for overseeing a spill response in the Arctic are not adequate, and calls this
absence of infrastructure a significant liability in the event of a large oil
spill. It suggests that positioning response equipment such as aerial in situ
burn and dispersant capabilities in the region in advance of a spill would
provide immediate access to rapid response options. Furthermore, the U.S.
Coast Guards presence and performance capacity in the Arctic
should be enhanced.
U.S. Coast Guard is key need to fix their infrastructure

Nunez, National Geographic, 4/23/14
(Christina, As sea ice melts and the oil industry prepares to exploit the
Arctic's vast resources, the United States faces big gaps in its preparedness
for an oil spill in the region, according to a report released Wednesday by the
National Research Council (NRC).)
We need more U.S. Coast Guard presence . "The U.S. Coast Guard has
a low level of presence in the Arctic, especially during the winter," the NRC
warns. Its closest station to the Arctic , in Kodiak, is more than 900 air
miles (1,448 kilometers) south of Alaska's North Slope, limiting its ability to
respond to a spill quickly. "A 'presence' is bodies, but it is also vessels
or platforms, and aerial capability for airlift in the event of an oil
spill response," says Martha Grabowski, who chaired the NRC report
committee. "The transportation infrastructure that the rest of us
would presuppose to be existing as it is in the lower 48 simply doesn't
exist up north." But "the Coast Guard can't do this alone," Grabowski
says; it doesn't have the budget. The NRC report stresses the need for
public-private partnerships and community engagement to address the
challenges of dealing with an Arctic spill.
2NC Shipping- Unilateral Solvency

Russia should not be involved in U.S. shipping route
development not a good economic partner
In terms of trade, the U.S. is not a serious partner for Russia , given
the paltry level of trade between the two countries. The issue of trade
matters only to a select group of Russian and American companies that
either have decided to penetrate the American market (like Severstal and
Lukoil) or are ready to work under the Kremlins patronage (like Exxon). In
this case, calls for expanding trade between the two countries serve
the interests of select companies and the Kremlin . Until rule of law
takes rootand that wont happen under Putininvestment in
Russia will always be more difficult than it should be.
US Navy already developing Arctic shipping strategies

Morello, senior writer for Climate Central, 2/25/14
Lauren, US Navys Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes, online:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/us-navys-arctic-strategy-forecasts-icefree-shipping-routes.html
By 2030, the Arctics Northern Sea Route could be ice free and
navigable for at least nine weeks each year, with a 10-week shoulder
season, according to projections released today in the US Navys
Arctic strategy. The Northwest Passage could be open for five weeks, with
a six-week shoulder season; and the Bering Strait could be ice free for a
whopping 27 weeks a year, with up to 10 weeks of shoulder season. New
shipping lanes are just one potential consequence of the ongoing loss of the
Arctics blanket of snow and ice, which has accelerated in recent years. The
Navy also projects that the regions waterways will see rising
activity from fishing, tourism and oil and gas exploration. But in its
updated Arctic strategy, the service dismisses any suggestion that newfound
access to Arctic resources will create a new Wild West.
United States should pursue shipping lanes unilaterally key

to prevent conflict
Holmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12
(James, The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century. Online:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas)
If climate scientists' prophesies of an ice-free Arctic Ocean pan out,
the world will witness the most sweeping transformation of
geopolitics since the Panama Canal opened . Seafaring nations and
industries will react assertively -- as they did when merchantmen and
ships of war sailing from Atlantic seaports no longer had to
circumnavigate South America to reach the Pacific Ocean. There are
commercial, constabulary, and military components to this enterprise.
The United States must position itself at the forefront of polar sea
power along all three axes. Understandably enough, most commentary
on a navigable Arctic accentuates economic opportunities, such as extracting
natural resources and shortening sea voyages. Countries fronting on polar
waters -- the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Russia, and Sweden comprise the intergovernmental Arctic Council -- will
enjoy exclusive rights to fish and tap undersea resources in hundreds of
thousands of square miles of water off their shores. Nations holding
waterfront property in the Arctic will bolster their coast guards to
police their territorial seas and exclusive economic zones during icefree intervals.
Shipping- Internal Link Defense

Networking hub requirements restrict the Arctic shipping route
from ever being economically beneficial
Carmel, U.S. Naval Institute, 13
(Stephen, Proceedings Magazine, The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic
Shipping, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)
Containerships operate in networks with strings (routes) of many
ports serviced by multiple ships on a steady schedule. For example, a
U.S. East Coast to Southwest Asia route of 42 days round trip
serviced by six ships means regular weekly service out of the ports
on that route. Routes frequently intersect at key transshipment
ports such as Singapore or Algeciras, Spain . Network economics are a
considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture in a
container service . Transit across the Arctic, while shorter for certain
port pairs, may not be shorter for a network that services a number
of ports on both sides or call at a major transshipment hub. A
requirement to call at Singapore for example, means the Northern Sea
Route would not be shorter. Were the service to be restricted to just
those ports where the distance is shorter, then all the economic
advantages of network economics are lost. At the very most, the
Arctic is serviceable just three to four months a year, and no one is
predicting an ice-diminished Arctic in the winter. Developing routes
that would increase the attractiveness of Arctic paths from a network
perspective is not economically feasible as long as they are useful
only a third of the year or less.
Arctic Shipping cannot support large economies like the US or

Russia
Perhaps the biggest issue making Arctic shipping unacceptable from
a container-shipping perspective is economies of scale. While
conventional wisdom would focus on total voyage cost, it is actually the
cost per container that matters. Because both the Northern Sea
Route and the Northwest Passage are draft-constrained (41-foot and
33-foot controlling drafts, respectively) the largest ship likely to be able
to use the Northern Sea route would be one with a cargo capacity of
just 2,500 TEUand even smaller for the Northwest passage. TEU, or
twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity

based on a standard 20-foot container length. A 40-foot container would be 2
TEU, for example. The Northern Sea Route also has a beam restriction
of 30 meters, as transiting ships cannot be wider than the
icebreakers employed to support them. For the Asia-to-Europe trade
on the other hand, containerships can be as large as 15,000 TEU
with a beam exceeding 164 feet; 6,000 to 8,000 TEU ships are common
Even if the route is shorter, Arctic shipping is still much more

expensive and time consuming than the Suez or Panama
routes
In predicting increased traffic through the Arctic it is often noted that
routes across the top are up to 40 percent shorter than the more
traditional routes between Asia and Europe ( via the Suez Canal ) or the
East Coast of the United States (via the Panama Canal). 4 The
assumption is that shorter equals faster and cheaper. But in the
Arctic, the shortest distance is normally neither faster nor cheaper
for the type of transit shipping usually associated with global
commerce, particularly that involving containerships. Container
shipping is considerably different from bulk shipping, making the
economics of the Arctic as a transit route unappealing. There are
many things, such as construction standards, outfitting, and crew
training for example, that make Arctic-capable ships more
expensive to build and operate. In addition, those more expensive
construction features are useful only during the short ice season
but represent a cost the ship carries throughout the year. Other
issues also make the Arctic a much more expensive place to
operate, such as the need for icebreakers, lack of support
infrastructure, and pending IMO requirements on fuel. 5 But to keep
the discussion at a manageable level it is important to focus on a few key
issues.
Arctic shipping will never replace the Suez, not a question of

actor
Morello, senior writer for Climate Central, 2/25/14
Lauren, US Navys Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes, online:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/us-navys-arctic-strategy-forecasts-icefree-shipping-routes.html
Arctic sea lanes such as the Northern Sea Route and Northwest
Passage are not going to replace the Suez or Panama canals any
time soon as primary shipping routes, says Rear Admiral Bill McQuilkin,
director of the US Navys strategy and policy division. Even in ice-free
waters, ships may be hampered by drifting ice or incomplete
nautical charts, creating an unacceptable level of risk for many
industries.
Arctic Circle wont be accessible for commercial or military use

Admittedly , an accessible Arctic Ocean probably won't rearrange the
physical and mental map of the world to the same degree as the
Suez or Panama canals . Even Admiral Titley's forecast indicates that
northern waters will remain off-limits to shipping around eleven
months of the year, as the icecap expands and contracts.
Consequently, there will be a rhythm to polar seafaring not found in
temperate seas. And that seasonal rhythm could be erratic. The
icepack's advance and retreat will presumably vary from year to year
with temperature fluctuations. Navigable routes will prove
unpredictable -- limiting the scope of commercial and military
endeavors.
Military Solvency
1NC
Unilateral development of Arctic Shipping is key to military
development and sea power
Or there's the Caribbean and Gulf. Before 1914, when the Panama Canal
opened its locks, America looked eastward to Europe. After 1914,
transoceanic passage abridged steaming distances between the
U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts by 5,000 miles or more. And, in effect,
the waterway teleported Atlantic seaports closer to Asia. Writing in
1944, Yale University scholar Nicholas Spykman observed that New York
suddenly found itself closer to Shanghai than the British seaport of Liverpool
was. Less circuitous, less time-consuming voyages to the Far East
bestowed commercial and military advantages on the United States
vis--vis its European competitors -- allowing the United States to
reinforce its standing as a Pacific power. Constructing a
transoceanic canal, wrote Spykman, "had the effect of turning the
whole of the United States around on its axis." The republic now faced
south toward the Caribbean and west toward Pacific waters -- dividing its
gaze between Europe and the Far East. Talk about a pivot to Asia! U.S.
leaders who felt the tug of the sea -- notably Theodore Roosevelt, Henry
Cabot Lodge, and Alfred Thayer Mahan -- glimpsed this strategic
revolution before it took place. Before the Spanish-American War, for
instance, Mahan was already warning that European imperial powers
would seek naval bases in the Caribbean Sea -- bases from which
they could control the sea lanes leading to the Isthmus . Official
Washington should undertake that kind of strategic forethought
today -- lest the United States find itself playing material,
intellectual, and doctrinal catch-up when Arctic sea routes open.
2NC Ext Unilateral Good

Unilateral control of the Arctic Circle is a pre req to any
military solvency
Sea power is about strategic mobility. A maritime nation with
unfettered access to littoral waters enjoys the liberty to maneuver
around the periphery -- radiating power into Eurasia without heavy
ground forces. Yet Mackinder fretted that land power would win out
over British sea power, tapping the strategic mobility offered by
railways and steam propulsion. He famously designated the
Eurasian "Heartland" -- a vast central plain ringed by mountains, and
bounded by the Arctic to the north -- the key to world dominance. Indeed,
his main analytical tool was a map centered on the "pivot area"
encompassing and adjoining Siberia. Mackinder postulated that
whoever controlled the Heartland occupied the "interior lines" vis-vis a global sea power like Great Britain whose forces had to maneuver
along "exterior lines" in the marginal and inland seas. Operating along
interior lines is like operating along the radii within a circle; operating along
exterior lines is like operating around the circle's circumference. Shorter
distances mean swifter response times when trouble looms.
Advantage: land power.
Soft Power Offense
1NC/2NC
Oil cooperation designed to appease Russia creates a global
power vacuum - hurts US leadership
Diaz, Houston Chronicle, 5/28/14
FuelFix, Ted Cruz calls for close look at Exxon Mobil deal in Russian Arctic,
online: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/28/ted-cruz-calls-for-close-look-atexxon-mobil-deal-in-russian-arctic/
Cruz said Obamas decision was made to appease Putin, a
reference to the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also advocated future
antiballistic missile battery sites in Ukraine. We ought to be using all of
the tools, economic tools, diplomatic tools, all of the tools of soft
power, to impose significant costs on Russia, to impose significant
deterrence, Cruz said. Because as long as Putin perceives weakness
in the American president, he will continue to advance and impose
his will on others, and that undermines the security of the world,
and it undermines U.S. national security as well. Cruzs call for
further sanctions to punish Russian aggression in Ukraine came at the end of
a day touring Kievs Maidan Square, the scene of the protests that led to the
overthrow of the nations pro-Russian government. He also met with
Ukrainian president-elect Petro Poroshenko, following a two-day visit to
Israel, where he toured the Knesset and met with Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Cruz, on his third trip to Israel since his election in 2012, also
was critical of the Obama administrations Middle East policies. He faulted
the administration for having hectored and criticized Israel while failing to
hold Palestinian leaders responsible for not recognizing the right of the
Jewish state to exist. If you look to the last five years, the most
consistent pattern weve seen on foreign policy with the Obama
administration has been American receding from leadership in the
world, he said. In the vacuum that has been created, we have seen
nations like Russia, Iran and China stepping in and filling that
vacuum, and its made the world a much, much more dangerous
place.
Collapse of heg causes global nuclear war US leadership

prevents conflicts from escalating
Kagan, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11
(Robert, The Price of Power, The Weekly Standard, 1-24,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html?
nopager=1)
Today the international situation is also one of high risk. The

terrorists who would like to kill Americans on U.S. soil constantly search
for safe havens from which to plan and carry out their attacks. American
military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere make
it harder for them to strike and are a large part of the reason why
for almost a decade there has been no repetition of September 11.
To the degree that we limit our ability to deny them safe haven, we increase
the chances they will succeed. American forces deployed in East Asia
and the Western Pacific have for decades prevented the outbreak of
major war, provided stability, and kept open international trading
routes, making possible an unprecedented era of growth and
prosperity for Asians and Americans alike. Now the United States faces a
new challenge and potential threat from a rising China which seeks
eventually to push the U.S. militarys area of operations back to Hawaii and
exercise hegemony over the worlds most rapidly growing economies.
Meanwhile, a nuclear-armed North Korea threatens war with South
Korea and fires ballistic missiles over Japan that will someday be capable of
reaching the west coast of the United States. Democratic nations in the
region, worried that the United States may be losing influence, turn
to Washington for reassurance that the U.S. security guarantee remains
firm. If the United States cannot provide that assurance because it is
cutting back its military capabilities, they will have to choose between
accepting Chinese dominance and striking out on their own, possibly by
building nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, Iran seeks to build its
own nuclear arsenal, supports armed radical Islamic groups in Lebanon
and Palestine, and has linked up with anti-American dictatorships in the
Western Hemisphere. The prospects of new instability in the region
grow every day as a decrepit regime in Egypt clings to power, crushes
all moderate opposition, and drives the Muslim Brotherhood into the streets.
A nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be ever on the brink of collapse
into anarchy and radicalism. Turkey, once an ally, now seems bent on
an increasingly anti-American Islamist course. The prospect of war
between Hezbollah and Israel grows, and with it the possibility of war
between Israel and Syria and possibly Iran. There, too, nations in the region
increasingly look to Washington for reassurance, and if they decide the
United States cannot be relied upon they will have to decide whether to
succumb to Iranian influence or build their own nuclear weapons to resist it.
In the 1990s, after the Soviet Union had collapsed and the biggest problem
in the world seemed to be ethnic conflict in the Balkans, it was at least
plausible to talk about cutting back on American military capabilities. In the
present, increasingly dangerous international environment, in which
terrorism and great power rivalry vie as the greatest threat to
American security and interests, cutting military capacities is simply
reckless. Would we increase the risk of strategic failure in an already risky
world, despite the near irrelevance of the defense budget to American fiscal
health, just so we could tell American voters that their military had suffered
its fair share of the pain? The nature of the risk becomes plain when one
considers the nature of the cuts that would have to be made to have even a
marginal effect on the U.S. fiscal crisis. Many are under the illusion, for
instance, that if the United States simply withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan
and didnt intervene anywhere else for a while, this would have a significant
impact on future deficits. But, in fact, projections of future massive deficits
already assume the winding down of these interventions. Withdrawal from
the two wars would scarcely make a dent in the fiscal crisis. Nor can
meaningful reductions be achieved by cutting back on waste at the Pentagon
which Secretary of Defense Gates has already begun to do and which has
also been factored into deficit projections. If the United States withdrew from
Iran and Afghanistan tomorrow, cut all the waste Gates can find, and even
eliminated a few weapons programsall this together would still not produce
a 10 percent decrease in overall defense spending. In fact, the only way to
get significant savings from the defense budgetand by significant, we are
still talking about a tiny fraction of the cuts needed to bring down future
deficitsis to cut force structure: fewer troops on the ground; fewer
airplanes in the skies; fewer ships in the water; fewer soldiers, pilots, and
sailors to feed and clothe and provide benefits for. To cut the size of the
force, however, requires reducing or eliminating the missions those forces
have been performing. Of course, there are any number of think tank experts
who insist U.S. forces can be cut by a quarter or third or even by half and still
perform those missions. But this is snake oil. Over the past two decades, the
force has already been cut by a third. Yet no administration has reduced the
missions that the larger force structures of the past were designed to meet.
To fulfill existing security commitments, to remain the worlds power
balancer of choice, as Leslie Gelb puts it, to act as the only regional
balancer against China in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe, and Iran in the
Middle East requires at least the current force structure, and almost
certainly more than current force levels. Those who recommend doing the
same with less are only proposing a policy of insufficiency, where the United
States makes commitments it cannot meet except at high risk of failure. The
only way to find substantial savings in the defense budget, therefore, is to
change American strategy fundamentally. The Simpson-Bowles commission
suggests as much, by calling for a reexamination of Americas 21st century
role, although it doesnt begin to define what that new role might be.
Others have. For decades realist analysts have called for a strategy of
offshore balancing. Instead of the United States providing security in East
Asia and the Persian Gulf, it would withdraw its forces from Japan, South
Korea, and the Middle East and let the nations in those regions
balance one another. If the balance broke down and war erupted,
the United States would then intervene militarily until balance was
restored. In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, for instance, Christopher
Layne has long proposed passing the mantle of regional stabilizer to a
consortium of Russia, China, Iran, and India. In East Asia offshore
balancing would mean letting China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and
others manage their own problems, without U.S. involvementagain, until

the balance broke down and war erupted, at which point the United States
would provide assistance to restore the balance and then, if necessary,
intervene with its own forces to restore peace and stability. Before
examining whether this would be a wise strategy, it is important to
understand that this really is the only genuine alternative to the one the
United States has pursued for the past 65 years. To their credit, Layne and
others who support the concept of offshore balancing have eschewed
halfway measures and airy assurances that we can do more with less, which
are likely recipes for disaster. They recognize that either the United
States is actively involved in providing security and stability in regions
beyond the Western Hemisphere, which means maintaining a robust
presence in those regions, or it is not. Layne and others are frank in calling
for an end to the global security strategy developed in the aftermath of
World War II, perpetuated through the Cold War, and continued by four
successive post-Cold War administrations. At the same time, it is not
surprising that none of those administrations embraced offshore balancing as
a strategy. The idea of relying on Russia, China, and Iran to jointly stabilize
the Middle East and Persian Gulf will not strike many as an attractive
proposition. Nor is U.S. withdrawal from East Asia and the Pacific likely to
have a stabilizing effect on that region. The prospects of a war on the
Korean Peninsula would increase. Japan and other nations in the region
would face the choice of succumbing to Chinese hegemony or taking
unilateral steps for self-defense, which in Japans case would mean
the rapid creation of a formidable nuclear arsenal. Layne and other
offshore balancing enthusiasts, like John Mearsheimer, point to two notable
occasions when the United States allegedly practiced this strategy. One was
the Iran-Iraq war, where the United States supported Iraq for years against
Iran in the hope that the two would balance and weaken each other. The
other was American policy in the 1920s and 1930s, when the United States
allowed the great European powers to balance one another, occasionally
providing economic aid, or military aid, as in the Lend-Lease program of
assistance to Great Britain once war broke out. Whether this was really
American strategy in that era is open for debatemost would argue the
United States in this era was trying to stay out of war not as part of a
considered strategic judgment but as an end in itself. Even if the United
States had been pursuing offshore balancing in the first decades of the 20th
century, however, would we really call that strategy a success? The United
States wound up intervening with millions of troops, first in Europe, and then
in Asia and Europe simultaneously, in the two most dreadful wars in human
history. It was with the memory of those two wars in mind, and in the belief
that American strategy in those interwar years had been mistaken, that
American statesmen during and after World War II determined on the new
global strategy that the United States has pursued ever since. Under Franklin
Roosevelt, and then under the leadership of Harry Truman and Dean
Acheson, American leaders determined that the safest course was to build
situations of strength (Achesons phrase) in strategic locations around the

world, to build a preponderance of power, and to create an international
system with American power at its center. They left substantial numbers of
troops in East Asia and in Europe and built a globe-girdling system of naval
and air bases to enable the rapid projection of force to strategically
important parts of the world. They did not do this on a lark or out of a
yearning for global dominion. They simply rejected the offshore balancing
strategy, and they did so because they believed it had led to great,
destructive wars in the past and would likely do so again. They believed their
new global strategy was more likely to deter major war and therefore be less
destructive and less expensive in the long run. Subsequent administrations,
from both parties and with often differing perspectives on the proper course
in many areas of foreign policy, have all agreed on this core strategic
approach. From the beginning this strategy was assailed as too ambitious
and too expensive. At the dawn of the Cold War, Walter Lippmann railed
against Trumans containment strategy as suffering from an unsustainable
gap between ends and means that would bankrupt the United States and
exhaust its power. Decades later, in the waning years of the Cold War, Paul
Kennedy warned of imperial overstretch, arguing that American decline
was inevitable if the trends in national indebtedness, low productivity
increases, [etc.] were allowed to continue at the same time as massive
American commitments of men, money and materials are made in different
parts of the globe. Today, we are once again being told that this global
strategy needs to give way to a more restrained and modest approach, even
though the indebtedness crisis that we face in coming years is not caused by
the present, largely successful global strategy. Of course it is precisely the
success of that strategy that is taken for granted. The enormous benefits
that this strategy has provided, including the financial benefits, somehow
never appear on the ledger. They should. We might begin by asking
about the global security order that the United States has sustained
since World War IIthe prevention of major war, the support of an
open trading system, and promotion of the liberal principles of free
markets and free government. How much is that order worth? What
would be the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of
order? Whatever the nature of the current economic difficulties, the past six
decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity than any time in
human history. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.
Once-backward nations have become economic dynamos. And the
American economy, though suffering ups and downs throughout this
period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this international
order. One price of this success has been maintaining a sufficient
military capacity to provide the essential security underpinnings of
this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th
century, the United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the
second half, this global American strategy helped produce a peaceful end to
the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20 more years of great-
power peace. Looked at coldly, simply in terms of dollars and cents, the
benefits of that strategy far outweigh the costs. The danger, as always, is
that we dont even realize the benefits our strategic choices have provided.
Many assume that the world has simply become more peaceful, that
great-power conflict has become impossible, that nations have learned
that military force has little utility, that economic power is what counts. This
belief in progress and the perfectibility of humankind and the institutions of
international order is always alluring to Americans and Europeans and
other children of the Enlightenment. It was the prevalent belief in the
decade before World War I, in the first years after World War II, and in
those heady days after the Cold War when people spoke of the end of
history. It is always tempting to believe that the international order
the United States built and sustained with its power can exist in the
absence of that power, or at least with much less of it. This is the hidden
assumption of those who call for a change in American strategy: that the
United States can stop playing its role and yet all the benefits that came
from that role will keep pouring in. This is a great if recurring illusion,
the idea that you can pull a leg out from under a table and the table
will not fall over.
2NC: Soft Power Link Extension

Russia says one thing and does another use cooperation as a
guise to accelerate military buildup
Huebert, Fellow of the Canadian Defense & Foreign Affairs Institute, 2010
(Rob, Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, The Newly
Emerging Arctic Security Environment, online: http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The
%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf)
It should be clear that the Russians have been according a growing
importance to the Arctic region. They continually issue statements
affirming their commitment to peaceful cooperation in the Arctic,
which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders
and in their primary documents. These same leaders are also very
quick to condemn the actions of the other Arctic states as being
aggressive and a threat to international peace and security in the region
whenever they engage in any form of military related activity. It is clear,
however, that the Russians have embarked on a much more
assertive use of military force in the region by taking various
action the missile test launches near the pole, the sudden and
substantial resumption of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages of
their surface units into the disputed zones which exceeds that of any
of the other Arctic states. Furthermore, the Russians proposed
rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any other Arctic state.
Thus, the Russians have excelled at portraying themselves as
cooperative while taking increasingly assertive action. The
question remains as to why? Are they merely reasserting themselves as a
global power, or, does this new action point to an increasingly assertive
Russia? This is not known.
Oil Co-op destroys any leverage we have in Russia

Diaz, Houston Chronicle, 5/28/14
FuelFix, Ted Cruz calls for close look at Exxon Mobil deal in Russian Arctic,
online: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/28/ted-cruz-calls-for-close-look-atexxon-mobil-deal-in-russian-arctic/
WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, traveling in Israel and Eastern Europe to
meet foreign leaders, said Wednesday that the U.S. should review a
planned Exxon Mobil Corp. oil exploration project with the Russian
state-controlled company Rosneft as the West looks for ways to
apply more pressure over the Ukraine crisis. Thats a question that
was raised a number of times today in the Ukraine, Cruz told U.S. reporters
in a conference call from Poland. Its a question we need to look very closely
at. I am of the view that we need to increase the sanctions on Russia . .
. for Russias act of war against Ukraine. The Texas Republicans
remarks underscored the political difficulties surrounding calls in the U.S. and
Europe for sanctions against Russia that could have economic consequences
back home. The Texas-based oil conglomerate plans to start drilling in
Russias arctic Kara Sea region this summer as part of a global
partnership with Rosneft, even though the Russian companys chief
executive officer, Igor Sechin, has been a target of U.S. sanctions.
Cruz, widely considered to be laying the groundwork for a 2016 White House
run, talked about an array of additional actions he believes the U.S. should
take, including providing basic military equipment to the Ukrainian army. He
stopped short of specifically endorsing a pullout from the $600 million
Kara Sea project, saying only that it had come up in his conversations
with Ukrainian leaders. He twice repeated that its a question we should
look very closely at.
***Aff Answers
Oil Spills: Russia Co-op Key

Russia and the US need to cooperate to effectively clean up
Arctic oil spills
Fonseca, maritime analyst and author, 6/16
(Joseph, U.S. Must Answer Russia's Challenge In the Arctic,
http://www.marinelink.com/news/challenge-russias-answer371176.aspx)
Speaking just after Russia's Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, kicked
off the program on foreign policy issues between the two nations, Treadwell
talked about the need for cooperation with Russia despite disputes
over Crimea and Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, which have brought U.S.Russia relations to their lowest point in decades. My challenge to
Russians is this: where we are neighbors, help bring our relations back to
normal. Help us eliminate salmon by-catch in the North Pacific Ocean . Help
us work together to prevent oil spills from all these ships coming
through, and help us protect food security in the Arctic. Alaskans depend
on this ocean for food and for jobs. "My challenge to Americans is
this: dont let Russia go it alone in the Arctic. A quarter of the
worlds oil and gas and one of the world's most important fisheries
are located in the Arctic. Lets exercise leadership now, by
developing our own energy and building ports and icebreakers, and
not let just one country control shipping. In todays tough
international climate, we cant forget were neighbors, Treadwell
said. " The Arctic situation demands cooperation and friendly
competition. If we don't exercise stronger Arctic leadership, we will
be sorry later."
Arctic resource development would take the U.S. 20 years Russia is already commercially producing CP cant solve fast
enough
Wilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington,
D.C., 1/29/14
(OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS
DEVELOPMENT, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic
%20Report_F2.pdf)
These finds have shown that hydrocarbon development can
successfully take place in the delicate Arctic ecosystem. New
technologies can help ensure more extensive and safer resource
development in one of the worlds most extreme climates. Sakhalin
and Hibernia in offshore Russian and Canadian Arctic waters
respectively are two of the largest resource development projects in

the Arctic region2; each took roughly 20 years to achieve
commercial production. Given the lengthy timeline to move from
exploration to production, large-scale Arctic resource development
has to begin now to guarantee that these resources will be able to
provide the global energy supply needed to meet demand by midcentury.
Coordination key to research and develop arctic spill response

plans
Snow, OGJ Washington Editor, 14
(Nick, Full set of tools needed for US Arctic spill response, NRC finds,
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/full-set-of-tools-needed-for-us-arcticspill-response-nrc-finds.html)
The report also recommended that the USCG and Alaskas Department of
Environmental Conservation develop a spill training program for local entities
so villages would have trained response teams. Local officials and trained
village response teams should be included in the coordinated decisionmaking and command process during a response event, it said.
Input from community experts should be actively solicited for inclusion in
response planning and considered in conjunction with data derived from
other sources. Relevant federal, state, and municipal organizations,
local experts, industry, and academia should hold regularly
scheduled oil spill exercises to test and evaluate the flexible and
scalable organizational structures which will be necessary for highly
reliable Arctic oil spill response, the report added. Internationally, it
said the USCG should expand its bilateral agreement with Russia to
include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct regularly scheduled
exercises to establish joint responses under Arctic conditions. The
USCG also should build on existing bilateral agreements with Russia
and Canada to develop and exercise a joint contingency plan, it
recommended. In the response and strategies realm, the report said that
spill response effectiveness could be improved by adopting decision
processes such as Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, by developing
inclusive organizational response practices in advance of an event, and by
enhancing resource availability for training, infrastructure, and monitoring.
Co-op key to international coordination efforts and clean up

Croh, Co-Editor of ClimateProgress, 12
(Kiley, Energy Policy team at American Progress as the Associate Director for
Ocean Communications, Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: Americas

Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/02/03/11104/putt
ing-a-freeze-on-arctic-ocean-drilling/)
Due to the need for specially designed equipment, long supply lines,
and limited transportation, a recent analysis from the nonpartisan U.S.
Energy Information Administration found that studies on the economics of
onshore oil and natural gas projects in Arctic Alaska estimate costs to
develop reserves in the region can be 50 to 100 percent more than similar
projects undertaken in Texas. Despite these hurdles, some in the
United States are eager to keep pace with other Arctic nations by
tapping into the great opportunity for economic gain they believe
lies beneath the pristine Arctic waters. Drilling for oil in this fragile
region, however, should not be pursued without adequate
safeguards in place. If weve learned anything from the Deepwater
Horizon tragedy, its that the importance of preparedness cannot
be overstated . That is why we strongly recommend specific actions be
taken by the federal government, by Congress, and by Shell and other
companies before beginning exploratory drilling in the Arctic. For Shell:
Develop a credible worst-case scenariohave a well-designed and vetted
emergency plan in place that includes proof of the ability to respond to a
worst-case blowout/oil spill Demonstrate that a blowout can be contained,
including the required installation of redundant emergency shut-off systems
Ensure adequate response capabilities are in place before drilling operations
commence For the federal government: Require and oversee oil spill
response drills in the Arctic that prove the assertions made in
company drilling plans prior to plan approval Improve weather and
ocean prediction and monitoring capabilities to ensure a safe and
effective oil spill response Engage other Arctic nations in
developing an international oil spill response agreement that
includes an Arctic Ocean drilling management plan
Collaborative in the region is necessary

The report said a real-time Arctic ocean-ice-meteorological forecasting
system is needed to account for variations in sea ice coverage and thickness.
The system should include patterns of ice movement, ice type, sea state,
ocean stratification and circulation, storm surge, and improved resolution in
areas of potential risk, it said. Such a system requires robust, sustainable,
and effective acquisition of relevant observational data. High-resolution

satellite and airborne imagery needs to be coupled with up-to-date, highresolution digital elevation models and updated regularly to capture the
dynamic, rapidly changing US Arctic coastline, it added. To be effective,
Arctic mapping priorities should continue to be developed in
consultation with stakeholders and industry and should be
implemented systematically rather than through surveys of
opportunity, the report recommended. It also called for
establishment of a comprehensive, collaborative, and long-term
Arctic research program to understand spill behavior in a marine
environment, including the relationship between oil and sea ice
formation, transportation, and fate. It should include assessment
of oil spill response technologies and logistics, improvements to
forecasting models and associated data needs, and controlled field
releases under realistic conditions for research purposes, the report
said. Industry, academic, government, non-governmental, grassroots, and
international efforts should be integrated into the program, with a focus on
peer review and transparency. An interagency permit approval process to
enable researchers to plan and execute deliberate releases in US waters also
is needed, it added. Response counter-measures and removal tools including
biodegradation and dispersants; in-situ burning; mechanical containment
and recovery; and detection, monitoring, and modeling also need to be
studied.
Shipping Russia Co-op Key

We need to work with Russia their monitoring assistance is
key to shipping
National Geographic 4/23/14
(We need to work with the Russians. Published April 23, 2014, online: URL
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140423-nationalresearch-council-on-oil-spills-in-arctic/)
Last year, the Northern Sea Route between Asia and Europe saw
many firsts: the first transit for a container ship, the first voyages for
Chinese and South Korean vesselsand the first tanker accident. Russia
has promoted use of the route, where its state-operated icebreaker
fleet offers mandatory escort in exchange for a fee. Among the
ships traveling the Northern Sea Route last year, the NRC says, were
oil tankers carrying more than 800,000 barrels of oil. The expansion
of the Northern Sea Route has in turn led to increased traffic
through U.S. waters in the Bering Strait. This points to the need for
better traffic managementthe U.S. doesn't have a system for
monitoring ships in the Arctic. But "the international demarcation
line [between Russian and U.S. waters] runs right down the middle
of the Bering Strait, so we can't make a unilateral determination
with respect to what to do for vessel traffic monitoring," Grabowski
says. The United States should also conduct joint oil spill response
exercises with Russia, the report says.
US Tech Insufficient
U.S. doesnt have the infrastructure or arctic oil research
necessary to drill
RT News 5/3/14
(Oil industry, US government woefully unprepared for spill in Arctic study,
May 03, 2014 03:28,
Online: http://rt.com/news/156528-arctic-oil-spill-cleanup/)
Yet the National Research Councils new study funded by US federal
agencies and the leading trade group for the oil industry, the American
Petroleum Institute found that energy companies currently lack Arctic
oil spill response plans, as it is their responsibility to address such
an event. That said, public entities often take the lead in spill response
actions, yet the US government does not have infrastructure
capabilities in place despite its rush to establish dominance in the
region. The lack of infrastructure and oil spill response equipment
in the U.S. Arctic is a significant liability in the event of a large oil
spill, the report states. Building U.S. capabilities to support oil spill
response will require significant investment in physical
infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and
personnel to transportation systems and traffic monitoring. The
significant investment on infrastructure could come from public-private
partnerships, the report suggests, though the politics of offering industry
further subsidies may be problematic. Adequate research into what
awaits industry in the extreme cold of Arctic waters is also lacking,
the report said. There is little understanding of how the low
temperatures would affect both spilled oil and commonly-used
techniques to reverse the effects of a spill, such as the spread of
chemical dispersants. The report goes as far as suggesting that the only
way to know is to conduct a controlled oil spill.
Russia already uses ice-resistant tankers, and the U.S. isnt

competitive in the icebreakers industry CP cant unilaterally
create shipping routes
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
As TAPS continues to run at a very low rate, the transportation of oil by
tanker is likely to become an increasingly attractive alternative to
piping, especially for more remote offshore fields. Transport along the
800 mile-long TAPS pipeline has an average tariff of $4.50 per barrel,
whereas a barrel tankered from Valdez to the U.S. West Coast would incur
tariffs of only about half this rate, despite the shipping distance being more
than double the length of the TAPS pipeline. The Jones Act10 has reduced
U.S. competitiveness in the development and deployment of
icebreakers, as well as in Arctic grade support vessels and tankers,
since compliant vessels and their crews are more costly. Reduced ice
in the Arctic and the lower costs of transport by tanker may make iceresistant tankers the preferred means for transporting Arctic oil instead of
constructing new pipelines . Tankers are already used frequently in the
Barents Sea in Norway and Russia , and Russia has begun testing
shipment options along the Northern Sea Route to Southeast Asia
using tankers assisted by icebreakers. In North America, this option is
also employed to ship oil from fields in offshore Newfoundland.
US doesnt have the tech to respond unilaterally

Lineback, GITN author and analyst, 10/12/13
(Neal, Geography in News: Oil Spills,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/12/geography-in-thenews-oil-spills/)
The United States has sustained 47 documented oil spills, the
largest number of any country in the world. The high incidence

of spills is linked to the countrys high oil consumption. The
U.S. uses nearly one-quarter of the worlds oil. This high rate
of consumption requires the handling and transfer of huge
amounts of oil daily, making the chances of spills more
probable. Louisiana has sustained 14 significant oil spills, the
largest of any state, followed by California (8), Pennsylvania
(4), Texas (3) and Alaska (3). These are states with large
transfers of petroleum between pipelines and ships. Drilling
and transporting technologies have made major advances in the
past 40 years, but improvements in spillage and cleanup
technologies apparently have not. The Deepwater disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico was a wake-up call for both the petroleum industry and
government agencies that oversee the industry. Lessons learned from
this oil spill are yielding more safeguards and new technologies for the
future. The environmental, human and monetary costs of the spill
remain high and long lasting to the Gulf Coast.
U.S. Coast guard stations are not equipped for cleanups

Croh, Co-Editor of ClimateProgress, 12
(Kiley, Energy Policy team at American Progress as the Associate Director for
Ocean Communications, Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: Americas
Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/02/03/11104/putt
ing-a-freeze-on-arctic-ocean-drilling/)
Though the refrain never again was echoed time and again in the
wake of the BP oil catastrophe, we are now facing a new oil spill
threat . After spending over five years and $4 billion on the process, the
Royal Dutch Shell Group is on the cusp of receiving the green light to
begin exploratory drilling in Alaskas Beaufort and Chukchi Seas next
summer. Though Shell emphasizes it would drill exploratory wells in shallow
water rather than establishing deep-water production wells like Macondo,
the fundamental characteristics of the vastly unexplored and
uninhabited Arctic coastline may increase the likelihood of a spill
and will certainly hamper emergency response capability. The
decision to move forward with drilling in some of the most extreme
conditions on Earth has deeply divided Alaska Native communities,
drawn stark criticism from environmental groups, and caused other
federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to raise
concerns about the glaring absence of sound science in the region .
This is highlighted in a recent letter to the Obama administration, signed by
nearly 600 scientists from around the world, calling on the president and
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to follow through on their commitment
to science and enact recommendations made by the U.S. Geological Survey
before approving any drilling activity in the Arctic. In addition to the lack
of a scientific foundation, the Arctic has inadequate infrastructure
to deal with an oil spill, and response technologies in such extreme
environmental conditions remain untested. As we detail in this
report, the resources and existing infrastructure that facilitated a
grand-scale response to the BP disaster differ immensely from what
could be brought to bear in a similar situation off Alaskas North
Slope. Even the well-developed infrastructure and abundance of
trained personnel in the Gulf of Mexico didnt prevent the
Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Our Arctic response capabilities pale by
comparison. There are no U.S. Coast Guard stations north of the
Arctic Circle, and we currently operate just one functional
icebreaking vessel . Alaskas tiny ports and airports are incapable of
supporting an extensive and sustained airlift effort. The region even
lacks such basics as paved roads and railroads. This dearth of infrastructure
would severely hamper the ability to transport the supplies and personnel
required for any large-scale emergency response effort. Furthermore, the

extreme and unpredictable weather conditions complicate transportation,
preparedness, and cleanup of spilled oil to an even greater degree.
US cannot work alone in the region- lack of technology and

infrastructure
Wang, Coastal Response Research Center Author and Environmental
Analyst, 09
(Oil Spills, 2009. Online: URL http://www.oceansnorth.org/oil-spills)
Documents supporting the U.S. governments 2007-2012 offshore oil and gas
leasing program assume that one large oil spill would likely occur in Bristol
Bay in the southeast Bering Sea and two large oil spills would occur in
U.S. Arctic waters as a result of exploration and drilling activities.
The threat is amplified because no adequate technology or
infrastructure to clean up oil in broken sea ice has been proven to
work in the Arctic . Spill response could be delayed for weeks at a
time due to the often hazardous conditions, especially during the
winter. Oil persists in Arctic environments longer than anywhere
else . It can become trapped under sea ice. It also evaporates at a
slower rate in cold temperatures. The environmental conditions that
characterize the Arctic sea ice, subzero temperatures, high winds
and seas and poor visibility influence the effectiveness of clean up
strategies and how much oil is recovered. The longer the oil remains in
the environment, the higher the probability that marine mammals will come
in contact with it
US lacks tools and technology

A full slate of response tools will be needed to address crude oil
spills in the US Arctic, but not all of those tools are readily
available , the National Research Council said in a new report. While
much is known already about both the behavior of oil and response
technologies in Arctic environments, there are areas where additional
research would enable more informed decisions about the most effective
responses for different Arctic spill situations, the Apr. 23 report added. The
Arctic system serves as an integrator for the Earths physical, biological,
oceanic, and atmospheric processes, with impacts beyond the Arctic itself, it
stated. The risk of an oil spill in the Arctic presents hazards for
Arctic nations and their neighbors . The council, one of the federal
governments independent national academies, was asked to prepare the
report by the American Petroleum Institute, US Arctic Research Commission,
US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, US Coast Guard, Marine Mammal Commission, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute.
Arctic oil spill response is challenging because of extreme weather
and environmental conditions; the lack of existing or sustained
communications, logistical, and information infrastructure;
significant geographic distances; and vulnerability of Arctic species,
ecosystems, and cultures, it noted.
Arctic Co-op Key

Russia - Norway experience is key to U.S. development
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
Russias and Norways experience with far north and Arctic resource
development provides useful context and a basis of comparison to
better understand North American scenarios. However, it is important
to note that overall climatic and ice conditions vary significantly between the
Western and Eastern Hemispheres. As in North America, exploration
activity began in the 1970s in Norway and the 1980s in Russia; neither
country is a stranger to offshore development in extreme northern
climates. Seismic surveying of the Norwegian Barents Sea began in the
1970s, and exploratory drilling in the 1980s. In 1984, Statoil discovered the
Snhvit development, the worlds northernmost offshore gas field. Norway
has since drilled 94 exploration wells in its section of the Barents
Sea and constructed the worlds northernmost liquefied natural gas
(LNG) facility near Hammerfest; it has a good reputation for
compliance with strict environmental standards. In Russia, the first
offshore Arctic gas field was discovered in the Barents Sea in 1983,
and in 1986 the first offshore oil was discovered at the Severo-Gulyaevskoe
field. Since then, Russia has continued to pursue exploration activities
in its western Arctic waters in the Kara, Barents, and Pechora Seas.
The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on an Arctic
border in the Barents Sea has unlocked significant opportunities for
resource development by both countries.
Russias joint venture model is successful, U.S. needs similar

tech and investment
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
As in the Western Hemisphere, little infrastructure is in place due to
the extreme conditions and the remoteness of the Russian Arctic
and Norways far north regions. Developing resources in these
regions will require both specialized technologies and large capital
commitments. In addition to its joint development agreement for the
Barents Sea signed with Norway, Russia has also pursued a joint
venture model with IOCs to gain access to additional capital and
technical expertise as it expands exploration activity on its
continental shelf . In May 2012, Rosneft and Statoil signed an agreement
to jointly develop the shelf of the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. The agreement
establishes a joint venture to develop the Perseyevsky license area in the
Barents Sea and three fields in the Sea of Okhotsk; Statoil will finance
geological prospecting work. Rosneft will then have the opportunity to buy a
stake in Statoils North Sea and Barents Sea projects. The agreement
permits Russia to leverage Statoils vast offshore experience and its
good safety record. The agreement also creates an opportunity to
stimulate Russias shipbuilding industry since the two parties plan
to order ice-class vessels and drilling platforms that will be
constructed in Russian shipyards.
Bilateral agreements are the best solvency mechanism for

Arctic development
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
Cooperation among Arctic littoral states can ensure greater
responsibility and adherence to best practices at the local level.
Collaboration among Arctic countries on best practices,
environmental standards, and technology transfer can introduce an
additional layer of accountability to ensure safe and responsible
Arctic development. Norway and Russia have recently been very
active, reflecting the benefits of formal cooperation. The July 2011
maritime border agreement in the Barents Sea has enabled Russia and
Norway to explore the resource potential in the region. Statoil and Rosneft
have agreed to jointly explore offshore deposits in the region. Norway and
Russia are also exploring the possibility of joint naval exercises in the Barents
and Norwegian Seas. As climate change makes larger portions of the
Arctic accessible, cooperation on bilateral energy exploration and
maritime capabilities could benefit other nations as well (for
example, among Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, and the United States
in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas). When possible, bilateral dispute
settlements and cooperation between countries in contiguous Arctic
regions can ensure that best practices are employed as operators
expand oil and gas exploration and production activities. Bilateral
agreements can be more comprehensive and quicker to achieve
than multilateral efforts . Canada and Russia have had a long- standing
debate over rights to the Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Rise; Russia
submitted a claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf in 2001 providing its recommendations on how the shared border
should be delineated. However, with 51 sea claims currently before the UN
Commission and only three examined each year, a timely resolution is
unlikely. Bilateral agreements can resolve border disputes more
quickly and avoid inefficiencies and delays.
Russia Oil Adv Link- Arctic Key

Arctic is key to Russian oil production - but they cant do it
alone
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
Russia is experiencing production decline at its currently producing
but ageingoil fields. It is depending on tight oil production, as
well as production in more remote East Siberian and Arctic offshore fields, to
meet its fiscal tar- gets and balance its budget. Furthermore, the government
has been experimenting with various adjustments to the tax regime to
encourage production at fields that are remote or more difficult to access.
Russia needs these new fields to offset declines in production at its
conventional, legacy fields and to maintain production at a level of
at least 10 million bpd beyond 2020.14 Russias For Russia, and
particularly the state-run oil giant Rosneft, Arctic shelf development is a
longer-term strategic priority that could be a significant source of
production growth beyond 2020 . The government is looking to
introduce tax incentives to make shelf exploration and production
more economically viable. The finance ministry announced plans to
finalize a tax package for the Arctic offshore by 1 January 2014 that will
apply to new shelf projects that begin production from 1 January 2016.
Rosneft and the state-run gas company Gazprom enjoy exclusive rights to
the Arctic shelf and already hold a combined 80 percent of the shelf currently
open to exploration and production. Proponents of shelf liberalization
argue that the two companies are unable to conduct timely
exploration and production activities on their own in such
challenging waters and that their monopoly will further delay
progress in the Arctic. The tax package currently under consideration
would include a number of incentives to make shelf projects more
economically appealing, including cancelled export duties and a reduced
mineral extraction tax. The energy and finance ministries have been
engaged in ongoing debates over a range of topics including property tax,
royalty, VAT, and import duty calculations; customs procedures; and
additional royalty discounts should oil prices fall below $60 per barrel. With
ExxonMobils plans to begin Arctic drilling in 2014, Russian tax reform
legislation should be passed by the 2014 deadline to avoid further delays.
Net Benefit: Politics
Neg
1NC
Artic co-op linked with Ukraine crisis plan viewed as

appeasement
Quaile and Welle, Environmental Journalists, 5/21/14
(Irene and Deutsche, Ukraines Shadow on Arctic
Cooperation,
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140521/ukraine-sshadow-arctic-cooperation)
When a meeting of the Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic
Council scheduled to take place in Canada in June was
canceled, one couldnt help assuming the political standoff
between Russia, on the one side, and the United States and
other European partners on the other over Ukraine must have
played a role. The Arctic Council Secretariat, based in Tromso
in Norway, was keen to play down any political implications. In
response to my inquiry, I was told the meeting had been
rescheduled in form of teleconferences and written exchanges,
and various meetings of Council working groups and task
forces were going ahead in the coming weeks in Canada and in
other Arctic Council member states. Business as usual? When
Canada, which currently holds the chair of the Arctic Council,
boycotted a working meeting of the organization planned for
April in Moscow, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq called it
a principled stand against Russian actions in Ukraine. On
other levels, the political repercussions of the Ukraine crisis
for the Arctic are undisputed. A statement from the U.S. State
Department reads: Given Russias ongoing violation of
Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity, the US
government has taken a number of actions, to include
curtailing official government-to-government contacts and
meetings with the Russian Federation on a case-by-case
basis. That includes Arctic-related events. The withdrawal of
State Department funding for a hazard-reduction workshop
planned for June between Russian scientists and their U.S.
counterparts. The head of Russias emergency services also
failed to show up at an international meeting in Alaska last
month. With the West looking to broaden sanctions against
Russia because of the Ukraine dispute, relations between the
two factions are bound to be strained in a region where
climate change has set off a highly competitive race for oil, gas
and other resources.
Co-op with Russia hurts dems in elections

O'Neal and Huey-Burns, realclear politics authors and analysts,
3/26
(Adam and Caitlin, U.S.-Russia Tensions: A Key Issue in the Midterms?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/26/usrussia_tensions_a_key_issue_in_the_midterms_122055.html)
But that doesnt mean U.S.-Russia tensions will fade into obscurity
between now and Nov. 4. If confrontations continue and Ukraines
future remains uncertain, foreign policy may very well loom large in
voters minds . Of course, Russias annexation of Crimea has not angered
or upset Americans as much as the crumbling situation in Iraq --where tens
of thousands of U.S. troops were at risk -- did in 2006. But Obamas
perceived weakness abroad could continue to hurt his approval
ratings , along with vulnerable Democratic incumbents whose fates
are in part tied to the presidents popularity. Asked if the party would
try to tie those Democrats to the presidents Russia policy, RNC spokesman
Raffi Williams told RealClearPolitics that Obama and Democrat senators
policies just haven't worked out like they promised Americans. From
ObamaCare to the economy to foreign policy, we've seen ineffective
leadership and disappointing results.
Uniqueness
Dems will win senate thanks to female voters
Memoli, LA Times author, 7/4
(Michael, Democrats Senate Majority Hinges on Rallying Key Vote Blocs,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-battle-20140705-story.html)
Democrats headed into the Fourth of July recess facing stiff head
winds in their quest to maintain a Senate majority this fall,
contending with voters' unease over the economy and a slew of Washington
controversies. But analysts say that a narrow path still exists for the
party because of atypically strong enthusiasm levels among
Democratic voters, while Republicans confront newly inflamed tensions
with their base after a roller coaster series of primaries. New data released
last week by leading pollsters in both parties show how November's
midterm election could hinge on Democrats' success in rallying key
voting sectors, such as women.
Party organization and enthusiasm will give dems senate but

its close
Matt Canter, deputy executive director for the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged that Democrats are
facing a difficult landscape but said the candidates are well
positioned . "Constituents in their states understand that their senator is
putting their state's interests ahead of Washington and even ahead of their
own national party when they think that that's right," he said. "These races
have truly become choices." But Ayres found one ray of hope for
Democrats: the party's voters reported equal levels of enthusiasm
about the November vote as Republicans in these states. Typically
in the midterm election of a president's second term, the opposing
party has a significant edge, as national polls now show. "This is an
unusual result," Ayres said. "But I do think that's a function of the
attention that's been lavished on these dozen states so far. There's
been a tremendous number of ads already, even where the
Republican nominee has not been settled yet. So I think that's
what's generating this parity in enthusiasm.
GOP wont win senate- independent voters key

Ayres' survey, conducted for the GOP think tank Resurgent Republic, also
found that Republican voters were more likely to be dissatisfied
with their party's leadership in Congress than were Democratic
voters , a product of the tea party-versus-GOP establishment battles
that have hurt previous efforts to win back the Senate. This year, GOP
incumbents have thus far withstood challenges from their right, including sixterm Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, who beat tea-party-backed Chris
McDaniel last week in a bitter and costly runoff. But Democrats hope that
the discord seen in the Mississippi race and elsewhere might
dampen the zeal of conservatives to help Republicans win total
control of Congress for Obama's final two years. This infighting
has taken its toll ," said Amy Walter, a national political analyst for the
nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Republicans "are not as enthusiastic
as they were in 2010. Even they are a little bit disillusioned by
what's been happening over the last couple years. That also means
Republican candidates are not getting the benefit of the doubt
among independent voters as they did in 2010, Walter added.
Environmental Link Scenario

Russia doesnt have oil spills response plans- co-op wont solve
D.C., 1/29/14
%20Report_F2.pdf)
Russia has not been immune to social and environmental opposition
to its Arctic resource development ambitions. As in the North
American Arctic , the most vocal groups have been local indigenous
groups and global ENGOs such as Greenpeace. In August 2012,
Greenpeace environmental activists scaled the side of Gazproms
Prirazlomnaya oil platform in the Pechora Sea, claiming that Gazprom
had failed to produce a comprehensive spill response plan for its
Arctic operations . The Association of Indigenous Peoples of the
North, Siberia, and the Far East (RAIPON) has expressed its
grievances with energy exploitation in Russias resource rich
northern territories, particularly the Yamal Peninsula, arguing that such
activities could have a negative impact on members semi-nomadic
lifestyle and disrupt the sensitive ecosystem. Russia ordered the
association to suspend activity in November 2012 and temporarily banned it
from participating in Arctic Council meetings. RAIPON was reinstated in
March 2013.
Russia Link Scenario

Ukraine crisis makes Russia co-op unpopular domestically
Malone, Voice of America News Analyst, 5/27/14
(Jim, Obamas Weak Poll Numbers Worry Democrats,
http://www.voanews.com/content/obamas-weak-poll-numbers-worrydemocrats/1909728.html)
But recent polls also show a decline in public approval of the
presidents handling of foreign policy . In the recent Wall Street
Journal/NBC News poll, only 37 percent of those surveyed approved
of the way President Obama is handling Russias intervention in
Ukraine. Republicans have been quick to criticize the administration on
Ukraine including Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. And so Im
disappointed in the administrations tepid response that weve seen
and I think its time to issue the tougher economic sanctions on
sectors of the Russian economy, Ayotte said. Democratic pollster
and strategist Celinda Lake acknowledges that the events in
Ukraine are having an impact in the polls. There are a lot of
Americans who like a more muscular foreign policy, particularly
when you are facing the Soviet Union or former Soviet Union,
particularly when you are facing a bully like Putin, she said. The
recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that Americans appear
to be more reluctant than ever to engage overseas, especially if there is a
risk of military involvement.
Appeasement mobilizes the GOP base

Holland, Reuters Journalist, 3/4
(Steve, Obamas Caution on Ukraine may loom over Midterm Election
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-ukraine-crisis-obamaanalysis-idUSBREA2306O20140304)
Facing his toughest test yet in Ukraine, Obama is once again
finding himself portrayed as a weak leader, outmaneuvered by a
wily, opportunistic Russian President Vladimir Putin intent on
reviving the United States' nemesis. His popularity has already been
suffering because of the disastrous roll out of his signature
healthcare plan last October and the U.S. economy's slow recovery
from recession. Now, Republicans are using Ukraine as further
ammunition against him ahead of the November elections. The
Ukraine crisis, said Republican Senator John McCain in a speech on
Monday, is "the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where

nobody believes in America's strengths anymore." It's not only
Republicans who are giving less than rave reviews to Obama's
strategy. The Washington Post's lead editorial on Monday was about Obama
and Ukraine and was entitled "The risks of wishful thinking." "For five years
President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the
world should operate than on reality," it said. Obama seemed to have been
caught off-guard by Putin's seizure of the Crimea region of southern Ukraine.
He is now scrambling to put together a package of economic
sanctions aimed at isolating Russia. Targeted asset freezes against
key Russian officials are a possibility. A G8 summit that Obama and
allies are to attend in Sochi, Russia, in June is on hold. "Obviously, the facts
on the ground in Crimea are deeply troubling and Russia has a large army
that borders Ukraine. But what is also true is that over time this will be a
costly proposition for Russia," Obama said on Monday. This will not be
enough to satisfy critics who fear Putin is taking a step toward restoring the
old Soviet Union that he served as a KGB colonel. Putin's adventure in
Ukraine, they say, is the final proof that Obama's policy of resetting U.S.
relations with Russia in a search for common ground is dead. For Obama, the
Ukraine crisis is a dramatic diversion from attempts to stay focused largely
on domestic affairs in a congressional election year that may represent his
last best chance for legacy-building achievements before Americans look
past him and focus on the 2016 presidential campaign.
U.S. voters wont tolerate weak Russian foreign policy

Battenfield and Harold, analysts and reporters for GOPUSA, 6/18
(Joe and Boston, Obama, Kerry Foreign Policy a Disaster for Democrats
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/06/18/obama-kerry-foreign-policy-adisaster-for-democrats/)
And allowing the Russians to walk into the Crimean peninsula
unchallenged. There are more, but you get the picture. It's not pretty
for Democrats, especially in a year when Republicans are already
poised to make gains in Congress. The unfolding horror in Iraq probably
will have the most serious political repercussions. Obama was elected on a
promise to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq, and that's one promise Democratic
lawmakers probably wish he hadn't fulfilled. The graphic images of the
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians isn't something that can be wiped away
by another college tour where Obama talks about student loans. Obama was
caught sleeping, or at least golfing, and if jihadists march into Baghdad, the
results could be catastrophic for U.S. interests in the Middle East. The latest
news is that the Obama administration is dispatching several hundred armed
troops in and around Iraq, and is considering deploying a Special Forces
contingent as well, all while insisting the U.S. won't be drawn into another
ground war. Kerry and Obama will likely be forced to rely on our new
allies in Iran to help stop extremists from taking over a country that
thousands of U.S. troops died to liberate. That's a humiliating prospect -and one that many U.S. voters will find tough to swallow. It's likely
that Democratic lawmakers will be quickly pivoting in the coming
months to distance themselves from the Obama-Kerry foreign policy
team.
Anti-Russian domestic sentiment now- any co-op kills dems

senate chances
Holland, Reuters Journalist, 3/4
(Steve, Obamas Caution on Ukraine may loom over Midterm Election
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-ukraine-crisis-obama-analysisidUSBREA2306O20140304)
The president and fellow Democrats are struggling to hang on to
control of the Senate and build up their numbers in the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives in November elections. In
addition to using the Ukraine crisis as another cudgel against Democrats in
this year's congressional elections, Republicans also see it a possible line of
attack in the 2016 presidential race. Some potential Republican White House
hopefuls, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, have been pushing a more
assertive foreign-policy approach. "The president must now accept that
the only way to deal with tyrants like Vladimir Putin is with a clear
understanding that they can't be trusted and that only decisive
action will deter their provocative moves," Rubio said. White House
officials frequently point out that Obama's more cautious approach is in sync
Americans' weariness of foreign wars. "He has a leadership style for foreign
policy consistent with what the American people want to see done in the
world today," said Mike McCurry, a former State Department and White
House spokesman for President Bill Clinton. "That kind of severely limits the
posture you can have for robust foreign policy when the American people
really want us to pull back."
Russian policy motivates GOP-key states

Delmore, MSNBC reporter, 7/11
(Erin, No Smooth Sailing for Democrats in Midterms,
http://www.msnbc.com/all/no-smooth-sailing-dems-midterms)
President Obamas approval rating dropped to a record low of 41%
in the March NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll, including 20% of his
own party. Another 41% of respondents said they approved of his handling
of foreign policy and the economy, two issues that are sure to dominate
debate ahead of the midterm elections. The unemployment rate ticked up to
6.7% in February (from its record low of 6.6% in January) and the invasion
of Crimea brought U.S.-Russian tensions back to the headlines , so
soon after the Sochi Olympics. But the poll isnt all bad news for Democrats:
Asked which party they would prefer to control Congress, respondents came
up nearly even, with 44% pulling for the G.O.P and 43% in favor of
Democrats. The poll also showed that the sting of the government shutdown
could affect all candidates: a majority of respondents said they wanted to
oust their own representative, and would vote to replace every sitting
member of Congress if they could. Republicans, needing to hang on to
their seats and win six more to take over the Senate, are aiming to
topple Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and
North Carolina all states Obama lost in 2012.
AT: Thumpers
Foreign Policy is the predicted key issue in the minds of US
voters
O'Neal and Huey-Burns, realclear politics analysts, 3/26
(Adam and Caitlin, U.S.-Russia Tensions: A Key Issue in the Midterms?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/26/usrussia_tensions_a_key_issue_in_the_midterms_122055.html)
Some at-risk Democrats up for re-election this year are trying to use Putins
behavior to their advantage and are receiving positive press back home for
it. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, chair of the Energy Committee, was
one of nine U.S. officials targeted by Kremlin counter-sanctions and
barred from entering Russia. She described the action taken against
her as a badge of honor, and used the issue to push for increasing
U.S. natural gas exports to Europe and thus ease those countries
reliance on Russia as an energy source. Most Democratic operatives,
saying that voters are more concerned with the economy, are pushing issues
like paycheck fairness and increasing the minimum wage. The strategy
also assumes that foreign policy discussions will be played out in
Republican primaries but not in general election matchups. However,
Republicans have long focused on tying red state Democratic senators to
Obamacare, and recent world events may be adding to the
burdensome baggage of those lawmakers . If Americans continue to
see Putin and Obama sparring during the evening news, theyll
likely also see more on the issue during the commercial breaks .
AT Immigration thumper- Ukraine-Russia situation will be in

the back of voters minds at the polls
Balz and Craighill, White House correspondent and Chief Correspondent at
Washington Post, 4/28
(Dan and Peyton, Post-ABC News poll shows Democrats at risk in November
as Obamas approval rating falls,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-showsdemocrats-at-risk-in-november-as-obamas-approval-ratingfalls/2014/04/28/2a448b04-cf07-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html)
Democrats face serious obstacles as they look to the November
elections, with President Obamas approval rating at a new low and a
majority of voters saying they prefer a Congress in Republican
hands to check the presidents agenda, according to a new Washington
Post-ABC News poll. Obamas approval rating fell to 41 percent, down from
46 percent through the first three months of the year and the lowest of his
presidency in Post-ABC News polls. Just 42 percent approve of his handling of
the economy, 37 percent approve of how he is handling the implementation
of the Affordable Care Act and 34 percent approve of his handling of
the situation involving Ukraine and Russia. Obamas low rating
could be a significant drag on Democratic candidates this fall
past elections suggest that when approval ratings are as low as
Obamas, the presidents party is almost certain to suffer at the
ballot box in November.
****Aff
Uniqueness
Dems will lose the senate- minority voters lack confidence
"There are big forces that could shift the race: Lack of enthusiasm
for the president is a risk for Democrats; increasing hostility toward
Republicans in Congress is a risk for Republicans. Unmarried women are the
opportunity for Democrats to take their fate in their hands," Greenberg
wrote. Walter said the Democrats' campaign on a theme of economic
fairness may have limited success if target voters don't see hope in
their own economic situation. Minority voters are much more
pessimistic now about the economy even than they were in
November 2012," she said. "Those are the kind of voters that you
need. The most important thing that can happen between now and
November is that people do start to feel like things are getting better, or at
the very least that things will get better a year from now."
Thumper
Obamacare thumps- swing districts
Delmore, MSNBC reporter, 7/11
(Erin, No Smooth Sailing for Democrats in Midterms,
http://www.msnbc.com/all/no-smooth-sailing-dems-midterms)
Political analysts are looking at Floridas 13th district, a
stretch of coastline encompassing parts of St. Petersburg that
has been trending blue, as a swing district not unlike those in
the battleground states. Republican lobbyist and former
congressional aide David Jolly edged out well-known Democratic
statewide official Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday, revealing
the power of anti-Obamacare attacks and their potential in
November . Even though 49% of respondents said they view the
health care law negatively, compared with 35% who said it is a

positive development, NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling shows
that voters are neck-in-neck over whether to fix or repeal the law.
Forty-eight percent said they would vote for a Democrat who wants to
fix the Affordable Care Act, while 47% said they would vote for a
Republican who wants to repeal it.

Arctic Counterplan

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Arctic Counterplan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arctic Counterplan

"Cooperation" with Russia won't produce quality clean-up

2NC Science Co-op Bad Ext

and we are going to miss the opportunities of the Arctic while

2NC Russia Co-op Bad Ext

Russias political structure makes cooperation impossible

turned to the Pacific by hosting the APEC summit in Vladivostok,

Russia should not be involved in U.S. shipping route

2NC Oil Spills- Unilateral Solvency

An international agreement is already in place to clean up

Empirics prove the US can do it alone - US has enabled

Arctic spill response development should be unilateral

herders, in situ burning, and mechanical containment and recovery. While in

U.S. Coast Guard is key need to fix their infrastructure

2NC Shipping- Unilateral Solvency

US Navy already developing Arctic shipping strategies

United States should pursue shipping lanes unilaterally key

Shipping- Internal Link Defense

Arctic Shipping cannot support large economies like the US or

twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity

Even if the route is shorter, Arctic shipping is still much more

Arctic shipping will never replace the Suez, not a question of

Lauren, US Navys Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes, online:

Arctic Circle wont be accessible for commercial or military use

2NC Ext Unilateral Good

Soft Power Offense

Collapse of heg causes global nuclear war US leadership

Today the international situation is also one of high risk. The

others manage their own problems, without U.S. involvementagain, until

situations of strength (Achesons phrase) in strategic locations around the

2NC: Soft Power Link Extension

Oil Co-op destroys any leverage we have in Russia

Oil Spills: Russia Co-op Key

respectively are two of the largest resource development projects in

Coordination key to research and develop arctic spill response

Co-op key to international coordination efforts and clean up

Ocean Communications, Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: Americas

Collaborative in the region is necessary

and effective acquisition of relevant observational data. High-resolution

Shipping Russia Co-op Key

Russia already uses ice-resistant tankers, and the U.S. isnt

US doesnt have the tech to respond unilaterally

largest number of any country in the world. The high incidence

U.S. Coast guard stations are not equipped for cleanups

required for any large-scale emergency response effort. Furthermore, the

US cannot work alone in the region- lack of technology and

US lacks tools and technology

Arctic Co-op Key

Russias joint venture model is successful, U.S. needs similar

Bilateral agreements are the best solvency mechanism for

Russia Oil Adv Link- Arctic Key

Net Benefit: Politics

Artic co-op linked with Ukraine crisis plan viewed as

Co-op with Russia hurts dems in elections

Party organization and enthusiasm will give dems senate but

GOP wont win senate- independent voters key

Environmental Link Scenario

Russia Link Scenario

Appeasement mobilizes the GOP base

Monday, is "the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where

U.S. voters wont tolerate weak Russian foreign policy

Anti-Russian domestic sentiment now- any co-op kills dems

Russian policy motivates GOP-key states

AT Immigration thumper- Ukraine-Russia situation will be in