1

Engagement requires unconditionality

Donno 13 (Daniela is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University
of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. from Yale University, expert on international organizations and
norms, with a particular focus on the international influences on elections and
human rights, Defending Democratic Norms, Oxford University Press, pg. 29
33)//ghs-gk
international actors have a range of tools at their
disposal. Enforcementdefined broadly as efforts to improve compliance with democratic norms through pressure,
incentives, or suasioncan include policy tools that marshal both material and social
incentives. "Thus, rather than making an artificial assumption that actors are motivated by either material calculations or
When responding to flawed elections,

ideational forces, 1 integrate rationalist and constructivist perspectives. 1 assume that the choices of domestic actors can be
swayed both by a logic of consequenceswhereby actors calculate the costs and benefits of their actionsand by a logic of
appropriatenesswhereby actors seek to conform to socially accepted standards of behavior (March and Olsen 1998). " These

two logics of action can be proxied by distinguishing between

policies of

conditionality , which wield concrete, material incentives, and policies of

diplomatic engagement , which employ symbolic, social incentives.11
Conditionality entails linking concrete punishments or rewards to
improvements in the quality of elections. "Negative" conditionality threatens either
material (e.g., economic sanctions) or political (e.g., suspension of IGO membership) costs for
the government for electoral misconduct, whereas "positive" conditionality holds out the
promise of rewards if conduct improves. In practice and promises are often linked. 'The US Millennium
Challenge Corporation, for example, makes grants conditional on democratic performance (a positive "carrot"), and the United
States has used this instrument to punish countries for electoral misconduct (a negative "stick"), as it did in Armenia in response to

Conditionality works by
altering actors' cost-benefit calculations. Research on a range of issues attests to the power of this
widespread human rights abuses surrounding the February 2008 presidential election.

approach. International conditionality has induced governments to introduce far-reaching political and economic reforms (Nooruddin
and Simmons 2006; Schimmelfennig, Engert, and Knobel, 2003; Vachudova 2005; Vreeland 2003), to change state policies toward
ethnic minorities (Kelley 2004), to hand over war criminals to international tribunals (Subotic 2009), and to deepen trade
liberali7ation (Allee and Scalcra 2012). When applied in response to a flawed election, conditionality motivates governments to
improve electoral quality. The particular demands associated with conditionality vary from case to case. International actors may
seek to directly alter the government's choice to manipulate, though as discussed below, this is unlikely to work against proven,
intransigent norm violators. More indirectly, conditionality may induce governments to reform domestic institutions of election
management and oversight. In responding to electoral misconduct, international actors may also employ softer tools of enforcement
that marshal social incentives and symbolic costs. The most prevalent tool of this kind is shaming: the issuing of declarations,
resolutions, or statements that criticize electoral misconduct. Different from conditionality, shaming does not link improvements in
conduct to concrete punishments or rewards. But it can still have an effect on behavior, provided that the target government seeks
to maintain a reputation for democracy or desires international approval. As Lutz and Sikkink (2000, 659) explain, international
pressure works "not only at the pragmatic level by imposing material costs... but also at the social level by creating ostracized 'outgroups' of norm breakers." As members of an international society of states, leaders are "socialized to care about what other states
think of them" (ibid., 659). A number of studies find that shaming does have real effects. Hafher-Burton (2008) shows, for example,
that criticism by human rights NGOs, the United Nations, and global media is associated with improved respect for political
rights.14 In addition to signaling international disapproval, shaming can create negative repercussions in the domestic arena if the
government bases its claims to legitimacy on its democratic credentials. In the Dominican Republic, for example, president Joaquin
Balaguer was keenly sensitive to international criticism in the wake of fraudulent elections in 1994. Tlie race had been extremely
close, and Balaguer considered external validation essential for stopping any momentum to overturn the results. Ultimately, one of
the factors influencing his decision to make postelection concessions to the opposition was the need to "stop the pressure from

engagement is the use of diplomatic or mediation missions

sent to the target country to push for democracy or to resolve postelection conflicts between political parties.
abroad." A second form of

Mediation missions have long been an important tool for resolving civil and interstate conflict (Hansen, Mitchell, and Nemeth, 2008;
Regan and Aydin 2006). Such missions rely on direct, face-to-race contact to impose
normative pressure on a noncompliant regime. Beyond their effects on the government, these missions empower the domestic
opposition and civil society.

By setting up an official forum for dialogue, mediation

missions strengthen opposition voices and increase domestic pressure for electoral
reform or repeat elections. In the aftermath of Peru's fraudulent election in 2000, the OAS organized a long-term mediation mission
(the mesa de dialogo) that brought together representatives from the government, opposition, and civil society. The mesa set the
agenda for reform by forging agreement on twenty-nine points for strengthening democracy in Peru, including increasing judicial
independence, reforming electoral governance, and providing for greater congressional oversight of the executive (Cooper and
Legler 2001 b, 2005). me mesa later became the de facto authority in the country when Alberto Fujimori stepped down in November
2000 in the wake of a bribery scandal Mediation also created space for the resolution of Madagascar's postelection crisis in 2002,
when internationally sponsored talks between the government and opposition brokered a pause in violence. "The agreement forged
from these negotiationsthe Dakar Accordswas never fully implemented, but it was the first document in which both sides agreed
to respect the results of a vote recount. "This later became a salient focal point when the country's constitutional court announced
that opposition candidate Marc Ravalomanana had won a majority in the recount (Randrianja 2003).

modes of influence, conditionality

and

As different

diplomatic engagement have

distinct advantages and disadvantages.

For one, these tools differ in the speed and ease with which

they can be applied. Relative to diplomatic engage- ment, conditionality is difficult and politically costly to impose. Within
international organizations, threats and punishments must typically be approved by all, or a majority of, member states. Thus, even
a small divergence in preference among members can create barriers to agreement (Donno 2010). Even for a single country like
the United States, imposing (or threatening) sanctions requires the approval of multiple gatekeepers or branches of government.
Moreover, conditionality is materially costly to the implemented It involves the use of concrete punishments and rewards, such as an
increase in foreign aid, the promise of IGO membership, or the imposition of economic sanctions.

B. Violation the plan conditions their policy on a result

C. Voting issue for limits and ground - allowing conditions
explodes the topic because conditions are by definition open
ended they allow attaching condition on any external issue,
regardless of whether it is economic in nature. They arent
predictable and can be used to avoid politics links

2
Clinton landslide now.
Dale, 10/24 (Daniel, Washington Bureau of the Toronto Star, "It's not close:
Hillary Clinton the overwhelming favourite to win the presidency," Toronto Star,
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/24/its-not-close-hillary-clinton-theoverwhelming-favourite-to-win-presidency.html)
presidential election is dramatic. It is not close. There are two weeks of shouting to
go, but know this: Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to win. Donald Trumps chances
are tiny. Hes in a lot of trouble, thats just all there is to it. And they know it, said Tim Malloy, assistant
director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. Polls suggest that Clinton leads by about six percentage points
nationally, a giant margin in modern presidential politics. When Barack Obama crushed John McCain in
2008, he won by seven points. Clinton had a double-digit lead, unheard-of in
Americas modern political climate, in at least four recent national polls.
More importantly, she leads in every major swing state. In Pennsylvania, a state Trump needs to
Americas

seize to have any chance, the Democratic candidate has prevailed in every poll since July. In Florida, another must-

The race is so lopsided that Clinton

is at 262 electoral votes, just eight shy of victory, counting only the states where she leads
win for her Republican opponent, she has led in 12 of the last 13.

by five or more points. Add the 10 electoral votes of Minnesota, where she leads by four and no Republican has won

Clinton is elected even before the votes are counted in Ohio,

Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa and Arizona. The momentum is all on
Clintons side. States where she had trailed narrowly, like Nevada and Ohio, have moved in her direction.
since 1972, and

Supposed swing states, like Virginia and Colorado, have moved out of Trumps reach. States where Democrats have

I cant think
of a single state that has clearly moved from a battleground to a Trump
advantage, said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette University Law School Poll.
long lost handily, like Utah and Texas, have become competitive. Clinton is even up in Arizona.

Plan causes backlash against Clinton.

He, 16 --- He Yafei is former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office
of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, China US Focus, U.S. Election and Its Impact on China, 1/25,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s-election-and-its-impact-on-china/
U.S. Election and Its Impact on China

The United States presidential election is now in full

swing , with both parties going all out in a feverish effort to gain the
upper hand. The 2016 vote is watched very closely all over the world,
because whoever occupies the White House next January is going to face a fast-changing world with multiple
challenges crying out for active American involvement and a more isolationist and inward-looking America unwilling
to take on the role of world policeman. Before we delve deeper into the impact of the election on China and US-

there is a need to offer a brief analysis of what insight

this election process has brought us into the American phyche . First and
China relations for the coming years,

foremost , it has laid bare the rising populist sentiments that are oozing
out every pore of American politics both domestic and international. One
example is the Republican candidate Donald Trump whose fiery words on immigration and Muslims has
won him high approval ratings even though those words are obviously on

the extreme end of populism. Three Republican candidates, Trump, Cruz and Carlson, are
considered politically extreme but have consistently won as a group over 50% support among Republican voters
based on recent polls. It shows that voters are rejecting traditional candidates. What it reveals is that men-on-thestreet in America are simply tired of traditional politics and politicians. The fact that Jeb Bush falls behind Trump
therefore comes as no surprise.

Populist sentiments reflect the unhappiness

ordinary people have harbored against status quo where American

economy is still under the shadow of financial crisis and slow recovery as well as
enfeebled responses of the American government in the face of global
challenges. To put it in perspective, they represent the frustration and anxiety of
American people feel about the changed and still fast changing world
live in.

they

The American supremacy and sense of safety both physical and

economic is threatened . Thats the essence of what people fear. Here

comes China, whose economic growth and military modernization in
recent years represents, to American people , a world that undergoes
rapid changes and evolves to a multipolar one where the US is no longer
being able to call shot on everything. The resentment against globalization
is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on
China are taking place simultaneously. Scapegoating China is inevitable .
China has taken jobs away from American workers. China is
manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade. China is being
aggressive in the

S outh C hina S ea and trying to drive the US out of the

Western Pacific. The list of complaints can go on and on. It doesnt

matter whether those accusations and complaints are true or not to
American politicians and voters

as long as

they have election value . For

instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still

We all know from experience that

China-bashing is common and cost-free in US elections . This time

strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further.

around is no different.

What is different is that while without agreeing to the concept of G2, there is

a broad recognition that the US and China are the two major powers in todays world. It is no hyperbole to say that
nothing gets done without close cooperation between the two nations, be it climate change, energy security, nonproliferation of WMD, etc.

In this connection the US election does have an impact

on China and US-China relations

as noted by Robert Manning, who said

the US-China

relationship enters dangerous waters in 2016.

Landslide key to Clintons political capital.

Belfast Telegraph, 10/22 (The Belfast Telegraph, "Clinton camp on war
footing for Trump election result challenge," Section: World, 10-22-16, p. lexis)
Hillary Clinton's campaign is increasingly preparing for the possibility that Republican rival Donald Trump may never concede
the US presidential election should she win. That scenario could enormously complicate the crucial early weeks of Democrat Mrs
Clinton's preparations to take office.

Aiming to undermine any argument brash billionaire businessman Mr

Trump may make about a "rigged" election on November 8, she hopes to roll up a large electoral
vote margin when Americans go to the polls, which could repudiate his message and project a
governing mandate after the bitter, divisive presidential race. Mrs Clinton's team is also keeping a close eye on
statements by national Republican leaders, predicting they could play an important role in how Mr Trump's accusations of electoral
fraud might be perceived, according to several Clinton campaign aides. Campaign officials stress they are not taking the outcome of

Clinton and her team have begun thinking about how to

position their candidate during the post-election period. Long one of America's most polarising political
the election for granted, but Mrs

figures, former US secretary of state Mrs Clinton has begun telling audiences she will need their help in healing the country. "I've got
to figure out how we heal these divides," she said in a Friday interview with Tampa, Florida, radio station WBTP. "We've got to get
together. Maybe that's a role that is meant to be for my presidency if I'm so fortunate to be there." A refusal by Mr Trump to accept
the election results would not only upend a basic tenet of American democracy, but also force Mrs Clinton to create a new playbook

a narrow victory would make it more difficult for her to

claim substantial political capital at the start of her administration.
"Donald is still going to whine if he loses. But if the mandate is clear, I
don't think many people will follow him," Virginia senator Tim Kaine, Mrs Clinton's running mate, told
CNN's New Day. While Mrs Clinton's campaign has long focused on maintaining pathways to cross the threshold of 270
electoral votes, it is now looking to capture an expanded number of states that could
for handling the transfer of power. And

also help determine control of the US Senate - including Republican-leaning Arizona. Polls indicate Mrs Clinton has extended her
advantage in several toss-up states during the three presidential debates, giving her campaign more confidence. She has
maintained stable leads in states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia and Colorado, as well as a narrow edge in Florida and North

we've got these doors of opportunity open, let's

make sure we go down all of them," said Jeremy Bird, national field director for President Barack Obama's
Carolina. "They're looking at it like this:

2012 campaign, who is helping Mrs Clinton's team. If Mrs Clinton wins the White House, she will enter as one of the least popular
first-term presidents in generations. While Mr Trump has suffered from high unfavourable ratings, particularly among women, Mrs
Clinton has been hampered by polls showing more than half of the public considers her to be untrustworthy. But some Republicans
are already preparing for Mr Trump's defeat, downplaying the significance of a Clinton triumph. "On November 8, Clinton's claims of

Rolling
up a big victory in the Electoral College would let Mrs Clinton push back against that notion and
assert that voters had rejected what she has called Mr Trump's mean, divisive
message.
a mandate will fly in the face of reality. She only won by not being Trump," tweeted conservative writer Erick Erickson.

Thats key to immigration reform its top of the agenda.

Halper, 16 (Evan, "Clinton makes a lot of promises - which can she keep?" LA
Times, 8-6-16, www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-promises-20160809-snapstory.html)
For Clinton, as with every president, the window for transformational policies will almost certainly be small.
Political capital from an election gets spent fast, and even the Clinton campaign concedes Democrats
are unlikely to win full control of Congress, meaning some compromises with Republicans likely would
constrain the agenda of a Clinton White House. Clinton will need to choose among the priorities she
has talked about at rallies like the ones she conducted last week in Denver and Las Vegas: The biggest investment in infrastructure since World War II,
immigration reform, debt-free college, equal pay for women, expanded rights for labor unions, an overhaul of the nations multibillion- dollar electricity
grid, new gun safety laws. The dilemma faced by advocates for those causes differs from the one faced by groups backing Donald Trump, who has offered
far fewer policy proposals. On the Democratic partys left, in particular, progressives find themselves jockeying for position in these final months of the

the promises given the most attention at this point of the campaign
are the ones candidates are most likely to pursue after the election. The groups are cajoling,
presidential race. Research has shown that

confronting and corralling the Clinton campaign and potential sympathizers in Congress to move their crusades to the top of her 100-day agenda.

There is finite time, and there are only so many things a brand new
administration can accomplish, said Lisa Gilbert, who helps lead the campaign finance reform effort at Public Citizen.
We have seen candidates talk about this before and not really follow through, she added. The question is the urgency
and priority when a candidate first gets into office, and their willingness to
use that capital. Activists are using every tool at their disposal, and for those in Gilberts coalition, that included the recent Netroots

Nation conference of progressives, where Clinton promised to push a constitutional amendment restricting money in politics within a month of taking
office. The candidate was well aware that keeping the issue high on her agenda is crucial to persuading erstwhile Bernie Sanders supporters to align with
her even if proposing such an amendment may have more symbolic than substantive value. But the folks fighting to get money out of politics are
competing with backers of some other heady plans on Clintons plate. Most of the issues, like campaign finance reform, have been policy quagmires for

years. Thats one reason why candidates who win a partys third term in the White House often have a rough time the easy victories have mostly been
used up in the preceding eight years.

Clinton is vowing to secure a path to citizenship for millions

of immigrants

in this country illegally, to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, to expand Obamacare, to sweeten benefits under Social
Security, and to take more steps to slow climate change. Most of those ideas have been on President Obamas agenda, too, but have fallen victim to the

Asked recently what the Democratic nominee would

pursue immediately, the first thing her campaign chairman, John Podesta, mentioned was the
path to citizenship among the heaviest of policy lifts.
same opposition forces Clinton would face.

Reforms key to heg

Nye 12 Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US
National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. Immigration and
American Power, December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strengthby-joseph-s--nye
CAMBRIDGE

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent

immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its

In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant , and the issue
played an important role in the Republican Partys presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obamas re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans. As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now
urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform
will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obamas second term. Successful reform will be
an important step in preventing the decline of American power . Fears about the impact of immigration on
ancestors as fellow immigrants.

national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century Know Nothing movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled
out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades. During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest
percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are
skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US
public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008. Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigrations effects on American culture. Demographers portray a
country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively. But mass
communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country
beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors. While too rapid a rate of immigration can

immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and

territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population
constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid
demographic decline and maintain its share of world population. For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would
cause social problems, over the long term,

have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population

Today, the US is the worlds third most populous country; 50 years from
now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power :
whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the
older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.
In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled
immigrants can be important to particular sectors and to long-term growth . There is a strong
correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the
beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of
Silicon Valleys technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology startups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune
500 companies. Equally important are immigrations benefits for Americas soft power. The
fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants upward mobility is
attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can envisage
themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover,
connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey
accurate and positive information about the US. Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it
will grow by 49% over the next four decades.

helps to broaden Americans attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather
than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both . Singapores former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an
astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first
century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a
diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lees view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US. That is a view that Americans should take

If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have
gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
to heart.

Global nuclear war and turns every geopolitical hotspot.

Andrea E. Varisco 13, Ph.D. candidate at the Post-War Reconstruction and
Development Unit of the University of York, holds a Master in International Affairs,
Peace and Conflict Studies specialisation from the Australian National University and
the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and a Master in Politics and
Comparative Institutions from the University of Milano, 6/3/13, Towards a MultiPolar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?, http://www.eir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-forglobal-peace/
The prospects of a great power rivalry are particularly strong in East Asia, a
region characterized by weak regional alliances and institutions, in which the economic rise of some actors could

The decline of the US and the

rise of China could for example undermine the Asian balance of power and bring to
indeed represent a serious source of instability in the near future.

light the old rivalry between China and Japan (Shambaugh). A strong rising China armed with middle range missiles
could be perceived as threatening by Japan, worried that its historical American ally could not defend it because of

stability of the region appears even more

difficult to achieve considering that the concept of balance of power requires
shared common values and similar cultural understanding, requisites that
are not present between the two major powers of the Asia Pacific region, China
and Japan (Friedberg). India has been portrayed as the third pole of the multi-polar world in 2050 (Virmani;
Gupta). Yet its constant rise could undermine Asian stability and, for example, worsen Indian
relations with its neighbor Pakistan. Moreover, the scarcity of natural resources in a
world that is consuming and demanding a high quantity of them could have several implications
on global security and stability (Dannreuther; Kenny; Laverett and Bader). In this framework, the
rise of Russia, a country which exports large quantities of oil and gas, controls the European provisions of
energy and has had high increases in military expenditure in the last decade could represent another
potential source of instability for the future world order. Russia has increased military
US high involvement in other corners of the globe. The

spending by 16 per cent in real terms since 2008, including a 9.3 per cent increase in 2011 (Background Paper on
Military Expenditures 5). Before 2008, it had increased its military expenditure by 160 per cent in a decade, (SIPRI,
SIPRI Yearbook 2008 199), accounting for 86 per cent of the total increase of 162 per cent in military expenditure of
Eastern Europe, the region of the world with the highest increment in military expenditure from 1998 to 2007 (SIPRI,
SIPRI Yearbook 2008 177). Moreover, the control of the gas prices in Europe and the enlargement of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization in Central and Western Europe have already been causes of tension between Russia

possibility to exploit and supply a large amount of natural resources, the

growth of its military power and divergences with the US in some foreign policy
issues, such as the Iranian nuclear program or the status of Kosovo, indicate that the stability of the
future multi-polar world could be seriously undermined by a resurgent
Russia (Arbatov; Goldman; Trenin; Wallander). A return to multi-polarity will therefore imply
more instability among great powers . But great power rivalry will not be the only source of
and the West. The

possible instability for the future multi-polar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great powers

middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military

capabilities that could threaten the global security. In particular, the presence of
nuclear weapons constitutes a further reason of concern and implies that the future world
could carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity and great
powers rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear proliferation. The
future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more unstable than all the other
multi-polar periods history has experienced until nowadays: for the first time in history,
the world could become both multi-polar and nuclear . While some scholars argue
but also

that nuclear deterrence could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system (Layne, 44-45), the

consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a source of instability

(McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and states that are not great powers armed
with nuclear capabilities could represent a cause of concern for global
security. A nuclear Iran could for example attack or be attacked by Israel
and easily involve in this war the rest of the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war
between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, could result in an Armageddon for
the whole Asia. An attack from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Japan or South
Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and a nuclear proliferation domino
effect in East Asia (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons could wreak
havoc and target the heart of the most powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier). Iran, Pakistan, DPRK,
terrorist groups will rarely be great powers or poles in a future multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects of
their actions could easily reverberate all over the globe and represent another cause of
potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability of the future world will therefore
depend not only on the unpredictable effects of the rivalry among great powers, but
also on the dangerous potential of middle and small powers and non-state actors
armed with nuclear weapons.
majority of them

3
Counterplan: The United States federal government should
mandate that by 2040 half of the energy that is produced in
the United States is produced by nuclear fission reactors.
That solves warming and oil dependence
Barletta et al 10
(William Barletta, Ulrich Becker, Bruno Coppi, Eric Cosman, Kerry Emanuel, Peter
Fisher, Charles Forsberg, Arthur Kerman, Richard Milner, Lawrence Sulak, Christoph
Tschalr, Richard Wilson, MIT Adjunct Professor of Physics, MIT Professor of Physics
Emeritus, MIT Professor of Physics Emeritus, MIT Professor of Physics Emeritus, MIT
professor of meteorology, MIT Department Head Physics, Executive Director MIT
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project, Physics Professor Emeritus, MIT professor of Physics
Director Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Professor at Boston University, Unknown,
Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, (emeritus) Harvard, Respectively, Clean,
Sustainable, Responsible: Nuclear Power for the U.S., 4-6, March 2010,
http://www.innovation.ch/personal/chris/Nuclear%20Power%20paper_def.pdf)
To reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. significantly in a timely and
practicable manner, it has been proposed to halve emissions from power
plants and transportation by 2040. To achieve that goal without carbon sequestration, at least
half of the coal-fired power stations must be converted to or replaced with
carbon-free power sources. This would require construction starts on new
clean power stations with a total capacity of 5 Gigawatts every year for 30
years. A major effort must be mounted with the aim of halving oil use for transportation by 2040. This should
include development and commercialization of truly carbon-neutral cellulosic (not corn-based) bio-fuels as well as
light, high-capacity batteries to make hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric cars economically attractive. Both

require carbon-free, domestic sources of electricity, process heat,

and hydrogen to truly reduce U.S. energy dependence and CO2 emissions.
This will demand strong leadership by the U.S. government and will require full exploitation
programs

of all the clean sources of energy which are technically feasible. There are no easy solutions. Its tempting to think
that a dramatic technical advance will solve all our energy problems, but this is wishful thinking. While R&D of all
promising technologies should be pursued, the plan for the next several decades must be grounded initially in

U.S. has 5 percent of the worlds population but

consumes 25 percent of the energy used worldwide. It is estimated that
the U.S. alone is responsible for more than 20 percent of the greenhouses
gases emitted over the last century. Accordingly, the U.S. has a duty to take the
lead in addressing the problem at home. The U.S. government in particular has the
present technology. Why the U.S.? The

responsibility to ensure that its citizens have access to sufficient and affordable energy which is generated in a way

matter of national importance that must not

be left only for the markets to decide although they have a major role in
its implementation. Why Now? By one measure it is already too latethe world is already way beyond
that does not endanger our planet. This is a

the highest known previous concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Even if we ignore global warming and keep on
burning fossil fuels at the currently accelerating pace, oil and natural gas will become increasingly scarce and

Cleaning coal by
sequestering the resulting CO2 underground isnt economically feasible on
expensive. Were then left with coal, the fuel with the highest CO2 emission rate.

a large scale today. Issues such as large-scale transportation and escape of CO2 need to be
addressed.Clean, Sustainable, Responsible: Nuclear Power for the U.S. | Page 5 What are our choices?

Realistically, any alternative energy source must meet our current energy
and economic needs and avoid, as much as possible, our current problems
and technological uncertainties. For an alternative power technology to be
practical, effective, timely, and truly beneficial , it must fulfill a set of
minimal requirements: Pollution of the environment should be minimal
or zero. Waste must be affordably contained and reliably controlled.
Fuel supply must be adequate for several hundred years. Large-scale
expansion of the technology must be feasible, and have a predictable and
acceptable impact on our planet and society. Total cost of power,
cradle-to-grave (including mining and waste management), should be
known and competitive with fossil fuel technology. Safety record must
be equal or better than that of fossil fuel technology. These requirements are what it
takes for any alternative power technology to be green in a real, meaningful sense. Any so-called green
technologies that do not fulfill some of these requirements such as large-scale applicability or
cost competitiveness, will likely delay or even block large-scale CO2 reduction and
thereby become detrimental to the environment. How green are the major power
technologies? For renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal, bio-mass, etc.),
large-scale expansion is an unsolved problem. For example, we would need to build 25
Cape Wind farms (130 turbines on 24 square miles each) or 30 Mohave Solar Parks (10 square miles each)

wind and solar

power sources are intermittent and would require large-scale construction
of new power lines to match power generation with power consumption.
every year for 30 years to replace half of our coalfired power stations by 2040. In addition,

requirements fulfilled more effort needed requirements unlikely to be fullfilled Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Solar Wind
Hydro Pollution Waste control Fuel Supply Safety Scalability Total costs Intermittence Figure 3: Green-ness of
major power technologies| Page 6 Finally, wind and solar power have yet to establish cost competitiveness. In fact,

when the cost of waste management is taken into account, even fossil
fuels are unlikely to be cost competitive. Nuclear power (NP) is the only
technology that adequately matches all requirements. Nuclear power can
reasonably undergo large-scale expansion. Five large NP stations would
need to be built every year for 30 years to replace half of the coal-fired
power stations in the U.S. by 2040 and satisfy modest added needs of
transportation and industry. The U.S. has the capacity to do this. In the 20 years between
1970 and 1990, the U.S. built the equivalent of 100 large nuclear power
stations. The yearly investment of 20 to 30 billion dollars or 70 to 100 dollars per person is well within our
means. Other countries have also demonstrated that it can be done: France switched to 75 percent
nuclear power energy in 25 years without any major problems . As will be shown
in more detail later, waste and used fuel control, contrary to popular belief, are technically feasible (mainly thanks

safety record for Western-type nuclear

power plants is excellent; even the Three-Mile-Island accident produced
no fatalities, major injuries, or other health effects. Chernobyl was a Russian-type
to the extremely low volumes produced.) The

reactor without containment, subject to an experiment carried out in an unauthorized manner and is in no way

total projected costs for nuclear power are

only moderately higher than the current cost of electricity from coal. The
indicative of Western reactor safety. Finally,

main uncertainty in the cost of new NP plants is a result of todays poor public acceptance driving inflated legal and

If we are serious about solving the energy

supply problem in the U.S. quickly and effectively, nuclear power must
become a major ingredient in the mix of power generating technology.
permitting costs. These can be reversed.

The nuclear lobby shields the link to politics

Jungjohann 11
(Arne Jungjohann, program director for Environment and Global Dialogue with the
Heinrich Boll Foundation, The nuclear industry has powerful backers and weak
opponents in D.C., Grist, June 1st, 2011, http://grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-01-nuclearindustry-has-powerful-backers-weak-opponents/)
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the lobby association for the entire
process chain of the nuclear industry in the U.S., from uranium mining to the
The

manufacture of the reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel, all the way to nuclear power production. Its

lobbyists are well-connected in the Obama administration and on Capitol

Hill. In the last midterm and off-year election campaign cycle, politicians
of both parties received approximately $4 million from the NEI . In order to
boost public acceptance, shiny ad campaigns, such as those of the Clean and Safe Energy
Coalition, filled the airwaves. This greenwashing by the NEI has repeatedly crossed the border of the
permissible, and has been criticized by environmental and social organizations. The NEI PR staff even drafts opinion
pieces which are sent to nuclear engineers across the country, to be signed and submitted to local newspapers. In

major nuclear power plant operators and

corporations to which they belong also play an important role. In the last
election campaign, they, together with the NEI, spent sums for lobbying
and campaign contributions that went into the double-digit millions. Chief
addition to the umbrella lobby, the

beneficiaries of this largess were Congress members from the states where their corporate headquarters are
located, as well as committee heads and members of the caucus leaderships. Contributions of up to $10,000 to
each individual Congress member are legal. The most generous corporations were: Exelon $515,000: This
nuclear corporation operates 11 nuclear power plants in Illinois alone, and contributed to 14 of the states 19
representatives, as well as to the caucus leaderships of both parties. Duke Energy $475,000: This utility,
headquartered in North Carolina, helped fill the coffers of 12 of North Carolinas 13 representatives and five of the
six from South Carolina, as well as the caucus leaders of both parties. CEO Jim Rogers was one of the most
prominent voices in the last two years lobbying for a comprehensive climate bill. Florida Power & Light (FPL)
$507,000: Twenty-six of Floridas 27 Congress members received contributions from FPL. The corporation is
headquartered in the state, but also operates nuclear reactors in New Hampshire and Illinois. Entergy $400.000:
All four representatives from Arkansas got a check from Entergy, as did 12 from New York and five from Michigan.
Even Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the strongest critics of the nuclear industry on Capitol Hill, received $3,500.

Much of this money was intended to help push through a climate bill, an
effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. The nuclear industry hoped that a
cap-and-trade system would give it a competitive advantage over coalfired power plants. Since the industry is a powerful voice in the business
community that calls for fighting climate change and tightening pollution
standards for conventional power plants, it has reached a truce with large
parts of the environmental movement. The anti-nuke movement is as weak
as the nuclear lobby is strong. In the weeks after Fukushima, it fought like a lion, but it
is still too small and its resources too few. Experts from NGOs such as Beyond
Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists trot from one TV channel to the next and try to explain to puzzled moderators
that nuclear power is not clean energy, that it is much more expensive than generally
assumed. Their attempts at an explanation are good, but they dont strike home. All this leaves us a
long way from any basic change in direction for Americas energy policy. The U.S. is still the land of nuclear power
madness. The nuclear revival in the United States wont come to an end because of any fear of a meltdown, but
simply because of financial necessity.

1NC Warming
CO2 levels are beyond the tipping point
Blakemore 2016- Citing Nature Report that measures CO2 at MAuna Loa
Observatory
Erin, "Earths Carbon Dioxide Levels Surpass Long-Feared Milestone," Jun 14,
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-carbon-dioxide-levels-surpass-longfeared-milestone-180959405/?no-ist
In new research published in the journal Nature, researchers used
measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the Mauna Loa Observatory to
forecast future levels. They found that, thanks to the recent El Nio event, the monthly
average CO2 concentrations will remain above 400 ppm all year long , a
long-feared milestone of human impact on the environment.

In a way, a CO2

level of 400 ppm or higher is a symbolic threshold; Earth has been hovering around that level for years. But

for

scientists, its what The Guardians Michael Slezak calls the point of no returna
tipping point past which plenty of warming will occur, even if humans
figure out how to reduce their carbon dioxide output.

The arctic cant solve: doesnt account for CO2 emissions

elsewhere in the globe
Climate change coop is inevitable---both sides recognize its an
enduring commitment
Sheppard 3/31 (Kate, enterprise editor and senior reporter at the Huffington
Post, vice president for membership of the Society of Environmental Journalists,
The U.S. And China Commit To Signing Paris Agreement On Earth Day, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-china-climateparis_us_56fd816fe4b083f5c60741eb, 3/31/2016)//HW
The United States and China are taking their climate relationship to
a new level, the White House announced Thursday. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi
Jinping issued a joint statement saying they both will officially sign the historic
Paris climate agreement on April 22 and will encourage other nations to do so as
WASHINGTON

well. The leaders also said they would take their respective domestic actions under the agreement as early as
possible this year. The Paris agreement, reached under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change in December, commits countries to putting in place individual targets for reducing their greenhouse gas
emissions. Countries will be expected to review and update their commitments every five years. An official signing
ceremony for the Paris agreement will be held at the United Nations headquarters in New York on April 22, which is
also Earth Day.

The two leaders said that addressing climate change is a

pillar of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship and will serve as an

enduring legacy of the partnership between our two countries. Obama
senior adviser Brian Deese said in a call with reporters Thursday that the U.S. and China
committing to be early signers is significant, as the two account for more
than 40 percent of global g reen h ouse g a s emissions. The agreement takes force once 55
countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions sign on. Our hope is that, as this process

you will see growing momentum having this agreement come into
force, Deese said. Were certainly not where we need to be yet, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern said. What
proceeds,

Paris does is put in place a structure that will encourage countries to increase their targets every five years. Paris,
Stern said, puts us on the right path, with the right kind of structures built into it, but theres no time to lose.

the commitment to
work together to bring the Paris agreement into force sends a strong
signal to other countries.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said

Turn: Arctic focus causes an attention trade off with the place
on the earth that produce more CO2
Adaptation means there is no catastrophic impact to warming
Kenny 12senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Schwartz fellow
at the New America Foundation. Charles. Not Too Hot to Handle,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/09/not_too_hot_to_handle?
print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full --br
But for all international diplomats appear desperate to affirm the self-worth of pessimists and doomsayers
worldwide, it is important to put climate change in a broader context. It is a vital
global issue -- one that threatens to slow the worldwide march toward improved quality of life. Climate change is
already responsible for more extreme weather and an accelerating rate of species extinction -- and may ultimately
kill off as many as 40 percent of all living species. But

it is also a problem that we know how

to tackle , and one to which we have some time to respond before it is

likely to completely derail progress. And that's good news, because the fact that it's
manageable is the best reason to try to tackle it rather than abandon all hope like a steerage class passenger in the
bowels of the Titanic. Start with the economy. The Stern Review, led by the distinguished British economist Nicholas

in terms
of income, greenhouse gasses are a threat to global growth, but hardly
Stern, is the most comprehensive look to date at the economics of climate change. It suggests that,

an immediate or catastrophic one.

Take the impact of climate change on the developing world.

The most depressing forecast in terms of developing country growth in Stern's paper is the "A2 scenario" -- one of a
series of economic and greenhouse gas emissions forecasts created for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). It's a model that predicts slow global growth and income convergence (poor countries

even under this model, Afghanistan's GDP per

capita climbs sixfold over the next 90 years, India and China ninefold, and
Ethiopia's income increases by a factor of 10. Knock off a third for the most pessimistic
simulation of the economic impact of climate change suggested by the Stern report, and people in those
countries are still markedly better off -- four times as rich for Afghanistan, a little more than six
times as rich for Ethiopia. It's worth emphasizing that the Stern report suggests that the
costs of dramatically reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is closer to 1 (or
maybe 2) percent of world GDP -- in the region of $600 billion to $1.2 trillion today. The economic case
catching up to rich countries). But

for responding to climate change by pricing carbon and investing in alternate energy sources is a slam dunk. But for
all the likelihood that the world will be a poorer, denuded place than it would be if we responded rapidly to reduce

the global economy is probably not going to collapse over the

next century even if we are idiotic enough to delay our response to climate change by a few
years. For all the flooding, the drought, and the skyrocketing bills for air conditioning, the economy would
keep on expanding, according to the data that Stern uses. And what about the impact on global health?
greenhouse gases,

Suggestions that malaria has already spread as a result of climate change and that malaria deaths will expand
dramatically as a result of warming in the future don't fit the evidence of declining deaths and reduced malarial
spread over the last century. The authors of a recent study published in the journal Nature conclude that the
forecasted future effects of rising temperatures on malaria "are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the

changes observed since about 1900 and about two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by
the effective scale-up of key control measures." In other words, climate change is and will likely remain a small
factor in the toll of malaria deaths into the foreseeable future. What about other diseases? Christian

Zimmermann at the University of Connecticut and Douglas Gollin at Williams evaluate the
likely impact of a 3-degree rise in temperatures on tropical diseases like
dengue fever, which causes half a million cases of hemorrhagic fever and 22,000 deaths each year. Most of the
vectors for such diseases -- mosquitoes, biting flies, and so on -- do poorly in frost. So if the weather stays warmer,

there are existing tools to prevent or

treat most tropical diseases, and Zimmerman and Gollin suggest "rather modest
improvements in protection efficacy could compensate for the consequences of climate
change." We can deal with this one. It's the same with agriculture. Global warming will have many
negative (and a few positive) impacts on food supply, but it is likely that other impacts -- both positive,
including technological change, and negative, like the exhaustion of aquifers-- will have far
these diseases are likely to spread. At the same time,

bigger effects .

The 2001 IPCC report suggested that climate change over the long term could reduce

agricultural yields by as much as 30 percent. Compare that with the 90 percent increase in rice yields in Indonesia
between 1970 and 2006, for example.