OverviewNo impact defense on the da means it outweighs – Asia pivot is key to solve a litany of escalation scenarios – key to check escalation to military use in Asian conflict – that turns the aff – conflict ensures a surge in new national security legislation that rolls back the aff

Turns India – lack of trade leadership kills overall modeling – that’s economist

Proves no effecgtive democracy modeling

Link alone turns case – congressional battles signal hesitancy which kills cred

At: no asia warLandey may be old, but his ev is true – miscalc is inevitable going forward, only a question of whether US economic leadership can intervene and solve armed intervention and escalation between regional powers Asian conflict is high risk – it’s a unique area for conflictNaím, senior associate in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, 10-17-13 (Moisés, chief international columnist for El Pais and La Repubblica, Spain's and Italy's largest dailies, “The Most Dangerous Continent,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/the-most-dangerous-continent/280528/, accessed 10-18-13)

Some problems travel well. Sometimes too well. Financial crashes have taught us that in some cases what starts as a very local economic problem quickly escalates and becomes a global crisis. Think Greece—or more recently Cyprus. And we know that terrorism also has

a way of going global in unpredictable and dangerous ways.¶ But what about regions? Which continents are more prone to infect the rest of the world with their problems? Africa and Latin America's woes, for example, remain mostly insulated. Of course, the mass emigration of Africans to Europe and Latin Americans to the United States is an example of how

one continent’s problems spill over into another, but this contagion has had much less of an impact than the economic crisis in the U.S. or Europe, for example. Millions of people all over the world, and especially in Europe, are still paying the

consequences for that financial earthquake.¶ The point is that the problems of some continents are more ‘systemic’ than others. This is to say that the agonies of some regions affect the entire world , no matter how far away they are. The question, then, is: Which of the five continents is bound to spread more unhappiness in the future? ¶ One way to answer is to think about which threats travel the easiest and with no trouble skirt borders , fortifications, or the public policies that we naïvely believe protect us . An economic crash in China, for example, is bound to be felt everywhere and by everyone. ¶ Nor may we be able to dodge the consequences of the nuclear experiments of a young, inexperienced North Korean tyrant. So, which continent is the most dangerous? Asia . This may surprise those who see the ‘Asian economic miracle’ as a model for the rest of the world.

Or those who think that conditions in the Middle East are ripe for a lengthy and rising wave of armed conflicts, religious radicalization and international terrorism. All this is true.¶ But the problems that originate in Asia will prove more and more complicated, as their already gigantic economies continue to grow , albeit at

a slower pace than in the last several decades.¶ The main threats to humanity today are: 1) climate change; 2) nuclear proliferation; 3) the outbreak of a disease with no known cure that spreads across the globe claiming a large

number of victims; 4) global economic crises and, of course, 5) an armed conflict between two or more military powers, such as China and India, for example. Of course, there are other threats: terrorism, the increased scarcity of water, criminalized governments, structural unemployment, and the proliferation of failed states. But none of these would generate the colossal consequences of the five I list. ¶ Asia is the region with the most countries that have the potential to create and spread these five problems . The much celebrated

economic success of the ‘Asian tigers’ obscures the fact that this continent is also home to the principal threats to global stability. ¶ According to the Asian Development Bank, Asia is on the path to double its consumption of oil, triple its use of natural gas, and see an 81 percent increase in its use of high polluting coal, speeding up and doubling its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2035. Asia alone, then, would be emitting the total amount of CO2 that experts have calculated to be the maximum sustainable level for the entire planet. ¶ Asia is

also the continent with the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons. These capabilities are present in high-risk countries like North Korea and Pakistan, which also happen to be those that have shown no

qualms in selling their nuclear technology to the highest bidder.¶ Many of the world’s longest-lasting armed conflicts are found in Asia. From Afghanistan to Sri Lanka and from Kashmir to the unending armed

insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines, wars are routine. Asia is also marked by the most explosive borders in the world: China and India, Pakistan and India, and between the two Koreas . ¶ From Asia came the avian bird flu pandemic. While the mortalities proved lower than feared, the world was alerted to Asia’s potential to rapidly spread disease across the globe. ¶ Are these accidents and Asia-originated problems inevitable? Of course not. But they are unfortunately more important and urgent than issues that more frequently absorb the world’s attention.

At: no negotiationYes deal soonMauldin, 7/26 – William, trade columnist, WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-trade-deal-nears-potential-home-stretch-worries-abound-1437941192

Still, all the countries involved have economic and strategic reasons to play bal l, notwithstanding their domestic concerns , according to backers of the deal. “Part of the reason all the ministers are coming to Hawaii is that they know the U.S. political schedule , and there are concerns that if this isn’t wrapped up soon the ratification process could get bogged down ,” said Jeffrey Schott, trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which backs trade liberalization.

At: alt cause - sequestrationEconomic signals are key to regional leadership – that’s the Economist ev – military action against ISIS obviously doesn’t demonstrate hesitancy on economic leadership in Asia – only a sustained investment and maintained econ cred solveNew Security Strategy doubles down on the pivot – shift to diplomatic emphasis supercharges importance of TPP.Shen 2-10. [Dingli, rofessor and associate dean at Institute of International Studies, Fudan University, “US dominance not right way of pivot to Asia” China Daily -- usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2015-02/10/content_19535923.htm]

The US government has just released its new National Security Strategy which stresses four main features, namely national security, economic development, American values, and the international order. There is nothing dramatically new in the first three, as US presidents always emphasize security, the economy, and democracy, the only difference is the priority given them depending on the

circumstances at different times.∂ However, this time, the White House has added the fourth element to this document, the international order. It is good that the US seems more willing to accommodate the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to promote world peace and security, as well as global economic prosperity. In the face of the US' domestic situation,

the Obama administration has to focus more on partnerships and cooperation for his remaining two years in the White House.∂ The new National Security Strategy, however, has not forgotten the US' "rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific". The Obama administration's first National Security Strategy of May 2010 used the term "rebalancing" four times, but none of them applied to the

Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, Obama first raised the notion of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific in 2011. However, given the opportunity presented by drawing up a new National Security Strategy, the White House national security team has reaffirmed the US' commitment to rebalancing to the region . ∂ According to the latest National Security Strategy, the US will employ a combination of tools in its rebalancing, including " increased diplomacy , stronger alliances and partnerships , expanded trade and investment, and a diverse security posture". In this context, the US National Security Advisor Susan Rice has announced that the Chinese, Japanese, South Korean and Indonesian leaders have been invited to visit the US this year, when she inaugurated the release of the new National Security Strategy.

This was a clear signal that the US is diplomatically committed to its rebalancing to East Asia.

Sequestration doesn’t thump pivot – cuts only go to peripheral programsThe Diplomat, 13 -- 10/4, The Diplomat is the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region, The Diplomat reaches an influential audience of commentators, policymakers and academics with its in-depth treatment of regional issues. The Diplomat provides expert coverage on: • Geo-political trends throughout the Asia-Pacific • Defense and intelligence • Environment, human security and development http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/us-air-force-embraces-sequestration-and-asia/

US Air Force Embraces Sequestration and Asia Every problem represents an opportunity. For the USAF, the sequester problem is being used to pivot to Asia. The decision of the U.S. House of Representatives to hurtle

head-long into a government shutdown highlights the current reluctance of the U.S. government to develop any kind of coherent plan for funding its commitments. While the shutdown itself likely won’t have a long-term effect on military readiness, the already-existing sequester and the upcoming debt ceiling fight just might. At the same time, the U.S. military is undergoing a significant strategic and geographic shift. Combining these two projects seems like a bad idea, but then, as they say, every problem represents an opportunity. Last week, at the Air Force

Association’s Air and Space Conference, questions about the impact of the sequester on the future of American airpower loomed large. The Pacific Pivot and the associated development of AirSea Battle (ASB), commits the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to an extensive set of doctrinal and procurement targets, targets that the sequester may endanger. It’s hardly unreasonable

to be concerned about how cuts in funding (especially haphazard cuts like the sequester) could affect the ability of the service to meet these targets. However , with respect to the platforms that will form the core of the USAF’s contribution to the Pacific Pivot , the Air Force’s commitment appears to remain strong . Despite the growing concerns about the F-35 , the service has not wavered in its insistence that large numbers Lightning IIs are

necessary to maintaining air supremacy. Similarly, Air Force leaders have consistently maintained that the K-46 tanker and the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) will form the foundation of USAF capabilities long into the 21st century. All of these platforms have obvious applicability to the USAF’s ability to project force along the Pacific Rim. Services are often saddled with weapons and missions that they don’t want, but that they must accept because of Congressional pressure, executive pressure or the demands of inter-service

comity. Sometimes, budget crunches can provide an opportunity for services to discard their unwanted bits . Most notably, the Air Force has suggested ridding itself of the A-10 Warthog , an attack aircraft that is

exceptionally popular with the Army but less so with the USAF. The Air Force considers the A-10 problematic because it is a single-mission aircraft designed to perform a job that the USAF doesn’t consider central or critical to its mission . The combination of the sequester and the Pacific Pivot may finally give the USAF the momentum it needs to dispose of the A-10 permanently, redirecti ng its efforts towards more modern, multi-mission aircraft . Interestingly enough, some analysts have also suggested major cuts in the USAF’s current bomber fleet, including retirement of the B-1B force and possibly of the B-2 and B-52 forces, as well. These cuts would allow the Air Force to concentrate its efforts on the next generation of strike aircraft, but would certainly detract in the near term from the project of re-developing maritime roles for the USAF’s bomber force . The commitment of the service to drones remains in some question. General Mike Hostage noted that “Predators and Reapers are useless in a contested environment,” which is precisely the environment the Air Force expects to find in a conflict with China. The Air Force has also made its lack of enthusiasm for the Global

Hawk clear, which would appear altogether sensible were it not for the bevy of similar problems associated with the F-35. In short, while the sequester will continue to have an effect on how the USAF pivots, it also provides an opportunity for the service to remake itself . The USAF continues to see its future in preparing for high intensity conflict in Asia , most likely in close collaboration with the U.S. Navy . This represents a welcome shift from the last decade, in which the requirements of the War on Terror meant conducting missions that the service considered peripheral with aircraft that it didn’t particularly like .

At: ux overwhelms the linkTPA doesn’t guarantee passage –dems who supported tpa will still fight TPP – that’s 1nc needham

PC key factor – passage not guaranteed despite TPABrinkley, 7/7 – John, columnist on international trade and investment @ forbes, Speechwriter at the U.S. State Department, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Investment Company Institute, and the Embassy of South Korea, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2015/07/07/tpp-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

TPP Still Has A Long Way To Go Congress’s having given President Obama fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership doesn’t assure that the agreement will enjoy smooth sailing t he rest of the way. There are still any number of rocks in the water that could sink it . Negotiations Negotiations over the TPP among and

between the 12 parties to it are not as close to completion as Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman would like you to believe.

There are enough unresolved issues in the text to keep the negotiators at the table for a long time. To be fair, the 11 other TPP parties know they need to finish it and get it to the U.S. Congress for a vote by the end of the year. If it drags into the 2016 election year, all bets are off. That fact, along with Congress having given Obama fast-track authority, may soften their negotiating positions on some issues. Whatever Pharma Wants, Pharma Gets The governments of several TPP countries are incensed at the U.S. government’s insistence on protecting American drug patents against encroachment by generics. They say the Obama administration is putting the profits of the American pharmaceutical industry ahead of the protection of public health – a claim that’s hard to refute. Politico reported last week that a leaked copy of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter included a provision restricting foreign governments’ rights to approve generic drugs that copy American brands. According to Politico, the provision would allow American pharmaceutical companies to claim patent infringement at the drop of a hat. U.S. patent law allows for copies of all manner of patented consumer products – watches, musical instruments, computer software and many others – under certain circumstances, with one exception: prescription drugs. Now, the Obama administration is trying to force that regime on the 11 other TPP countries, said Ralph Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical

Association. Congressional and Presidential Politics No president has had as much difficulty getting a fast- track bill passed by Congress than Obama had with the one he just signed . Trade has traditionally been a bipartisan issue , but that’s changin g. A lot of congressional Democrats who support free trade foresee no political benefit to voting for another free trade agreement . What they foresee instead are election-year attack ads and primary challenges . If the TPP negotiations drag on so long that the agreement

doesn’t get to Capitol Hill until 2016, even more Democrats will abandon Obama. House Minority Leader

Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., led a Democratic rear-guard action to reject the fast-track bill the first time it came up for a vote. So, she is not a taken-for-granted yes vote on the TPP. Hillary Clinton supported Pelosi and the other Democratic rebels. With Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., running against her for the Democratic presidential nomination,

Clinton has to shore up her defenses on her left flank. She seems to be putting off having to state an unequivocal position on the TPP for as long as she can. But it’s hard to imagine that she will endorse it, even

though she spoke in favor of it when she was secretary of state and voted for other free trade agreements when she was a senator. That’s politics , folks. You do what you have to do to win. There won’t be many pro-trade Democrats voting in the 2016 primaries.

Passage likely now but not guaranteed – Fight over TPP vote has already begun –it’s a huge political battle and vote will be super close Needham, 6/28 – Vicki, Economics and Trade Policy Columnist @ The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246350-new-trade-battle-looms-on-the-horizon

New trade battle looms on the horizon President Obama’s prized fast-track authority is a done deal in Congress, but Washington is already steeling for the next major trade battle — this one over lawmakers’ approval of a sweeping Pacific Rim agreement. Completion of talks in support of the Trans-Pacific

Partnership (TPP) could come as early as August, setting up a fall fight over ratification that is all but certain to

spill into the 2016 presidential race. Congress wrapped up the first phase of the trade fight this week , giving

President Obama trade promotion authority, which strengthens his power to negotiate international deals and limits Congress’s sway over their

contents. Passage of the measure , a major win for Obama, has set off a race to complete the TPP , which

would stretch from the Pacific Rim to Latin America. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman suggested this week that a deal could be ready this summer. Akira Amari, Japan’s economy minister and New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser also said in recent days that

they are aiming for completion by the August congressional recess, Reuters reported. Even if the TPP is completed in next month or two it could take months to receive a final vote on Capitol Hill with several legislative clocks built into slowing the process. A new trigger in the fast-track legislation gives the Obama administration 30 days to publicly release the text of the TPP. The agreement must undergo 60 days of public scrutiny before the president can sign the deal at the 90-day mark. That process can’t be accelerated meaning the clock for congressional action

may not start until November. But before that process starts, negotiators need to finish work on the massive Asia-Pacific deal then send it to Congress where it is likely to face of flurry of opposition from labor unions and environmental groups, which are already ramping up their campaigns to stop it . Myron Brilliant, head of

international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said clearance of fast-track trade authority should provide impetus to the 11 other nations involved in the trade talks to put their best deals on the table. Brilliant cautioned that there are still “sticky and difficult” outstanding issues that shouldn’t be taken lightly, including market access agreements with Canada’s dairy protections and the opening of the auto and agriculture sectors within Japan. But he said there seems to be confidence among U.S. trade officials that the countries are close to resolving

the remaining issues, which also include intellectual property protections and guidelines for state-owned enterprises. “What the votes on trade this past few weeks show us is to get TPP through Congress we need a strong market-opening

agreement that has robust support of industries across every sector,” Linda Dempsey, vice president of international affairs at the

National Association of Manufacturers. While the far-reaching agreement would lower tariffs across many products for U.S. exporters, it also would set new rules on everything from labor and environmental standards to pharmaceuticals like new biologic drugs. Still, Bill Lane, Caterpillar’s director of global affairs, said that if a final deal is slow to develop this summer the next place to look is to a November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Manila — a summit the majority of TPP country leaders are expected to attend. He said that is

probably the latest a deal would be completed and would easily push the debate over the TPP into 2016. “While we’re optimistic that TPP will be done soon we’re always mindful that most trade negotiators and lobbyists get paid by the hour,” Lane told The Hill. The longer negotiators take to wrap up a deal, the deeper the contentious trade debate gets pushed into the middle of the race for the White House. Brilliant called the idea that trade deals can’t get done during election years “ hogwash.” “There’s never is an ideal moment for a trade bill ,” Brilliant said. “But this is an area where the president and congressional leadership are aligned ,” he said.

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

Trade's big breakout Could 2015 be the year of trillion-dollar deals? The new Republican majority in Congress could turn 2015 into the year of the trade deal. Republicans and President Barack Obama are both eager to act on a massive Asia-Pacific deal, an even bigger agreement with the European Union and legislation that would fast-track their approval by Congress — all of which have a shot of moving next year. So while many in Washington are bracing for stalemates on issues as wide-ranging as

health care to immigration, the climate could be just right to move the kind of bipartisan trade agreements not seen since NAFTA 20 years ago. And with trillions of dollars at stake for both the domestic and global economies, trade could become a signature issue for both Republicans and the president as they look to claim significant political victories. “The temperature is rising , and I think, at least now, we have President Obama making very direct comments to support the trade agenda in a way that I hadn’t seen in a long while ,” sai d Mireya Solis, a senior fellow and Japan expert at the Brookings Institution. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which would cover about 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and about

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

will still need Democratic support to get through Congress, political observers say. “The critical item here is the extent to which the president manages what I’ve characterized as intraparty politics for Democrats, ” said Scott

Miller, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I think everybody has concluded,

including myself, that this needs to be a bipartisan effort.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the White House needs to rally support from at least 50 House Democrats to get the bill through the lower chamber — no easy task given the post-election decline in the number of trade-friendly Democrats. Underscoring the difficulties the administration could face from intransigent Democrats, the White House’s legislative abilities were tested just this month when countering Democratic opposition to the massive spending package, which barely squeaked

through to passage, Miller said. And even if the votes on a fast-track bill can be had, this year’s stalled effort to get the legislation underway has left little time to spare , especially given that Democratic support could again grow more scarce once the presidential campaign kicks into full gear toward the beginning of

2016. The point isn’t lost on congressional trade leaders . Incoming Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said

trade will top the committee’s agenda in early 2015. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a Finance committee member and No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership as Republican Conference chairman, said the bill would likely be one of the first pieces of legislation that emerges from the panel, which has jurisdiction over trade. Trade supporters consider the bill vital to ushering the Asia-Pacific trade talks toward their conclusion because it would give other countries the confidence to resolve major outstanding issues — such as access to medicines in developing nations, environmental protections and Japanese agricultural and U.S. auto tariffs — without having to worry that any hard-won concessions could be picked apart by congressional amendment. Bilateral talks between the U.S. and Japan on the tariffs issue have proved particularly troublesome for the larger deal. In a breakthrough last month, Tokyo proposed more meaningful tariff cuts on U.S. beef, pork and dairy products, but the

negotiations have since stalled again over the United States’ refusal to meet Japan’s demands for lower auto parts tariffs. “They’re

kind of stuck because nobody’s sure where the United States’ bottom lines are,” Miller said. “I think that’s the reason to get TPA, so

all our trading partners know where the Congress’ bottom line is, and at that point you conclude pretty quickly.” The first six

months of the year will be a critical window for finishing up the talks given the tight timeline, officials from the TPP countries have said. Even if the pact gets signed, it will still have to go through a legal scrubbing and translation before a bill to ratify the deal can be introduced. That could mean that the implementing legislation would have to be drafted over the August recess with a view to getting the bill to a vote before Thanksgiving, a former

Senate Democratic aide speculated. “If people are motivated to finish, they could do it really, really quickly assuming they got the votes ,” the former aide said, adding that “the timing that the administration and others are talking about strikes me as incredibly aggressive, but maybe not impossible.” In 2011, the House and Senate were able to pass bills ratifying the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in a single day, the aide noted. But those agreements had been concluded in 2006 and 2007 under President

George W. Bush’s administration and had a number of provisions renegotiated before the Obama administration brought them to Congress for a vote.

At: Liptak - IranUniqueness assumes their thumper

Wont cost PC – GOP won’t oppose itSargent 7/15 {Greg, syndicated politics correspondent, “Morning Plum: Do Republicans Really Want to Block the Iran Deal in Congress? The Washington Post, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/15/morning-plum-do-republicans-really-want-to-block-the-iran-deal-in-congress/#THUR}

But here’s the question : Once all the procedural smoke clears, do Republicans really want an endgame in which they succeeded in blocking the deal? Do they actually want to scuttle it? Perhaps many of them genuinely do want that. But

here’s a prediction: as this battle develops, some Republicans may privately conclude that it would be better for them politically if they fail to stop it . The Iran debate may come to resemble the one over the anti-Obamacare lawsuit that

also recently fell short. Congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates are predicting dire consequences if the Iran deal goes forward. But

what’s missing from the discussion is that if Congress does somehow block the deal, that could precipitate a whole different set of consequences. Former Obama administration official Dennis Ross spells out those consequences this way: Opponents need to explain what happens if the rest of the world accepts this deal, Iran says it is ready to implement it — and Congress blocks it. Will the European Union, which explicitly commits in the agreement to lift sanctions once Iran has fulfilled its main nuclear responsibilities, not do so because Congress says no? Can sanctions really be sustained in these circumstances, particularly if the Iranians don’t increase their enrichment and say they will observe the deal? Could we be faced with a world in which the sanctions regime collapses, Iran gets its windfall and is only two months from breakout, and there is little on-ground visibility into its program?

Some Congressional Republicans are also quietly mulling another possibility : What if our allies blame them for tanking the deal they support? The New York Times points out that GOP repudiation of the deal

“was a blow not only to Mr. Obama but also to conservative leaders the party usually backs , Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.” And note this telling moment from GOP Senator Bob Corker: “In the next couple of months, the international community is going to be focused on Congress . I got that ,” Mr. Corker said in an interview. “ I understand the position we’re in.” To be clear, it would be folly to predict with certainty how the politics of this will play out. Many Democrats may well decide it’s hard for them to back the deal. And Republicans

may be able to use procedural votes to inflict some damage on them. But even so , Republicans could also conclude that their best outcome is to inflict that damage in the short term while also failing to block the deal in the end . Just as Republicans realized that “winning” the lawsuit against Obamacare could force them to own the consequences of their “victory,” and increase pressure them to specify concrete alternative

courses of action, they may conclude it’s a good thing that the Congressional oversight mechanism negotiated by Senator Corker

(which they supported, by the way) makes it so hard for them to “win” by scuttling the Iran deal.

Iran wont trade off until the bill is at the finish lineDrum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)

Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one . Opposition

to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a

couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the

past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling

starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too

until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill . Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and

without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.

At: Intrinsicness1. Intrinsicness arguments are bad—

a. Hurts neg ground—there is no brightline-they can just perm any disadsb. Fairness and reciprocity- no good way to test what advantages are intrinsic

to the affc. Logical policy maker argument isn’t objective- no reason that’s necessarily

better for debate2. The disad IS intrinsic- our link and internal links prove that there is a germane

political backlash to doing the plan3. Politics disads are good—

a. They are a key neg generic, and it is important to neg ground and flexibility- especially on an aff- leaning topic

b. Real world education—process, current events and political system all have unique educational benefits

c. We should have discussions about which CP or plan would cost the less politically – we need the DA to do that

At: agency actionObama is the Velcro president – all agency action links. Nicholas and Hook 10. (Peter and Janet, Staff Writers – LA Times, “Obama the Velcro president”, LA Times, 7-30, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3)

If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting

new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the colossus of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-

book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But as a candidate in

2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when

unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit. Insulating the president from bad news has proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary

Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him . He has opined on virtually everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov.

Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically he creates some of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position yourself as being all things to all people , the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and

understandable — such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. But at this stage, it may be late in the game to downsize either the president or his agenda . Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The man came in promising change. He has a higher profile than some presidents because of his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the message

he brought in. It's naive to believe he can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face of the oil spill. The buck stops with his office."

Obama will get the blame for all policies passed – the hill is too polarized for any blame deflection. Politico 9. [2-13-09 -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18827.html]

The Washington climate , which led to a party-line vote on the stimulus, has big political implications : It means that Obama will have sole ownership -- whether that means credit or blame -- for all the massive changes in government he envisions over the coming year.

At: winners winMoore, 13 --Guardian's US finance and economics editor (Heidi, 9/10/2013, “Syria: the great distraction; Obama is focused on a conflict abroad, but the fight he should be gearing up for is with Congress on America's economic security,” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester, JMP)

Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time , but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor . It's fair to say that congressional Republicans , particularly in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time .

At: plan popularLink debate:First is Gross – Obama PC – Freedom act was viewed as compromise and ensures surveillance legislation is a huge legislative battle – forces Obama’s hand against republicans to push against dems – drains PC needed to swing them in favor of passing TPPSecond - Plan draws Obama into major fight with plan’s supporters - freedom act empirics proveWhittaker, 14 (Zack, writer for ZDNet, CNET, and CBS News, 5/22/14, http://www.zdnet.com/house-passes-controversial-freedom-act-7000029780/)

House passes Freedom Act in effort to curb NSA spying, despite withdrawn industry support Summary: The bill was designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was "watered down." Next stop, the Senate. The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act, which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. With more than 152

co-sponsors, the bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. However, t he real fight is now in the Senate's hands , which according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by the Obama administration by strengthening previously removed provisions . Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the

bill's author — who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 — previously said that the new bill was designed to counter the "misuse" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which "overstepped its authority." It was passed by the House

Judiciary Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the most prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. However, in prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill "closely resembled" the

bill he first introduced. "The legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government’s

surveillance authorities," he said. " It bans bulk collection , includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message to the NSA: We are watching you."

unrelated legislation key – overcomes opposition and outweighs trade ideologyBecker, 6/12 ISAAC STANLEY-BECKER, Wall Street Journal, 6/12/15, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/12/fast-track-votes-have-long-difficult-history/

And Thursday, ahead of a vote on granting President Barack Obama so-called fast-track negotiating authority, lawmakers who want to see the agreement sealed had one word to sell the legislation: “Bipartisan.” They make it sound easy. But in fact, it hasn’t been. Fast-track in its present form dates to the Trade Act of 1974, which gave Gerald Ford, a Republican, power to complete the Tokyo Round of negotiations aimed at removing export subsidies and other impediments to free trade. The expedited negotiating authority was reauthorized several times over the next two decades. There have even been signs of agreement across party lines. In 1993, more than 100 Democrats voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which organized labor today cites as the epitome of what it dislikes about free trade. By 1997, when President Bill Clinton’s administration sought to reauthorize fast-track authority, which had expired in 1994, the Republican majority took positions on labor and environmental standards that the White House wouldn’t accept, said Mickey Kantor, the U.S. Trade Representative from 1993 to 1996. The administration had the legislation pulled. By that time, the president, facing the threat of impeachment proceedings toward the end of the decade, lost much of his pull with lawmakers, who were deciding whether to try to eject him from office. Another reauthorization attempt failed in 1998, by a vote of 180-243. The Clinton administration’s early

success , Mr. Kantor said, stemmed from the priority the president put on trade, but also from the benefits promised to certain members, which sweetened the deal . A Bush administration official who was

closely involved in trade negotiations said Republicans used similar tactics in 2002, narrowly convincing Congress to grant Mr. Bush fast-track authority. The vote in the House, the chamber that on Friday will decide

the fate of Mr. Obama’s fast-track authority, was gaveled in at 3:30 a.m. The count was 215-212. Final passage depended on making promises to lawmakers who were on the fence , the administration official said. “You get to a point where you’re

10 votes shy, and you identify the 10 members who are willing to trade and cut deals , ” said the official. “In a way it’s

frustrating because it’s not about the merits. It’s about horse-trading.” Today there are rules that bar some of the lucrative

goodies, known as earmarks. Mr. Obama has used personal appeals in aiming to sway Democratic lawmakers,

including members of the moderate, pro-growth New Democrat Coalition and the Congressional Black Caucus. Four House Democrats who’ve pledged their support traveled on Air Force One to the Group of

Seven Summit in Germany, touting international economic opportunities.

Obama loses PC NO MATTER WHAT – no bipartisanship on surveillance post-freedom-act – and hes at the center of congressional debatesShear, 6/3 -- Michael, NYT, White House Correspondent for NYT, Mr. Shear received a B.A. degree from Claremont McKenna College and a M.A. degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University, 6/3/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html?_r=0

In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance For more than six years, President Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress

into reauthorizing the program, with new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk

collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies

available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate

finally passed it.” The president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind

of equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about

the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much

surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either way, Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night

ensures that he will deliver to the next president a m ethod of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the

telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who

oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of

the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance

programs. “Obama has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend political capital changing those programs .” In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the

public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly . In the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown , Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats , while admitting that the new approach to data

collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does

believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s advocacy put him at the center of a fierce congressional debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early

Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our

enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive.” At the same time, Senator Rand Paul , Republican of Kentucky, excoriated

Mr. Obama , saying, “The president continues to conduct an illegal program ,” a reference to a recent ruling by a

federal appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that debate was a rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party endorsed the approach. “This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be protected,” Senator

Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull for Mr. Obama , who inherited a vast national security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties,

which are unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.” Once in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s

decisions — in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his national security team has also embraced some of Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to fight threats abroad. Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his thinking had evolved . “I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Mr. Obama said. “My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight,

increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks . And the modest encroachments on the privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name

attached and not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us doing. ” With the passage of the USA Freedom Act nearly two years later, Mr. Obama must make his new approach work by maintaining a focus on security while doing more to respect privacy. “Certainly,” Ms. Monaco said, “we are going to be focused on that.”

If time

Trade leadership is key to prevent great power war escalation.

Troxell, 14 -- US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute national security and military strategy research professor, 7-15-14

[John, “Op-Ed: Global Leadership — Learning From History” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Global-Leadership-Learning-From-History/2014/07/15]

We are in the season of discontent concerning the position of the United States in the world. Following

the financial crisis, it was the declinist narrative, and now it appears to be verging on a competency, or weariness, narrative. We recognize our fundamental strengths and lean away from global responsibilities. Pundits from both sides of the aisle wonder about the direction of our nation and the unease this has caused in the rest of the world.

Signs of retrenchment and floundering abound, and the concern over the future leadership role of the United States is not just a partisan endeavor. The National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2030 listed as one of its potential game-changers the

uncertain “role of the United States.” Whereas the United States was previously perceived as a global stabilizer, in the future, the United States is increasingly perceived as a variable.1 Highlighting the perception of growing unease over the role of the United States was the recent cover story in the Economist entitled, “What Would America Fight For? The Question Haunting its Allies.”2 Crises in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea, and now Iraq—all cry out for U.S. engagement in support of the liberal world

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

lessons. . . .”4 Relearning just a few lessons from these commemorative occasions should help our leaders and people understand the importance of U.S. global leadership as we shape the future, and avoid the perils of the past. Excellent scholarship abounds on the run up to World War I, and two recent books worthy of consideration are: Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark; and, The War that Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan. Among the many reasons for the outbreak of World War I, two stand out as of particular importance for what they say about current circumstances: the perils of nationalism and complacency.

Lack of trust between the pre-World War I great powers was exacerbated by the failure to abate the rise of nationalism. The advent of mass media led to the growth of a nationalist public opinion, fanned by politicians appealing to popular fears and prejudices and their populism. “Governments were finding,” MacMillan concludes, “that their ability to maneuver was

increasingly circumscribed by their publics’ emotions and expectations.”5 Today, U.S. political leaders seem to be most interested in winning the next election, as opposed to leading the nation, let alone the global community. Appeals to populist platforms on both the left and right, along with an over emphasis on nation building at home, all stoke fears and nationalist responses. Sure, all politicians want to win reelection, but occasionally the good ones rise above personal aspirations to make the hard choices for the good of the nation. Newt Gingrich recalled that one of the most courageous decisions President Clinton made was to eventually come out in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was a tough choice, and he had to make the case to the American people. President Obama recently argued that leadership requires leveling with the American people about required sacrifices, yet an election focus feeds populist responses and trumpets government payouts,

not sacrifice nor national responsibility. Anyone reading about the coming of World War I cannot fail to recognize the apparently unending series of great power crises that occurred from the beginning of the 20th century. Controlled brinkmanship was demonstrated in North Africa, the Far East, Persia, and, of course, the Balkans. French socialist Jean Jaures commented on the impact of muddling through, “Europe has been afflicted by so many crises for so many years, it has been put dangerously to the test so many times without war breaking out that it has almost ceased to believe in the threat and is watching the further

development of the interminable Balkan conflict with decreased attention and reduced disquiet.”6 Leader complacency, caused by repeatedly running to the edge of crises prior to reaching a resolution, leads to a false sense of security. Our political establishment has mastered the art of kicking the can down the road and muddling through, and has become complacent about the need to address pressing problems, most readily demonstrated in our fiscal mismanagement. How many times have we dangerously approached the fiscal cliff? The need for a grand bargain to balance revenues, entitlements, and government services has been recognized, studied, and “commissioned” for years without effective action. Bruce Jones, author of the recent and appropriately titled book, Still Ours to Lead, offers this thought, “. . . if the United States does not rectify a perception that it is becoming incapable of managing its global financial role, the willingness to participate in a system still overwhelmingly managed by the United States will be undermined.”7 Perhaps we have become complacent in another matter. In a recent

Brookings Essay, Margaret MacMillan argues that: Like our predecessors a century ago, we assume that large-scale, all-out war is something we no longer do. In short, we have grown accustomed to peace as the normal state of affairs. We expect that the international community will deal with conflicts when they arise, and that they will be short-lived and easily containable. But this is not necessarily true.8 Decreased attention may already have contributed to worsening situations in the Middle East, Ukraine, and the Western Pacific. World War I was botched on the front end and

the back end.9 The failure to achieve a just and lasting peace in 1919 led to the outbreak of World War II. Economic distress during the interwar years resulted in the rise of fascist states and easily rekindled the embers of nationalist revanchism. President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points were not adhered to, including the all-important point 3: “the removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all nations consenting to the peace and associating

themselves for its maintenance.” In terms of post-war economic relations, the opposite occurred as nations scrambled to respond to the 1929 crash. Nations participated in a series of competitive devaluations and enacted crippling tariffs, sending the global economy into a death spiral. Our second major commemoration of this summer is the Bretton Woods conference, convened shortly after the D-Day landings and well before the end of World War II.

It was focused on creating a post-war international regime based on rules designed to govern the global economy. Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, these rules now govern the vast majority of the globally interconnected economy. The results of this conference point to the importance of institutional arrangements to monitor and support the global economy, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, better known today as it has evolved into the World Bank (WB); and the commitment to free trade. Conference attendees initially debated the creation of the International Trade Organization, which at the time proved to be a bridge too far, and thus they settled on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Through a series of multinational negotiating rounds and agreements, culminating in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, GATT, and now the WTO, have succeeded in broad tariff reductions and a dramatic increase in global trade. The liberal world economy, based on open markets and free trade, and managed by rules-based, international monetary and trade regimes, has furthered both individual and collective interests and promoted international cooperation. When it comes to the support for international institutions, the President is correct in highlighting their importance. But some of that support should also be expressed in action, particularly as it relates to the global economy. Once again the President is right to focus on the “key source of American strength: a growing economy,” and there is nothing wrong with domestic nation building, but only if it does not replace an equal emphasis on the management and continued engagement in geoeconomic affairs. International regimes, particularly those related to the global economy, require the willingness to fight for proven

common benefits. Globalization has provided proven benefits , but it has always been a hard sell with the American people and thus our politicians need to continue to make the case. The United States is currently engaged in two potential game changing trade negotiations : the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These are both characterized as comprehensive and high-standard 21st century trade agreements and could knit together most of the major trading nations, generating increased economic benefits for all. Of the two, the TPP holds the most promise because of the possibility that China may join, further integrating their economy into the international rules-based

trading regime. Encouraging our negotiating partners to take the necessary political risks to finalize these agreements would be facilitated if the U nited S tates showed leadership and passed T rade P romotion A uthority . The President called for this action in his State of the Union address, and was immediately rejected by Senator Harry Reid. Congress also needs to make progress on IMF reforms. Economics represents a positive-sum game and leads to international cooperation. The

United States needs to level with the American people and show leadership in this area. Bretton Woods points to the essential role of the U nited S tates in supporting these global economic arrangements . The Bretton Woods conference represented “ a made in America” approach to the global economy,10 and the United States was willing to fulfill that essential leadership role. Political economist Robert Gilpin argues that: there can be no liberal international economy unless there is a leader that uses its resources and influence to establish and manage an international economy based on free trade, monetary stability, and freedom of capital movement. The leader must also encourage other states to obey the rules and regimes governing international economic activities.11 Global economic leadership requires the United States to lead by example and demonstrate competent policy outcomes. This brings us to the commemoration of

Tiananmen, which serves to focus our attention on the rise of China and both the possibility of replaying the events of 1914 between transitioning powers, and the prospect that the existing rules for the global economy no longer apply. Tiananmen represents a critical example of the ongoing transformation of China. Prior to 1989, China, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, made rapid progress concerning the four modernizations: agriculture, industry, science and technology, and defense. However, Tiananmen pointed out the government’s lack of attention to the fifth modernization, political transformation. China is now embarked on an even more ambitious reform agenda targeted at overcoming the middle-income trap. The middle-income trap postulates that after developing nations have harvested the low-hanging fruit of cheap labor and light manufacturing, they begin to lose their low-cost labor

advantage and must transition to a knowledge based economy to move into a higher income status. China’s new leaders, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, recognize the need for dramatic economic reform and have presented plans for a new growth model relying on the decisive role of the market and rebalancing the economy to focus more on domestic consumption. The extensive reform agenda includes reform of the household registration system (hukou), new arrangements to fund local governments, ongoing measures to address corruption, inequality, and pollution. China’s success implies an increased urban voice and a more individualistic consumer-based economy. All of this presages the need to address the fifth modernization of

political reform and transformation. Under these circumstances, there is much that the United States can do to build a relationship of trust with China, to avoid the pitfalls of a 1914-style power transition, and to further integrate China as a stakeholder in the global economy. At the same time we should not overestimate the

challenge posed by China and recognize the difficulties (and possibilities) inherent in its current reform agenda. A thoughtful array of transparent security and inclusive economic policies should point to cooperation, not conflict. We have always maintained a strong presence in the Pacific, and for the past decade have been engaged in intensive dialogue with China. The unneeded pivot seems to have heightened a sense of mistrust as China perceives containment, while at the same time creating a perception elsewhere of

a U.S. loss of interest. Today, U.S. leadership does not demonstrate much appreciation for any of these lessons of history. Official statements claiming a continuing objective of global leadership are insufficient.12 Leadership needs to be demonstrated through concrete actions. Failure to learn important lessons from the events we commemorate this season will only serve to disadvantage our nation and condemn future generations to unnecessary hardship.