Case

US/China Relations Down Now

Relations with China awful now—US activity in the SCS provokes and villainizes ChinaSymonds 6/16/16 (Peter Symonds, journalist for World Socialist Web Site, “US-China tensions rise amid major naval exercises,” June 16, 2016, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/16/usch-j16.html)

American, Japanese and Indian warships are currently engaged in week-long “Malabar” war games in the western Pacific, described by the US Navy as “complex, high-end, war-fighting exercises” designed to increase the ability of the three navies to operate together. The target is clearly China, which has its own naval vessels shadowing the operations. The Pentagon has committed the USS John C. Stennis and the vessel’s entire carrier strike group, comprising four other surface ships and a Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine, to the exercise. India has sent two stealth frigates, a guided-missile corvette and a fleet-support ship,

while Japan has sent its huge helicopter carrier—in effect, an aircraft carrier under another name. Washington has mounted an increasingly strident propaganda campaign since early 2015, condemning China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Seas as “expansionist” and “militaristic.” In reality, the US has recklessly exploited longstanding territorial disputes to try to drive a wedge between China and its South East Asian neighbours, especially the Philippines and Vietnam. The US Navy has on three occasions dispatched destroyers within the 12-nautical mile territorial limit around Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea. Sharp divisions over the issue within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) were on display this week during an ASEAN meeting in China. The gathering adopted a joint statement voicing “serious concern” over rising tensions in the South China Sea. While not naming China or going beyond previous statements, it was something of a diplomatic embarrassment to Beijing on its home soil. Hours later, ASEAN retracted the statement. Undoubtedly, countries more closely aligned with China had second thoughts. The Malabar exercises are taking place in the Philippine Sea—that is, in waters to the east of the Philippines, rather than in the South China Sea itself. Nevertheless, the presence of a large fleet of warships within striking distance of the Chinese mainland is provocative. A Chinese navy surveillance vessel has been tracking the USS Stennis during the exercise, according to the US navy. Japanese officials claimed that a separate Chinese intelligence gathering ship yesterday sailed into Japanese territorial waters near Kuchinoerabu Island and issued a complaint to the Chinese embassy in Tokyo. Last Thursday, a Chinese frigate sailed within the 24-nautical mile zone around disputed islands in the East China Sea, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Malabar began as a bilateral naval war game involving the US and India in 1992 but has expanded since 2014 to include Japan as a permanent partner. Last July, US Assistant Defence Secretary Robert Scher suggested that other countries, particularly Australia, become involved on a regular basis. The current exercise is one of the largest ever and involves anti-submarine warfare, air-defence drills and search-and-rescue operations.

The expansion of military exercises like Malabar is part and parcel of the US “pivot to Asia” and military build-up throughout the Indo-Pacific region in preparation for war with China. Over the past five years, Washington has sought to consolidate a network of military alliances and strategic partnerships, as well as basing arrangements, such as those in Australia and the Philippines, to effectively encircle China. Naval power is central to the Pentagon’s AirSea Battle strategy for war with China. These plans involve a massive air and missile assault on the Chinese mainland from bases, ships and submarines in the western Pacific, supplemented by a naval blockade aimed at strangling the Chinese economy. Washington regards India, as well as Japan and Australia, as central to these war preparations. The broader strategic implications of the Malabar exercises were outlined in a Wall Street Journal article entitled “US, India, Japan begin to shape new order on Asia’s high seas.” It noted that “the US has been working to deepen

strategic ties with India and to encourage New Delhi to play a more active role, not just in the Indian Ocean, but also in the Pacific, as China’s rise shifts the regional balance of power.” The three countries have already begun a trilateral ministerial dialogue, with their foreign ministers meeting last year. Unlike Japan, India is not a formal US military ally. However, in Washington last week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signalled India’s close integration into US war preparations. A joint statement by Modi and Obama foreshadowed increased military cooperation across

the Indo-Pacific region in all “domains ... land, maritime, air, space and cyber.” While consolidating alliances and partnerships throughout Asia, the US is also engaged in a massive build-up and restructuring of its military presence in the region. An article published yesterday by Stratfor, a think tank closely aligned to the US military and intelligence establishment, highlighted plans by the US navy to increasingly integrate its 3rd Fleet with its 7th Fleet, which is based in Japan. Until now, the 3rd Fleet has primarily been focussed on the eastern and northern Pacific but is increasingly being deployed to the western Pacific—that is, areas adjacent to the Chinese mainland. The USS Stennis and its strike group, while nominally under the command of the 3rd Fleet, is completing six months of operations deep inside the western Pacific. In April, a Surface Action Group, comprising three destroyers, from the 3rd Fleet began a seven-month deployment in the same broad region. After making clear that the naval restructuring was aimed against Beijing, Stratfor concluded: “As the US and other navies across Asia increase their patrols during a period rife with maritime disputes, Washington seems convinced that for its patrols to have the

desired effect, they must be backed by the combined might of the US fleets in the Pacific.” What is involved is nothing less than the preparations for war. The two fleets account for more than two thirds of the US combat vessels and include approximately 200 ships and 1,200 aircraft. Moreover, tensions over territorial disputes in the South China Sea are set to escalate in the coming weeks, as the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is due to hand down its ruling on a US-backed Philippine legal challenge to Chinese claims.

US/China Relations Impact—Warming

US-China relations key to solving warming Matthews 09 - [Jessica, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ] [U.S.-China Climate Change Cooperation] [http://carnegieendowment.org/2009/03/18/u.s.-china-climate-change-cooperation/acy] [3-18-2009] [Accessed 6-19-2016] //MN

The U.S. and China , the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, must both take decisive action to reduce emissions in the next five years—before it is too late to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Cooperation on climate change is in both countries’ interests, and groundbreaking dialogues between China and the United States have already begun to identify areas of consensus and mutual interest.

The resulting U.S.-China Climate Track II Dialogue afforded leaders from each country the opportunity to speak frankly and discuss

the types of collaboration likely to produce results. Both teams agreed global emissions must be cut by 60 percent by the year 2050, and that both China and the United States must take action.

Throughout his remarks, Minister Xie stressed the importance of cooperation and dialogue on multiple levels—not only between China and the U.S. but also domestically within each country. He thanked Carnegie and GEI for arranging the event, saying that he appreciated the opportunity to meet with people from a range of sectors, from government officials to business and NGO leaders. He also highlighted the far-reaching impacts of China-U.S. climate cooperation:

"Taking active measures to address climate change is in the interest of all mankind, and it requires the cooperation of all countries. As the largest developing country and the largest developed country in the world, respectively,

China and the United States having a dialogue and strengthening cooperation on the issue of climate change are inevitable in history. China and the U.S. conducting dialogue and pragmatic cooperation on climate change will benefit not only the relations of the two countries, but also international cooperation and actions to address climate change."

Regarding multilateral cooperation, Xie was adamant that all countries should adhere to the Bali roadmap and should strive to attain productive results in Copenhagen in December. The financial crisis must not be used as an excuse for countries to lessen their

existing commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. U.S.-China dialogue and

coop eration benefits both countries and benefits the world , he said, and this bilateral cooperation may ultimately make a global deal possible.

Senator Cantwell also presented a strong argument for U.S.-China cooperation, focusing on the economic opportunities of clean

energy and stressing that the United States and China both stand to receive enormous gains from technology partnerships.

The Senator explained that the two countries’ complementary strengths and weaknesses provide great opportunities for collaboration. Whereas the United States has a more advanced science and technology research system and has a well established process for bringing technologies to market, China has a better understanding of what technology works well in the developing world and has the ability to

produce technological products more quickly and cheaply. A robust U.S.-China partnership, therefore, “has the potential to catalyze development and drive down the costs of a diverse array of clean energy tech nologies .”

Climate change threatens global agriculture – US-Sino cooperation solvesHongzhou 15 Zhang Hongzhou is an Associate Research Fellow with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. (The Diplomat, “China-U.S. Climate Change Cooperation: Beyond Energy,” http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-us-climate-change-cooperation-beyond-energy/, 10/13/15, Accessed: 6/18/16)

The Paris Summit in December 2015 is being seen as the “last chance” to save the world from the worst ravages of climate change, yet whether the international community can reach a new climate change agreement remains to be seen. The U nited S tates and China, the two biggest economies and largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, hold the key to the success of not only the Paris Summit but also long-term global efforts to combat climate change . Thankfully, unlike most aspects of Sino-U.S. relations where tensions are rising, bilateral cooperation on climate change has made remarkable progress, highlighted by the historic climate change agreement signed by the two countries in November 2014. During Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States last month, the two sides announced a new set of policies to combat climate change, including a national cap-and-trade program in China and a $3 billion fund from China to help developing countries curb global warming. Energy Cooperation: The Key Success Factor The remarkable success in Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation can be attributed to a wide arrange of factors, including growing domestic pressures, stable and flourishing non-official exchanges, and a change of attitude towards some of the key climate issues, to name but a few. Nonetheless, the solid foundation which has been laid on bilateral energy cooperation, clean energy in particular, is the key driving factor. However, relying on the energy sector alone is risky, and efforts in the energy sector might not be sufficient to sustain Sino-US climate change cooperation and curb global warming. The two countries’ commitment on clean energy should not be taken for granted. In the U.S., the Obama administration certainly has put curbing fossil fuels top of its policy agenda and has made very real efforts to enact policies and regulations to achieve these goals. However, whether those measures can survive political opposition remains uncertain. The 2016 presidential election could be a critical moment in the trajectory of U.S. climate policy. Moreover, the shale gas revolution not only enables the U.S. to achieve energy self-sufficiency, it may also make America the world’s top exporter of fossil energies. This means energy security concerns might no longer be the top policy issue for the U nited S tates, which could then weaken the government’s commitment towards developing clean energies. In the case of China, the current economic slowdown, if it persists, could force the country to rethink its ambitious plans for carbon emission reduction. For years, the bottom line for China on climate change mitigation has been to strike a balance between economic development and climate concerns. While in recent years, amid rapidly worsening pollution, China has been more willing to take decisive action such as breaking away from cheap coal and closing down energy intensive factories to curb domestic greenhouse gas emission at the expense of economic growth. However, it does not mean that climate change concerns will prevail over economic development. With hundreds of millions of people still living in poverty and per-capita incomes lagging far behind those of the developed countries, China’s development needs are immense and the government’s top priority is to maintain stable growth. Therefore, if the economic situation in China worsens, it will be no surprise if the

Chinese government retreats from efforts to curb emissions in favor of stabilizing economic growth . Agriculture and Food Systems In seeking potential areas to expand Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation, agriculture offers great potential. For starters, agriculture is both a major contributor to and victim of climate change. On the one hand, while the exact contribution of the agricultural and related sectors to total greenhouse gas emission remains debatable, studies show that emissions generated by agricultural and related sector activities could be much higher than the public perceives: The overall food system could contribute 25-50 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, reducing agriculture’s GHG emission should be central to limiting climate change. On the other hand, agricultural production and the food system are highly vulnerable to climate change. Certainly, global warming is not uniformly problematic – it could lead to improved productivity in certain tropical regions and extend the cropping period or allow multiple harvests in temperate zones. For the world as whole, however, climate change poses a dire threat to agricultural production and global food security , an assertion widely supported by findings from numerous studies. Climate change will trigger or exacerbate global food insecurity, which might eventually lead to hunger, famine, social unrest , the rise of terrorism, and refugees . Next, as the biggest agricultural producers and traders, the U.S. and China are also among the world’s top agricultural emitters. This highlights the critical role the two countries have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the farm sector . Moreover, unlike Canada and Russia, where agriculture may well benefit from global warming, the impacts of climate change on the agricultural sectors of both China and the United States are negative. Extreme weather brings uncertainty to future food production and threatens food security. China and United States are already deeply locked in the food-climate nexus, given their strong agricultural ties. Those close ties bring both opportunities and challenges to the efforts of the two countries to deal with climate change. On the one hand, given that China’s farm sector is heavily reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical inputs and is dominated small household farming, importing soybeans, corn, and other agricultural products from the United States, apart from contributing to China’s food security, allows China to implement its afforestation and land restoration plans, which are important steps in reducing greenhouse emissions in China. On the other hand, close agricultural ties also mean that the climate impacts in one country will have repercussions for the other. To take a somewhat more obscure agricultural product, alfalfa, as an example, the United States, the largest alfalfa producer in the world, accounted for nearly 95 percent of China’s total alfalfa imports in 2012. As alfalfa requires substantial volumes of water, the Sino-U.S. alfalfa trade has come in for criticism amid a historic drought in Californian the largest alfalfa producing region in the United States. The potential climate impact of the evolving Sino-U.S. agricultural ties would not be limited to those two countries alone; rather, the whole word could be affected . The United States has long been the biggest supplier of agricultural products to China. Increasingly, however, there are concerns in China that an over reliance on U.S. for food will jeopardize China’s food security and even its national security. Thus, China has been pursuing a diversification strategy. This is especially the case with soybeans. In the late 1990s, China imported more than 80 percent of its soybeans from the United States; now, it is importing more soybeans from Latin American countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina. In 2014, the U.S. share of China’s total soybean imports declined to about 40 percent. While diversifying imports away from the U.S. is beneficial to China’s food security, it has negative repercussions for global climate change mitigation because

China’s soaring soybean imports from Latin America are contributing to deforestation in the Amazon , considered to be the biggest carbon sink in the world . As deforestation progresses, it releases carbon, with a direct impact on the entire world, helping to drive climate change. The U.S. and China should prioritize agricultural and food security in their bilateral efforts to combat climate change. The two countries could play a major role in shifting agriculture from being part of the problem to being part of the solution to climate change, by expanding bilateral agricultural trade and investment cooperation , stepping up efforts in agricultural research and technology, and strengthening global food systems.

US/China Relations Good—Terrorism

China Supports the GWOT—US/China relations key to solve terror

POLLPETER , KEVIN ’04 (Deputy Director, SITC, 2013–15 Co-investigator, China’s Civilian and Military Space

Programs, 2014–15, file:///C:/Users/peace_000/Downloads/ADA426611%20(1).pdf)

China's public support for the GWOT has been timely and consistently strong. Beijing immediately condemned the September 11 attacks on the United States ,^ and Chinese President Jiang

Zemin was quick to call President Bush to express his condolences.^ Diplomatically, China supported U.S. strikes in Afghanistan with a caution that they be against "clearly defined targets" and "avoid innocent casualties."' China also voted in favor of the UN Security Council resolution against terrorism, which was "the first time that China has voted in favor of authorizing the international use of force."*The United States and China have held numerous sessions of counterterrorism dialogue that are described by the U.S. State Department as having produced results that were "encouraging and concrete."^ In addition to sharing intelligence, China has also "approved establishment of an FBI

legal attache in Beijing and agreed to create a U.S.-China counterterrorism working group on financing and law enforcement,"* During Operation Enduring Freedom, China increased the number of troops on its border with Afghanistan and Pakistan to prevent terrorists from entering China and conducted a search ofChinese banks strategic Factors Affecting U.S.-China Security Relations 31 to determine if terrorists had used them for funding. ^ China and the United States have also signed a declaration of principles to allow U.S. Customs agents to inspect containers

at the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen. 1° Perhaps the most important assistance that China has provided the United States is its support of Pakistan, a long-time friend of China." Immediately after September 11, the PRC dispatched Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, helping to shore up Pakistan's decision to join the global coalition against terrorism and the Taliban .^^ After a five-day trip to Beijing in December 2001, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf stated that "Chinese leaders showed complete understanding and support to

the rationale behind Pakistan joining the international coalition to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world. "^3 China has also been helpful in easing tensions between India and Pakistan so that the conflict in Kashmir does not disrupt operations in Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that "China has not tried to be a spoiler but instead tried to help the United States alleviate tensions and convince the two parties to scale down their dangerous confrontation."^^ U.S.-China cooperation in support of the GWOT has had limits, however. Beijing has expressed concern that the United States does not completely support its efforts to stop terrorism in the Muslim region of Xinjiang, warning that there should be "no double standards" in the war on terror. Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun 9 Ibid. ^° Russel Barling, "China Joins U.S. Drive to Secure Container Trade; Shanghai and Shenzhen Are the First Mainland Ports to Sign the Initiative," South China Morning Post, July 30, 2003. '1 David M. Lampton and Richard Daniel Ewing, U.S.-China Relations in a Post-September 11th World, Washington, D.C.: The Nixon Center, 2002, p. 62. ^^ "China's Minister to Pakistan," Pakistan Newswire, September 18, 2001. '^ "Musharaff Says Complete Unanimity of Sino-Pak Views on Key Issues," Pakistan Newswire, December 25, 2001. '^ "Powell Praises China's Role in Reducing Indo-Pakistan Tensions," Press Trust ofIndia, April 25, 2002. 32 U.S.-China Security Management Yuxi stated that China "hopes that efforts to fight against East Turkestan terrorist forces will become part of the international efforts and should also win support and understanding." '5 The United States, for its part, "accepts the fact that there are people from western China that are involved in terrorist activities in Afghanistan, and that terrorists' actions have hurt . . . but it does not believe that all of the people of western China are indeed terrorists."'* These concerns, however, may have been allayed by the designation ofthe East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organization by the United States according to Executive Order 13224, although ETIM was not placed on the State Department

foreign terrorist organization list.>7 At the same time, China has not supported an expansion of the war on terror against states described as the "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) and specifically stated its opposition to the invasion of Iraq. On November 8, 2002, China voted for UN Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" 18 and stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq

that it will face serious consequences as a result of its 15 "No Double Standards in Anti-Terror Fight, Says China of Domestic Unrest," AFP, October 11, 2001. ifi "U.S. Envoy Hails 'Resolute' China But Denies Xinjiang Terror Claims," Deutsche Press- ^jwiter, December

6,2001. '7 Executive Order 13224 was issued by the White House on September 23, 2001. To qualify as a terrorist organization a group must have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf ofthose persons; be determined to be a terrorist organization by the Secretary ofthe Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General and with consultations with foreign authorities; assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or be otherwise associated with people listed in the Order's Annex. The U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations is more restrictive in that it requires approval by Congress. •8 "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441," November 8, 2002, p. 3. strategic Factors Affecting U.S.-China Security Relations 33 continued violations of its obligations."^^ Since that time, however, it consistently voiced its opposition to the war. China is also apprehensive about the geopolitical ramifications of the GWOT. Most important, it is concerned that the newly enhanced relationships between the United States and the Central Asian states, Pakistan, and India could be used to surround and contain China. In addition, China is concerned that the GWOT could be used by Japan as justification to expand its military participation in international coalitions. ^^ At least one Chinese security analyst has speculated that "perhaps after the war on terrorism, this newly mobilized order will re-aim at China. "22 Some in China have also expressed disquiet with what they perceive as Washington's unilateralism in the war on terrorism. In response to the "axis of evil,"

one Chinese scholar has written that before the Afghan war could end completely, the United States has determined new targets for its war against terror. However, the United States has not solicited the opinions of any countries in the coalition against terror. The United States has still persisted in its old way even when the EU nations and other allies criticized it. . . . It is totally up to the United States to say who are the foes and who are the friends.-^ Another Chinese author has concluded that the United States is using the war on terror to bring "the whole world into the political order ^° "United Nations Security Council. . .," p. 5. See, for example, "China's Stance and Diplomatic Effort to Solve Iraq Issue," People's Daily (online), March 3, 2003. ^^ "China Urges Japan to Be Prudent in Aiding Fight Against Terrorism," People's Daily (online), September 28, 2001. ^ Andrew Higgins and Charles Hutzler, "Chinese Goals Take a Backseat As U.S. Rises to the Fore in Asia," Wall StreetJournal October 19, 2001. ^ Liu Jianfei, "Listen for 'Fizz'—Empires Decline Not with Bang But with Fizz; Unilateralism Is Equally Dangerous to United States," Shijie Zhishi, May 1, 2002, pp. 16-17 in FBIS as "PRC Journal on US Unilateralism, Decline of Great Powers," May 16, 2002. 34 U.S.-China Security Management led by the United States, This alone is where the real meaning ofthe American war on terrorism lies."^*

US/China Relations Good

US-Sino cooperation is essential to maintaining peaceGarrett and Fingar 13 Banning Garrett is strategic foresight senior fellow for innovation and global trends at the Atlantic Council. Thomas Fingar is an Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. (US News and World Report, “The World is Counting on the U.S. and China” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/09/18/the-us-and-china-must-work-together-to-ensure-global-peace-and-prospertity, 9/18/13, Accessed: 6/20/16)

It is difficult to find a path to a hopeful world that does not include U.S.-China cooperation on global challenges. This is the conclusion of an unprecedented joint assessment entitled "China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future," authored by a working group of Chinese and American experts. Such cooperation would not constitute a G-2 dominating the world, but rather is a sine qua non of effective global cooperation. Put another way, a number of trends and possible scenarios in U.S.-China relations could imperil the prospects for cooperation, as the narrative about the inevitability of U.S.-China conflict has become popular on both sides of the Pacific. If the U nited S tates and China cannot cooperate on major challenges, effective cooperative solution s to global problems is unlikely — and the challenges faced cannot be solved by individual nations on their own. So, the fates of the United States and China are inextricably intertwined in an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world. As participants in a China-U.S. Working Group convened by the Atlantic Council and the China Institute of International Studies, we assessed the implications for China and the United States that were outlined in the US National Intelligence Council's "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds and its Global Trends to 2030 and the Prospects for China-US Relations" report prepared under the direction of the China Institute of International Studies and Peking University's School of International Studies. Discussions with our Chinese colleagues confirmed that our assessments of global trends and uncertainties were largely similar and that we shared concerns about their implications. We developed scenarios incorporating different characterizations of the U.S.-China relationship, including whether the relationship was primarily competitive or cooperative. Different assumptions about the nature of U.S.-China relations produced very different results when we assessed the likely consequences of looming global challenges. Our joint assessment concluded that the unprecedented peace , prosperity and interdependence of today's world.— and further progress — are threatened by a host of looming challenges that cannot be met over the long-term without sustained cooperation among many nations, and that such cooperation would have little efficacy without cooperation between the U nited S tates and China. Areas of needed cooperation include rethinking global institutions; strengthening and rebalancing the global economy; ensuring resource security; and cooperating on climate change mitigation, adaptation and consequence management. ADVERTISING The Sunnylands summit demonstrated that top leaders understand they are in the same strategic boat, need to avoid becoming strategic competitors and must build a cooperative relationship. The lower levels of each government, though, tend to see the other country as an adversary and to focus on differences and threats posed by the other. The top leadership of each country needs to adopt a

new framework that prioritizes cooperation on common challenges and threats and instructs its bureaucracy to explore opportunities to collaborate with the other side. Without such guidance, there is a danger that the militaries and intelligence services of each side will increasingly view the other country as an enemy and act in ways that will create a self-fulfilling prophecy, wasting valuable resources, further exacerbating strategic mistrust and creating unacceptable opportunity costs when measured against the need to secure our common fate in the face of very grave global challenges over the next few decades. We strongly recommend the formation of a nongovernmental "Vision Group" that could provide long-term strategic assessments and concrete proposals for the leadership of both countries to complement government-to-government dialogues such as the S&ED. Moreover, the Vision Group can start to focus on building a "new type of major power relationship," not just on bilateral accommodation and mutual understanding, but on the world's two most consequential powers acting together as joint responsible stakeholders to address the world's key challenges. The Vision Group comprising experts from both countries could work together to provide a strategic foresight document to guide China-U.S. relations looking toward 2030 and to evaluate progress toward achieving that vision on an ongoing basis. It could identify, clarify and explain opportunities for government-to-government and nongovernmental cooperation on complex and consequential global developments. Over time, this group could be expanded to include representatives of other nations and organizations to give a more global reach to the Vision Group and its work. There are serious differences and dangers of growing strategic mistrust between our countries. But resolving these differences and building trust should not be prerequisites to cooperation on common challenges and strategic threats. Moreover, such cooperation is not a favor that either power bestows on the other; it should not be viewed or used as a "bargaining chip" to gain leverage on bilateral issues. The United States and China need to act together to protect and advance their own economic and security interests .

Nuclear War Outweighs Global Warming

Nuclear war is a threat now - The biggest threat to humanity is nuclear warAlan Robock, 1/31/15 Distinguished Professor of Climate Science, Rutgers University, Nuclear Weapons Are Much More Dangerous Than Global Warming, The huffington post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/nuclear-weapons-are-much-_b_6227220.html

Skeptical Science is a great website that debunks global warming deniers. But their home page has a box counting up the amount of energy trapped by greenhouse gases in units of Hiroshima atomic bomb energy. While strictly correct, in the sense that the amount of energy released by the horrendous, genocidal attack on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, the equivalent of the explosion of 15,000 tons of TNT, is the same as that accumulated at Earth’s surface every fourth of a second by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I find that this trivializes the horror of nuclear war.

I am not writing this to criticize global warming theory. I have been doing climate research for 40 years, since Professor Edward Lorenz recommended the study of climate as a Ph.D. topic for me in 1974. In 1978 I published the first transient climate model simulation of the warming response to increasing CO2 (Internally and externally caused climate change. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1111-1122). And I often explain the problem in the 10 words of Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz: “It’s real. It’s us. Scientists agree. It’s bad. There’s hope.” But we do not need to shock and mislead people with the effects of nuclear weapons to solve this problem.

Nuclear bombs do more than release thermal energy, and their potential impact on climate far outweighs anything else humans could do to our climate. The blast, fires, and radioactivity would kill millions of people if dropped on modern cities. The direct casualties from just three weapons of the size used on Hiroshima, exploding on U.S. cities would cause more casualties than the U.S. experienced in World War II. But the smoke from the fires would cause the largest impact on humans.

I described the climatic effects of nuclear war and the continuing nuclear winter problem in a previous Huffington Post blog. To summarize, the current Russian and American nuclear arsenals can still produce a nuclear winter, with temperatures plummeting below freezing in the summer, sentencing most of the world to famine and starvation. Even a war between two new nuclear powers, say India and Pakistan, could put a billion people could be at risk of starvation from the agricultural impacts of the smoke from the fires that could be generated.

Nuclear weapons are useless. They would never be used on purpose by the major powers, but could be used by accident. Some countries might use them in a moment of panic, or in response to imagined threats and insults, or in a fit of religious hysteria. The arsenals of nuclear weapons states set a bad example for the world, encouraging proliferation. And they could kill us all.

Now that President Obama is feeling freer to do the right thing, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, he can rapidly reduce it, to make the U.S and the world safer, and to save us money for much more productive uses.

The time is now to ban nuclear weapons so we have the luxury of worrying about global warming.

Appeasement DA Updates

Nonunique

Link Turn//Non-U/Q (plan is not appeasement ~ congagement ext.)//No Link//

Japan & U.S relations stronger than ever – Bilateral agreement to work together to engage with ChinaDennis Blair & Hiroko Maeda May 23, 2016 http://nationalinterest.org/feature/assertive-engagement-updated-us-japan-strategy-china-16314 national interest journalists

China’s phenomenal economic growth of the past quarter century has been both enabled and welcomed by the United States and Japan. However, with the economic influence and greatly increased military capability funded by

that growth, China has developed the power and influence to assert its claims and interests at the expense of other countries in the region and beyond. A combination of historical grievances and authoritarian impulses has fueled China’s persistent and increasingly insistent campaign to expand its current territory and influence around the world. The current American and Japanese strategy of encouraging common economic and diplomatic interests with China, while maintaining military deterrence against direct

aggression, is no longer adequate to protect both countries’ interests against Chinese activities such

as gray-zone aggression and intellectual-property theft. The U.S.-Japan alliance needs to adopt a more active strategy of its own—“Assertive Engagement”— to protect bilateral interests, while still cooperating with China in forging common responses to common concerns, and equitable and peaceful

compromises where interests conflict.

Elections Updates

UQ—Clinton Losing Now

Polls show unfavorable ratings towards ClintonDavid Wright March 22, 2016 CNN politics Writer & Editor http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll. That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavorably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question. On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable

rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly

better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating , according to the poll. Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past. In 2012, President Barack Obama was viewed favorably and unfavorably by an equal share of voters, while Republican nominee Mitt Romney scored a net negative of -7. In 2008, both Obama and Sen. John McCain had net positive ratings of 16 and 7 points, respectively. The previous highest unfavorable rating since 1984 actually belongs to another Clinton -- former President Bill Clinton, who in 1992 had a net negative rating of -17. Most have low opinions of the two political parties as a whole as well -- though the Republican Party is viewed far less favorably than the Democratic Party. Just 28% hold a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, compared to 46% of voters who view the Democratic Party favorably. Overall, 66% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP, which CBS says matches the

lowest rating ever recorded in CBS polling. The CBS/NYT poll also surveyed voters on hypothetical general election match-ups. In a Clinton-Trump election, Clinton leads the billionaire businessman by 10 points. Against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Clinton is ahead by 3 points . And her lead disappears when matched up against Ohio Gov. John Kasich , who would beat Clinton by 4 points. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's primary rival, performs better in a hypothetical

contest with Trump. He leads the Republican front-runner by 15 points due to his strong support among independent voters, according to the poll.

Hillary’s chances of being president at risk- Libya Crisis resulting from Hillary’s decisionsMartin Matishak May 20,2016 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/20/US-Troops-Are-Headed-Libya-and-s-Bad-News-Hillary-Clinton Washington Correspondent- written for The Hill, Atlantic Media and Inside Washington Publishers, among other publications.

The U.S. is inching closer to a deal that would see a long-term commitment of troops to Libya to fight

the Islamic State . “There’s a lot of activity going on underneath the surface,” Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters traveling with him back from NATO headquarters in Brussels. Related: Get Ready for a Third US Front Against ISIS—This Time in Libya “There will be a long-term mission in Libya,” the nation’s top general said, according to The Washington Post. “We’re just not ready to deploy capabilities yet because there hasn’t been an agreement. And frankly, any day that could happen.” Such an agreement would be the culmination of what has been a months-long march toward deeper Western involvement in Libya, beginning last year when U.S. Special Forces operators were deployed to the North African country. Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that the U.S. and other countries said they would lift an arms bans and supply weapons to the nation’s fragile government so it can fight ISIS forces, which are estimated to be in the thousand. In addition to marking a new level

on involvement in the fight against ISIS, the deployment of U.S. troops could be bad news for Hillary Clinton. As Secretary of State during President Obama’s first term, Clinton was instrumental in the administration’s decision to remove Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi from power – a choice that set off a series of events that have turned the nation into a terrorist safe haven . More

so than the ongoing House investigation into the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi – which has become a political football for both

parties and is at this point unlikely to sway voters who don’t already have an opinion about Clinton -- a long-term U.S. military commitment in the war-ravaged country could remind voters of Clinton’s much-criticized involvement in Libya . Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, has often questioned if she has the right judgement to sit in the Oval Office. “She may have the experience to be president of the United States. No one can argue that,” Sanders said during a TV interview last month. “ But in terms of

her judgment, something is clearly lacking.” Related: Here’s How the US Has Been Using Vietnam-Era Warplanes in Iraq It’s easy to imagine presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who recently released an incendiary video on social media that skewered Clinton’s involvement in the deadly Benghazi assault, picking up on Sanders’ line of attack to knock her foreign policy judgment. Beyond the near-term political consequences, opening up a third ISIS front could have a detrimental effect on the nation’s

finances and the agenda of Obama’s successor. As of April 15, the U.S.-led war against ISIS has cost $7.2 billion, with the average daily cost coming to $11.7 million, according to Pentagon estimates released this week. While NATO would be involved in the Libya commitment, it’s not hard to imagine the U.S. eventually picking up the lion’s share of the tab for the

new, possibly years-long effort. That could mean billions more going toward anti-ISIS military operations, with no end in sight. It’s also important to note that Dunford didn’t provide a figure for how many advisers might go to Libya. The U.S. had a small troop footprint in Iraq two years ago, but there are more than 3,500 soldiers in Iraq today.

Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link

Trump has no chance of winning this election. Cohen, 6/11/16. Michael A Cohen is author of Live From the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Presidential Campaign Speeches of the 20th Century and How They Shaped Modern America

For much of the past year, Donald Trump had lived something of a charmed political life.

Sure, he scapegoated Mexican immigrants and Muslims (not some, but all). He lobbed crude insults at a female journalist and one with a disability. He attacked his opponents with monikers such as “Lyin’ Ted” and “Little Marco”, mocked Jeb Bush for being “low energy” and compared Ben Carson to a child molester. He even went after previous Republican presidential nominees, including 2008 nominee John McCain, who he said was no war hero because the North Vietnamese captured him. And he demonstrated, repeatedly, that he was immensely unqualified for the job of president of United States.

Yet none of it seemed to matter to Republican voters. Trump’s poll numbers steadily increased, his primary and caucus victories steadily piled up and one Republican opponent after another fell by the wayside, unable to stop him. Even recent polls showed him neck and neck with the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

But last week, when Trump launched a vicious and nakedly racist attack against Gonzalo Curiel, the judge in his Trump University fraud case, the halo around Trump began to crack – and it offered a useful reminder as to why Trump has practically no chance of winning the presidency. Quite simply, the Republican electorate looks nothing like the rest of the American electorate.

Trump has systematically alienated the demographic groups that he will need to win the White House

Trump’s broadsides against Judge Curiel certainly crossed a line. The presumptive GOP nominee suggested that the judge’s “bad decisions” against him were not the result of Curiel’s interpretation of the law, but rather because, as Trump put it, he’s a “Mexican” (Curiel was born in Indiana). Since Trump has a harsh view of illegal immigration from Mexico, Trump alleged that Curiel’s ethnic heritage made it impossible for him to offer unbiased judgments on Trump’s case. This is, as even Republicans have pointed out, the textbook definition of racism.

Trump also intimated that Curiel should be investigated and that if he wins the White House he might even retaliate against the judge directly. That he is openly attacking the federal judiciary, as he runs for an office with the responsibility of appointing federal judges, represents a fundamental disrespect for the rule of the law and raises legitimate issues as to whether Trump, as president, would enforce court orders with which he disagrees.

Still, it’s hard to see how Trump’s comments about Curiel were any worse than his earlier comments about Mexican criminals or his proposed Muslim ban. They practically pale next to his sinister pledge to investigate Amazon, because its CEO also owns the Washington Post and Trump has been unhappy with some of that paper’s coverage of him. In the American constitutional system, this would be an impeachable offence.

What has changed is that Trump has shifted his attacks from foreign targets to actual American citizens, making it harder for even Republicans to defend them. Moreover, the context in which they were delivered was completely different. During the Republican primaries, GOP voters were not much concerned about Trump’s xenophobic and bigoted attacks. All of his fellow presidential aspirants were calling for Syrian Muslims to be banned from entering the US, regularly railed against illegal immigration and more than a few implicitly called for the US to commit war crimes in its fight against the Islamic State. Trump just went a step further and there’s significant evidence that they helped him among the Republican rank and file.

But today, Trump is not battling for support among Republican voters – he’s trying to win over Democrats and independents. Rather than facing opponents who were largely unbothered by Trump’s bigotry, he’s now in a fight against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. They have a very different view on these matters.

This, in a nutshell, is Trump’s problem: to win the Republican nomination he needed to take extreme positions on a host of issues. He needed to demonise illegal immigration. That strategy doesn’t work among non-Republican voters. Indeed, for all the concerns raised by liberals about the possibility that Trump could win, less attention has been paid to the fact that Trump is a uniquely unpopular figure – strongly disliked by Democrats, independents and even many Republicans.

The reason has much to do with demographics: Trump has systematically alienated the demographic groups that he will need to win the White House. Four years ago, when Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in the presidential election, he won by 5 million votes. Starting from that baseline, Trump needs to win back at least 2.5 million votes just to break even in the popular vote. But to do so he would need to improve on Romney’s dismal 27% support among Hispanic voters. That will be hard for Trump, considering that, according to some polls, he’s viewed unfavourably by more than 80% of Hispanics.

This year, an estimated 30% of the US electorate will be non-white. Trump will likely do worse than Romney and win a small fraction of those votes. Then there are his problems with women voters. In 2012, Obama won them by 11 points over Romney. Recent polls show Clinton winning this group by more than 20 points. Of course, while there are no guarantees that these numbers hold up, if just so long as Clinton does as well as Obama did four years ago, she will be very difficult to beat. Right now, she’s outperforming him.

There is also the Democrats’ advantage in the electoral college, the fact that Trump doesn’t have much campaign money and virtually no campaign infrastructure and the fact that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him. Indeed, it’s so hard to see how Trump can win that the real issue for 2016 may not be the White House, but rather Congress, which Republicans currently control and, in the case of an electoral bloodbath for the GOP, could potentially lose. If that were to happen, Hillary Clinton would have a Democratic Congress and the opportunity to push through dozens of pieces of progressive legislation.

Ironically, Trump’s rise, rather than signalling a turn toward nativist, authoritarian politics in the US, could, in the electorate’s rejection of him, usher in a more progressive political era.

Trump won’t win: his campaign is becoming an outright catastrophe. Waldman, 6/20/16. Paul Waldman is an American journalist and senior writer for The American Prospect, as well as a contributor to the Week and a blogger for the Washington Post's Plum Line blog.

Every presidential campaign has its ups and downs, its moments when everything seems to be going right and those when it looks to be hurtling toward defeat. This is one of the latter moments for Donald Trump, with him falling in the polls after a series of controversial statements (and frankly, “A Series of Controversial Statements” could be his campaign motto). Ed O’Keefe reports that panicked Republicans are waging a last-ditch effort to convince convention delegates to switch from Trump to someone or other, and they claim “that they now count several hundred delegates and alternates as part of their campaign.” The effort will almost certainly fail, but the fact that it consists of more than a few desperate people is an indication of how bad things are for Trump.

But wait — doesn’t he have plenty of time to turn this campaign around? So he trails Hillary Clinton by somewhere between 6 and 8 points in all the reputable polling averages — didn’t George H.W. Bush trail Michael Dukakis by 17 points after the Democratic convention in 1988?

Yes, Trump has time to reverse the current situation. But today’s polls aren’t meaningless, even if they don’t tell us exactly what will happen in November. The problem for Trump isn’t the size of his polling deficit (which isn’t all that large); it’s the magnitude of challenges his campaign faces.

While he could manage a stunning turnaround, at the moment Trump seems to have put together one of the worst presidential campaigns in history. Let’s take a look at all the major disadvantages Trump faces as we head toward the conventions:

A skeletal campaign staff. Trump succeeded in the primaries with a small staff whose job was to do little more than stage rallies. But running a national campaign is hugely more complex than barnstorming from one state to the next during primaries. While the Clinton campaign has built an infrastructure of hundreds of operatives performing the variety of tasks a modern presidential campaign requires, the Trump campaign “estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country,” a comically small number.

Not enough money, and little inclination to raise it. Trump hasn’t raised much money yet, and he doesn’t seem inclined to do so; according to one report, after telling Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus that he’d call 20 large donors to make a pitch, he gave up after three. Fundraising is the least pleasant part of running for office, but unlike most candidates who suck it up and do what they have to, Trump may not be willing to spend the time dialing for dollars. Instead, he’s convinced that he can duplicate what he did in the primaries and run a low-budget campaign based on having rallies and doing TV interviews. As he told NBC’s Hallie Jackson, “I don’t think I need that money, frankly. I mean, look what we’re doing right now. This is like a commercial, right, except it’s tougher than a normal commercial.” It’s not like a commercial, because in interviews Trump gets challenged, and usually says something that makes him look foolish or dangerous. But he seems convinced that his ability to get limitless media coverage, no matter how critical that coverage is, will translate to an increase in support.

Outgunned on the airwaves. As a result, Democrats are pouring money into television ads attacking Trump and promoting Clinton with no answer from the other side. As Mark Murray reported yesterday, “So far in June, Clinton and the outside groups backing her have spent a total of $23.3 million on ads in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.” And how much have Trump and his allies spent on ads in those states? Zero. Nothing. Nada.

Not enough backup from his allies. There may never have been a presidential nominee with so little support from the people who are supposed to be out there persuading people to vote for him. Every day sees new stories about Trump being criticized by Republican leaders or about Republicans distancing themselves from him. And that includes the people who have endorsed him. Last week the chair of Trump’s leadership committee in the House begged reporters to stop making him defend Trump.

That lack of unity can have a large impact on how Republicans view their vote. While the rote arguments between Democrats and Republicans may seem too predictable to change many minds, when intra-partisan unanimity breaks down, it sends a signal to people that it’s okay to disagree with your party’s nominee — and even to reject him altogether.

A popular president opposing him. Every political science election model says that the view of the current president matters a great deal in determining whether voters decide to change which party controls the White House. Right now President Obama’s approval rating is over 50 percent for the first time in a long while, and he’ll be campaigning vigorously against Trump.

A demographic disadvantage. Trump is running on what is essentially an ethno-nationalist appeal to white voters, at a time when the country grows less white every year. He would have to do significantly better than recent Republican nominees among large minority groups in order to win, yet rather than court them, he has done just the opposite. In the latest Post-ABC News poll, 89 percent of Hispanics said they had an unfavorable view of Trump, an absolutely stunning figure. That’s not to mention the enormous gender gap he’s opening: 77 percent of women also viewed him unfavorably in that poll.

An electoral college disadvantage. Any Republican candidate faces a challenge in the electoral college, where Democrats start with a built-in advantage. In all of the past four elections, Democrats have won 17 states (plus D.C.) that give them 242 of the 270 electoral votes they need to win. That means that for Trump to win, he has to sweep almost every swing state. But instead of trying to do that, Trump is worried about holding on to red states such as Utah and Arizona.

A candidate with a lethal combination of dreadful strategic instincts and absolute certainty of his own brilliance. Trump’s inexperience in politics has shown itself in many ways, such as his utter ignorance about policy and how the U.S. government works. It also means that when confronted with new situations, he often does something politically foolish, as when he responded to the Orlando shooting by congratulating himself for predicting that there would one day be another terrorist attack. And while for a time we kept hearing that he was going to “pivot” to the general election, instead he seems to be running as though he’s still trying to persuade his own supporters to stay with him. Those supporters comprise a plurality of a minority of the whole electorate.

Perhaps even more importantly, unlike some neophyte candidates, Trump not only doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, but also insists that he doesn’t need to know it. Whatever deep insecurities drive his constant preening bluster, he isn’t going to let anyone tell him that he’s anything less than a genius and things aren’t going great. Which means that as the campaign goes on and his situation gets worse, he’ll be exceedingly unlikely to make the kind of changes he needs to reverse his fortunes.

Trump is no stranger to failure, but in his life as a businessman he could segregate those failures from the rest of his enterprises, at least enough to keep moving forward and find other ways to make money. He could fail at the casino business, or the steak business, or the vodka business,

or the magazine business, or the airline business, or the football business, or the real estate seminar business, or the vitamin pyramid scheme business, and maintain the viability of his overall brand. But he has never been on a stage like this one before. He didn’t have hundreds of reporters on the steak beat scrutinizing every twist and turn in the decline of Trump Steaks and putting the results of their reporting on every front page in America.

But now he does, and he can’t just drop one scheme and move on to the next one. In that interview with Hallie Jackson, Trump said, “We really haven’t started. We start pretty much after the convention, during and after.” But his problem isn’t that he hasn’t started; it’s that he started a year ago — digging himself into a hole it’s going to be awfully hard to climb out of.

Polls Bad

Poll numbers don’t matter; they don’t take into account many important factors that affect an election. Kenneth Baer, 10/28/12. A managing director at The Harbour Group, was until recently senior adviser and associate director for communications and strategic planning at the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Between now and Election Day, an endless river of polling numbers will flow from just about every news organization you’ve ever heard of. Partisans will follow them obsessively, sifting the tea leaves for the nugget of information that proves that, yes, my candidate is winning. And nearly all of these numbers are virtually meaningless.

As the old saw goes, it’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But this year, it’s particularly difficult to predict the outcome on Election Day because of three new factors — none of them Hurricane Sandy — and we don’t know how they will play out.

First, there are polling problems — or the question of which electorate will show up. Successful polling is about successfully getting a representative sample of the electorate on the phone to take your survey. Seems simple, but with at least 34 percent of the population who have cut the cord and only have a cellphone, it’s not that easy to reach everyone. This matters because, as Third Way’s Jim Kessler points out, President Barack Obama leads among those reached on cellphones by 8 percentage points and trails land-liners by one percentage point. Driving this dynamic: According to the latest survey from the end of 2011, almost 60 percent of Americans between 25 and 29 are cellphone-only users.

Harder than reaching voters is to accurately model what the electorate will look like. 2008 saw record turnout among African-Americans and young voters. Conversely, 2010 saw white voters over 60 jump from 20 percent of the electorate in 2008 to 28 percent, and GOP candidates won by a landslide. If you say both 2008 and 2010 are outliers, you could go back and look at 2004, but politically and demographically, that is a lifetime ago. The difficulty in knowing who will show up on Election Day — and who has shown up to take part in early voting — leaves us with polls that are all over the place.

Second, there are new voting rules that will shape which electorate will show up. Since 2011, Republicans have used the specter of vast voter fraud to step up their effort to pass strict new voting laws or have governors take executive action in 19 states. These range from curbing early voting to restricting voter registration and demanding voters present a photo ID to vote, and most analysts agree that these laws have a chilling effect on new citizens — predominantly Latinos — African-Americans, young voters and seniors. New restrictions are in place in 13 states, including key battlegrounds like Virginia and New Hampshire, which now require an ID to vote — joining Ohio, which already has the requirement on the books — and Florida, which had its restrictions on early voting pass a court challenge.

There are bright spots: Legislation requiring a photo ID in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin has not been implemented for this election because of a court order. But in Pennsylvania, officials can still request a photo ID, and moreover, in both states one has to wonder what kind of chilling effect the entire debate and the inevitable misinformation will have on potential voters. In a tight race, even a 1 percentage-point drop in performance for Obama among Latinos and African-Americans could be significant.

Similarly, if these laws also suppress senior turnout, it is possible that this could have the perverse effect — from the view of their backers — of hurting Mitt Romney. After all, today’s seniors are not yesterday’s New Dealers. According to Public Policy Polling, voters over 65 back the GOP candidate 53 percent to 45 percent despite the Romney-Ryan ticket’s plan to change Medicare being a focus of the campaign.

Third, there’s Citizens United. The Supreme Court decision overturned limits on outside campaign spending, which has cleared the way for virtually unlimited contributions to super PACs, like the Republican Restore Our Future and Democratic Priorities USA Action. While both campaigns and their affiliated party groups have raised about $1 billion each, super PACs and other outside groups have spent, according to the latest filings, $302 million for those supporting the GOP compared with $120 million for allied Democratic groups — and that only includes spending that has to be disclosed.

Late last week, the last Federal Election Commission filing revealed that Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who have donated at least $70 million so far this cycle, threw another $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future in the days after the first debate when Romney’s campaign sprang back to life. Similarly, Chevron became the first public company to give a significant contribution to the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC four days after the first debate. With the race this close and with Republicans smelling victory, how easy would it be to raise an extra $10 million, $20 million or more from your committed billionaire? Already, Adelson is on record saying that he will spend “whatever it takes” to defeat Obama. And when you are worth north of $20 billion, that can be a lot of money.

Yet there is an equally important question of whether this late money can even make a difference this late in the game. As one Obama strategist told The Huffington Post: “The truth is we are in uncharted territory that nobody knows.” But if you are that motivated to defeat the president, and money is no object, odds are that you will err on the side of donating.

Taken together, these three variables create an uneasy degree of uncertainty — an uneasiness that cuts across party lines. But one thing is for certain: Come Nov. 7, we will know how all of these variables played out, and then can start speculating about who will win the next election.

India DA Updates

No Link

India will not interfere with the SCS conflict. India will prioritize issues in the Indian Ocean before the SCS. Darshana’16—Darshana M., 3-29-2016, "What India Thinks About the South China Sea," National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/what-india-thinks-about-the-south-china-sea-15619

Developments in the South China Sea are bringing India into a debate it generally maintains a distance from. India's shift in its maritime policies and a relatively vocal stand on the issue may be a signs of a future where India is willing to play a more direct role in the South China Sea. However, the reality on the ground couldn't be further from this scenario. Yes, there has been a shift in India's maritime policies and this is likely to continue, but has India really reached a moment where it will play a more prominent role outside of the Indian Ocean? Although this is being debated by strategists in India and abroad, the incentives for India to engage in such an act are close to nil . More importantly, India may also be on the same page as China as far as freedom of military navigation is concerned. Whether India enforces its view as aggressively as China does is again debatable. Here are some of the reasons why India is unlikely to lend a helping hand in the South China Sea, as exciting as it may sound: 1. Foreign and Maritime Policy: As laid out above, India's foreign policy would have to go through a drastic strategic change before it could commit to allocating resources in an area beyond its navy's primary area of interest. India has traditionally been continental in its defence strategy and will remain so, given the obvious troubles along its northern borders. However, there has definitely been a shift where India attempting to cultivate a more maritime outlook and is more willing than it has been in the past to engage and increase its participation in regional matters. Despite this shift, it is important to note that India still considers the Indian Ocean as its primary area of interest and the South China Sea as secondary. Does this mean that India is not affected by developments in the South China Sea and will take no role? No, India is well aware of the implications of the disputes in the S outh C hina S ea and is monitoring it as best it can. But , it also means that India considers the issue as outside of its strategic interests and is wise enough to not meddle in the affairs of other countries, which may have repercussions along its land borders. India is not going to stretch its capacity in fighting a cause it knows it won't be able to sustain .