Free Trade Core File (ADI)

8/14/2019 Free Trade Core File (ADI)

1/150

ADI 1Free Trade

Free Trade Core

Free Trade Core .............................................................................................................................1

Uniqueness Free Trade Strong Now ..........................................................................................8

Uniqueness WTO Weak Now .....................................................................................................9Uniqueness WTO Weak Now ...................................................................................................10

Uniqueness Doha Dead .............................................................................................................11

Besides its role in trade liberalisation, the WTO also helps settle trade disputes by helpinggovernments adjust to trade tensions within an agreed legal system, Hartridge, a former

acting director-general of the WTO, told Reuters.................................................................... 11

Uniqueness Doha Not Dead ......................................................................................................12

Uniqueness Foreign Tax Credits Low Now .............................................................................13

Free Trade/Globalization Good War .......................................................................................14




Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Module .............................................................18

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Module .............................................................19

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Ext.................................................................... 20

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Ext.................................................................... 21

Free Trade/Globalization Good Environment Module .........................................................22

Free Trade/Globalization Good Environment Ext.................................................................23

Free Trade/Globalization Good Environment Ext.................................................................24

Free Trade/Globalization Good Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens ............................................25

Free Trade/Globalization Good Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens ............................................26

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Module ................................................................27

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Ext....................................................................... 28

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Ext....................................................................... 29

Free Trade/Globalization Good Middle East Instability Module .........................................30

Free Trade/Globalization Good Terrorism Module ...............................................................31

Free Trade/Globalization Good Poverty .................................................................................32

Free Trade/Globalization Good Poverty .................................................................................33

Free Trade/Globalization Good Jobs/Security .......................................................................34

Free Trade/Globalization Good Chinese Democracy ............................................................35

Free Trade/Globalization Good Collectivism ........................................................................36


2/150

ADI 2Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Womens Rights .................................................................37

Free Trade/Globalization Good AT: Free Trade Causes War ...............................................38

Free Trade/Globalization Good AT: Only Big Corps. Benefit ..............................................39

Free Trade/Globalization Good AT: Outsourcing Bad ..........................................................40

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Laundry List ..........................................................................41

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Food Shortages Module ........................................................42

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Environment Module ............................................................43

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Monocultures .........................................................................44

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Genocide ................................................................................45

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Marginalization .....................................................................46

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Workers Backlash .................................................................47

Free Trade/Globalization Bad Elitism ...................................................................................48

Free Trade/Globalization Rhetoric Bad Hurts The Poor ......................................................49

Free Trade/Globalization Bad AT: Free Trade Good (General) ..........................................50

Free Trade/Globalization Bad AT: Free Trade Solves War ...................................................51

Free Trade/Globalization Bad AT: Free Trade Solves Economy ..........................................52

WTO Key To Free Trade .........................................................................................................53

WTO Not Key To Free Trade ...................................................................................................54

WTO Good Corporate Domination ........................................................................................55

WTO Bad Imperialism/Global Governance ...........................................................................56WTO Bad Imperialism .............................................................................................................57

Doha Agriculture Subsidies Key ..............................................................................................58

Doha Agriculture Subsidies Key ..............................................................................................59

Doha Alternate Causalities ......................................................................................................61

Doha Alternate Causalities .......................................................................................................62

Doha Alternate Causalities .......................................................................................................63

Doha Key To The Global Economy .........................................................................................64

Doha Not Key To The Global Economy ..................................................................................65

Doha Key To The WTO ............................................................................................................66

Doha Resiliency .........................................................................................................................67

Doha Long Timeframe ..............................................................................................................68

Doha AT: Long Timeframe ......................................................................................................69

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad ......................................................................................................70



3/150

ADI 3Free Trade












Fourth, RTA critics argue that some accords can set bad precedents for multilateral trade.

Due to economic and political asymmetries in North-South RTAs, developed countrypartners can push for the inclusion of origin rules or intellectual property protection that

developing countries may find burdensome to implement and enforce. Others argue that

RTAs cover subjects that are better dealt with outside the trade arena, such as labor andenvironment. Of course, many believe that coverage of these areas is crucial for both

substantive reasons and to bolster domestic political support for the pact in industrial

countries........................................................................................................................................ 82

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Bad Capitalism Kritik Link ...........................................................83

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Fail ......................................................................................................84

At a time when multilateral negotiations are slowing down, rather than rushing into FTAs,I suggest that the government instead focus on increasing our country's productivity,

improving governance, and strengthening our institutions..................................................... 84

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good Leads To Multilateral Free Trade .......................................85

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good Leads To Multilateral Free Trade .......................................86

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good ....................................................................................................87



Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good AT: Trade Diversion ............................................................90

Bilateral/Regional FTAs Good Misc........................................................................................ 91

Multilateral Free Trade Bad .......................................................................................................92

TPA Key To Laundry List ........................................................................................................93

TPA, also known as "fast track," would give President Bush the authority to negotiate new

market-opening trade agreements with other nations. TPA would allow the president to

submit trade agreements to Congress for an up or down vote without amendments, so thatforeign governments would not have to negotiate twice, first with the administration and

then with Congress. Every president since 1974 has been able to pursue trade agreements


4/150

ADI 4Free Trade

under those basic rules. Here are three compelling reasons why President Bush should be

granted that same authority: One, trade expansion promotes American prosperity.Economic growth in the past decade was the most robust during those years when trade--

both imports and exports--was growing the most rapidly. Trade stimulates competition,

innovation, and efficiency, making U.S. workers more productive and raising real family

incomes. Imports keep prices down at the store, especially for low-income families. Duringthe recent downturn, trade flows have fallen sharply along with employment and

manufacturing output. Promoting trade would help to stimulate the economy. TPA would

open the door for regional and global trade agreements that would open markets forAmerica's most competitive exports. At their just-completed meeting in Qatar, the 142

members of the World Trade Organization agreed to pursue a new round of negotiations to

lower barriers to agricultural, industrial, and service exports, including a cut in Europe'shuge farm export subsidies. A recent study by the University of Michigan estimates that

even a one-third cut in tariffs on agriculture, industrial, and service trade would boost

annual global production by $613 billion, including $177 billion in the United States--orabout $1,700 per U.S. household. Two, trade expansion promotes U.S. security. Nations that

trade with one another tend to get along better than nations that shun trade. America'shistoric post-war shift away from Depression-era trade wars and toward open trade wasdriven as much by foreign policy and security concerns as by economic self-interest. Trade

with Europe, Japan and developing countries cemented the Western alliance against

communism. Free trade within the European Community, an American condition of

Marshall Plan aid, has made another major European war virtually unthinkable today.Nations open to trade are far more likely to enjoy full civil and political liberties than those

closed to trade. Trade tills the soil for democracy by introducing new ideas, encouraging

tolerance of other cultures, and creating hope for a better life through individual effort.America's commercial ties with the rest of the world have encouraged diplomatic and

military cooperation from other nations in the war against terrorism. In contrast, none of

the nations most closely linked to terrorism--Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan,and North Korea--belong to the WTO....................................................................................... 93

TPA Key To Free Trade ............................................................................................................94

TPA Key To Trade Credibility .................................................................................................95

TPA Key To U.S. Leadership ...................................................................................................96

TPA Key To U.S. Leadership ...................................................................................................97

TPA Key To U.S. Leadership/Agriculture Industry ...............................................................98

TPA Trade Facilitation Outweighs ..........................................................................................99

Protectionism Bad ......................................................................................................................100



If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace, then protectionism - a retreatfrom open trade - raises the chances of war............................................................................ 102

Outsourcing Good ......................................................................................................................103



5/150

ADI 5Free Trade




Outsourcing Bad ........................................................................................................................108

Neoliberalism Bad ......................................................................................................................109

Neoliberalism Good ....................................................................................................................110

Collectivism Bad .........................................................................................................................111

Collectivism Bad ........................................................................................................................112

Economic Nationalism Causes Collectivism ...........................................................................113

NAFTA Key To U.S. Economy ...............................................................................................114

SKFTA Will Pass Now ............................................................................................................115

SKFTA Will Not Pass Now .....................................................................................................116

Administration officials said this month they are unlikely to send the Korea FTA to

Congress this year because there are fewer than 90 legislative days left until the scheduledadjournment, making it impossible to "force" a vote under the 90-day window prescribed

in presidential trade negotiating authority protocols............................................................. 116

SKFTA Good ...............................................................................................................................117

It is time Congress set aside partisan differences and worked for the common good of the

American public. .......................................................................................................................117

SKFTA Good ...............................................................................................................................118

SKFTA Good ..............................................................................................................................120

AT: Trade Deficits Impact .........................................................................................................121

AT: Trade Deficits impact .........................................................................................................122







AT: Trade Deficits impact .........................................................................................................130



Trade Deficits Good ..................................................................................................................134

Elections Free Trade Key Issue ..............................................................................................135

Elections Obama Pro WTO/Anti FTAs .................................................................................136


6/150

ADI 6Free Trade

Elections McCain Pro Free Trade .........................................................................................137

Agriculture As A Percentage Of GDP ......................................................................................138

All Boxes Are The Same ............................................................................................................139

SSM Good/SAS Bad ...................................................................................................................140

"Those trade-distorting subsidies of the developed members will still continue to pollutethe international markets including ours in the billions of dollars as they will not be

eliminated in this round. We need a more developing country-friendly SSM," Agriculture

Undersecretary Segfredo R. Serrano said. ............................................................................140

Laissez-Faire Good ...................................................................................................................141

Laissez-Faire Good ....................................................................................................................142

Comparative Advantage Good ..................................................................................................143

Corporate Domination Good ....................................................................................................144

Corporate Domination Good ....................................................................................................146

High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization ...................................................................................147

High Oil Prices Threaten Globalization ...................................................................................148

Technology Bad ..........................................................................................................................149

Labor Adaptability Key .............................................................................................................150


7/150

ADI 7Free Trade

Uniqueness Free Trade Weak Now

Free Trade is weak nowtrading agreements proveBlock 7/31/08 (John, "Free Trade", Agweb, Accessed 7/31/08 @http://www.agweb.com/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?src=JohnBlockReportsFromWashington&PID=0f00991e-e085-4ad0-abd2-dd8386e5074a)

Free trade agreements have become a hard sell in recent years. We have three right now that have

been negotiated and are ready to be voted on by the Congress Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.President Bush wants them passed, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are not goingto let it happen.

No such thing as free trademarket regulations exist now

Greising 7/31/08 (David, Free Trade an Elusive Concept, Chicago Tribune,http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-world-trade-jul31,0,3483975.story)

Cary business owner Douglas Bartlett doesn't need to sort through the minutia of the Doha Round of tradetalks to gauge his reaction to the surprise breakdown in negotiations. He has his own data points to measure.Bartlett Manufacturing Co., a maker of computer circuit boards, has lost 75 percent of its sales in the last

decade. Employee head count has fallen by 65 percent. And Bartlett said he believes lax enforcement ofWorld Trade Organization rules has helped China dominate the circuit board business and grab market sharefrom his and hundreds of other U.S. firms.Based on what he saw of the trade treaty under discussion in Geneva over the last week, Bartlett said hefeared it might only get worse. In particular, he said he worried any new treaty would do nothing to forceChina to raise the value of its currency, which many economists say gives Chinese companies a competitiveadvantage against U.S. firms because the yuan is underpriced by nearly 30 percent against the dollar."I was happy to hear the Doha Round failed," Bartlett said. "Free trade is a great concept. I don't

know a businessman who is against it. But what's going on right now conceptually is not free trade."

Bartlett's concern is real, and his point about free trade is both more nuanced and more powerful thaneven he might realize. Despite all the rhetoric about free trade, no government truly believes in the

concept. What they believe in is managed trademanaged with an effort toward more open markets,

but managed so that their farmers, factory workers and consumers do not take too much of a hit.

When talks that had gained surprising momentum during 12 days of negotiations broke down abruptlyTuesday in Geneva, most experts pointed to disputes over two sticking points. Agricultural subsidies toppedthe list. Second was a dispute over "Special Safeguard Mechanisms," duties less-developed countries couldimpose if they find their markets swamped with foreign agricultural products.But to focus on the arcane negotiating disputes is to miss the bigger picture. Power politics is the real plotlineat global trade talks, perhaps never more so than this year.


8/150

ADI 8Free Trade

Uniqueness Free Trade Strong Now

Free Trade Strong Now

Even after the collapse of Doha Free Trade has stayed resilientIkenson July 30 08 (Daniel [associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute inWashington, D.C], Greasing the World Economy Without Doha, http://www.freetrade.org/node/904)

As Doha negotiations sputtered for seven years, the WTO reports that annual global trade flows have

increased 70%, to $14 trillion. UNCTAD reports that annual foreign direct investment flows are up 25%, to$1.5 trillion. And the IMF notes that the global economy has expanded by 30%, to $54.4 trillion. Thesepositive trends should continue if governments unilaterally ramp up their own "trade facilitation" efforts.Trade facilitation is about streamlining the administrative and physical procedures involved in actuallymoving goods across borders. These sorts of reforms have contributed heavily to the increase in global trade,investment and output.Leading global economists, including Simeon Djankov and John Wilson of the World Bank, note thattrade facilitation could do more to increase global trade flows than further reductions in tariff rates.

While reduced tariffs are important, they will not improve trade flows if bureaucratic customs

procedures and shoddy logistics and communications systems are still in place.


9/150

ADI 9Free Trade

Uniqueness WTO Weak Now

Collapse of Doha talks crushed the credibility of the WTOWall Street Journal 7/31/08 (Free Trade: Rest in Peace,http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/31235037/Free-trade-Rest-In-Peace.html?h=B)

So, is it too much to mourn the loss of a deal? Yes. Global trade is not mere statistics. It is about betteropportunities for all. With uniform, rule-based, trade in agricultural commodities nowhere in sight, poornations will be the biggest losers. India too will lose opportunities. As an aspiring economic power, it cannotpropel ahead in the absence of new markets.India and othercountries will now have to adapt to a harsher world, one that increasingly believes inbilateral and regional trade agreements. At the end of the Uruguay trade round in 1994, there were 80bilateral free-trade agreements. By 2010, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates, this numberwill rise to 400. While not protectionist, such agreements allow ample scope for domestic lobbies to getaway with what they want.The patchwork nature of these deals when coupled with a tide of protectionism is likely to cause two

developments. One, the authority of WTO will be eroded and its ability to settle trade disputes whittled

down greatly. Two, the ability of trade to dampen country-specific macroeconomic problems, for example,due to high food prices, will be greatly reduced. Will the world think again in favour of such an agreement?

Not so long as protectionism has respectability.


10/150

ADI 10Free Trade

Uniqueness WTO Weak Now

FAILURE OF DOHA ENSURES PROLIFERATION OF BILATERAL AND REGIONALTRADE DEALS NOW

Madelaine Drohan, 08/01/08 [Business and Economics Correspondent for Globe and Mail and The Economist,World Trade Talks: The Aftermath, Globe and Mail, Reportonbusiness.com,http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080731.wdrohan0801/BNStory/Business]

We are unlikely to remain there long. What happened in Geneva will not stay in Geneva. The failure of the talkswill sour broader relations between rich countries and the developing world, especially the emerging giants of

China and India. And it will speed the already rapid proliferation of bilateral and regional trade deals, which

undermine the global system, despite all professions to the contrary. So while the short-term political outlookfor ministers Mr. Fortier and Mr. Ritz has not darkened, that of the world and especially that of small, openeconomies that depend on trade (i.e., Canada) is a lot gloomier today than it was a week ago.


11/150

ADI 11Free Trade

Uniqueness Doha Dead

DOHA IN A STALEMATE NOWNO RESOLVE COMING ANYTIME SOON

Lynn in 2008 (Jonathan, WTO to focus on dispute role after Doha blow, Jul 30, Reuters,http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-34738320080730?sp=true)

GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) will focus on its role resolving disputes afterthe latest efforts to strike a new global trade pact collapsed on Tuesday.Ministers leaving 9 days of abortive talks seeking a breakthrough in the WTO's Doha round reaffirmedtheir commitment to the multilateral trading system umpired by the WTO.

But many admitted that for the time being it will be easier to seek bilateral or regional arrangements.

And many acknowledged it would be some time before the Doha negotiations -- already in their seventhyear -- could be revived, even though their current offers remain on the table."The WTO doesn't become less relevant or important because the Doha round goes down -- the Doha

round is not the WTO," said David Hartridge, a senior counsellor at GLOBAL law firm White and Case.Besides its role in trade liberalisation, the WTO also helps settle trade disputes by helping governmentsadjust to trade tensions within an agreed legal system, Hartridge, a former acting director-general of the

WTO, told Reuters.


12/150

ADI 12Free Trade

Uniqueness Doha Not Dead

This round of talks may be over but countries are still searching for resolve similar to

DOHA talksO'Neil July 30 08 (Peter, "Doha trade talks hit roadblock", Calgary Herald,

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=9a90078c-7f12-4ae8-bbeb-6f9a33024588)Lamy and some of the 35 trade ministers here, including Canada's Michael Fortier, said advances hereduring talks this month could build the basis for a possible future breakthrough in the current Doha

round of trade negotiations.Fortier told the Canadian media that Canada, like other countries, will now push for bilateral trade dealsand hopes to begin talks with the European Union later this year on an agreement."Unfortunately, it is a failure," Fortier said. "I am very disappointed."Fortier dismissed criticism from some farm groups that Canada's negotiating position at the talks here washurt because of a mixed message from Ottawa.The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, representing export-oriented sectors primarily in Western Canada,said Ottawa was aggressively defending protectionist policies that help dairy, poultry and egg farmers basedprimarily, though not exclusively, in Ontario and Quebec. Those tariffs are well in excess of 200 per cent.The negotiations for a global deal trade began in 2001. WTO members initially set a goal to finish the Doha

round of talks by Jan. 1, 2005.


13/150

ADI 13Free Trade

Uniqueness Foreign Tax Credits Low Now

Foreign corporate tax rates are low and continuing to decreaseFranc 07 [Michael Franc, Vice President of Government Relations for the Heritage Foundation,Strengthening Free Enterprise, Heritage Foundation, 01/24/2007,

]First, it's instructive, and exceedingly sobering, to look at our corporate tax policies and compare them tothose of our top trading partners. In its annual survey of corporate tax rates around the world, KPMGInternational found a "consistent and dramatic" reduction in corporate tax rates since 1993. The pattern isclear: "Once one major industrialized economy cuts its rates, others seem compelled to do the same, in aprocess of international tax competition that continues and intensifies over time."Indeed, KPMG's researchers found that the average corporate tax rate in the 86 countries it surveyed hasfallen from 38% in 1993 to 27% today.


14/150

ADI 14Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good War

Free trade stops global nuke war

Copley News Service in 99

For decades, many children inAmerica and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclearwar. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activistsprotesting the World Trade Organization's meeting inSeattle apparently have forgotten that threat.The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their ownprosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in thethreat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattleprotesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam Warprotesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause isenvironmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattleare very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand

Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nationsto work together rather than strive against each other. These and otherwar protesters wouldprobably approve of135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issuesthatinthe past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, andtheir economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That'swhy bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important .As exports to the UnitedStates and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for thegoods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that onlymultinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt.That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companiesthat make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In SanDiego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whomoverseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would losetheir livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic

product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter thespecter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like thesingers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't beprotesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.


15/150

ADI 15Free Trade


FREE TRADE SOLVES NUCLEAR WAR

Spicer, 1996economist; member of the British Parliament,[Michael, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121]

The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: betweenmeeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or ofattempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovativeproduction. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone willensure that the consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. Morefundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned andinflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion andultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in afree trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to tradeis to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at twoa penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

Free trade and investment solves warBoudreaux 06 [Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George MasonUniversity,Want world peace? Support free trade. Christian Science Monitor, November 20, 2006 ]

Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promotepeace.During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York atBinghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the topic,he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade, war,

and peace.They find that "the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreigninvestment. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more that Americansinvest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those countries with which it hasinvestment relationships.Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy implication of our finding is that furtherinternational cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peacefulworld."


16/150

ADI 16Free Trade


Market interests ensure protection from war

Bandow in 2005 (Doug [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute], Spreading Capitalism is Good for Peace, 11/15http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193 )

In a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks: What causes peace? Many people,

including U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that spreading democracy will discourage war. But newresearch suggests that expanding free markets is a far more important factor, leading to what

Columbia University's Erik Gartzke calls a "capitalist peace." It's a reason for even the left to support freemarkets.The capitalist peace theory isn't new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britain's classical liberals,

such as Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism .But World War I demonstrated that increased trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent

rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and security fears from trumping the power of markets .An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully, World War II left war essentially unthinkable amongleading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that

republics are less warlike than other systems.Today's corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce conflict. This contention animated some

support outside as well as inside the United States for the invasion of Iraq .But Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political

freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states.Thus, while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of EconomicFreedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contributedirectly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor.The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Marketsgenerate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer

provides the best path to riches.

Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together

and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic

prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.

Economic interests prevent war to keep markets open

Bandow in 2005(Doug [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute], Spreading Capitalism is Good for Peace, 11/15

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193 )

If market critics don't realize the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets - prosperity andfreedom - they should appreciate the unintended peace dividend. Trade encourages prosperity andstability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of conquest; globalization creates

economic interdependence, increasing the cost of war.Nothing is certain in life, and people are motivated by far more than economics. But it turns out that

peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193


17/150

ADI 17Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good WarArmed conflicts and total causalities are decreasing due to free trade- states dont go to war

because trade means they have more to lose.

Griswold 7

(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade,Democracy and Peace:The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20,http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)The Peace Dividend of Globalization

The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated but encouraging fact: The world hassomehow become a more peaceful place.

A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the StockholmInternational Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in declinefor the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest reportfound that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.

The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle hasfallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a yearby one measure. Peacemaking missions,meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in1951 during the Korean War.

Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalizationappear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in aforgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I wouldargue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.

First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part toglobalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it'strue that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn todemocracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.

A second and even more potent wa y that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As nationaleconomies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in aglobalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investmentties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost ofwar.

The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of politicalscience at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economicfreedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometricanalysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes,

the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free."By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining acountries propensity to go to war than democracy.

Trade Solves War- Allows resource acquisition without conflict and dematerializes wealth

making conquest ineffective.Griswold 7(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade,Democracy and Peace:The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20,http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production andexchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured interms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In

contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, serviceeconomy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they canacquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and thedevelopment it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.
http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681


18/150

ADI 18Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Module

FREE TRADE IS KEY TO DEMOCRACY

Griswold 2k4

(Daniel T., Griswold, Associate director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trading Tyranny forFreedom: How Open Markets Till the Soil for Democracy, January 6, Trade Policy Analysis, no. 26)In a November 6, 2003, speech on the need to promote democracy in the Muslim world, President George W. Bushexplicitly drew the connection between economic and political freedoms: Historians will note that in many nations,the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand theirown rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central controland marvel at thepower of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.1

In an April 2002 speech in which President Bush urged Congress to grant him trade promotion authority, he argued that trade is about more than raising incomes. Trade creates the habits offreedom, the president said, and those habits begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that are open to commerce across theirborders are more open to democracy within their borders.2 Other administration officials have taken that reasoning a step further, arguing that the democracy and respect for human rights thattrade can foster would create a more peaceful world, reducing the frustration and resentment that can breed radicalism and terrorism.

There is a great deal of research on the economic impact of trade, but much less on its political impact. Do the assertions that expanding trade and international commerce promotedemocracy and human rights make sense in theory, and do they stand up to empirical scrutiny? The evidence from this study strongly suggests that those assertions rest on solid ground anddeserve to be considered as Congress and the administration shape our international economic and trade policy. Theory: How Free MarketsFoster Political Freedoms

Economic openness and the commercial competition and contact it brings can directly and indirectly promote civil

and political freedoms within countries. Trade can influence the political system directly by increasing the contact anations citizens experience with the rest of the world, through face-to-face meetings, and electroniccommunications, including telephone, fax, and the Internet. Commercial communication can bring a sharing of ideas and exposure to newways of thinking, doing business, and organizing civil society. Along with the flow of consumer and industrial goods often come books, magazines, and o thermedia with political and social content. Foreign investment and services trade create opportunities for foreign travel and study,allowing citizens to experience first-hand the civil liberties and more representative political institutions of othernations.

Economic freedom and trade provide a counterweight to governmental power. A free market diffuseseconomic decisionmaking among millions of producers and consumers rather than leaving it in the hands of a fewcentralized government actors who could, and often do, use that power to suppress or marginalize politicalopposition. Milton Friedman, the Nobel-prize-winning economist, noted the connection between economic and political freedom in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom: Viewed as ameans to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides

economic freedom directly, namely competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic powerfrom political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.3


19/150

ADI 19Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Module

DEMOCRACY STOPS NUCLEAR WAR

MURAVCHIK 01 Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute [Joshua, Democracy and Nuclear Peace, 7-11-01, Presented before the NPEC/IGCC Summer Faculty Seminar, UC-San Diego, www.npec-web.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm]

Moreover, while the criteria for judging a state democratic vary, the statistic that 45 percent of states weredemocratic in 1990 corresponds with Freedom House's count of "democratic" polities (as opposed to its smaller count of"free" countries, a more demanding criterion). But by this same count, Freedom House now says that the proportion of democracies has grown to62.5 percent. In other words, the "third wave" has not abated.< waxing. is democracy for yearning the Islam radical of cradle in even that suggests 2001 victory election landslide second Khatami="s"President Iranian And these. majority a assent won not has and Moslems to only definition by appeals it but world, parts alternative an offer stillmay Radical democracy. challenge ideological universalist ended also War; Cold Communism fall The>

That Freedom House could count 120 freely elected governments by early 2001 (out of a total of 192 independentstates) bespeaks a vast transformation in human governance within the span of 225 years. In 1775, the number ofdemocracies was zero. In 1776, the birth of the United States of America brought the total up to one. Since then, democracy has spread at anaccelerating pace, most of the growth having occurred within the twentieth century, with greatest momentum since 1974.

That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the

most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide thatthere was certain to be some backsliding.Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and startsrather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful andclear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before.

This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reducedalmost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of theworld, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent ofdemocratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nucleararsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.
http://www.npec-web.org/syllabi/muravchik.htmhttp://www.npec-web.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm


20/150


21/150

ADI 21Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Democracy Ext.

The best studies indicate a strong causal relationship between free trade and democracy.

Griswold 7(Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade,Democracy and Peace:The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20,http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)

Next, I examined the relationship between economic openness in individual countries today and their record o f human rights and democracy. To make this comparison, I combined the FreedomHouse ratings with the ratings for economic freedom contained in the Economic Freedom of the World Report. That study rates more than 120 countries according to the freedom to trade and

invest internationally, to engage in business, access to sound money, property rights, and the size of government. The study is jointly sponsored by 50 think tanksaround the world, including the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute in Canada, and Norway's own Center for Businessand Society Incorporated, or Civita. When we compare political and civil freedoms to economic freedom, we findthat nations with open and free economies are far more likely to enjoy full political and civil liberties than those withclosed and state-dominated economies. Of the 25 rated countries in the top quintile of economic openness, 21 are rated "Free" by Freedom House and only one is rated"Not Free." In contrast, among the quintile of countries that are the least open economically, only seven are rated "Free" and nine are rated "Not Free." In other words, the mosteconomically open countries are three times more likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that areeconomically closed. Those that are closed are nine times more likely to completely suppress civil and politicalfreedoms as those that are open.

The percentage of countries rated as "Free" rises in each quintile as the freedom to exchange with foreigners rises, while the percentage rated as "Not Free" falls. In fact, 17 of the20 countries rated as "Not Free" are found in the bottom two quintiles of economic openness, and only three in the top three quintiles. The percentage of nations rated as "Partly Free" also dropsprecipitously in the top two quintiles of economic openness.

A more formal statistical comparison shows a significant, positive correlation between economic freedom, including the freedom to engage in international commerce, and political

and civil freedom. The statistical correlation remains strong even when controlling for a nation's per capita gross domesticproduct, consistent with the theory that economic openness reinforces political liberty directly and independently ofits effect on growth and income levels. One unmistakable lesson from the cross-country data is that governments that grant their citizens a large measure of freedom toengage in international commerce find it dauntingly difficult to deprive them of political and civil liberties. A corollary lesson is that governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff wallsand other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny those same liberties.

Even when we look at reform within individual countries, we see a connection. A statistical analysis of thosecountries shows a significant and positive correlation between the expansion of the freedom to exchange withforeigners over the past three decades in individual countries and an expansion of political and civil freedoms in thesame country during the same period. Countries that have most aggressively followed those twin tracks of reform--reflected in their improved scores during the past twodecades in the indexes for freedom of exchange and combined political and civil freedom--include Chile, Ghana, Hungary, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Portugal, and Tanzania. Twenty yearsago, both South Korea and Taiwan were essentially one-party states without free elections or full civil liberties. Today, due in large measure to economic liberalization, trade reform, and theeconomic growth they spurred, both are thriving democracies where a large and well-educated middle class enjoys the full range of civil liberties. In both countries, opposition parties havegained political power against long-time ruling parties.Our best hope for political reform countries that are "Not Free" will not come from confrontation and economic sanctions. In Cuba, for example, expanded trade with the United States would be afar more promising policy to bring an end to the Castro era than the failed, four-decades-old economic embargo. Based experience elsewhere, the U.S. government could more effectivelypromote political and civil freedom in Cuba by allowing more trade and travel than by maintaining the embargo. The folly of imposing trade sanctions in the name of promoting human rightsabroad is that sanctions deprive people in the target countries of the technological tools and economic opportunities that nurture political freedom.
http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681http://www.freetrade.org/node/681


22/150

ADI 22Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Environment Module

FREE TRADE IS KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Taylor Et al in 01 (Scott [Prof of Econ @ U of Calgary, Research Associate NBER, Canada Research Chair I],Werner Antweiler [Sauder School of Business @ University of British Columbia] and Brian R. Copeland [Prof ofEcon @ U of B.C.], "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment", accessed online 7/30/08 @http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=taylor)

This paper investigates how openness to international markets affects pollution levels to assess the

environmental consequences of international trade. We develop a theoretical model to divide trades

impact on pollution into scale, technique and composition effects and then examine this theory using

data on sulfur dioxide concentrations from the Global Environment Monitoring Project. Thedecomposition of trades effect into scale, technique and composition effects has proven useful in othercontexts [see Grossman and Krueger (1993), Copeland and Taylor (1994, 1995)] and here we move one stepforward to provide estimates of their magnitude. We find that international trade creates relatively smallchanges in sulfur dioxide concentra tions when it alters the composition, and hence the pollutionintensity, of national output. Combining this result with our estimates of scale and technique effects

yields a somewhat surprising conclusion: if trade liberalization raises GDP per person by 1 percent,

then pollution concentrations fall by about 1 percent. Free trade is good for the environment.1 Weobtain this conclusion by estimating a very simple model highlighting the interaction of factor

endowments and income differences in determining the pattern of trade. Our approach, while relativelystraightforward, is novel in four respects. First, by exploiting the panel structure of our data set, we areable to distinguish empirically between the negative environmental consequences of scalar increases in

economic activitythe scale effectand the positive environmental consequences of increases inincome that call for cleaner production methodsthe technique effect. This distinction is important formany reasons.2 Grossman and Krueger (1993) interpret their hump-shaped Kuznets curve as reflecting therelative strength of scale versus technique effects, but they do not provide separate estimates of theirmagnitude. Our estimates indicate that a 1 percent increase in the scale of economic activity raisespollution concentrations by 0.25 to 0.5 percent for an average country in our sample, but the

accompanying increase in income drives concentrations down by 1.251.5 percent via a technique

effect.

Environmental destruction leads to extinction.Diner, 1994 (Major David N, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, 143 Mil.L. Rev. 161, l/n)

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicityincreases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditionsof the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could causetotal ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanicremoving, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.


23/150


24/150

ADI 24Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Environment Ext.

Free Trade spreads environmental norms, technology, and policy strategies that are better

for the environment than a protectionist strategy.Shin 4

(Sangbum, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, EconomicGlobalization and the Environment in China: A Comparative Case Study of Shenyang and Dalian, Journal ofEnvironment and Development, Vol.13, No. 3, September 2004 263-294)

This article attempts to test the key hypothesis mentioned above by comparing two cases based on the mostsimilar system design. It hypothesizes that global environmental norms are more likely to be empowered andconverted into effective policy practices in a relatively open economy. To examine if the economic opennessfacilitates the norm diffusion process and, therefore, brings a higher level of environmentalinstitutionalization and better policy performance, this article selects two cities in China based on thevariation in the economic openness. Except for the economic openness, the two cities are similar in mostaspects that can affect the different outcomes, among which the most critical factor is the income level. Not only is theirincome level similar, but also both cities are located at the same east coastal zone in China, political structure of the local government issame, and the inputs from society, such as the role of environmental NGOs, are negligible in both cities. Therefore, the two cases fit intothe most similar system design in the sense that they are similar in most factors except the economic openness, which becomes anexplanatory variable.

Based on the comparative case study of Shenyang and Dalian, this article concludes that the environmental consequences ofglobal economic integration do not amount to a race to the bottom. On the contrary, economic openness hasprovided a favorable condition for effective diffusion of global environmental norms and thus helped localgovernments to strengthen their environmental protection efforts. In Dalian, the level of environmentalinstitutionsorganizational strength of major environmental agency, comprehensiveness and thoroughnessof environmental legislative framework, and the scope of utilizable policy instrumentsis much higher thanShenyang, and the actual environmental performance measured by major pollution is much better in Dalianthan in Shenyang because of the opportunities and necessities that the high degree of economic openness hasgenerated (see Table 3). Exposed to the international market and international practice of environmentalprotection much earlier than Shenyang, Dalian has developed the second set of organizations much earlierthan Shenyang because of the roles played by foreign actors, which has been critical in Daliansenvironmental protection process. It has also developed stringent environmental regulations on FDI toprevent possible environmental damages driven by foreign firms. Finally, it has been able to utilize variousnew and effective policy instruments because of the high openness.

This article suggested, in the earlier section, three major opportunities and four major necessities asmechanisms that positively connect economic openness to environmental institutionalization. In terms of thethree major opportunitiesforeign technology transfer, exposure to environmental practices of advancedcountries, and learning/adopting new policy instruments, all three mechanisms worked effectively in Dalian(and Shenyang to a less extent). In the case of the four major necessities, on the other hand, the most important mechanism found inDalian was the FDI-induced policy changes as a responding strategy of the city government to cope with possible environmentaldamages because of FDI. However, because other mechanismsstandard upgrade because of green barriers, environmentalrequirements of multilateral trade agreements, and international environmental treaties that use a trade ban approachhave becomeincreasingly important in China (at the national level), they will also play a significant role in the environmental politics of the two citiesin the near future.

As environmental issues are growingly intertwined with global economic issues, the environmental impact of trade andinvestment liberalization has become one of the critical concerns particularly for the developing countries. On one hand, this articleemphasizes the normative dimension of the relationship between economic openness and the environmental protection, which has beenrelatively underestimated in structural and rational approaches. It demonstrates how norms of reciprocity and mutual trust can be

developed between local government agencies and foreign firms and how they affect their course of actions. On the other hand , this

research suggests policy implications that might be useful for other developing countries beyond China:Foreign business connections, as well as environmental NGOs network, can be an effective mechanism to strengthen the environmental

protection efforts of local governments in the developing countries if the local governments and other domestic actors are cognizant ofthe possible environmental perils as well as benefits of further trade and investment liberalization, and thus able to develop their ownresponding strategies.


25/150

ADI 25Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens

Companies wont relocate to avoid regulation- compliance is cheap and overall price

differentials are minimalWheeler 2k1

(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT,Racing to the Bottom? ForeignInvestment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries,Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-245, September)These results strongly contradict the race-to-the-bottom model. Instead of racing toward the bottom, major urbanareas in China, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States have all experienced significant improvements in air quality.The improvements in Los Angeles and Mexico City are particularly noteworthy because they are the dominant industrial centers in the region most strongly affected by NAFTA. Therace-to-the-bottom models basic assumptions must be flawed, because its predictions are inconsistent with urban airpollution trends in three of the developing worlds major industrial powers. In fact, empirical research has undermined all of these assumptions.Pollution control is not a critical cost factor for most private firms. Research in both high- and low-income countriessuggests that pollution control does not impose high costs on business firms. Jaffe et al. (1995) and others haveshown that compliance costs for OECD industries are surprisingly small, despite the use of command-and-controlregulations that are economically inefficient. These results suggest that differential pollution control costs do notprovideOECDfirms with strong incentives to move offshore. Firms in developing countries frequently have even lower costs because the labor andmaterials used for pollution control are less costly than in the OECD economies. Big polluters also have subject to scale economies. Figure 6 displays recent econometric estimates of controlcosts for sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution in large Chinese factories (Dasgupta,Wang,&Wheeler, 1997).4 For non-state-owned enterprises, costs of a few dollars per ton are t ypical until controlrates rise above 70%. As Figure 6 shows, state-owned enterprises have much higher costs because they are operated less efficiently. The average cost of pollution control has therefore declined asChina has moved away from state ownership during the era of liberalization. In Colombia, a new pollution charge program has sharply reduced organic water pollution by large factories.Colombian factory managers have found that cleaning up is cheaper than paying charges, even when they are set at relatively low levels. No participating factory seems to have experiencedfinancial difficulties in the process (Wheeler, 1999). Similar conclusions have emerged from studies of regulation and con trol costs in Malaysia (Jha, Markandya, & Vossenaar, 1999; Khalid &Braden, 1993).

Pollution Havens wont happen- community backlash.

Wheeler 2k1(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT,Racing to the Bottom? Foreign

Investment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries,Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-245, September)Low-income communities penalize dangerous polluters, even when formal regulation is weak or absent. Abundant evidence from Asia and Latin Americashows that neighboring communities can strongly influence factories environmental performance (see Dasgupta,Lucas,&Wheeler, 1998; Hartman, Huq, & Wheeler, 1997; Hettige, Dasgupta, & Wheeler, 2000; Hettige, Huq, Pargal, & Wheeler, 1996; Huq & Wheeler, 1992; Pargal & Wheeler, 1996). Where

formal regulators are present, communities use the political process to influence the strictness of enforcement. Where regulators are absent or ineffective,nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups (including religious institutions, social organizations, citizens movements, andpoliticians) pursue informal regulation based on convincing polluters to conform to social norms. Although these groups vary fromregion to region, the pattern everywhere is similar: Factories negotiate directly with local actors in response to threats of social, political,or physical sanctions if they fail to compensate the community or reduce emissions.

Indeed, communities sometimes resort to extreme measures when sufficiently provoked. In theAsianSurvey, Robert Cribb (1990) recounted an Indonesian incident reported from Banjaran near Jakarta in 1980 whenlocal farmers burned a government-owned chemical factory that had been polluting their irrigation channels. In asimilar vein, Mark Clifford (1990) reported in theFar Eastern Economic Review that community action prevented the opening of a chemical complex in South Korea until appropriate pollutioncontrol equipment was installed.When factories respond directly to communities, the results may bear little resemblance to the dictates of formal regulation. For example, Cribb (1990) also cited the case of a cement factory inJakarta, Indonesia, that, without admitting liability for the dust it generates, compensates local people with an ex gratia payment of Rp. 5,000 and a tin of evaporated milk ever y month.Agarwal, Chopra, and Sharma (1982) described a situation in India where, confronted by community complaints, an Indian paper mill installed pollution abatement equipment, and to compensate

residents for remaining damage, the mill also constructed a Hindu temple. If all else fails, community action can also trigger the physical removalof the problem. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for example, a neighborhood association protest against a polluting tannery led managers to relocate it to the citys outskirts (Stotz, 1991).


26/150

ADI 26Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Enviro. AT: Pollution Havens

Protectionism cant stop pollution havens- they harm high quality factories just as much aspolluting ones.

Wheeler 2k1(David, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, P.H.D. from MIT,Racing to the Bottom? Foreign

Investment and Air Pollution in Developing Countries,Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, 225-245, September)

Rejection of trade and aid sanctions as levers to force closure of the regulatory gap between low- and high-income

countries. First, such sanctions are unjust because they fail to discriminate between clean and dirty firms in theaffected countries. Numerous studies have shown that factories with world-class standards are operating even in thepoorest countries (Afsah& Vincent, 1997; Hartman et al., 1997; Huq & Wheeler, 1992; Wheeler et al., 1999).Second, such blunt instruments will inevitably penalize workers in poor countries by reducing opportunities for jobsand higher wages. Finally, they will not work anyway. As noted in previous sections of this article, poor countrieshave weaker regulations and higher pollution intensities for a host of reasons. Governments of low-income countriescould not deliver on promises of OECD-level regulation, even if they were willing to make them.

Pollution haven hypothesis=false.Venkat 4(Kumar, works in Silicon Valley's high-tech industry, and writes about the social and environmental impacts oftechnology and globalization,Free Trade: Benefit or Peril for the Environment?, The national environmental andtraining foundation, January 8th, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-10.htm)Copeland and Taylor find no evidence for the pollution haven hypothesis, which states that free trade will promptpolluting industries to move to poor countries where environmental regulations are lax. Their results suggest thatrich countries have a comparative advantage in capital-intensive polluting industries, so these industries are likely tostay in rich countries even if environmental regulations are tighter.

For these developed countries, the right environmental policy can produce a net good for the environment.Pollution policy, in the form of regulation or taxes, can lead to cleaner production methods by encouraging bettertechnologies. The message to developing countries is that environmental problems can be exacerbated if tradeliberalization outpaces environmental policy -- as we will see shortly, therein lies one of the conflicts between trade

and the environment.

The complexity of the subject becomes evident as the book leaves a host of questions unanswered. The authors limittheir focus to local pollution caused by production of goods, while ignoring other significant environmental impactsof trade.


27/150

ADI 27Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Module

FREE TRADE PREVENTS NATIONAL AND GLOBAL RECESSIONSGriswold in 2008 (David [director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington],Worried About a Recession? Don't Blame Free Trade, June 3, accessed 7/30/08 @http://www.freetrade.org/node/879]

Speculation is growing that the U.S. economy may have already slipped into recession. If the past is anyguide, politicians on the campaign trail will be tempted to blame trade and globalization for the passingpain of the business cycle. But an analysis of previous recessions and expansions shows that

international trade and investment are not to blame for downturns in the economy and may, in fact, bemoderating the business cycle.In recent decades, as foreign trade and investment have been rising as a share of the U.S. economy,recessions have actually become milder and less frequent. The softening of the business cycle has becomeso striking that economists now refer to it as "The Great Moderation." The more benign trend appears to datefrom the mid-1980s.The Great Moderation means that Americans are spending more of their time earning a living in agrowing economy and less in a contracting economy. Our economy has been in recession a total of 16

months in the past 25 years, or 5.3 percent of the time. In comparison, between 1945 and 1983, thenation suffered through nine recessions totaling 96 months, or 21.1 percent of that time period.

America's recent experience of a more globalized and less volatile economy has not been unique in theworld.Other countries that have opened themselves to global markets have been less vulnerable tofinancial and economic shocks. Countries that put all their economic eggs in the domestic basket lack thediversification that a more globally integrated economy can fall back on to weather a slowdown. A countrythat increases trade as a share of its gross domestic product by 10 percentage points is actually about one-third less likely to suffer sudden economic slowdowns or other crises than if it were less open to trade. As theauthors of this study concluded:Some may find this counterintuitive: trade protectionism does not "shield" countries from the volatilityof world markets as proponents might hope. On the contrary...economies that trade less with other

countries are more prone to sudden stops and to currency crises.

Nuclear WarMEAD 92 Fellow, Council of Foreign Relations[New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p.28, walter Russell]

But what if it cant? Whatif the global economy stagnates or even shrinks? In that casewe will facea new period ofinternational conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India these countrieswith theirbillions of people andtheirnuclear weapons will pose amuchgreaterdanger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.


28/150

ADI 28Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Ext.

Globalization prevents national recession by creating diversified and flexible economies

the slow down no is not evident to globalizationthe U.S. if preparing for long termgrowth

Griswold in 2008 (David [director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington],Worried About a Recession? Don't Blame Free Trade, June 3, accessed 7/30/08 @http://www.freetrade.org/node/879]

Globalization is not the only possible cause behind the moderation of the business cycle. Improved

monetary policy, fewer external shocks (what some economists call "good luck"), and other structuralchanges in the economy may have all played a role. For example, the decline in unionization and theresulting increase in labor-market flexibility have allowed wages and employment patterns to adjust

more readily to changing market conditions, mitigating spikes in unemployment. Better inventorymanagement through just-in-time delivery has reduced the cyclical overhangs that can disrupt production.Combined with those other factors, expanding trade and globalization have helped to moderate swings

in national output by blessing us with a more diversified and flexible economy. Exports can take up slackwhen domestic demand sags, and imports can satisfy demand when domestic productive capacity is reachingits short-term limits. Access to foreign capital markets can allow domestic producers and consumersalike to more easily borrow to tide themselves over during difficult times.

A weakening dollar has helped to boost exports and earnings abroad, but the main driver of success

overseas has been strong growth and lower trade barriers outside the United States. American

companies have been earning a larger and larger share of their profits overseas for decades now.

According to economist Ed Yardeni, the share of profits that U.S. companies earn abroad has increasedsteadily from about 5 percent in the 1960s to about a quarter of all profits today.If the U.S. economy does tip into recession this year, free trade and globalization will be among the

likely scapegoats. The pain of recession will be real for millions of American households, but raising

barriers to foreign trade and investment will provide no relief for most affected workers. In fact,reverting to protectionism would only reduce the capacity of our economy to regain its footing and

resume its long-term pattern of growth.


29/150

ADI 29Free Trade

Free Trade/Globalization Good Economy Ext.

INCREASED FREE TRADE IS KEY TO PREVENT INCREASES IN OVERSEAS COMPETITION FOR

JOBS AND STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY.

Businessweek, 2008(Chris Farrell,Two Cheers for Free Trade, 3/21,http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2008/pi20080327_636230.htm)

Remember the "giant sucking sound"? That was 1992 Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful auditory description of howmultitudes of Americans would lose their jobs to low-wage competitors in Mexico. Well, it's more than a decade and a half later,and Perot's bte noir, the Nafta agreement, is once again the subject of heated debate in a campaign for the White House.Democratic Presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) have both criticized theagreement(BusinessWeek, 3/19/08). But the regional fears Nafta inspired in 1992 have gone global in 2008. In addition toMexico, most of the world's dynamic emerging markets, including China, India, and Brazil, have become strong players inthe global economic arena. Americans worry about competition from overseas companies and workers from other landsemigrating to the U.S., especially with the economy faltering amid falling home prices, tottering financial markets, and shakyconsumer confidence. The case for freer trade and open markets is overwhelming. Economic evidence and economic historyalike support the view that freer trade over time invigorates economic growth by encouraging the spread of new

commercial ideas, new technologies, and new ways of organizing everyday life. Consumers enjoy lower prices and greaterchoice. Competition from overseas rivals encourages corporate efficiency and innovation. THE POLITICS OF TRADETo

be sure, free trade is a powerful economic medicine that can have some unpleasant side effects, and policymakers could do abetter job of ameliorating attendant job losses and other economic dislocations. But the problems associated with free trade are

manageable compared to those caused by closed economic borders. (Just ask Messrs. Smoot and Hawley.) Yet manyeconomists worry that election-year pressure from voters to "do something" about income inequality, stagnant wages, and pinkslips is pushing Washington toward protectionism. Invoking the Harry Potterbooks, Greg Mankiw, Harvard Universityeconomist and former head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, writes in a recentNew York Times opinion piecethat "no issue divides economists and mere Muggles more than the debate over globalization and international trade." Mankiwsees the crux of the problem as this: "Where the high priests of the dismal science see opportunity through the magic of themarket's invisible hand, Joe Sixpack sees a threat to his livelihood." With all respect to Mankiw, a terrific economist with a best-selling textbook, that's nonsense. First of all, give Joe Sixpack credit. The knowledge gap between the "high priests" andordinary Americans is exaggerated. It seems to me most voters have a pretty good

Documents

Free Trade Core File (ADI)