whales 1ac

whales good

Advantage one is whales-

Whales are critical to the long term health and stability of marine ecosystems, boost commercial fisheries, and act as long-term carbon sinksJames Maynard, 7/6/14, "Baleen and Sperm Whales are Ocean's ecosystem engineers, new study says", Reporter for Tech Times, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9815/20140706/baleen-sperm-whales-oceans-ecosystem-engineers.htm//AKP)

Baleen and sperm whales act like ecosystem engineers in the global ocean, according to a new study from the University of Vermont. Whales help maintain the global ecological balance due, in part, to the release of vast quantities of feces. A new study examined decades of research on the marine mammals and their role in maintaining the balance of life in oceans. "For a long time, whales have been considered too rare to make much of a difference in the oceans," Joe Roman, conservation biologist at the University of Vermont, said. The researcher and his team found the animals play critical roles in the food chain underwater, and greatly affect commercial fisheries. The giant mammals also alter the uptake of carbon dioxide in the world's oceans. Whales could, therefore, also be affecting levels of the atmospheric greenhouse gas. "The decline in great whale numbers, estimated to be at least 66% and perhaps as high as 90%, has likely altered the structure and function of the oceans, but recovery is possible and in many cases is already underway," researchers wrote in an article announcing their investigation. Many species of whales were once on the verge of extinction. Recovery of whale populations could help stabilize oceans stressed by abnormally-high levels of carbon dioxide and pollution. The marine mammals can live several decades, giving these animals the chance to moderate the ecosystem over a significant period of time. Great whales, like the sperm and baleen varieties, consume vast quantities of fish. Baleen whales are the largest animals on the planet, yet they eat some of the smallest animals in the water. They then spread these nutrients throughout the water as they pass the digested food. When these massive creatures die, their bodies sink to the ocean floor, becoming "whale falls." Many species live exclusively within the remains of these behemoths. Centuries of hunting for food, oil and other resources pushed down the number of great whales around the world. This likely changed the balance of life in the oceans, the researchers stated. As populations recover, the ecosystem could also recover, biologists believe, and fishermen who once looked on whales as competition should instead welcome greater numbers of the animals. Regions where the giant mammals eat and mate could be ripe with nutrients and fish, ready to be caught by commercial fishing vessels. Study of how whales affect the world's marine ecosystem was published in the online journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Independently, marine ecosystems are key to check global extinctionSielen 13ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Devolution of the Seas, Foreign Affairs, November/December, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seasOf all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the worlds oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and other sea life one associates with the oceans today. Yet that sea life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it the rise of slime: the transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats. The prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems threatens our very survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that sustains life on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.

Specifically, damaging hotspots risks huge regional death tolls for vulnerable populations and global extinction.C.I. 14(Conservation International (CI) is a nonprofit environmental organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. FWIW, it is right near the Georgetown camp and we may visit them. CI is one of the largest conservation organizations headquartered in the United States, though its field work is done in other countries. It has 900+ employees, more than 30 global offices, and more than 1,000 partners around the world. CI has evolved into an international organization with influence among governments, scientists, charitable foundations, and business Hotspots http://www.conservation.org/How/Pages/Hotspots.aspx)To stem this crisis, we must protect the places where biodiversity lives. But species arent evenly distributed around the planet. Certain areas have large numbers of endemic species those found nowhere else. Many of these are heavily threatened by habitat loss and other human activities. These areas are the biodiversity hotspots, 35 regions where success in conserving species can have an enormous impact in securing our global biodiversity. The forests and other remnant habitats in hotspots represent just 2.3% of Earths land surface. But youd be hard-pressed to find another 2.3% of the planet thats more important. Whats a Hotspot? To qualify as a biodiversity hotspot, a region must meet two strict criteria: It must have at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics which is to say, it must have a high percentage of plant life found nowhere else on the planet. A hotspot, in other words, is irreplaceable. It must have 30% or less of its original natural vegetation. In other words, it must be threatened. Around the world, 35 areas quality as hotspots. They represent just 2.3% of Earths land surface, but they support more than half of the worlds plant species as endemics i.e., species found no place else and nearly 43% of bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian species as endemics. Conservation International was a pioneer in defining and promoting the concept of hotspots. In 1989, just one year after scientist Norman Myers wrote the paper that introduced the hotspots concept, CI adopted the idea of protecting these incredible places as the guiding principle of our investments. For nearly two decades thereafter, hotspots were the blueprint for CIs work. Today, CIs mission has expanded beyond the protection of hotspots. We recognize that it is not enough to protect species and places; for humanity to survive and thrive, the protection of nature must be a fundamental part of every human society. Yet the hotspots remain important in CIs work for two important reasons: Biodiversity underpins all life on Earth. Without species, there would be no air to breathe, no food to eat, no water to drink. There would be no human society at all. And as the places on Earth where the most biodiversity is under the most threat, hotspots are critical to human survival. The map of hotspots overlaps extraordinarily well with the map of the natural places that most benefit people. Thats because hotspots are among the richest and most important ecosystems in the world and they are home to many vulnerable populations who are directly dependent on nature to survive. By one estimate, despite comprising 2.3% of Earths land surface, forests, wetlands and other ecosystems in hotspots account for 35% of the ecosystem services that vulnerable human populations depend on.

The Pacific Marine Monument is a critical hotspotEilperin 6/17 (Juliet. Staff Writer, Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/17/why-is-obama-protecting-a-place-youve-never-heard-of-we-explain/)

You might be wondering why President Obama is announcing Tuesday he will use his executive authority to expand the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument, a vast stretch of the central Pacific Ocean. Here are a few reasons: 1. With marine reserves, bigger is often better. The original monument, established in 2009, is already nearly 82,000 square miles. But many scientists--such as Lance Morgan and Elliott Norse of the Redmond, Wash.-based Marine Conservation Institute--argue that the ecological benefits expand exponentially when sanctuaries are enlarged, both because they allow species to move freely and because they are easier to enforce. The possible expansion would encompass nearly 782,000 square miles. 2. Underwater mountains matter. Seamounts--massive mountains that lie beneath the ocean's surface--are hotspots of biodiversity. There are anywhere between 40 to 51 in the current protected area, and that number would reach between 241 and 251 if the president extends the reserve to 200 miles surrounding each of its seven islands and atolls. 3. Since it's devoid of people, animals thrive there. Almost everywhere in the world, small fish outnumber big fish. But in places such as Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, scientists have found the biomass of large predators such as sharks outweighs that of smaller fish. The area--which also includes Wake, Johnston, Jarvis, Howland and Baker Islands--also features five species of protected sea turtles and 22 species of protected marine mammals as well as several million seabirds who gather there.

Overfishing and decline in food supply make war and conflict innevitableTripp 14 (Emily, Overfishing Has Significant Impact on Global Food Security, March 20, http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/03/20/overfishing-has-significant-impact-on-global-food-security/#ixzz315BisQE2)Overfishing and climate change threaten food security. Three billion people depend on fish to provide at least 20 percent of their animal protein, and more than 500 million people would be deprived of their primary source of protein if fish stocks around the world continue to decline. Climate change and overfishing are two of the biggest factors contributing to this potential food security crisis. Climate change has led to ocean acidification and warming waters, which are contributing to an overall decline in ocean health. Its also pushing fish stocks further north, altering fisheries and food supplies in tropical regions. Ocean acidification and warming temperatures are hugely complex, long-term problems, Global Ocean Commission co-chair Jos Mara Figueres said in a news release. But overfishing is something that we can tackle right now, with tools already at our disposal. Thats why this week, the Commissioners agreed on a package of proposals for ocean restoration and governance reform that will be presented to the United Nations in June. They have prioritized several issues that require prompt action, including overfishing and illegal fishing, fishing subsidies and more. Weve agreed an ocean rescue package, said David Miliband, Global Ocean Commission co-chair. Now we need governments, business and civil society to join us in implementing it. We know what needs to be done but we cant do it alone.Food insecurity causes conflict and warSimmons 13 (Emily Simmons. People and Practices (HR), Advisor at The Marketing Store. Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation. New Security Beat. 3 September 2013. http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/#.Uth9YaCLDy8)//JuneC//)Food and Conflict, Conflict and Food Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation, the latest edition of ECSP Report, explores the complex linkages between conflict and food security, drawing insights from scholarly work to help inform more effective programming for practitioners. There is no doubt that conflict exacerbates food insecurity. Conflict can reduce the amount of food available, disrupt peoples access to food, limits families access to food preparation facilities and health care, and increase uncertainty about satisfying future needs for food and nutrition. Deaths directly attributable to war appear to be declining, but war and other kinds of conflict continue to take a toll on human health, often through food insecurity. Conflict induces the affected populations to adopt coping strategies that invariably reduce their food consumption and nu trition. Poor nutritional status in individuals of any age makes them more susceptible to illness and death. But the acute food insecurity caused by conflict has especially potent and long-lasting effects on children. Children whose nutrition is compromised by food insecurity before they are two years old suffer irreversible harm to their cognitive and physical capacities. Analysis of the causes of conflict and war has been an area of growing academic interest. Both theoretical work and empirical analy ses substantiate the many ways in which food insecurity can trigger, fuel, or sustain conflict. Unanticipated food price rises frequently provide a spark for unrest. Conflict among groups competing to control the natural resources needed for food production can catalyze conflict. Social, political, or economic inequities that affect peoples food security can exacerbate grievances and build momentum toward conflict. Incentives to join or support conflicts and rebellions stem from a number of causes, of which the protection of food security is just one. Food insecurity may also help to sustain conflict. If post-conflict recovery proves difficult and food insecurity remains high, incentives for reigniting conflict may be strengthened. Given the complexity of factors underlying food security, however, we do not yet understand what levels or aspects of food insecurity are most likely, in what circumstances, to directly contribute to or cause conflict. More explicit integration of food security variables into theories of conflict could help inform external interventions aimed at mitigating food insecurity and preventing conflict. The high human and economic costs of conflict and food insecurity already provide substantial incentives for international humanitarian and development organizations to intervene in order to alleviate food insecurity in fragile states and conflict-affected societies. Experience suggests, however, that effective efforts to address food insecurity in these situations may require external actors to reconsider the ways in which they intervene. Modifying operational approaches to ensure greater complementarity and continuity between humanitarian and development interventions, for example, could help to improve effectiveness and impact. External support could help to strengthen institutions critical to food security and conflict prevention in fragile states. Engaging more closely with households caught in conflict-created poverty traps could alleviate persistent food insecurity and potentially sustain conflict recovery. And mobilizing civil society and private businesses as partners could enable both humanitarian and development organizations to broaden the capacities for conflict recovery and food security.

That causes extinctionDeNoon 6 (Daniel, AP News Correspondent, Citing PhD Boris Worm Study in the Journal of Science, Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinction-seen-by-2048/)The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change. The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise. "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release. "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release. "If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds. Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say. The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments. They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now." Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.Warming causes extinctionDavid Stein, Science editor for The Guardian, 7-14-2008, Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting, http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.htmlGlobal Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception."The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

asia pivot badAdvantage Two is the Asia Pivot

First, Obamas pivot to Asia will fail- a. too many moving partsEconomy 14Elizabeth Economy, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Missing In Asia: The Pivotal Person In Obama's Pivot, May 1, http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/05/01/missing-in-asia-the-pivotal-person-in-obamas-pivot/It is tough to get a fix on what is wrong with President Obamas Asia pivot. On the face of it, it is the perfect policy at the perfect time: it serves Americas economic interests by pushing a high-end trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); it reinforces and expands Americas role as the dominant security player in the region; and it advances the ideals of the American political system through capacity building in countries such as Myanmar. Yet, no matter how much attention the president and his team are paying to the regionand no one can legitimately claim that the Asia Pacific is suffering from a lack of U.S. attention given the number of trips to the region by senior U.S. officialsthe sum of the policy is rapidly becoming less than its parts. Certainly, the region is no longer in the state of rough equilibrium that has characterized it for the past few decades. Japan and South Korea are at odds. The Chinese economy is a black hole from which no real light is emerging. Political protests are bouncing from one place to the next, raising questions of legitimacy from Taiwan to Thailand. The Chinese nine-dash line is transforming from a figurative to a literal naval battleground between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors. And political transition in North Korea has produced a future for the country and the region every bit as bleak as that of the past. Yet these problems, in many respects, should be small potatoes for the United States. Why, therefore, with a well-conceived policy, a surfeit of attention and mostly manageable problems, does the U.S. rebalance seem off-kilter? The evolution of the pivot over the past two-and-half years suggests two factors: first, the transition from the articulation to the implementation of the pivot. It is terrific to breathe new life into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but getting the deal done is a different matter. It needs to be a top priority not only for the U.S. Trade Representative but also for Treasury, Commerce, and free-trade-minded members of Congress. The White House needs to put real heft behind the deal and getting trade promotion authority (TPA) for the president from Congress. The United States is fleshing out the security component of the pivot piece by piece, and the deal signed by the president in the Philippines is a real success, particularly if one thinks back to 1992, when Manila kicked Washington out of Subic Bay. Still, it does U.S. credibility no good to have a Pentagon official publicly question Americas staying power in the face of defense budget cuts. Second, and even more important, is the departure of Secretary of State Clinton. Without her, and her deputy Kurt Campbell, there is no-one person who serves as the pivots pivotal spokesperson. Secretary Clinton was the public face of the rebalance. Others may have had a say in its design and played a supporting role, but she had both the ability and the interest to navigate across the issues and give the pivot a sense of strategic purpose. Both at home and abroad, it is now unclear who can or does play this role. The recent series of visits to the region by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, as well as National Security Adviser Rice, leave the impression of a set of policy silos rather than an integrated, coherent whole. It is not too late to push the pivot forward, but the president needs to determine who has the diplomatic skills and presence, the intellect and the interest to ensure its success. (And let me say, I dont think that there is a clear choice here.) He also needs to put his presidential weight behind the TPP and get the three former senators in his cabinetVice President Joe Biden, Kerry and Hagelto Congress if he, himself, cant do the glad-handing necessary to win TPA. Finally, if he hasnt read Maureen Dowds April 30 New York Times column, he should. Whining, whiffing and whinging are just the worst and certainly wont bring any diplomatic wins.

b. budget cuts means deterrence is impossible.Gaskell 14Stephanie Gaskell is deputy editor and senior reporter for Defense One. She previously covered the Pentagon for Politico, Can the U.S. Military Really Pivot to Asia? March 25, http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/03/can-us-military-really-pivot-asia/81247/#.UzLC5LS1xLU.twitterMilitary commanders in the Pacific have quite a wish list of things they need to carry out the Pentagons much-publicized pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. More follow-on forces, more submarines, more amphibious ships. Budget constraints are clearly affecting President Obamas plan to beef up the militarys presence in Asia, and just how much is starting to become clearer. Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and Gen. Curtis Mike Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, laid out several things they need to carry out the mission at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. Scaparrotti said, The forces in the theater have been fully resourced, despite the budget constraints that weve had. Im happy with that and appreciative of it. But he said, going forward, hes concerned about the readiness of follow-on forces in the region forces that would be necessary to back up troops in the event of a crisis or attack. In our theater, given the indications and warnings, the nature of this theater and the threat that we face, I rely on rapid and ready forces to flow into the peninsula in crisis. Locklear said hes asked for more amphibious lift for the five amphibious readiness groups in the region. The reality is, is that to get Marines around effectively, they require all types of lift, they require the big amphibious ships, but they also require connectors, he told the committee, referring to craft that take Marines from ship to shore. I have asked for additional amphibious lift to be put into the Pacific, and that request is under consideration. And Locklear said his requirement for attack submarines are not all being met. Under current budget plans, the militarys attack submarines will decline from 55 in fiscal year 2013 to just 42 in 2029, according to Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. Locklear and Scaparrotti pointed out gaps in coverage to an area of the world that is a dominant part of Obamas military strategy, despite continuing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, and new challenges with Russia. And their comments come on the heels of a controversial admission by a top Pentagon official that the pivot to Asia cant happen because of budget cuts. Earlier this month, Katrina McFarland, the assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, told a conference in Arlington, Va., that right now, the pivot is being looked at again, because candidly it cant happen. McFarland quickly backtracked her statement, saying through a spokesperson that the rebalance to Asia can and will continue. But Locklear and Scaparrotti said the region has special needs, because of the makeup of its geography and the nature of the threat. Pacific Commands geographic region, or area of responsibility, according to Locklear, makes up 50 percent of the worlds surface. Of that 50 percent, 17 percent of it is land and 83 percent is water. Six out of every 10 people alive live on that 17 percent of land. And the threat from China and North Korea is a different kind of threat than in other areas of the world, and would require a swift and strong response. On the Korean Peninsula, the nature of the fight is potentially high-intensity combat, and the time and space factors also present a tough problem for us. So the delivery of ready forces on a timeline is important, Scaparrotti said.

c. European concerns will always take priority. Pongsudhirak 14Thitinan Pongsudhirak is a Thai political scientist, speaker and Associate Professor at Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, where he is the Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), Faculty of Political Science. He completed his PhD from the London School of Economics. He completed an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the Johns Hopkins University and B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He was formerly Deputy Dean for International Affairs at the Faculty of Political Science of Chulalongkorn University. As a consultant for Airports of Thailand (AOT), he assisted the AOT management on its road show prior to listing on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Global realities test Obama's Asia pivot The Bangkok Post (Thailand) May 2, 2014 lexis President Barack Obama can't be blamed for not trying. Having missed the Asean-related summit season from last October because of the US government's "shutdown", the president allotted an entire week for a make-up trip that recently took him to South Korea, Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines to shore up his strategic foreign policy reorientation towards East Asia, also known as the "Asian pivot" or "rebalance". But the results of Mr Obama's highly touted four-nation tour appear lacklustre, not because of a lack of intention and effort but because of endemic geopolitical realities and priorities. As the Obama "pivot" returns to its pre-pivot era, much can still be achieved for Asia-Pacific security and prosperity by focusing on realistic and incremental progress and cooperation on the ground rather than lofty rhetoric and grand vision. When Mr Obama's Asian pivot was enunciated in January 2012, following a declaration of himself as America's first "Pacific president" in November 2009, in view of repeated assertions of the US as a "Pacific power" throughout, his recent swing through East Asia attracted much attention. It would have been better for Mr Obama to attend the Asean-related summits, particularly the East Asia Summit and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, on time in the Asean neighbourhood rather than to schedule catch-up appearances thereafter. But America's domestic preoccupations, most astonishingly its congressional inability to agree to a working budget, kept Mr Obama at home. As in most other countries, domestic politics cast long shadows over Mr Obama's geopolitical strategy in Asia. Moreover, this trip conspicuously excluded China at a time when Beijing is locking horns with America's allies in the region, particularly Japan and the Philippines, in the East and South China seas. Despite Washington's reassurances that the deep US-China economic ties and diplomatic relations remain on track, China was the elephant in the room during the Obama visit, conspicuous to all but officially left out. Mr Obama's reiteration of the US-Japan treaty alliance and its coverage of Japan's interests in the dispute over the Senkaku islands, which Japan administers but China claims and refers to as Diaoyu, is likely to be a comfort to Tokyo as much as an antagonism to Beijing. Nor was the Obama stopover in Malaysia less controversial. While his support for the ill-fated Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 was well taken, his references to human rights violations in polarised Malaysia, where an unpopular government and entrenched ruling Barisan Nasional party is checked by an unwieldy but growing opposition, probably did not go down well in Kuala Lumpur. Not since 1966 has an American leader set foot on Malaysian soil. Meanwhile former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed deplored America's social decadence and misguided values for much of the 1990s. In Japan and Malaysia, Mr Obama's objective was to secure agreements on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a US-dominated free-trade area. The TPP was the major rationale for the visit and a major selling point of the Asian pivot for the American public. But TPP has faced stiff resistance ranging from Japanese farmers to Malaysia's civil society groups. Dissatisfaction in the Philippines focused on increased US military presence. Filipinos held placards deriding Mr Obama, some showing support for US enemies, including "We Stand With Snowden" signs. The US intends to come up with a new security agreement that would allow US troops, aircraft and ships to be "temporarily stationed in selected Philippine military camps", a plan that will face opposition from the Philippine public even if it can be considered in the Philippine congress. The Philippines is mired in a tussle with China over assets and resources in the South China Sea, but perhaps not enough to renew substantial US military presence in the Philippines. Mr Obama's least prickly stop was his first in South Korea with the recent doomed ferry tragedy as backdrop. The geopolitical common ground was uncontested. As North Korea has succeeded in posturing itself as a nuclearised global menace with a fixation on South Korea, America's security treaty reassurances were timely. Yet the Obama team also had to urge South Korea and Japan, two US treaty allies, to keep their territorial disputes over Dokdo island, which the Japanese call Takeshima, not to exacerbate bilateral tensions. By the end of Mr Obama's Asian tour, it was clear that his Asian pivot and rebalance strategy no longer carries the same geopolitical thrust it did a few years ago. The Pacific president of a Pacific power sounds less compelling because of resurgent Atlantic obligations and entanglements. Russia's sphere of influence, including Moscow's annexation of Crimea and ongoing agitation in eastern Ukraine, is a case in point. Suddenly old European enmities are back on Europe's geopolitical canvas, and America as a congenital Atlantic power cannot shirk its responsibilities. Moreover, the elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and Iran's nuclear machinations are also more central on America's radar screen. Mr Obama is as Pacific as an American president is going to get in a long time, but the American presidency is still fundamentally bound to Atlantic concerns, with regular exigencies in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere.

d. China will push territorial claims either way. Hiebert 14Murray Hiebert is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at CSIS, Chinas Push in the South China Sea Divides the Region, May 16, http://csis.org/publication/chinas-push-south-china-sea-divides-region

ASEAN foreign ministers issued a rare standalone statement expressing serious concerns about developments in the sea and calling for quicker action in negotiating a code of conduct between China and the grouping. Vietnam and the Philippines undoubtedly hoped for stronger support from their neighbors, two of whichMalaysia and Bruneihave their own overlapping claims with China in the South China Sea, which serves as a major international shipping route, has rich fishing grounds, and is believed to hold deposits of oil and gas. The diverse ASEAN grouping probably did about as much as could be expected considering that it is consensus driven and that it has struggled in the past reaching a joint stance on tensions in the South China Sea. Two years ago, ASEAN foreign ministers failed for the first time to issue a statement at the end of their summit in Cambodia because Phnom Penh refused to include any reference to a discussion of the sea disputes. Many Southeast Asian countries are reluctant to challenge China because it has become their largest trading partner and it is the largest aid donor to nations like Cambodia and Laos. On top of that, the major points in the chairmans statement summing up the leaders meeting had reportedly been agreed upon before China parked the oil rig as it became clear that no senior leader from Thailand, in the midst of a months-long political crisis, would be able to attend the summit and sign off on major revisions. Still, reading between the lines of the ASEAN statements, leaders clearly spent considerable time discussing developments in the South China Sea and Chinas latest moves have them worried. The leaders also anticipated that this would not be their last word of the year on Chinas increased assertiveness. In early August, the ASEAN foreign ministers can count on the backing of the foreign ministers of the United States, Japan, India, Korea, Australia, and others when they meet for the ASEAN Regional Forum in Myanmar. This will be followed in November by the East Asia Summit, attended by the leaders of the United States, Japan, and India, among others. ASEAN officials recognize that they will not need to take the lead in discussions with China about the South China Sea at these meetings. Foreign Minister K. Shanmugan of Singapore, on a visit to Washington right after the ASEAN meeting, told Foreign Policy on May 13 that we want to see a code of conduct created; we want to see this resolved peacefully through the Law of the Sea, through arbitration, through any other means, but not direct confrontation and aggressive action. But he added that ASEANs ability to deal with or reduce tension on any given incident is not significant. The U.S. response to the latest Chinese move was quick. Secretary of State John Kerry had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China on May 12, and a spokesman reported that he described Chinas introduction of an oil rig in waters disputed with Vietnam was provocative. President Barack Obama visited the Philippines shortly before China moved its rig into an area claimed by Vietnam. We believe that international law must be upheld, that freedom of navigation must be preserved, and commerce must not be impeded, Obama said during his visit. We believe that disputes must be resolved peacefully and not by intimidation and force. In the weeks leading up to the presidents visit to Asia, U.S. officials had publicly challenged the legitimacy of Chinas nine-dash line claims to most of the South China Sea and had warned Beijing not to impose an Air Defense Identification Zone over this sea as it had in the East China Sea near Japan late last year. Many U.S. analysts suggest that Beijing moved the rig into Vietnams exclusive economic zone to signal to Washington and the capitals of ASEAN that China plans to test the U.S. commitment in its rebalance to Asia to stand by its allies and friends in the face of stepped-up Chinese assertiveness. China is saying to its neighbors You sure you want to sign on to the U.S. rebalance? one China expert says. Much of Washingtons strategy focuses on building international support to challenge Chinas assertiveness in such forums as the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum, while developing closer ties with the Southeast Asian disputing parties, particularly the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. It is also seeking to improve military ties with the goal of helping boost the military domain awareness of these countries. And since the dispute began, the U.S. Navy has renewed its offers to bolster ties with Vietnam, including offering more ship visits. The United States and at least some ASEAN countries hope increased international pressure will nudge China to explore compromises built around global rules such as the UN law of the sea. Manila last year mounted a challenge to Chinas sovereignty claims by asking an arbitration tribunal to rule on whether Beijings nine-dash line has legal standing. China has refused to participate in the case, but some observers anticipate that Beijing might feel some pressure if other countriessay, Vietnamwere to launch similar actions. But its far from certain that this policy will work, at least in the short term. From Chinas perspective, they arent paying a very high price, says China foreign policy expert Bonnie Glaser, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who visited Beijing just after the news of its oil rig broke. My sense from discussions in Beijing is that the Chinese are determined to assert their claims and are willing to tolerate a degree of tensions with their neighbors. China recognizes that it cannot challenge Washington militarily any time soon, but it is convinced that it holds a huge edge over the United States in its economic ties with Chinas neighbors. Glaser said the Chinese believe that the benefits that their neighbors gain from China economically will prevail [and that] the region will eventually accept Chinese dominance in the South China Sea. A statement by ASEAN expressing serious concern isnt going to change Chinas calculus.

However, strengthening the Pivot only makes conflict more likelyBeijing Review June 12th 2014 Editorial Staff for the Beijing Review Viet Nam's Worrisome Stance NO. 24 JUNE 12, 2014 http://www.bjreview.com.cn/print/txt/2014-06/09/content_623303.htm

The situation in the South China Sea has been peaceful for decades. Thanks to the collective efforts of China and other countries whose coastlines touch the South China Sea, a coordination and communication mechanism has been established to resolve territorial disputes peacefully. However, the waters have become troubled in recent years as the United States carries out its "pivot-to-Asia" strategy. The Philippines were the first to make an offensive move against China's sovereignty in the South China Sea, but gained little from the incident aside from becoming a client state for the U.S. military. Unlike the Philippines, Viet Nam relies heavily on China for its economic development. If Viet Nam continues to act provocatively in the South China Sea, it will find its national reputation deeply damaged. Seeing as Viet Nam has set offshore oil and gas development as a focus for its economy, escalating disputes and an attempt to claim these resources in the South China Sea would be beneficial to it. Viet Nam officially admitted China's sovereignty over the Xisha Islands until the 1970s. Even earlier, in 1956, it explicitly agreed with China in 1956 and stated that the Xisha Islands belonged to the latter. The Chinese Government announced a distance of 12 nautical miles as its territorial waters in 1958 and indicated that the breadth of its territorial waters applies to all Chinese territories including the Xisha Islands. On the 10th day after China made the announcement, then Vietnamese Premier Pham Van Dong delivered a diplomatic note to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stating that the Vietnamese Government recognized and respected the announcement on the breadth of territorial waters made by the Chinese Government. For a long time following, all governmental documents, textbooks and maps published by Viet Nam identified the Xisha Islands as Chinese territory. Against the backdrop of the "pivot-to-Asia" policy of the United States, Viet Nam might think there is an opportunity to steal the Xisha Islands. It distorts history and denies facts to try and meet these ends.

Alliances cause war by emboldening new US partners and making China feel contained. Heath June 11th 2014 Timothy R. Heath is a senior China analyst for the USPACOM China Strategic Focus Group China and the U.S. Alliance System The Diplomat. The Diplomat is the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region. June 11, 2014 http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-and-the-u-s-alliance-system/

The sources underpinning Chinas growing opposition are deep and structural. They have little to do with the personal preferences of PRC leaders. Nor do they stem from reactions to statements by individual leaders or U.S. policies, such as the rebalance, although these may aggravate Chinese frustrations. Criticism of U.S. hegemonism and Cold War mentality has a long history, but for years it was aimed at specific policies, such as Taiwan arms sales. The latest criticism, by contrast, is more specifically aimed at the structural obstacles to Chinas pursuit of regional security and the nations development. In the eyes of PRC leaders, those structural obstacles are defined in large part by the U.S.-led system of security alliances and partnerships in Asia. At the CICA summit, Xi criticized alliances as unhelpful for the regions security. He stated that It is disadvantageous to the common security of the region if military alliances with third parties are strengthened. Commentary in official media has been even blunter. A typical Xinhua article observed that strengthening U.S. alliances can achieve nothing other than buttress an unstable status quo (May 21). The drivers underpinning this view consist of three types, expressed as concerns that: the current U.S.-led order enables U.S. containment of China; the nature of alliances emboldens countries to challenge China on sovereignty and security issues; and the alliance system led by the United States is incapable of providing lasting security for the region. The fear of a U.S. ambition to contain China is deep and pervasive. China views U.S. promotion of liberal democratic values, human rights, and Western culture as driven in part by a desire to constrain PRC power. Moreover, Beijing is well aware of U.S. historical successes in activating its network of alliances to defeat aspirants for preeminence in Europe or Asia. The growing competition between China and the United States, manifest in friction points across policy topics from cyber to the South China Sea, and in the U.S. decision to adopt the rebalance itself, makes this threat all the more real and pressing. PRC leaders appear unconvinced by the incessant statements by senior officials in Washington that the United States has no intent or desire to pursue containment. But even if U.S. leaders could persuade Beijing of this fact, the mere existence of the security architecture allows the possibility of pursuing containment in the event bilateral relations sour. China also objects to the alliance system as a threat to its security and sovereignty. This is especially true of U.S. alliances with countries that have antagonistic relations with China. Beijing finds the U.S. alliance with Japan more problematic than it does the U.S. alliance with countries like Thailand, with which China enjoys far more stable relations. In Chinas eyes, an alliance with the United States emboldens countries to provoke Beijing on sovereignty disputes, threatening instability and potentially conflict. Antagonism with neighboring powers like Japan and the Philippines also threatens to escalate into a war that could draw in the United States, a disastrous possibility Beijing dreads. Reflecting these frustrations, a typical Xinhua commentary article bitterly noted that the United States has not taken any concrete measures to check its defiant allies from confronting China. U.S. efforts to reassure its allies through the rebalance and through criticism of China for provoking instability merely intensify these anxieties.

That escalates to a nuclear exchange

Goldstein 13Avery Goldstein is the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania, First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations, International Security, Vol. 37, no 4, Spring, 2013, pp 49-89In a crisis, the U.S. and Chinese interests at stake will be high, and either side could decide that the risk of escalation introduced by conventional, space, or cyberattacks was worth running. Even though no stake in a crisis would be high enough for either the United States or China to choose an unrestrained nuclear exchange, some stakes might be high enough for either one to choose to initiate military actions that elevate the risk of escalation to such a disastrous outcome.88 As discussed above, both China and the United States have important interests over which they could find themselves locked in a war threatening crisis in the Western Pacific. The recent pattern of pointed Chinese and U.S. statements about the handling of persistent disputes in the South China Sea, for example, suggests that both sides attach a high and perhaps increasing value to their stakes in this region. Whether that value is high enough to contribute to crisis instability is an empirical question that cannot be answered in advance. The most worrisome source of instability, however, is clearthe temptation to use nonnuclear strikes as a way to gain bargaining leverage, even if doing so generates an unknowable risk of nuclear catastrophe that both China and the United States will have incentives to manipulate.

solvency

Naval exercises in the new Pacific Monument are key to the Asia Pivot and result in mass whale deathsHorwitz 14 (Josh. July 1. Author of War of the Whales, a True Story. Columnist for Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/navy_sonar_strands_whales_obama_should_keep_it_out_of_the_pacific_remote.single.html)

In June, President Obama signed an executive order that vastly expands the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. It will create the worlds largest marine reserve, placing 782,000 square miles of ocean off-limits to commercial fishing and oil and gas exploration. But perhaps not off-limits to U.S. Navy sonar exercises. When President George W. Bush designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument in 2006 and the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument in 2009, he also granted the U.S. Navy an exception to the ban on environmentally destructive activities inside these sanctuaries. This special carve-out allows the Navy to conduct antisubmarine sonar trainings inside the marine equivalents of national parks. Now is the time for President Obama to step up and designate this expanded national monument as a true sanctuary for vulnerable marine life. At highest risk are the deep-diving whales that are ubiquitous in these pristine waters. These whales have repeatedly mass-stranded in the wake of high-intensity naval sonar exercises around the world. A few months ago, during joint antisubmarine exercises among the U.S., Israeli, and Greek navies, at least five beaked whales stranded and died on the coast of Crete. As graphic photographs of dead whales in the bloody shallows circulated on the Internet, a team of Greek veterinary pathologists rushed to the scene to retrieve fresh organ samples for analysis. The autopsies found hemorrhaging inside the whales internal organs, bleeding from the ears, and tissue evidence of decompression-like sickness seen in other deep-diving whales following rapid ascent. They echo the grim reports from prior mass strandings linked to naval war games in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and elsewhere. Given the history of sonar strandings in the region, some Greek biologists have despaired at the fate of that population of whales. As I recount in my new book, War of the Whales, the Navys conflict with whales reached the courtroom years ago, when environmentalists began challenging the use of whale habitats for training exercises with sonar and explosives. The Natural Resources Defense Council first went to court in 1994 to prevent the Navy from detonating 10,000-pound bombs during ship shock tests in the whale-rich Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary off the California coastline. In the years that followed, NRDC filed a series of lawsuits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other federal statutes to limit the Navys sonar trainings in areas of vital importance to whales. After suffering a string of court losses and being repeatedly found in violation of federal conservation laws, the Navy agreed to conduct comprehensive environmental impact statements on all of its U.S. coastal ranges and to implement some risk reduction procedures during exercises. The Navy does not, however, perform comprehensive environmental reviews prior to exercises in foreign waterswhich may explain why strandings like those on Crete are still occurring. And on the Navys U.S. ranges, some whale populations are showing signs of decline, leading NRDC and another environmental group, Earthjustice, to file suit this year to halt Navy exercises off the California and Hawaii coasts. This week marks the beginning of the massive Rim of the Pacific war games hosted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. These monthlong joint exercises deploy 47 warships from 22 foreign navies, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 sailors. Ten years ago, during 2004 RIMPAC exercises involving high-intensity sonar, 200 melon-headed whales panicked and fled into Hanalei Bay. Citing this incident, NRDC went to court in 2006 and won an emergency injunction that delayed the start of that summers RIMPAC war games until the U.S. Navy agreed to limitations on its sonar exercises. This years ramped-up RIMPAC exercises highlight the Obama doctrines pivot toward Asia. But projecting a more robust U.S. naval presence in the Pacific threatens to undermine the conservation goals of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The islands were once home to two U.S. naval air stations, and although there are few large Navy trainings conducted in these waters today, ships in the area may engage in sonar testing. The only current restriction on Navy sonar operations is a 12-nautical-mile limit surrounding the islandsand only for low-frequency sonar. Mid-frequency sonar exercisesthe kind of sonar implicated in the recent Crete strandingshave no limitations. Michael Jasny, the director of NRDCs Marine Mammal Protection Project, estimates that 99.6 percent of the newly expanded national monument is currently unprotected from naval sonar. The Navy hasnt always been indifferent to whales. Beginning in the early 1960s, the U.S. Navy captured and trained dolphins, orcas, and other small cetaceans to patrol harbors for enemy swimmers, retrieve unexploded armaments from the ocean floor, and sweep harbors for live mines in Vietnam. In 1986, Navy dolphins were first deployed in the Persian Gulf to patrol the harbor in Bahrain to protect U.S. flagships from enemy swimmers and mines and to escort Kuwaiti oil tankers through potentially dangerous waters. In 2003, during Operation Enduring Freedom, Navy-trained dolphins and sea lions were redeployed to clear mines near the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr and other locations. For decades, the Navy has also studied whales exquisitely refined biosonar in hopes of reverse-engineering it to improve the Navys own surveillance of enemy submarines in dark ocean depths. Its a cruel irony that the Navys modern, high-intensity sonarpartly derived from its extensive research into cetacean biosonarcauses mass strandings of certain species of whales. In the years since losing its first court case over sonar exercises, the Navy has agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars studying the behavioral responses of deep-diving whales to high-intensity sonar. There is now consensus among researchersincluding those funded by the Navythat whales are acutely sensitive to acoustic disturbances. Sonar and other sources of ocean noise provoke a range of lethal and nonlethal responses, including abandoning their foraging habitats and diverting their migration paths. And the stress of chronic noise pollution responses can threaten whales often fragile reproductive health. Given this growing body of evidence, one wonders why the Navy continues to insist on conducting sonar trainings in whale habitats, even at the risk of turning would-be sanctuaries into death traps. Why must whales continue to die for military practice? Despite their highly evolved social structures and their prodigious talents for communication and navigation, whales dont grasp the fine points of territorial limits, laws of the sea, and national monument designations. They cant escape the underwater cacophony from transcontinental shipping, offshore oil and gas drilling, and military sonar that have combined to make their marine habitats unbearably noisy. The U.S. Navy has repeatedly failed to conduct sonar trainings without harming federally protected marine mammals. And as judges in virtually every circuit have ruled, regulators at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have failed to hold the Navy accountable to the law. Now is the time for citizen action, during the summerlong public comment period before the fine-print rules are finalized. Comments should be directed to the secretary of Commerce and the secretary of Interior. It will then fall to the commander in chief to finally grant the whales a sanctuary from the Navys acoustic storm. He should begin with the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.

plan

The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earths oceans by designating the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument off-limits to United States Navy exercises.

solvency extensions

war games bad

War games in the Pacific kill US-China relations which are on the brink now the aff solves for future instability in the South China SeaRT 5-5 [Russia Today, May 5, 2014, This is just a test: Philippines, US kick off major war games in Pacific, http://rt.com/news/156864-us-philippines-maneuvers-military/] WDMore than 5,000 US and Filipino soldiers have begun war games in the region at a time of increased tension especially from the regional power, China - over Americas growing military footprint in the Pacific. The two-week naval exercises, dubbed "Balikatan" (shoulder-to-shoulder), are ostensibly designed to help the two allies respond to emergencies, including piracy and natural disasters. Nearly 5,500 American and Filipino service personnel will participate in the naval games, which will involve the participation of US F-18 fighter jets and soldiers involved in live ammo exercises, on the main island of Luzon. The maneuvers, held on the edge of the South China Sea, come just one week after Manila and Washington hammered out the details of a new security agreement, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives the US Navy broader access to local ports and military bases. Given the current realities in the region, no military maneuvers can occur without some level of suspicion from neighboring powers. Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario made a veiled reference to China, with whom Manila has had territorial conflicts, when he said the exercises would help counter excessive and expansive maritime and territorial claims." "The aggressive patterns of behavior, aimed at changing the status quo, threaten peace and stability in the region. Balikatan 2014 with its focus on maritime security strongly supports our capabilities to address these challenges." Del Rosario then commented on the dozens of protesters who gathered in central Manila to speak out against the heightened American presence in the Philippines, which many believe is leading to tense relations with China. "It is silly that China is even being mentioned since the US has expressed its non-committal (sic) to defend the Philippines in the event of an armed confrontation with China," said Renato Reyes, Bayan (Nation) secretary-general. China and the Philippines have exchanged threats over ownership rights to the Spratly Islands, an archipelago in the South China Sea, which is believed to contain a vast quantity of oil and natural gas reserves. The islands, which spread over more than 425,000 square kilometers (164,000 square miles) of water, are also claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam. Asked about the joint exercises in its geopolitical backyard, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said all sides needed to work "constructively" to maintain peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region. "We hope that the relevant US-Philippines drills can work in this direction," she told a daily news briefing. The annual naval maneuvers between American and Filipino troops date back to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, a leftover military collaboration along the lines of NATO, assembled during the height of the Cold War.US budget cuts make the current Pivot strategy unfeasible latching on through war games and alliance building ensures Chinese miscalculationAP 13 [Associated Press, published by CBS News, February 7, 2013, U.S. war-games with Japan, Australia in show of force to rising China, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-war-games-with-japan-australia-in-show-of-force-to-rising-china/] WDFighter jets from the U.S. and two key allies roared into western Pacific skies Thursday in the combat phase of annual exercises that have gained importance as the region responds to the rise of China and other potential threats. The Cope North drills which could soon swell in participants are aimed at preparing air forces of the U.S., Japan and Australia to fight together if a military crisis erupts. They also send a vivid reminder to Beijing that America's regional alliances are strong, though officers leading the maneuvers say they are not looking to bait the Chinese military. "The training is not against a specific country, like China," Japan Air Self-Defense Force Lt. Gen. Masayuki Hironaka said. "However, I think (the fact) that our alliance with the U.S. and Australia is healthy is a strong message." The three allies began flying sorties together earlier in the week around the U.S. territory of Guam in a humanitarian phase of the exercises, dropping emergency assistance in packages that wafted down under parachutes to jungle airfields. On Thursday, fighter jets were joined by bombers, transport planes and tankers that refuel the fighters in midair. For the first time, Japanese tankers were joining the drills. U.S. officials said they believe more allies, particularly New Zealand and the Philippines, will join the exercises soon. Maneuvers like Cope North are a key element of Washington's evolving strategy in the Pacific as the U.S. shifts its emphasis away from Afghanistan and fighting ground wars. It is now placing more attention on Asia and the possibility of an air or sea confrontation with the rapidly modernizing Chinese military, which has been briskly improving its forces and using its growing muscle to back up territorial claims that have raised regional tensions. This "Pacific rebalance" will bring newer and more advanced aircraft and ships to the Pacific theater over the next several years and spread out the tens of thousands of U.S. troops now primarily based in Japan and South Korea. U.S. Marines have already begun rotational deployments to Darwin, in northern Australia, and about 9,000 Marines stationed on the southern Japan island of Okinawa are to be moved to this tiny island, Hawaii and other locations. The changes reflect a deepening strategic concern over the rise of China as a regional military power with the potential to challenge Washington's ability to intervene in a crisis, particularly around Taiwan or islands in the south and east China seas that are contested by China and U.S. allies such as the Philippines and Japan. But the emphasis on alliance-building through exercises like Cope North also underscores fears in the Pentagon that major budget cuts looming in Congress could make it difficult for Washington to shoulder the whole burden of keeping China in check. Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle said he believes the budget cuts now being considered could threaten America's role as a superpower. He noted that China's military, and especially its navy, have been undergoing a "massive buildup" and are becoming a more credible challenge to their U.S. counterparts. So, strategic alliances are now more important than ever. "The United States and our partners are taking `joint' to the next level," he said. "The amount of commerce that goes through here, the amount of the world GDP that goes through here, if you look at the world's population that is in this part of the world, the importance of the Pacific can't be overstated." Washington's renewed focus on Asia has generally been welcomed by its more-established and prosperous allies like Japan and Australia because they share the U.S. concerns that changes in the balance of power could hurt economic growth throughout the region. "I think nations throughout the region are looking for that increased support that working with the U.S. is likely to bring," said Royal Australian Air Force Air Commodore Anthony Grady. "Australia welcomes the refocus." Japan also has a more urgent need to tout its U.S. alliance. Its coast guard ships and fighter aircraft have been deployed frequently over the past several months to drive their Chinese counterparts away from a group of small uninhabited islands that both nations claim as their own. The dispute has soured diplomatic and trade relations and shows no sign of abating. Under a treaty, the U.S. is obliged to come to Japan's assistance if the islands are attacked or occupied. Hironaka noted that during Cope North, which involves about 1,700 troops, Japanese fighter jets will conduct needed bombing training that they cannot do in their own country because of crowding and safety restrictions. "Training with the U.S. is very important to us," he said. "The U.S.-Japan alliance is key to security in the region." Not all Asian nations have been so receptive to the U.S. Pacific policy. Some countries have expressed doubts about how far the United States would be willing to go to support them in a crisis, especially since China is one of Washington's most important trading partners. Others have voiced concerns that exercises like Cope North send a confrontational message that might lead to higher tensions. Carlisle acknowledged that is a possibility. "I think the PRC has a tendency to look at things in a different light," he said. "I think they may take this as something different than it is intended."

Pacific training in the region allows to ally with Asian partners O'Rourke 14 (Ronald. Specialist in Naval Affairs. China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy CapabilitiesBackground and Issues for Congress. June 5, 2014. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf/CH)The Navy in recent years has increased antisubmarine warfare (ASW) training for Pacific Fleet forces and conducted various forward-deployed operations in the Western Pacific, including exercises and engagement operations with Pacific allied and partner navies, as well as operations that appear to have been aimed at monitoring Chinese military operations.114 In a December 2011 journal article, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated: Critical to shaping the environment is cooperation with partners and allies across the range of operations. At the high end [of operations], we will expand our combined efforts with allies in Japan, South Korea, and Australia to train and exercise in missions such as antisubmarine warfare and integrated air and missile defense. Over the next decade, we will also increase deployments of ships and aircraft for the cooperative missions our other allies and partners need most. Our ships ships [sic] in Singapore will conduct cooperative counterpiracy or countertrafficking operations around the South China Sea. Similarly, 2025 may see [land- based] P-8A Poseidon [maritime patrol] aircraft or unmanned broad area maritime surveillance aerial vehicles periodically deploy to the Philippines or Thailand to help those nations with maritime domain awareness.

Pacific Training leads to military tensions and miscalc Dyer, 2/20(Geoff, Senior Writer and Washington Correspondent for Financial Times, China training for short, sharp war, says senior US naval officer, Financial Times; February 20, 2014; http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/687e31a2-99e4-11e3-91cd-00144feab7de.html#axzz36pT4SR2w)

China has been training for a short, sharp war against Japan in the East China Sea, a senior US military officer has claimed, in comments that underline the growing military tensions in the western Pacific. Captain James Fanell, director of intelligence for the US Pacific Fleet, said that a large-scale Chinese military exercise conducted in 2013 was designed to prepare forces for an operation to seize disputed islands in the East China Sea, which Japan calls the Senkaku and China the Diaoyu. We witnessed the massive amphibious and cross military region enterprise Mission Action 2013, Capt Fanell said at a navy conference last week in San Diego. We concluded that the PLA [Peoples Liberation Army] has been given the new task of being able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea following with what can only be an expected seizure of the Senkakus, he added. Conducting a training exercise is very different from having an actual plan to seize the islands. For years, the Chinese military has staged exercises designed to mimic a possible invasion of Taiwan. However, the comments about Chinas military training plans come at a time of considerable tension surrounding the contested islands. The regular presence of both Chinese and Japanese vessels and aircraft in the region has raised the risk of an accident that could spark a wider confrontation. In December, China declared an air defence identification zone for the East China Sea, which the US and many other countries in the region interpreted as an attempt to cement its sovereignty claim over the disputed islands. Although Capt Fanells remarks were unusually blunt in their assessment of Chinas intentions, they represent a growing tide of anxiety from senior US officials about Beijings ambitions in both the East China Sea and South China Sea. Earlier in February, Danny Russel, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, warned there are growing concerns that this pattern of behaviour in the South China Sea reflects incremental effort by China to assert control over the area. He said that Chinas recent actions had created uncertainty, insecurity and instability in the region. Capt Fanell said that Chinese maritime training had shifted in character in the second half of 2013 to prepare for realistic maritime combat that its navy might encounter. Last year, it conducted nine operations in the western Pacific that were designed to practise striking naval targets. FT Video I do not know how Chinese intentions could be more transparent, he said. When Beijing described its activities as the protection of maritime rights, this was really a Chinese euphemism for the coerced seizure of coastal rights of Chinas neighbours, Capt Fanell said. At the same conference last year, Capt Fanell issued another sharp assessment of Chinas naval ambitions. The countrys expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet, he said. The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare...Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet. In depth Although there is growing concern among US military officers and diplomats about what they believe to be Chinas increasingly assertive behaviour, the US Navy is also placing considerable emphasis on trying to forge a better working relationship with Chinas navy. We have got to find the common ground and figure out how we are going to operate in this big ocean of the western Pacific together without incident or miscalculation, Rear Admiral James Foggo, assistant deputy chief of naval operations, told the same conference. He described his interactions with Wu Shengli, commander of the Chinese navy, as the greatest and most challenging chess match of my career.

sonar bad

Naval training exercises in the pacific are harmful to several endangered speciesSlavin 14 (Erik. Author at Stars and Stripes. Suit to stop Navy training in Pacific cites impact on marine life. January 29, 2014. http://www.stripes.com/news/suit-to-stop-navy-training-in-pacific-cites-impact-on-marine-life-1.264542/CH)An environmental group has filed suit to prevent Navy training exercises in the Pacific that it says will harm massive numbers of whales and dolphins. The Navy says the maneuvers will have little long-term effect on marine mammals. The National Resources Defense Council suit, filed this week, accuses the National Marine Fisheries Service of violating multiple federal laws by allowing the Navy to ramp up sonar and live-fire training in Hawaii and California during the next five years. The action calls for the Northern California U.S. District Court to halt the training, which began in December. The lawsuit also accuses the Navy of violating the Coastal Zone Management Act, after the service said it would proceed despite the California Coastal Commissions unanimous rejection of the training plan. The fisheries service rule allows the Navys training to incidentally kill up to 13 marine mammals annually in the training areas over the next five years and cause up to about 1.7 million annual incidents of low-level harassment, which includes potential disruption of nursing and breeding. The Navy also asked for authorization to produce up to 266 annual incidents that could result in injuries to marine mammals. The Navy made the requests for mortality and injury allowance as a contingency, and it does not anticipate any marine mammal strandings or that the mortalities predicted by the acoustic modeling will occur, according to a 2012 Navy study. Over a period of 20 years from 1991 to 2010. there have been a total of 16 Navy vessel strikes on marine mammals in Southern California, and five Navy vessel strikes in the Hawaii training area. However, the NRDC argues in its lawsuit that both the fisheries service and the Navy are ignoring the best available science in their findings, saying the noise from sonar, underwater demolition and pile driving will cause significant long-term damage to blue whales, beaked whales and some endangered species. The science proving the link between sonar exposure and population decline is mounting, said Michael Jasny, director of NRDCs marine mammal protection project, in a statement. And so are the solutions that could prevent thousands of needless injuries and hundreds of deaths.

Estimations prove naval training would kill or injure nearly two million marine mammalsWatson 13 [6-12-13, Julie Watson is a member of the Associated Press, Bad News for Whales and Dolphins: Navy to Expand Sonar Testing, http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/bad-news-whales-dolphins-navy-expand-sonar-testing-f2D11749987, HR]The California Coastal Commission also rejected the Navy's five-year plan for exercises that would start in January off Southern California. However, the state agency does not have the power to block the drills, and the Navy has ignored the agency's requested protections in the past. Deaths and injuries estimated The Navy estimates that its activities could inadvertently kill 186 whales and dolphins off the East Coast and 155 off Hawaii and Southern California, mostly from explosives. It calculates more than 11,000 serious injuries off the East Coast and 2,000 off Hawaii and Southern California, along with nearly 2 million minor injuries, such as temporary hearing loss, off each coast. It also predicts marine mammals might change their behavior such as swimming in a different direction in 27 million instances.

Navy exercises disrupt the day to day activity of marine mammals, harassing them through the use of sonar technologyJoyce 12 [1-26-12, Ed Joyce is an environmental reporter with a B.A. in communications from the University of Washington, Suit Filed to Restrict Harmful Naval Sonar Training off West Coast, http://obrag.org/?p=53334, HR]The Navys Northwest Training Range is the size of the State of California, yet not one square inch is off-limits to the most harmful aspects of naval testing and training activities, said Smith. We are asking for common-sense measures to protect the critical wildlife that lives within the training range from exposure to life-threatening effects of sonar. Biologically rich areas like the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary should be protected. The lawsuit challenges National Marine Fisheries Service approval of the Navys training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex. The lawsuit calls on the federal agency to mitigate anticipated harm to marine mammals and biologically critical areas within the training range that stretches from Northern California to the Canadian border. The Navy uses the Pacific Ocean off the entire West Coast for training activities, including anti-submarine warfare exercises involving tracking aircraft and sonar; surface-to-air gunnery and missile exercises; air-to-surface bombing exercises; sink exercises; and extensive testing for several new weapons systems. The marine mammals are being significantly disrupted from their day-to-day activities- mating, feeding and avoiding predators, said Smith. The Navy training is not just an annoyance to the mammals. A spokeswoman for the Navy declined to comment, saying she had not seen the lawsuit, and the fisheries service did not immediately return an email from The Associated Press seeking comment. Smith said the lawsuit, as with previous legal challenges to the use of sonar, is not intended to prevent the training exercises. This particular lawsuit does not request the activities (Navy training) to cease, said Smith. We just want certain areas off limits to the training. He said the initial lawsuits challenging the use of sonar by the Navy started with legal cases in Southern California. In late 2010, NMFS gave the Navy a permit for five years of expanded naval activity that will harm or take marine mammals and other sea life. Smith said the permit allows the Navy to conduct increased training exercises that can harm marine mammals and disrupt their migration, nursing, breeding, or feeding, primarily as a result of harassment through exposure to the use of sonar. The groups said the Navys mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in mass strandings of marine mammals and have caused whales to stop feeding.

The navys disregard for coastal law will kill and injure thousands of animals through sonar and explosive technologyBeans 13 [8-20-13, Laura Beans is the news curator for EcoWatch (reporting website for environmental issues) and received a BA in writing from Ohio University, U.S. Navy to Increase Sonar Training and Underwater Detonations Despite Injury to Marine Mammals, http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/20/navy-increase-sonar-training-despite-injury-to-mammals/, HR]The U.S. Navy has indicated that it intends to disregard the California Coastal Commissions (CCC) recommendations to mitigate the harmful effects of Navy sonar and offshore training exercises on the states marine mammals. In a letter dated July 31, the Navy responded to the CCCs March objection, which concluded that the Navys planned training and testing activities in Southern California would not be consistent with California coastal law. The Navys plans would allow a radical increase in sonar training and underwater detonations off Southern California, beginning in January 2014. While the Navy says it is open to negotiation, it refuses in its letter to abide by any of the states recommended mitigation measures, such as avoiding training in globally important foraging habitat for the endangered blue whale. The Navys review comes in the wake of several new studies showing that its Southern California activities are harming marine mammal species, such as blue whales and beaked whales, far more than was previously known. The Navys plan to dramatically increase its sonar training and underwater detonations off the Southern California coast shouldnt come at the expense of the states marine life, said Michael Jasny, Natural Resources Defense Councils marine mammal project director. Its proposal blatantly disregards new science showing that current training levels could already be devastating Californias beaked whale populations and preventing endangered blue whales from recovering from near-extinction. The Coastal Commission has offered reasonable measures that take into account the Navys need for flexibility while affording greater protection to vulnerable species, Jasny continues. The Navys refusal to adopt any of these measures puts Californias marine life in jeopardy. Beginning next January, the Navy plans to dramatically increase sonar training and underwater detonations off of Southern California over the next five years. The Navy estimates that it would kill 130 marine mammals outright, permanently deafen another 1,600, and significantly disrupt feeding, calving and other vital behaviors more than 8.8 million times in the process. Compared with its previous exercises in the region, these numbers represent a 1,300 percent increase. Each year, the Navy would run more than 10,000 hours of the same high-intensity military sonar that has killed and injured whales around the globe. In addition, the Navy would detonate more than 50,000 underwater explosives off the Southern California coast. Hundreds of these explosives would pack enough charge to sink a warship, which is exactly what theyre used for. For some species, like the magnificent gray whales that migrate up and down our coast, the incidence of harm is several times the size of their entire populations. The most vulnerable marine mammals are the beaked whales, a family of species that are considered acutely sensitive to Navy sonar, with documented injury and death. A government study published earlier this year found that beaked whale populations have indeed declined substantially in the California current over the past 20 years, and suggests that the Navys range may have become a population sink, making it difficult for them to breed or bring their calves to maturity.

Naval explosions hurt whale populations

Mcavoy 13 (Audrey. Associated Press Reporter covering the environment. Navy: Training May Kill Hundreds Of Dolphins, Whales. 8/30/13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/navy-dolphins-whales_n_3841924.html/CH)HONOLULU -- Navy training and testing could inadvertently kill hundreds of whales and dolphins and injure thousands over the next five years, mostly as a result of detonating explosives underwater, according to two environmental impact statements released by the military Friday. The Navy said that the studies focused on waters off the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, Southern California and Hawaii from 2014 through 2019, the main areas that the service branch tests equipment and trains sailors. The studies were done ahead of the Navy applying to the National Marine Fisheries Service for permits for its activities. The Navy said that it if hadn't done so and was later found to have harmed marine mammals, it would be found in violation of federal environmental law and have to stop its training and testing. Most of the deaths would come from explosives, though some might come from testing sonar or animals being hit by ships.

Navy sonar and weapons testing results in massive whale beachingGoldman 14 [Patti, 6/21/14, Protecting Marine Mammals from Navy Sonar in the Pacific Northwest, Earth Justice, http://earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2013/protecting-marine-mammals-from-navy-sonar-in-the-pacific-northwest, accessed 7/7/14]Earthjustice, representing InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and People For Puget Sound, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California challenging NMFSs approval of the Navys training activities in its Northwest Training Range Complex. The lawsuit calls on NMFS to mitigate anticipated harm to marine mammals and biologically critical areas within the training range that stretches from Northern California to the Canadian border.The Navy uses a vast area of the West Coast for training activities including anti-submarine warfare exercises involving tracking aircraft and sonar; surface-to-air gunnery and missile exercises; air-to-surface bombing exercises; sink exercises; and extensive testing for several new weapons systems.In late 2010, NMFS gave the Navy a permit for five years of expanded naval activity that will harm or take marine mammals and other sealife. The permit allows the Navy to conduct increased training exercises that can harm marine mammals and disrupt their migration, nursing, breeding, or feeding, primarily as a result of harassment through exposure to the use of sonar.The Navys mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in mass strandings of marine mammals in, among other places, the Bahamas, Greece, the Canary Islands, and Spain. In 2004, during war games near Hawaii, the Navys sonar was implicated in a mass beaching of up to 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay. In 2003, the USS Shoup, operating in Washingtons Haro Strait, exposed a group of endangered Southern Resident killer whales to mid-frequency sonar, causing the animals to stop feeding and attempt to flee the sound.The Navys mitigation plan for sonar use relies primarily on visual detection of whales or other marine mammals by so-called watch-standers with binoculars on the decks of ships. If mammals are seen in the vicinity of an exercise, the Navy is to cease sonar use.The litigation is not intended to halt the Navys exercises, but asks the Court to require NMFS to reassess the permits using the latest science and to order the Navy to stay out of biologically critical areas at least at certain times of the year.

Sonar results destroys whales diving, feeding, and communication causes increased deathChang and Watson 13 [Alicia and Julie, 2/24/13, Bad News for Whales and Dolphins: Navy to Expand Sonar Testing, NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/bad-news-whales-dolphins-navy-expand-sonar-testing-f2D11749987, accessed 7/7/14]SAN DIEGO The U.S. Navy plans to increase sonar testing over the next five years, even as research it funded reveals worrying signs that the loud underwater noise could disturb whales and dolphins.Reported mass strandings of certain whale species have increased worldwide since the military started using sonar half a century ago. Scientists think the sounds scare animals into shallow waters where they can become disoriented and wash ashore, but technology capable of close monitoring has emerged only in about the last decade.Aside from strandings, biologists are concerned marine mammals could suffer prolonged stress from changes in diving, feeding and communication.Two recent studies off the Southern California coast found that certain endangered blue whales and beaked whales stopped feeding and fled from recordings of sounds similar to military sonar.'Warning flag'Beaked whales are highly sensitive to sound and account for the majority of beachings near military exercises. Scientists, however, were surprised by the reaction of blue whales the world's largest animal long thought to be immune to the high-pitched sounds. It's unclear how the change in behavior would affect the overall population, estimated at between 5,000 and 12,000 animals.The studies involved only a small group of tagged whales and noise levels were less intense than what's used by the Navy. Shy species, such as the Cuvier's beaked whale that can dive 3,000 feet below the surface, have taken years to find and monitor."This is a warning flag and deserves more research," said Stanford University biologist Jeremy Goldbogen, who led the blue whale study published this summer in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.Both studies were done by a team of independent scientists as part of a Navy-funded, five-year project launched in 2010 to understand how sonar affects marine mammals.Training seen as vitalNavy officials say it's vital to national security that sailors receive sonar training in real-life conditions.Environmentalists have long claimed that sonar harms marine m