72 CM ASEAN DA

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-cm-asean-da 1/21

ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 1

Strat Sheet.................................................................................................................1

Shell 1/3.....................................................................................................................3

Shell 2/3.....................................................................................................................4

Shell 3/3.....................................................................................................................5

Internal Link: Conflicts................................................................................................6

Multilateral cooperation Key.......................................................................................7

ASEAN Needs Energy Stability....................................................................................8

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 1/2..............................................................9

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 2/2............................................................10

Ext: Link............................................................................................................... .....11

Ext: Internal Link.......................................................................................................12

Ext: US Key...............................................................................................................13

Ext: Impacts Nuke War.............................................................................................14

Ext: Impacts Nuke war Ozone layer......................................................................15

2AC Shell..................................................................................................................16

2AC Ext: Non-Unique................................................................................................18

2AC Ext: Turns 1/2....................................................................................................19

2AC Ext: Turns 2/2....................................................................................................20

Strat Sheet

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 2

So this disadvantage isn’t actually the best disadvantage out there, but you can run it for

the hell of it. Basically, what the disadvantage is TRYING to say is that the US and ASEAN

(Association of Southeast Asian Nations), have agreed to multilaterally work on policies

together. The affirmative’s plan is unilateralist which detracts from multilateralism and

that’s bad. South Asia is already unstable and they got nukes, so us backing out of a clean

energy policy leaves them hanging and makes them think we broke our “promise”. This

causes regional instability and nuclear war.


8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 3

Shell 1/3

1. US and ASEAN have agreed to pursue and invest in clean energy multilaterally

Asian Political News, weekly reports covers current political news in Asia, November 21, 2005,

“2 ND LD: U.S. ASEAN agree on enhanced comprehensive partnership”,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15868343. [T-Jacob]The agreement aimed at promoting strategic dialogue between the United States and Southeast Asian nations comesat a time when the China-led East Asian summit, which excludes Washington, will be launched next month.According to the statement, the partnership ''is comprehensive, action-oriented, and forward-looking, andcomprising political and security cooperation, economic cooperation, and social and development cooperation.'' Thestatement calls on foreign, trade and economics ministers to begin talks to develop an action plan, with theassistance of senior officials, to implement the partnership. The initiative covers 17 areas of cooperation in the

political and security, economic, and social and development fields. The areas include seeking a trade andinvestment accord, combating pirates, arms proliferation and terrorism, promoting clean energy, attainingsustainable development, and fighting bird flu, AIDs and other infectious disease. Among them, the United Stateswill support the integration of ASEAN leading to an ASEAN Community and back the ASEAN Regional Forum asthe ''premier regional political and security forum in the Asia-Pacific forum with ASEAN as the driving force.''


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15868343

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15868343

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 4

Shell 2/3

2. ASEAN perception of US unilateralism is widely disapproved and has perpetuated

anti-Americanism in an unstable region.

Joseph Chinyong Liow & Tan See Seng, an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the InternalConflict Programmes at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) in Singapore andDeputy of Head Studies at IDSS, November 14, 2006, “A New Era in US-ASEAN Relations?”,http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/IDSS1192006.pdf . [T-Jacob].THIS week Singapore will host a visit by United States President George W. Bush. According to White Housesources, the occasion will provide the embattled president to lay out his vision of how the US and Asian nations cancollaborate in tackling the problems of poverty, disease, terrorism and energy security. But while speculation has been rife on how a Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress would change the Bush Administration’s foreign policy

towards the Middle East, less attention has been paid to a series of developments, which predate the recentDemocrat victory in the mid-term elections, that could potentially herald a new era in U.S.-ASEAN ties.Washington’s relations with Southeast Asia have been characterised as ambivalent. Its policy towards the SoutheastAsian region during and after the Cold War has vacillated between deep engagement and benign neglect. However,with the terrorist bombings in Bali, Indonesia on October 10, 2002, Southeast Asia resolutely resurfaced on theAmerican policy radar. The region was immediately labeled by US officials and pundits alike as the “second front”of the Global War on Terror. This, of course, was not exactly the terms of engagement Southeast Asians would have preferred, although some allowed that this sort of attention, while unfortunate, was better than none. Be that as itmay, ensuing American preoccupation with Afghanistan and Iraq was perceived within regional quarters to havedistanced Washington from Southeast Asian security concerns yet again. This perception appeared to be confirmed by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s glaring absence from the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting of August2005. This marked the nadir of U.S.-ASEAN relations in recent times. Turning the Corner? Of late, there iscompelling evidence that Washington is recalibrating its policy towards Southeast Asia. At least four developments

over the past few months are noteworthy. First, in November 2005, President Bush met with leaders of the sevenASEAN states which are members of APEC (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, andVietnam) on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Busan, South Korea. The meeting resulted in the establishment of the US-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, which was envisaged to advance cooperation on political, security,economic, and social fronts. The significance of this achievement transcended the scope of the agreement; its timingwas equally critical since it came nary three months after Secretary Rice’s notable absence at the 2005 ARF meeting.Second, in May 2006, Senator Richard Lugar tabled the “US Ambassador for ASEAN Act” to the Congress. The

proposed legislation was co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, including former US presidential candidate John Kerry.The role of the ASEAN envoy was to engage ASEAN as a whole rather than bilaterally with each ASEAN member government.Given Washington’s traditional apprehension with ASEAN regionalism and its preference for bilateral engagement with itsSoutheast Asian partners, this initiative signals a rethinking of the importance of ASEAN as a regional institution in US policy.Third, on October 1, 2006, the Pentagon announced the creation of a key post, at the assistant secretary for defence level, withinthe Department of Defense focusing on Asian security. While North Korea, the rise of China, and terrorism were cited as the keystrategic concerns driving this initiative, provisions, interestingly enough, were nonetheless made for a deputy assistant secretary

to cover Southeast Asia. This shift is crucial given that the Pentagon’s past approach to Asia had been to lump theentire Asian region under the office of assistant secretary for international security. This clearly demonstrates a morenuanced appreciation for the complexities and diversity of security issues in the vast Asian region, not leastSoutheast Asia. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that think-tanks and research institutions in the US which focuson the Asia-Pacific region have received increased attention, not to mention funding, from the US Government. Thisfurther demonstrates an acknowledgement on the part of Washington that informed engagement with Southeast Asiashould be predicated on, among other things, research and intellectual exchanges between US scholars and their regional counterparts. Why Bother? What accounts for this apparent turn in US policy towards Southeast Asia?There are at least three reasons. First, Washington must surely realise that in the contest for influence in the region,


http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/IDSS1192006.pdf

http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/IDSS1192006.pdf

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 5

the US has been losing out to China. Over the past decade, Beijing has demonstrated a diplomatic savvy asexpressed by a range of declarations and agreements reached with ASEAN, such as the ASEAN-China free tradeagreement, the Declaration on the South China Sea, Chinese accession to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity andCooperation, and the like. This contrasts starkly with the ambiguous state of US-Southeast

Shell 3/3

Asian ties over the same period. Against this backdrop, the recent developments initiated by Washington could mark an attempt both to counter Chinese influence and enhance America’s standing in Southeast Asia. Related to theabove point are the issues of anti-Americanism, which has been on the rise since September 11, 2001, and thegrowing disapproval of perceived US unilateralism. Already, the past few years have witnessed widespread anti-American protests and demonstrations in various Southeast Asian countries. A fair part of this had to do withWashington’s seeming lack of sensitivity for regional considerations. Adopting a more nuanced and institution-basedengagement, as appears to be the case with these recent initiatives, will be important to enhancing communicationand understanding between the US and Southeast Asia, thereby alleviating anti-American sentiments.

3. Multilateralism key for ASEAN stability and US – Asia policies.

Satu P. Limaye, Ph.D Research fellow and Head of South Asia Program and Japan Institute of International Affairs, December 1, 2007, “United States – ASEAN relations on ASEAN’s fortiethanniversary: a glass half full”, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7378608/United-States-ASEAN-relations-on.html#abstract. [T-Jacob].Calibrating Bilateralism, Sub-Regionalism, Regionalism, Globalism and Multilateralism in US-ASEAN Relations.First, the United States is challenged to calibrate relations with ASEAN as an organization; with Southeast Asia as ageographical sub-region of wider US East Asia policies; with Southeast Asia as part of US global strategies, interestsand values; and most importantly on a day-to-day basis with sovereign, unique countries. Meanwhile, ASEAN andits member-countries are simultaneously calibrating their own relations with the United States. The United States,however, has a wider range of imperatives affecting its relations with ASEAN than ASEAN does in dealing withAmerica. These imperatives often have spill-over effects in the various approaches to Southeast Asia. One exampleis US concerns about Myanmar's human rights and democracy situation impinging upon US attitudes towardsASEAN's efficacy as an organization, or global democracy and human rights considerations complicating bilateralrelations with individual ASEAN states. Moreover, both the United States and ASEAN must balance domesticconsiderations--further complicating the management of mutual relations.

4. Regional collapse in south Asia leads to World War 3.

S. Rajaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, September 1, 1992, “ASEAN: TheWay Ahead”, http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm. [T-Jacob].This Foreword focuses on regionalism rather than on ASEAN because the latter is no more than a local

manifestation of a global political, economic and cultural development which will shape the history of thenext century. Should regionalism collapse, then ASEAN too will go the way of earlier regional attemptslike SEATO, ASA and MAPHlLlNDO. All that remains today of these earlier experiments are their bleached bones. Should the new regional efforts collapse, then globalism, the final stage of historicaldevelopment, will also fall apart. Then we will inevitably enter another Dark Ages and World War III,fought this time not with gun-powder, but with nuclear weapons far more devastating than those explodedin Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern technology and science are pushing the world simultaneously in thedirection of regionalism and globalism. What is responsible for today's economic disintegration, disorder


http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7378608/United-States-ASEAN-relations-on.html#abstract


http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm





8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 6

and violence is the resistance offered by nationalism to the irresistible counter-pressures of regionalism andglobalism.

Internal Link: Conflicts

ASEAN is instable with 100’s of conflicts tearing it apart.

S. Rajaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, September 1, 1992, “ASEAN: The WayAhead”, http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm. [T-Jacob].The most remarkable feature about the two regional organizations is their continuity and coherence despite the persistence and often unmanageable turbulence and tensions that have and still characterize the post-war world.There have been some 100 international, civil, racial and religious conflicts. Far from abating, these are growing innumber. By comparison the European Community and ASEAN are the still centres in the eye of the storm. There isapprehension that chaos, not order, is the draft of world politics and economies today. For many, the expectation isthat tomorrow will be worse than yesterday and that history has been a descent from the Golden Age to the Dark Ages. To quote the poet Yeats, though the world is seemingly intact: "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold." Yetthe two multi-racial and multi-cultural regional organizations I have mentioned continue to grow in maturity,cohesiveness, and confidence. They believe that regionalism can survive the buffeting winds and storms. TheEuropean Community, unlike ASEAN, has had far more experience with regional organization because its foundingmembers, in particular Britain, France, Holland, Belgium and even Germany participated in the creation andmanagement of far-flung complex global empires. Their scientific and technological cultures were many light yearsahead of all preceding cultures and civilizations. However eminent and admirable pre-European tradi- tionalcivilizations were, the 19th and 20th century culture created by the West cannot be surpassed or displaced byinvoking ancient creeds. Only Japan has so far demonstrated that the gap between medieval and modern cultures can

be narrowed and possibly over taken. Moreover, only Western nations and Japan have demonstrated a capacity for con- structing massive modern empires, though unfortunately, they demonstrated this by their ability to organize andunleash modern wars. No Asian nation, however, has fought, let alone won, wars of comparable magnitude. SaddamHussein's chest-thumping has the resonance of hollow drums.





8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 7

Multilateral cooperation Key

US – ASEAN pact states that multilateral cooperation will be used for energy policies

ASEAN secretariat, official database for the association of Southeast Asian nations, 2008,

“Joint Vision Statement on the ASEAN – US Enhanced Partnership”,http://www.aseansec.org/17871.htm. [T-Jacob].ASEAN and the United States hereby:1. Agree to launch an ASEAN-United States Enhanced Partnership that iscomprehensive, action oriented and forward-looking, and comprising political and security cooperation, economiccooperation and social and development cooperation including, but not limited to, the following elements:Political and Security Cooperation

2. Support the integration of ASEAN, leading to an ASEAN Community through, inter alia, the implementation of the Vientiane Action Programme (VAP) and appropriate successor plans;3. Acknowledge that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) acts as a code of conductgoverning inter-State relations in the region for the promotion of peace and stability, and its role as a unifyingconcept for ASEAN and respect the spirit and principles of the TAC, in line with the commitment of ASEAN andthe United States to enhance their partnership;4. Support the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) as the premier regional political and security forum in the Asia-

Pacific region with ASEAN as the driving force;5. Recognize the importance of non-proliferation in all aspects of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia;6. Promote closer cooperation on combating transnational crimes, including inter alia, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, and enhancing maritime and border security, and express readiness to build on the ASEAN-United States Joint Declaration for Cooperation to CombatInternational Terrorism signed in Bandar Seri Begawan in 2002 to develop joint activities;7. Cooperate in multilateral frameworks, including the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the APEC,emphasize the importance of ambitious outcomes in the Doha Round that would bring tangible benefits to all,support the early accession of Laos and Viet Nam to the WTO, and consider the admission of ASEAN Member Countries that are not members of APEC into that forum;Economic Cooperation 8. Strengthen economic cooperation by, inter alia, continuing to implement the EAI which serves as a mechanism toenhance trade and investment flows between ASEAN and the United States, and in this regard, agree to work

together to conclude a region-wide ASEAN-United States Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA);9. Further enhance economic linkages, which will assist in sustaining economic growth in ASEAN and the U.S.,and cooperate jointly in support of ASEAN’s realization of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2020, if notearlier; 10. Enhance economic cooperation in areas to be mutually agreed upon between ASEAN and the U.S.,including but not limited to trade and investment facilitation; and undertake missions and measures to strengthen theinvestment climate in ASEAN thereby encouraging US investment into the region;11. Collaborate to reform and strengthen international financial institutions and in the areas of economicsurveillance through the sharing of macroeconomic and financial information where disclosure of information is permitted by domestic laws and regulations of the respective countries, and agree to work more closely ininternational financial institutions to promote the influence of Asia to a level more commensurate with its economic




8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 8

weight;12. Promote greater interaction between their respective private sectors, recognizing the pivotal role of the businesscommunity;13. Pursue the development and employment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies of all kinds, includingrenewable and other low-emitting sources of energy, enhance ASEAN’s regional energy infrastructure, promote

energy security, promote the protection of the environment and the sustainability of natural resources, recognizingthat economic growth is a necessary condition for deploying the cleaner technologies needed for continuedenvironmental improvement, and pledge further collaboration in all modes of transport, including air maritime, andmultimodal transport to facilitate the movement of peoples and goods;

ASEAN Needs Energy Stability

ASEAN is seeking to promote greater energy stability.

Xinhua, official press agency for the government of the People’s Republic of China, July 13,2005, “ASEAN ministers call for greater energy stability, security, sustainability”.http://english.people.com.cn/200507/13/eng20050713_195911.html. [T-Jacob]ASEAN energy ministers on Wednesday called for strengthening cooperation among the member countries to promote greater energy stability, security and sustainability in the region. In a joint media statement issued at theconclusion of the 23rd ASEAN Ministers on Energy Meeting (AMEM), ministers appeal to put high priority to promotion of energy efficiency in the transportation and industrial sectors, "as this may be one of the mosteconomical and effective way to mitigate the adverse impacts of higher oil prices." ASEAN will continue toimplement efficient policy programs to encourage the use of energy labels and standards to improve energyefficiency of appliances and equipment, the statement said. Meanwhile, ministers agreed to intensify effort to promote public-private partnership in promoting solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass energy. "We arecommitted to create a favorable investment climate in the oil, gas and electricity industries in the region," they said.

They also promised to promote the use of natural gas through the cross-border Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline Project.


http://english.people.com.cn/200507/13/eng20050713_195911.html


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200306/15/eng20030615_118282.shtml


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200306/15/eng20030615_118282.shtml

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 9

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 1/2

Asian countries shift to alternative energy is crucial to global security.

Arne Walther, Secretary General of the International Energy Forum, January 24, 2005, “A NewAsian Energy Idea”, http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v48n04-5OD01.htm. [T-Jacob].For the first time, energy ministers of the principal oil and gas importing and exporting countries in Asia aregathered for informal discussions on a regional basis of an issue of utmost national and international concern – energy security, stability and sustainability. The number of countries around the table is not great. But your clout asenergy producers and consumers is. You represent more than half of the world’s population, the bulk of the world’soil and gas reserves and the greater part of the surging global energy demand expected in the decades ahead. Asianeconomies have taken off. The gross domestic products of China, Japan and India are surpassed only by the US. Fewwould dispute the vision that the 21st century is Asia’s century. Asian energy cooperation will be crucial for thatvision. Energy cooperation will have wider economic and political consequence in your region as well. The impactwill be global. India has taken an important international initiative in convening this Round Table with Kuwait asco-host, in association with the Secretariat of the IEF. It could well be that we will look back on our discussionstoday as the gathering that gave a decisive political spark to the development of a new and evolving Asian EnergyIdentity. The Need For Dialogue The increase in global energy demand in the years ahead will be substantial. Anadd-on of almost two-thirds of today’s level is foreseen by the year 2030. Of that increase, 85% will be met by fossilfuels. Most of this increase will come in the developing countries, especially those in Asia, as they industrialize andtheir economies grow. Total investments of $16 trillion are required for the energy supply infrastructure needed tosatisfy global demand the next 25 years.For both energy exporting and importing countries, energy is crucial for national economic and social development. Energy is important for commercial and political relations betweencountries. It fuels the world economy. Production and consumption of energy impact the environment. Energyinfluences, and is influenced by, international politics. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine an area, where nations aremore interdependent than in the confluence of energy, environment and economic development. Energy Security

Your discussions of energy security in the Asian regional context today, will no doubt pick up on discussions andshared global perspectives from the IEF Ministerial in Amsterdam in May last year. One might say that energysecurity is what the producer-consumer dialogue boils down to. Your more detailed discussions, and what your governments choose to operationalize in terms of policy, can feed constructively into the next full IEF Ministerial

that Qatar’s Deputy Prime Minister ΄Abd Allah al-'Attiyah will host in Doha in 2006. Energy security is a complexand broad-based issue. It is about oil, diversification of supplies and energy mix. It is about investments, technicalarrangements and infrastructure. It also has to do with overarching imperatives of economy, politics and theenvironment. Energy security has domestic and foreign policy implications. It translates into producer-consumer interdependence, where mutual vulnerability and win-win opportunity is the name of the game. Nowhere could this be more true than in Asia. With energy hungry, growing economies in the East and South. With ample reserves of oiland gas in the West. East and South Asia rely on West Asia for four out of every five barrels of their imported oil.West Asian nations send two out of every three barrels of their oil exports eastwards in Asia. And global energytrade, almost entirely in fossil fuels, is set to expand rapidly. Inter- and intra-regional trade in oil can double in the


http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v48n04-5OD01.htm



8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 10

next 25 years. The mismatch between where these sources of energy are produced and where they are used willincrease, linking regions and sub-regions closer together, but also posing new challenges. Vulnerability todisruptions of energy supply, due to politically motivated sabotage or technical mishap, can increase. Maintainingthe security of international sea-lanes and pipelines on- and offshore will assume increasing importance for energysecurity. There is, of course, no quick and lasting fix to the challenge of global energy security. The cluster of energy

security issues must be addressed in on-going dialogue not only between nations at political level, regionally andglobally, but also in dialogue and partnerships between governments and industry. Back-to-back with theAmsterdam Ministerial, ministers discussed the importance of investments for energy security with CEOs of leadingenergy companies in the First International Energy Business Forum. The International Energy Forum As active participants in the International Energy Forum, you know first hand how unique the IEF is with its global perspective and participation. It gathers the industrialized economies of the IEA, the petroleum exporting countriesof OPEC, and, very importantly, energy producing and consuming countries outside these two main producer andconsumer organizations, countries such as China and India at this table, that will increasingly impact the globalenergy scenario. In the IEF, ministers exchange policy views and look for consensus-

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 2/2

oriented approaches to energy challenges ahead, across traditional economic, political and energy dividing lines. Acardinal task for the IEF Secretariat in the months ahead is to support host country Qatar, and co-hosts China andItaly, in preparing for the Doha Ministerial next year. The Secretariat will also help to ensure the continuity of theministerial level energy dialogue between the biannual meetings by facilitating supportive meetings and roundtablesin cooperation with governments and organizations. While our perspective is global, we recognize how key regionalcooperation is to global energy security in a multi-polar energy world. The Secretariat has a catalyst role to play inlinking regional and inter-regional activities to the global dialogue in the IEF. In October last year, at the request of the Energy Minister of Russia, we took part in the 4th Russian Oil and Gas Week and held a joint roundtable onEurasian energy cooperation. Our meeting today will see follow-up in the meeting later this year that ASEAN+3(China, Japan and Korea) have requested us to facilitate with a larger group of West Asian oil and gas exportingcountries. We are planning for meetings in other regional contexts as well, one to be hosted by South Africa, another by Mexico later this year. These meetings, and our meeting today, emanate from proposals by Ministers at theAmsterdam IEF for Secretariat activity leading up to the Doha Ministerial next year. In the wider global perspective, the Secretariat is set to coordinate the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI) developed by the IEA, OPEC,APEC, Eurostat, OLADE and the UN. Our objective is to contribute to the oil data transparency that is so importantfor market stability and global energy security. In Conclusion The Secretariat has been set up to serve your globalenergy dialogue endeavor in the IEF. The Asian dimensions of this global dialogue can assume only increasingimportance in the years ahead. We are looking forward to the findings of this timely, top-level round table and to itsfollow up. Your conclusions and policies do make a global difference. We are encouraged, Ministers, by your commitment to energy dialogue and cooperation, and by your support, politically and financially, to IEF Secretariatactivity. Our mission is to cater to your energy policy priorities.

Asian energy security affects global energy security.

ERU, Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan contains the Tashkent University of WorldEconomy and Diplomacy, May 1, 2008, “Energy an important Factor of Security & Stability – Roundtable”, http://www.uzembassy-kuwait.mfa.uz/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3410. [T-Jacob]International experts from the Central Asian, Northeast and South Asian countries, Europe and America, as well asRussia are reported to have participated at the roundtable. The problems of providing for stability of world energymarkets and energy security are of a global nature. The prospects of raising extraction and reserves of hydrocarbon


http://www.uzembassy-kuwait.mfa.uz/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3410





8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 11

and uranium raw materials, their long-term supplies and price policy are now discussed at various high-profilelevels. And here the Central Asian countries, their regional partners such as Russia, China, and the EU states whichare the largest world producers of oil, natural gas, uranium, coal and electricity power are not an exclusion. At thesame time, they are also the leading consumers of the aforesaid raw. Roundtable saw the exchange of views on prospects of development of energy cooperation both inside Central Asia and among the countries of the region and

foreign consumers, suppliers and transit countries. The Central Asian states and the region, as a whole, which hasconsiderable resource-energy potential, an ever more often is being considered now as an active participant of worldgeopolitical and geo-strategic processes, including in the area of energy. It turns into the subject of broad expertdiscussions at various levels.

Ext: Link

A US unilateralist energy stance leaves south Asia vulnerable posing a threat to US

security.

Tarique Niazi, teaches Environmental Sociology at the University of Wisconsin and specializesin resource-based conflicts, January 3, 2008, “Pushback to Unilateralism: the China-India-RussiaAlliance”, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853. [T-Jacob].The SCO's geopolitical pushback to the unipolar-unilateral makeover of the world is, however, defensive. Both

China and Russia are being protective of their turf. Their internal divisions caused by "extremism, splitism, andterrorism" further unnerve them at even a slight hint of U.S. or NATO proximity to their "near-abroad." They havecreated the SCO and CSTO, and formed the Caspian Sea Alliance to put distance between their respective "spheresof influence" and NATO-US presence. Many argue that this alliance-building is a reaction to U.S. unilateralism.These alliances, however, cannot threaten U.S. security interests in the region. The allied nations have beenconsistently reassuring the U.S. that their alliances are not directed at "third party." In fact, SCO member states havehelped the U.S. to protect its security interests in the region. In the run-up to U.S. military action in Afghanistan in2001, the Russian President Putin, according to Bob Woodward, stunned the top U.S. policy makers with hisunsolicited offer to let U.S. combat jets use the Russian airspace to strike the Taliban government in Kabul.32 TheBush White House was not even sure if Russians would agree to U.S. airbases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan for which it sought Putin's consent. More importantly, China, which shares a long border with Kyrgyzstan and is nextdoor neighbor to Uzbekistan, went along with the U.S. bases in both countries. Besides, and it is noteworthy for American policy makers, the three nations that broke out in spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for 9/11 victims

were not Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, but Russia, Iran and China--in that order--where hundreds of thousands of marchers held candle-lit vigils and mourned the tragic deaths of 3,000 Americans in terrorist attacks. In strictlystrategic sense, the U.S. by itself and together with its allies, especially Australia, Britain and Japan, continues to bethe dominant force in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean, which are thekey sources and supply routes of energy shipments for China and trade goods for Central Asia. This makes Chinaand the region vulnerable to U.S. retaliation in the event of any perceived or real threat to U.S. security interests. Yetthe Asian-Eurasian regional powers, which are coalescing into the SCO, CSTO and Caspian Alliance, have the potential to entangle U.S. economic interests, especially energy interests. On this score too, the U.S. has been able tocircumvent such potential challenges by establishing bilateral relations with the region's energy-rich nations, particularly Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Of these, Kazakhstan is the richest nation, with three-fourths


http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853#ref32

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853#ref32

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 12

of the region's oil and about half of its gas reserves; Azerbaijan owns one-sixth of the region's oil and10 percent of gas reserves; and Turkmenistan possesses close to half of the region's gas and 5 percent of oil reserves. In 1993,Chevron concluded a $20b deal with Kazakhstan to develop its Tengiz oil field, which is estimated to containrecoverable oil reserves of 6-9 billion barrels of oil. An $8b Azerbaijan International Consortium, led by BP-Amoco-Statoil, is already developing oil fields off the shores of Azerbaijan. Similarly, the U.S. has successfully pushed for a

multi-billion dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline as an alternative to the $10b Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. Above all, the U.S. enjoys worldwide economic and military superiority thatallows it to force its way through closed doors, if needed. As the world's strongest nation, multilateralists argue, theUnited States serves its interests best when it works in a multilateral framework on which China, India and Russiaall agree. A starting point for multilateralism can be war-torn Afghanistan where the SCO and CSTO both want a piece of action. The U.S. should welcome both to share in counter-insurgency operations for which both China andRussia have a long-standing career. This will free up 25,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which can be exclusivelydeployed for counter-terrorism; while NATO forces can undertake reconstruction work that has long remainedfrozen. If it happens, it will turn Afghanistan into the North Star of multilateralism. To the U.S.' further advantage,India's alliance with China and Russia would privilege multilateralism over multipolarism. The latter, as IndianForeign Minister Sinha in his 2003 address cautioned, has the potential to reprise the cold war rivalries that could setthe world on a dangerous course. Multilateralism, on the other hand, would further strengthen the continuingeconomic integration worldwide, and thus lay the foundation for political integration as well.

Ext: Internal Link Loss of international attention in south Asia causes loss of economic stability

Diego Valderrama, international economist, 2005, “Asian collapse as model for impending U.S.Economic Collapse: Fiscal Sustainability and Contingent Liabilities from Recent CreditExpansions in South Korea and Thailand”, http://skeptically.org/economics/id8.html. [T-Jacob].While South Korea and Thailand had relatively sustainable fiscal policies prior to the Asian crisis, the long-term cost of the bailout of their financial sectors amounted to an estimated 30 to 40 percent of output, which was largely financed by public

borrowing. The recent credit expansions in South Korea and Thailand have created new contingent liabilities for the gov -ernments of the two countries. This paper evaluates the impact of these rapid credit expansions on the Sustainability of fiscal policyin South Korea and Thailand. In Thailand, a rapid credit expansion preceded the currency collapse that heralded the Asian crisis.Fiscal policy in South Korea appears to be consistent with its long-run budget constraint, while fiscal policy in Thailand is notconsistent with its long-run budget constraint. A loss in international confidence may considerably tighten their borrowing limitvery rapidly, regardless of the long-run Sustainability of fiscal policy. {This is the same conclusion that Alan Greenspan hasrepeatedly made about the economic policies of the US Republican Party based upon a similar credit expansion in the USeconomy. Read or watch for example his hearing before Congress 4/20/05.—JK}

ASEAN countries contain nuclear weapons.

Abdul Khalik, writer for the Jakarta Post, July 29, 2007, “ASEAN Agrees On Concrete Plan toRid Region of Nukes”, http://www.indonesia-ottawa.org/information/details.php?type=news_copy&id=4442. [T-Jacob]Heightened fears of a nuclear race have pushed the ASEAN countries to commit to a nuclear-free region, for, despitethe major powers' intentions to carry out nuclear disarmament and avoid proliferation, they continue to hold nuclear tests. North Korea's apparent intention to become a nuclear power and suspicions that Iran may be capable of thesame have sparked fears that the nuclear arm race could spread to Southeast Asia. Philippine Foreign Minister Alberto Romulo said that nuclear weapons-free zones are important tools in promoting nuclear disarmament andnonproliferation. "Part of ASEAN's advocacy in the meetings here in Manila is to encourage the five weapons statesto adhere to the protocols of the treaty," he said. Manila is hosting the ASEAN Ministers Meeting (AMM) andASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the largest security gathering in the Asia-Pacific region, from Sunday to Thursday.


http://skeptically.org/economics/id8.html

http://www.indonesia-ottawa.org/information/details.php?type=news_copy&id=4442


http://skeptically.org/economics/id8.html



8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 13

Aside from agreeing the implementation of a nuclear-free zone treaty, the ASEAN delegation is close to reachingagreement on the landmark charter that will transform the grouping into a rules-based organization after lengthy,exhaustive deliberations that extended well into the wee hours of the morning over the past two days.

Ext: US Key

Increased US engagement in ASEAN improves economic success and eliminates terrorism

in the region.

Daniel Ikenson, trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute, December 13, 2002, “U.S.-SingaporeFTA packs quite a punch”, http://www.freetrade.org/node/266/print. [T-Jacob].A U.S. deal with ASEAN would improve that region's capacity to serve as an economic engine - a role Japan andEurope have proven incapable of fulfilling adequately. It will also signal to China and Japan that the United States isserious about this potentially lucrative region. Beyond the obvious economic benefits, this goal is consistent with the"competitive liberalization" philosophy. By staking a claim to ASEAN, the U.S. could deprive China or Japan of theopportunity to pursue a similar strategy there - or at least avoid being outflanked by them. While ASEAN and Chinahave already begun discussing prospects for bringing China into the group, current ASEAN members desire a dealwith the U.S., nonetheless. China's growing economic power is a source of concern for ASEAN nations, all of whomcompete with China for Western investment, and most of whom would like to mitigate their dependence on theChinese market. Indeed, they would also like greater immunity from China's weak currency policy, which has madeChinese exports even more competitive. In this regard, a U.S-ASEAN deal would provide greater investmentopportunities and alternative paths for economic growth in this geo-politically significant region. Recognizing the

link between economic stagnation and terrorism in Islamic countries, the Bush administration hopes to use trade policy to advance foreign policy objectives. Indeed, this is Zoellick's primary justification for pursuing talks withMorocco. It is also applicable to Southeast Asia. The USSFTA - and its possible extension to ASEAN -- ties U.S.economic interests directly to a region of foreign policy concern. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, wasthe setting for the worst post-911 terrorist carnage to date. Al Qaeda cells are known to operate in the Philippines.Terrorist threats against sites in Thailand and other countries in the region have been pervasive. Increased U.S.engagement in the region would not only improve mutual economic prospects, but it help with the objective of eliminating breeding grounds for terrorism.


http://www.freetrade.org/node/266/print



8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 14

Ext: Impacts Nuke War

Nuclear war in South Asia would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

FPIF, foreign policy in focus creates reports on foreign policy topics through compilations of

various professors and directors works, “Nuclear War in South Asia”,http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html. [T-Jacob]The effects of a nuclear weapon explosion are so immense and so different from those of conventional weapons thatit is useful to present, as a case study, a familiar hypothetical "target." The nuclear weapon used by the United Statesto attack Hiroshima had a yield equivalent to 15 thousand tons of TNT and was detonated at 580 meters above thesurface of the earth. This yield is comparable to the yields of the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan claimedthey tested in May 1998. We describe therefore the effects of a single explosion of a Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombat an elevation of 600 meters over Bombay (Mumbai), India. The consequences of such an explosion for any other large, densely populated, South Asian city would be similar. The short-term effects of a nuclear explosion--those thatoccur within the first few weeks--can be classified as either prompt or delayed effects. In addition, there are long-term effects, primarily related to radiation from fallout, that can develop over years. Approximately 5,000 kilometerseast of New Delhi and 55 years ago two nuclear weapons were used by the United States to kill over 190,000 peoplein Japan. Agonizing deaths took place for approximately a month after the explosions--indeed deaths continued for

weeks after Japan surrendered. The impacts on that country and the world from these atomic bombings have beenenormous, and continue to the present. Can one predict the effects of the use of nuclear weapons against cities inIndia or Pakistan today? In some ways "yes" and in many important ways "no." The effects of a nuclear weaponexplosion are so immense and so different from those of conventional weapons that it is useful to present, as a casestudy, a familiar hypothetical "target." The nuclear weapon used by the United States to attack Hiroshima had a yieldequivalent to 15 thousand tons of TNT and was detonated at 580 meters above the surface of the earth. This yield iscomparable to the yields of the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan claimed they tested in May 1998. Wedescribe therefore the effects of a single explosion of a Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb at an elevation of 600 meters


http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html

http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 15

over Bombay (Mumbai), India. The consequences of such an explosion for any other large, densely populated,South Asian city would be similar.

Ext: Impacts Nuke war Ozone layer

South Asian nuclear war would destroy ozone affecting the entire world.

Maggie Fox, part of Reuters, April 8, 2008, “South Asia Nuclear War Would Destroy Ozone”,http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/08/2210789.htm. [T-Jacob]Fires from burning cities would send 5 million tonnes of soot or more into the lowest part of earth's atmosphere, thetroposphere, the US researchers report today online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Andheat from the sun would carry these blackened particles into the stratosphere, say the University of Coloradoscientists. "The sunlight really heats it up and sends it up to the top of the stratosphere," says Dr Michael Mills of theLaboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, who chose nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan as one of several possible examples. Up in the stratosphere, the soot would absorb radiation from the sun and heat surroundinggases, causing chemical reactions that break down ozone. "We find column ozone losses in excess of 20% globally,25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50-70% at northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with substantial lossescontinuing for five additional years," the researchers write. This would let in enough ultraviolet radiation to causecancer, damage eyes and skin, damage crops and other plants and injure animals. Mills and colleagues based their computer model on other research on how much fire would be produced by a regional nuclear conflict. "Certainlythere is a growing number of large nuclear-armed states that have a growing number of weapons. This could betypical of what you might see," Mills says.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/08/2210789.htm

http://www.pnas.org/



http://www.colorado.edu/

http://lasp.colorado.edu/

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/08/2210789.htm


http://www.colorado.edu/

http://lasp.colorado.edu/

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 16

2AC Shell1. No link: 1NC link evidence has no direct correlation between unilateralism

collapsing multilateralism.

2. Turn: Countries follow US policy; ASEAN will model energy policy off plan.

3. No Impact: the US has passed numerous policies, impacts have never happened.

4. Non-Unique: ASEAN already stable

Seah Chiang Nee, international journalist, December 10, 2005, “ASEAN: a Singapore

perspective: ‘We’re not doing too badly’”,http://www.littlespeck.com/content/ForeignAfair/CTrendsFA-051210.htm. [T-Jacob]Asean's stable transformation - helped by the end of the Cold War - had been phenomenal. It expandedfrom five to 10 members, covering all of Southeast Asia. Communist Vietnam, the feared predator, joinedthe group in 1995 contributed significantly. Others were Brunei (1984), Laos (1997), Myanmar (1999), andCambodia (1999). Realistically, however, the dangers have not disappeared - and probably never will.Instead of facing pajama-clad communist guerillas in the jungle, the region now faces cross-border suicide bombers - equally fanatical - strapped with explosives blowing people up. It is also threatened by invisiblefoes like SARS viruses or the bird flu or AIDS, all potentially much more deadly. With the new dangerscome fresh opportunities. Its political status has increased worldwide, with powers big and small seeking to


http://www.littlespeck.com/content/ForeignAfair/CTrendsFA-051210.htm

http://www.littlespeck.com/content/ForeignAfair/CTrendsFA-051210.htm

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 17

work together with us. Asean has, of course, no standing army, its defence ministers have never even met but nevertheless is a small soft power that can exert some influence on Asian matters. Being the smallestmember, Singapore pays special importance to membership in diplomatic and economic groupings, big andsmall. Indirectly, it provides diplomatic deterrence, however small, against would-be predators. Asean istherefore regarded here as a very crucial outfit. From Day One of its history, its foreign policy had followed

its trade routes. So it is a little impatient with Asean's pace of economic cooperation.


8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 18

2AC Ext: Non-Unique

East Asia is peaceful, there are few threats—This Means that the US should let the region

handle itself.

Cato Institute, prestigious think tank, 2005, “East Asian Defense Commitments”,

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf [T-Jacob]American policy in the Far East has succeeded. For five decades Washington provided a defense shield behind

which noncommunist governments throughout East Asia were able to grow economically (despite their recent

setbacks) and democratically. Japan is the world’s second-ranked economic power; Taiwan’s dramatic jump from

poverty to prosperity forced the leaders of the communist mainland to undertake fundamental economic reforms.

South Korea now outstrips North Korea by virtually every measure of national power. After years of failure, the

Philippines seems to be on the path to prosperity, while countries like Thailand have grown dramatically. Major threats to America’s allies and interests have diminished. There is no more Soviet Union; a much weaker Russia has

neither the capability nor the will for Asian adventurism. Elsewhere real, tough-minded communism has dissolved

into a cynical excuse for incumbent officeholders to maintain power. More than 15 years after the Tiananmen Square

massacre, China is combining support for greater economic liberty with respect for greater individual autonomy. So

far Beijing’s military renewal has been modest, and China has been assertive rather than aggressive, though its saber

rattling at Taiwan remains of concern.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf


8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 19

2AC Ext: Turns 1/2

US Withdrawal Is Key To US Japanese Relations and Japanese Independence


http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf . [T-Jacob].Washington should follow a similar strategy in Japan, which no longer faces a superpower threat. Whatever dangers

to Japan remain or might arise in the future, from, say, an aggressive China or DPRK, could be met by a modest

Japanese military buildup. Of course, many of Japan’s neighbors have long viewed Washington’s presence more as

an occupation force to contain Tokyo than as a defense against other threats. But the Japanese do not possess a

double dose of original sin; their nation, along with the rest of the world, has changed dramatically over the last half

century. The Japanese people have neither the desire nor the incentive to start another conflict, having come to

economic prominence in East Asia peacefully. Moreover, Tokyo is unlikely to accept a permanent foreignwatchdog, and tensions will grow as the lack of other missions for the U.S. forces becomes increasingly obvious.

Popular anger is already evident in Okinawa, where American military facilities occupy one-fifth of the island’s

landmass. Washington should develop a four-year program for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Japan, starting

with those in Okinawa. At the end of that period, Washington and Tokyo should replace their mutual defense treaty

with a more limited agreement providing for emergency base and port access, joint military exercises, and

intelligence sharing.

US withdrawal from Southeast Asia ensures increased national security


http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf . [T-Jacob].East Asia is likely to grow more important to the United States in coming years. That makes it essential that

Washington simultaneously reduce the military burden on the American economy and force its trading competitors

to bear the full cost of their own defense. Otherwise, U.S. firms will be less able to take advantage of expanding

regional economic opportunities. More important, the United States will be more secure if friendly powers in the

region, instead of relying on America, are able and willing to contain nearby conflicts. Jettisoning antiquated

alliances and commitments and reducing a bloated force structure does not mean the United States would no longer

be an Asian-Pacific power. After bringing its forces home from South Korea and Japan, America should center a

reduced defense presence around Wake Island, Guam, and Hawaii. The United States would remain the globe’s

strongest military power, with the ability to intervene throughout East Asia if necessary. However, American policy

would be dictated by the interests of the American people, not those of the populous and prosperous security

dependents that Washington has accumulated throughout the region.






8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 20

2AC Ext: Turns 2/2US Withdrawal From East Asia Solves North Korean Nuclear Crisis

Larry Niksch, part of the foreign affairs, defense, and trade division, February 21, 2006, “North

Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program”, CRS Brief. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB91141.pdf In addition to the old agenda with the new emphasis on light water reactors, North Korea also raised the “regional

disarmament” agenda that it had announced on March 31, 2005. North Korean negotiators declared that North Korea

would “abandon our nuclear weapons and nuclear program” when the United States agreed to “normalization” of

relations and “nuclear threats from the United States are removed.” They asserted that the United States must

dismantle U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea (the United States claims there are no nuclear weapons in South

Korea), cease bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea, end the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” in the U.S. defense

commitment to South Korea, and agree to negotiate a “peace mechanism” with North Korea to replace the 1953

Korean armistice agreement. The North Koreans also reportedly raised U.S. forces in Japan as part of the “U.S.

nuclear threat.” It appears that North Korea did not lay out the entirety of this agenda at the meetings. North Koreanofficial commentary before and after the meeting also called for restrictions on U.S. “nuclear strike forces” and joint

U.S.-South Korean military exercises on the Korean peninsula, and a withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea

under a peace mechanism. The commentary emphasized that major U.S. military concessions related to Pyongyang’s

agenda is a requirement for settlement of the nuclear issue. In agreeing in the six party statement to a separate

negotiations of a peace agreement, North Korea may have decided to shift its focus from the United States to South

Korea, believing that South Korea now may be prepared to make greater concessions concerning U.S. troops in

South Korea than the Bush Administration would.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB91141.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB91141.pdf

8/14/2019 72 CM ASEAN DA


ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 21

2AC Ext: Non-Unique

There is no threat from the Philippines


http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf . [T-Jacob].The United States need not expand base access elsewhere in the region. Washington should drop proposals to

increase defense cooperation with Singapore and tightly circumscribe the scope of its Visiting Forces Agreement

with the Philippines, which was promoted by former president Joseph Estrada and other Filipino supporters as a

mechanism for drawing the United States into any confrontation between the Philippines and China. The United

States needs also to limit any future military training missions, sharply insulating American forces from involvement

in domestic conflicts, such as that involving the Abu Sayyaf, essentially a gang of bandits. The United States has

suffered no damage attributable to the closing of its bases in the Philippines, which had become expensive

anachronisms, in 1992. Instead of upgrading U.S. military ties, Washington should be transferring security

responsibilities to its allies and friends.



72 CM ASEAN DA

Documents

Transcript of 72 CM ASEAN DA