Download whales marine reserve - Georgetown Debate Seminar 2014

whales 1ac
whales good
Advantage one is whalesWhales are critical to the long term health and stability of marine ecosystems, boost
commercial fisheries, and act as long-term carbon sinks
James 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-ecosystemengineers.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 extinction
Sielen ‘13
ALAN 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-seas
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable
descent of the world’s 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 aren’t 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 Earth’s land surface. But
you’d be hard-pressed to find another 2.3% of the planet that’s more important.
What’s 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 Earth’s land surface, but they support more than half of the world’s 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 CI’s work. Today, CI’s 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 CI’s 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
hotspots are critical to human survival . The map of hotspots overlaps
extraordinarily well with the map of the natural places that most benefit people. That’s 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 Earth’s land surface, forests,
wetlands and other ecosystems in hotspots account for 35% of the “ecosystem services” that vulnerable
human populations depend on.
the most biodiversity is under the most threat,
The Pacific Marine Monument is a critical hotspot
Eilperin 6/17 (Juliet. Staff Writer, Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thefix/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 innevitable
Tripp ’14 (Emily, “Overfishing Has “Significant Impact” on Global Food Security,” March 20,
http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/03/20/overfishing-has-significant-impact-on-global-foodsecurity/#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. It’s 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 José María Figueres said in a news release. “But overfishing
is something that we
can tackle right now, with tools already at our disposal.” That’s 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. “We’ve
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 can’t do it alone.”
Food insecurity causes conflict and war
Simmons ‘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-conflictcooperation/#.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 people’s 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 people’s 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 extinction
DeNoon ‘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-extinctionseen-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
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
important.
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 extinction
David 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.html
Global 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-militaryindustrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of massdeception."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 bad
Advantage Two is the Asia Pivot
First, Obama’s pivot to Asia will faila. too many moving parts
Economy ‘14
Elizabeth 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 Obama’s Asia pivot. On the face of it, it is the perfect
policy at the perfect time: it serves America’s economic interests by pushing a high-end trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP); it reinforces and expands America’s 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 region—and 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. officials— the 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 T rans- P acific P artnership, 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 America’s 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 pivot’s
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
don’t 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 cabinet—Vice President Joe Biden, Kerry and Hagel—to Congress if he,
himself, can’t do the glad-handing necessary to win TPA. Finally, if he hasn’t read Maureen Dowd’s April 30 New York
Times column, he should. Whining, whiffing and whinging are just the worst and certainly won’t bring any diplomatic wins.
b. budget cuts means deterrence is impossible.
Gaskell ‘14
Stephanie 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-pivotasia/81247/#.UzLC5LS1xLU.twitter
Military commanders in the Pacific have quite a wish list of things they need to carry out the Pentagon’s
much-publicized pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. More follow-on forces, more submarines, more amphibious ships.¶
Budget constraints are clearly affecting President Obama’s plan to beef up the military’s 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 we’ve had. I’m happy with that and appreciative of it.” But he said, going
forward, he’s 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 he’s
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.Ӧ And
Locklear said his requirement for attack submarines are “ not all
being met .” Under current budget plans, the military’s 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 Obama’s 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 “can’t 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 can’t 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 Command’s geographic region, or “area of responsibility,” according to Locklear,
makes up 50 percent of the world’s 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
the Korean Peninsula, the nature of the fight is potentially highintensity 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.
would require a swift and strong response. “On
c. European concerns will always take priority.
Pongsudhirak ‘14
Thitinan 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
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
government's "shutdown", the
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 ‘14
Murray Hiebert is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at CSIS, “China’s 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
which—Malaysia and Brunei—have 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 chairman’s 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 China’s latest moves have them worried. The leaders also anticipated that this would not be their last word of the year on China’s 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 “ASEAN’s 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 China’s 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 president’s visit to Asia, U.S. officials had publicly challenged the legitimacy of China’s 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 Vietnam’s 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 Washington’s
strategy focuses on building international support to challenge China’s 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 China’s sovereignty claims by asking an arbitration tribunal to rule on whether Beijing’s 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 countries—say, Vietnam—were to launch similar actions. But it’s far from certain that this policy
will work, at least in the short term. “From China’s perspective, they aren’t 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 China’s 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’ isn’t going to change China’s calculus.”
However, strengthening the Pivot only makes conflict more likely
Beijing 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 S outh C hina S ea 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 China’s 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 China’s
pursuit of regional security and the nation’s 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
region’s 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 China’s 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 ‘13
Avery 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 49-89
In 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 clear—the 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 deaths
Horwitz 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_oba
ma_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 world’s 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 Navy’s 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 Navy’s 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 waters—which may explain why strandings like those on Crete are still occurring.
And on the Navy’s 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 melonheaded 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 summer’s RIMPAC war games until the U.S. Navy agreed to limitations on its sonar exercises. This
year’s ramped-up RIMPAC exercises highlight the Obama doctrine’s 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
islands—and only for low-frequency sonar. Mid-frequency sonar exercises—the kind of sonar implicated in the
recent Crete strandings—have no limitations. Michael Jasny, the director of NRDC’s Marine Mammal Protection Project,
estimates that 99.6 percent of the newly expanded national monument is currently unprotected from naval
sonar. The Navy hasn’t 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 Navy’s own
surveillance of enemy submarines in dark ocean depths. It’s a cruel irony that the Navy’s modern, high-intensity sonar—partly derived from its
extensive research into cetacean biosonar—causes 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 highintensity sonar. There
is now consensus among researchers—including those funded by the Navy—that
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 don’t grasp the fine points of territorial limits, laws of the sea, and national monument designations. They
can’t
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 Navy’s
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 Earth’s 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 Sea
RT 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/] WD
More 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 America’s 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 miscalculation
AP 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-japanaustralia-in-show-of-force-to-rising-china/] WD
Fighter 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 moreestablished 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 Capabilities—Background 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/0/687e31a2-99e4-11e3-91cd00144feab7de.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 [People’s 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 China’s 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 Fanell’s remarks were unusually blunt in their assessment of
China’s intentions, they represent a growing tide of anxiety from senior US officials about Beijing’s 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 China’s 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 China’s neighbours”, Capt Fanell said.¶ At the same conference last year, Capt Fanell issued another sharp assessment of China’s
naval ambitions. The country’s “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 China’s increasingly assertive
behaviour, the US Navy is also placing considerable emphasis on trying to forge a better working relationship with China’s 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 species
Slavin 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-impacton-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 Commission’s unanimous rejection of the training plan. The fisheries
service rule allows the Navy’s 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 NRDC’s 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
mammals
Watson ’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-testingf2D11749987, 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 technology
Joyce ’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 Navy’s 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 Navy’s 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 Navy’s mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in mass
strandings of marine mammals and have caused whales to stop feeding.
The navy’s disregard for coastal law will kill and injure thousands of animals through
sonar and explosive technology
Beans ’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-tomammals/, HR]
The U.S. Navy has indicated that it intends to disregard the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC)
recommendations to mitigate the harmful effects of Navy sonar and offshore training exercises on
the state’s marine mammals. In a letter dated July 31, the Navy responded to the CCC’s March
objection, which concluded that the Navy’s planned training and testing activities in Southern
California would not be consistent with California coastal law. The Navy’s 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 state’s recommended mitigation measures, such as avoiding training in globally
important foraging habitat for the endangered blue whale. The Navy’s 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
Navy’s plan to dramatically increase its sonar training and underwater detonations off the
Southern California coast shouldn’t come at the expense of the state’s marine life,” said Michael
Jasny, Natural Resources Defense Council’s marine mammal project director. “Its proposal
blatantly disregards new science showing that current training levels could already be devastating
California’s 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 Navy’s need for flexibility while affording greater protection to vulnerable species,”
Jasny continues. “The Navy’s refusal to adopt any of these measures puts California’s 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 highintensity 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
they’re 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 Navy’s 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-dolphinswhales_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 beaching
Goldman 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-navysonar-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
NMFS’s approval of the Navy’s 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-tosurface 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 Navy’s 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
Hawaiʻi, the Navy’s sonar was implicated in a mass beaching of up to 200 melon-headed whales in
Hanalei Bay. In 2003, the USS Shoup, operating in Washington’s 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 Navy’s 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 Navy’s 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
death
Chang 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-navyexpand-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 vital
Navy 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 mammals, which use acoustics to mate
and forage. They want more protections and accuse the Navy of rushing to obtain five-year permits
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act from the National Marine Fisheries Service to increase its
sonar testing in U.S. waters without considering the latest science.
"If you deafen a marine mammal for even a short period time, you are affecting its ability to survive,"
said Michael Jasny of the Natural Resources Defense Council, whose group has sued to force the Navy to
add more protections.
A federal judge in September ruled that marine fisheries officials did not consider the best available data
when it approved permits last year for operations stretching from Northern California to the Canadian
border. The agency has until August to reassess how it will protect ocean life.
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 officials said they considered the latest research available, including the two recent studies, but
none proves the activities cause significant harm to the marine populations.
Navy spokesman Kenneth Hess emphasized that the studies published this summer involved a small
group of animals, and some did not react, indicating the sound's distance and other context may play a
role. The Navy uses simulators where possible.
"Overall, the activities we propose are very similar to the training and testing we have done in these
areas for the past 60 years, and we have not seen major impacts on marine mammals from these
activities," Hess said.
Decision expected this month
Until now, studies have measured animals' response based on recordings
similar to military sonar or depended on the tagging of marine mammals during Navy at-sea training in
which scientists could not control the distance or intensity. For the first time, researchers coordinating
with the Navy are conducting experiments using mid-frequency active sonar transmissions from ships.
This past summer, they tagged six whales and dolphins off the Southern California coast. Those results
are still being analyzed.
Marine fisheries officials last month granted the Navy its permit for activities in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico, on the condition that the military review the latest science yearly. The Navy must cease
exercises if mammals are spotted nearby, and establish a response plan to a mass stranding. A decision
on the Pacific permit is expected to be announced this month.
Some scientists want the Navy to create safety zones that would guarantee no high-intensity sonar
activity near marine sanctuaries and areas with a high concentration of blue, fin and gray whales
seasonally.
"There are the ocean equivalent of deserts where sonar exercises could be conducted which would be
vastly safer," said Lindy Weilgart, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Canada who doesn't receive any
Navy funding.
Navy warfare exercises effect, injure, and kill millions of marine mammals every year
Eisler 12 [Peter, 8/5/14, “Navy Plan Could Effect More Marine Mammals”, USA Today,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/environment/2010-08-05navymammals05_ST_N.htm, accessed 7/7/14]
WASHINGTON — The Navy plans to increase ocean warfare exercises, conduct more sonar tests and
expand coastal training areas by hundreds of square miles — activities that could harass, injure or
disturb the habitats of hundreds of thousands of marine mammals, federal records show.
Training areas already are established along most of the continental U.S. coastline, so the Navy is
seeking federal permits to broaden an existing range off the Pacific Northwest and dramatically expand
exercises and sonar use in the Gulf of Alaska.
The service also plans to increase training substantially in the Pacific around the Mariana Islands.
The Navy estimates in federal permit applications that its activity in those areas will impact about half a
million sea mammals each year, including seals, sea lions and whales, some of which are endangered.
The effects range from brief interruptions in normal feedings to significant injury and, in very rare
instances, death.
Already, 2.3 million marine mammals are affected similarly each year by the Navy's training on its ranges
on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Navy studies show.
The studies find that the vast majority of the animals will suffer only a "temporary" disturbance from the
training, which can include live-fire exercises, and anticipate no long-term impact on overall marine
mammal populations.
However, the Navy's plans have ignited a debate with environmental groups that say the service
underestimates the long-term impact of its activities and fails to restrict training sufficiently in marine
sanctuaries and other areas where it is likely to affect sensitive species. The plans to expand training off
the Pacific Northwest, where the service's exercise areas reach into the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary, have drawn about 3,500 public comments, most in opposition.
Critics of the Navy's plans point to its use of new sonar systems that can disrupt marine mammals' brain
function and behavior, noting that even brief disorientation or other "temporary" effects can have
serious consequences, such as changes in reproductive activity. Among the most serious concerns is the
potential for whales to strand themselves on beaches: Since 2000, there have been at least four
instances in which mass strandings of whales have been associated with the Navy's sonar use, federal
records show.
"There's been significant growth in the number of hours of exercises and significant expansion into new
areas ... but the Navy is doing very little to understand what wildlife they may be affecting," says
Michael Jasny, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Navy says it knows
enough to analyze impacts, but it doesn't know enough to recommend any areas within these hundreds
of thousand square nautical miles for avoidance."
Navy plans reflect the need for flexibility to train in areas that offer a wide variety of ocean
environments, particularly along the seafloor, says John Quinn, deputy director of the service's Energy
and Environmental Readiness division.
The Navy tries hard to ensure that its activities have minimal impacts on marine life, Quinn says. He
notes, for example, that training is restricted off Florida in areas frequented by endangered right whales
during their calving season.
Military training releases chemicals and toxins and uses sonar – all increase injury and
death of whales
Olney 10 [Jennifer, 12/14/10, “Environmentalists Outraged at Increased Military Training”, ABC News,
http://abc7news.com/archive/7838655/, accessed 7/7/14]
The Obama administration has approved a U.S. Navy plan to increase military training along the
Northern Pacific Coast and many environmentalists are outraged. The Navy says it needs to try out new
technology critical to national security, but critics say the training threatens whales and other species
and they want the Navy to stay out of the most sensitive underwater habitat. The Navy's northwest
training range stretches from Humboldt County in Northern California up to the Canadian border and
more than 280 miles west into the Pacific Ocean. A Navy video shows the training that has been going
on there for decades. Now the Navy wants more frequent exercises involving aircraft, submarines, and
new advanced weapons -- such as underwater mine fields and air to air missiles. ABC7 spoke via satellite
with John Mosher, the environmental program manager for the Navy's Pacific fleet. "It's a wide variety
of training events that are conducted, absolutely critical to the Navy's mission and to be ready to do that
mission at any time," says Mosher. But while they are doing that training, many environmentalists
believe the Navy should also be doing more to protect the ocean from toxic chemicals, explosives and
sonar. "It's such a big range that the Navy is operating in up there. It's roughly the size of the state of
California and they are not proposing to set aside even a square inch for important biological habitat for
marine mammals," says Taryn Kiekow from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Natural
Resources Defense Council is especially concerned about the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary a treasure trove of biological diversity used by 29 species of marine mammals, including a pod of
endangered killer whales. When ABC7 asked, "Why can't the Navy just stay out of that area altogether,
do you really need to be there?" Mosher responded, "Based on its proximity to where the ships and
aircraft are based, out of Puget Sound, it doesn't make it practical to avoid it entirely." The Navy
environmental impact statement says the increased training could affect up to 130,000 marine
mammals a year. They might be disturbed or harassed or injured in some way, but the Navy does not
believe any will be killed. Still, environmentalists are worried, especially about sonar which the Navy
already uses in the Pacific Northwest. "We know sonar harms marine mammals. We know that it
disrupts behavior and feeding and mating and can lead to even injury and death," says Keikow. The
Natural Resources Defense Council helped produce a video which cites numerous cases in other areas of
animals reacting strangely during sonar testing, sometimes washing ashore dead in the days that follow.
The Navy does not expect that kind of result in the Pacific Northwest training. Mosher was also asked,
"Does some of the Navy's research show the sonar the Navy uses kills or severely injures whales?" He
answered, "Under the operating parameters and the mitigations that are in place, generally not. The
marine mammal would have to be extremely close to the sonar system to allow injury of that sort. So
that's why we have mitigations in place that require powering down the sonar or shutting down the
sonar if marine mammals are detected coming close." The Navy uses shipboard lookouts to watch for
animals that may be too close. ABC7 then asked Mosher, "Whales can be underwater and tough to spot.
Is that just a P.R. move to placate critics?" Mosher said, "We feel it is a very effective mitigation right
now with the information we have. It's not just a simple lookout on the deck of the ship, it's multiple
lookouts and if we are using active sonar, then the number of lookouts is increased. The lookouts have
very specific training in what to look for." Only a small percentage of the training will be done off the
Northern California Coast. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Humboldt County, represents that area and agrees
the Navy needs to train, but thinks the expansion is moving too fast. "The Navy seems to think because
they are the Navy and because they have a mission, that everything else be dammed, that they are
going to go ahead and do what they want to do," says Thompson. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, otherwise known as NOAA, has issued a permit for the increased training.
However, at the same time, the agency is starting a comprehensive review of the effects of sonar.
Thompson wants the Navy to wait for the results. "The science has to drive this. I'm not willing to take a
wink and nod from the Navy that everything is going to be fine, 'Just trust us,'" says Thompson. The
Navy told ABC7 they use the best available science and their training cannot wait. They also say they
might change their procedures depending on what future research shows. The Navy will be holding
public meetings in Fort Bragg and Eureka in the next two days to answer questions about the training.
Notice of Public Meeting 12/15 and 12/16 from Rep. Mike Thompson: A representative from the United
States Navy will hold public meetings regarding the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) on
Wednesday, December 15th from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka and on
Thursday, December 16th from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Pentecost Hall at 822 Stewart Street in Fort Bragg.
The NWTRC is one of many Navy Range Complexes used for training of operational forces, equipment
and other military activities. Based at Whidbey Island, near Puget Sound in Washington, the Navy has
been training in the NWTRC since World War II. The bulk of the air, surface and subsurface activity takes
place in waters off the state of Washington but the scope of influence covers approximately 122,400
nautical miles and extends from Washington to the southern tip of Humboldt. Training exercises vary in
scope and effect, and in California are carried out between 12 and 250 miles offshore.
whale extensions
at: whaling good
Whales are critical to solve the "whale pump"--- sustains ocean ecosystem and solves
warming-- whaling good arguments are unfounded and now is key
Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy 10/11/10 ("The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary
Productivity in a Coastal Basin", Joe Roman Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of
Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America James J. McCarthy Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013255//AKP)
Looking beyond the Gulf of Maine, it is important to consider the roles of present and past stocks of
large air-breathing predators in the nutrient cycle of marine ecosystems. In the North Pacific, whale
populations consume approximately 26% of the average daily net primary productivity; pre-exploitation
populations may have required more than twice this sum [34]. Might primary productivity have been
higher in the past as a result of a stronger whale pump? One recent study provides evidence that
phytoplankton abundance has declined in 8 of 10 oceanic region s over the past century, and the
authors suggest that this can be explained by ocean warming over this period [35]. Yet declines in both
the Arctic and Southern Ocean regions, areas with especially high harvests of whale and seal populations
over the past century, are in excess of the mean global rate. Full recovery from one serious
anthropogenic impact on marine ecosystems, namely the dramatic depletion of whale populations, can
help to counter the impacts of another now underway—the decline in nutrients for phytoplankton
growth caused by ocean warming . The whale pump may have even played a role in helping to support
a greater number of apex consumer s. In the Southern Hemisphere, Willis has noted that a decrease in
krill abundance followed the near elimination of large whales [36]. He hypothesized that one factor in
this counterintuitive decline is a shift in krill behavior. Another factor could be the diminished whale
pump, which would have affected productivity by reducing the recycling of nutrients to near-surface
waters: Smetacek and Nicol et al. have shown that whales recycle iron in surface waters of the
Southern Ocean [23], [37]. The fertilization events of the whale pump can apply to nitrogen, iron, or
other limiting nutrients. These findings have important implications for the management of ocean
resources. As marine mammal populations recover, it has been suggested that whales and other
predators should be culled to limit competition with human fishing efforts, an idea that has been
championed to challenge international restrictions on whaling [38]. Yet no data have been forthcoming
to support the logic of this assertion . Furthermore, recent studies suggest that marine mammals have
a negligible effect on fisheries in the North Atlantic [39], [40]; simulated reductions in large whale
abundance in the Caribbean did not produce any appreciable increase in biomass of commercially
important fish species [41]. On the contrary, marine mammals provide important ecosystem services.
On a global scale, they can influence climate, through fertilization events and the export of carbon
from surface waters to the deep sea through sinking whale carcasse s [42]. In coastal areas, whales
retain nutrients locally, increasing ecosystem productivity an d perhaps raising the carrying capacity for
other marine consumers, including commercial fish species. An unintended effect of bounty programs
and culls could be reduced availability of nitrogen in the euphotic zone and decreased overall
productivity.
Their turns are unfounded-- whales are uniquely key to preserving fish stocks.
(humans are the root cause of failing fish stocks)
Leah R.Gerber, Lyne Morissette, Kristin Kaschner, Daniel Pauly, (M. Komatsu, S. Misaki, The Truth Behind the Whaling
Dispute (Institute of Cetacean Research, Tokyo, 2001). 2. K. Kaschner, D. Pauly, in The State of Animals III: 2005, D. J. Salem and A. N. Rowan, Eds. (The Humane Society of the United States
Press, Gaithersburg, MD, 2005). pp. 95–117. 3. L. Busby, in Global Corruption Report, R. Hodess, T. Inowlocki, D. Rodriguez, T. Wolfe, Eds. (Transparency International and Pluto Press, London,
?" Policy Forum Ecology, Sea Around Us,
http://www.seaaroundus.org/magazines/2009/Science_ShouldWhalesBeCulledToIncreaseFisheryYield.p
df//AKP0
2004), pp. 76–88."Should Whales Be Culled to Increase Fishery Yield
Our approach to addressing concerns about scientific uncertainty was to conduct extensive sensitivity
analyses to explore the results emerging from a range of assumptions about ecosystem structure and
the quality of our input data (table S2). For a wide range of assumptions about whale abundance,
feeding rates, and fish biomass, even a complete erad- ication of baleen whales in these tropical areas
does not lead to any appreciable increase in the biomass of commercially exploited fish . In contrast,
just small changes in fishing rates lead to considerable increases in fish biomass (see figure, p. 880).
We found little overlap between fisheries and whale consumption in terms of prey types, and we also
found that fisheries remove far more fish biomass than whales consume (9). Moreover, because some
whale prey species compete with commercially targeted fish for plankton and prey occupying a lower
trophic level in the food web, it is possible that removing whales from marine ecosystems could result
in fewer fish available to the fisheries (9). Today, the majority of fish stocks (33) and many whale
populations (34) are seriously depleted, but most available evidence points toward human
overexploitation as the root of the problem . When developing tropical countries are encouraged to
focus on the notion that “whales eat fish,” they risk being diverted from addressing the real problems
that their own fisheries face, primarily, over- exploitation of their marine resources by distant-water
fleets (35).
FALSE-- whaling in the modern era has destroyed the cycle of whale detritus
Craig R. Smith 2006 ("Bigger is Better: The Role of Whales as Detritus in Marine Ecosystems",)
Departmetn of Oceanography University of Hawaii at Manoa, 7/7/14,
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/csmith/Files/Smith%20Bigger%20is%20Better.pdf//AKP
As for shallow marine systems, whaling must ultimately have led to a dramatic decline in whale-fall
habitats at the deep-sea floor, potentially yielding extinction of whale-fall specialists, and limiting the
dispersal of species dependent on sulfide-rich whale skeletons as habitat stepping stones (Butman et
al. 1995, 1996, Committee on Biological Diversity in Marine Systems 1995, Smith and Baco 2003).
However, the effects of whaling on whale-fall abundance in the deep sea were not necessarily
monotonic because of two opposing factors. (1) Prior to ~1900, the initiation of whaling in a region
increased flux of whale carcasses to the seafloor because whale carcasses were discarded to sink after
removal of blubber, baleen, spermaceti and minor components (Tonnenssen and Johnsen 1982, Butman
et al. 1995). The flux of carcasses to the deep-sea floor must also have been redistributed by carcass
discards relative to natural whale mortaility because early whaling was initiated near home ports, and
then moved further afield as local populations became depleted (e.g., Butman et al. 1995, Springer et al.
2003). In contrast, natural whale mortality is likely to have been distributed along migration routes, in
calving grounds, or in regions where whales spend substantial portions of their life cycles (Butman et al.
1995, Rugh et al. 1999, Smith and Baco 2003). (2) Ultimately (and immediately in the modern era),
whaling decreased the flux of carcasses to the deep-sea floor because whale populations were driven
downward , leaving far fewer whales to suffer natural mortality and sink to the seafloor.
whales good
ocean health
Whale population recovery is key to the stability of marine ecosystems- solves all alt
causes including warming and overfishing
Science20.com (staff writer) "Like Fishing And The Ocean Ecosystem? Thank Whales" July 5th 2014,
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/like_fishing_and_the_ocean_ecosystem_thank_whales139883//AKP)
Whales are relatively rare and so they probably don't make much of a difference in the overall ocean. A
team of biologists disagrees . They reviewed several decades of research on whales from around the
world and found that whales make a huge difference and have a powerful and positive influence on
the function of oceans, global carbon storage, and the health of commercial fisheries. "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," claims University of Vermont conservationist Joe Roman and
colleagues in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, "but recovery is possible and in many cases is
already underway." " The continued recovery of great whales may help to buffer marine ecosystems
from destabilizing stresses ," they write. This recovered role may be especially important as climate
change threatens ocean ecosystems with rising temperatures and acidification. " Baleen and sperm
whales, known collectively as the "great whales," include the largest animals to have ever lived on Earth.
With huge metabolic demands—and large populations before humans started hunting them—great
whales are the ocean's ecosystem engineers : they eat many fish and invertebrates, are themselves
prey to other predators like killer whales, and distribute nutrients through the water. Even their
carcasses, dropping to the seafloor, provide habitat for many species that only exist on these "whale
falls." Commercial whaling dramatically reduced the biomass and abundance of great whales . Huge
blue whales plunge to 500 feet or deeper and feed on tiny krill. Then they return to the surface—and
poop. This 'whale pump' provides many nutrients, in the form of feces, to support plankton growth. It's
one of many examples of how whales maintain the health of oceans described in a new scientific paper
by the University of Vermont's Joe Roman and nine other whale biologists from around the globe.
Credit: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment As long-lived species, they enhance the predictability
and stability of marine ecosystems," Roman said. "As humpbacks, gray whales, sperm whales and
other cetaceans recover from centuries of overhunting, we are beginning to see that they also play an
important role in the ocean," Roman said. "Among their many ecological roles, whales recycle nutrients
and enhance primary productivity in areas where they feed." They do this by feeding at depth and
releasing fecal plumes near the surface—which supports plankton growth—a remarkable process
described as a "whale pump." Whales also move nutrients thousands of miles from productive feeding
areas at high latitudes to calving areas at lower latitudes. Sometimes, commercial fishermen have seen
whales as competition. But this new paper summarizes a strong body of evidence that indicates the
opposite can be true: whale recovery "could lead to higher rates of productivity in locations where
whales aggregate to feed and give birth," supporting more robust fisheries. As whales recover, there
may be increased whale predation on aquaculture stocks and increased competition—real or
perceived—with some commercial fisheries. But the new paper notes " a recent investigation of four
coastal ecosystems has demonstrated the potential for large increases in whale abundance without
major changes to existing food-web structures or substantial impacts on fishery production ." In
death, whale carcasses store a remarkable amount of carbon in the deep sea and provide habitat and
food for an amazing assortment of creatures that only live on these carcasses . "Dozens, possibly
hundreds, of species depend on these whale falls in the deep sea," Roman notes. "Our models show that
the earliest human-caused extinctions in the sea may have been whale fall invertebrates, species that
evolved and adapted to whale falls," Roman said, "These species would have disappeared before we had
a chance to discover them." Until recently, ocean scientists have lacked the ability to study and observe
directly the functional roles of whales in marine ecosystems. Now with radio tagging and other
technologies they can better understand these roles. "The focus of much marine ecological research has
been on smaller organisms, such as algae and planktonic animals. These small organisms are essential to
life in the sea, but they are not the whole story," Roman said. New observations of whales will provide a
more accurate understanding of historical population dynamics and "are likely to provide evidence of
undervalued whale ecosystem services," note the ten scientists who co-authored this new paper, "this
area of research will improve estimates of the benefits—some of which, no doubt, remain to be
discovered—of an ocean repopulated by the great whales."
Whales key to the ecosystem
Catherine Griffin Jul 04, 2014 Recovering Whales Have a Large and Positive Influence on the World's
Oceans; http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15835/20140704/recovering-whales-largepositive-influence-worlds-oceans.htm
Whales may seem like they're rare and as if they wouldn't have a large impact on the world's ecosystem,
but that's entirely incorrect. It turns out that these large mammals have a powerful and positive
influence on the function of the world's oceans, global carbon storage and the health of commercial
fisheries.¶ Baleen and sperm whales, which are known collectively as the "great whales," include the largest animals to have ever lived on
Earth. They have large metabolic demands and eat many fish and invertebrates. They, themselves, are pretty to predators like
killer whales and also help distribute nutrients through the water when their bodies drop to the seafloor
after they die.¶ "As humpbacks, grey whales, sperm whales and other cetaceans recover from centuries of overhunting, we are
beginning to see that they also play an important role in the ocean," said Joe Roman, one of the researchers, in a news release.
"Among their many ecological roles, whales recycle nutrients and enhance primary productivity in areas where they feed."¶ In order to get a
better understanding at the role whales play in the ecosystem, the researchers tallied several decades-worth of research on whales from
around the world. They found that whales make
a positive change in the ocean. Unfortunately, the decline in whale
numbers is estimated to be anywhere between 66 and 90 percent. This new study shows the
importance of protecting whales in order to help ocean ecosystems.¶ "The continued recovery of great
whales may help to buffer marine ecosystems from destabilizing stresses," the team of scientists write.
Roman further went on to say, "As long-lived species, they enhance the predictability and stability of marine
ecosystems."¶ The findings reveal the importance of preserving these species for the future. Not only
that, but the observations reveal a bit more about the historical population dynamics of these mammals.
Whales good- creates stable and resilient ecosystems
Joshua E. Brown 07-03-2014
http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&storyID=18797&category=ucommall The new study was
written by Joe Roman, University of Vermont; James A Estes and Daniel Costa, University of California,
Santa Cruz; Lyne Morissette, M Expertise Marine, Sainte-Luce, Canada; Craig Smith, University of
Hawaii, Manoa; James McCarthy, Harvard University; JB Nation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu; Stephen
Nicol, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia; Andrew Pershing, University of Maine, Orono, and
Gulf of Maine Institute; and Victor Smetacek, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and
Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
“The continued recovery of great whales may help to buffer marine ecosystems from destabilizing
stresses,” the team of scientists writes. This recovered role may be especially important as climate change
threatens ocean ecosystems with rising temperatures and acidification. “As long-lived species, they
enhance the predictability and stability of marine ecosystems,” Roman said. ¶ Baleen and sperm whales, known
collectively as the “great whales,” include the largest animals to have ever lived on Earth. With huge metabolic demands — and
large populations before humans started hunting them — great whales are the ocean’s ecosystem
engineers: they eat many fish and invertebrates, are themselves prey to other predators like killer
whales, and distribute nutrients through the water. Even their carcasses, dropping to the seafloor, provide habitat for many
species that only exist on these "whale falls." Commercial whaling dramatically reduced the biomass and abundance of great whales.¶ “As
humpbacks, gray whales, sperm whales and other cetaceans recover from centuries of overhunting, we
are beginning to see that
they also play an important role in the ocean,” Roman said. “Among their many ecological roles, whales
recycle nutrients and enhance primary productivity in areas where they feed." They do this by feeding at depth
and releasing fecal plumes near the surface — which supports plankton growth — a remarkable process described as a “whale pump.” Whales
also move nutrients thousands of miles from productive feeding areas at high latitudes to calving areas at lower latitudes.¶ Sometimes,
commercial fishermen have seen whales as competition. But this new paper summarizes a strong body
of evidence that indicates the opposite can be true: whale recovery “could lead to higher rates of
productivity in locations where whales aggregate to feed and give birth,” supporting more robust fisheries.¶ As
whales recover, there may be increased whale predation on aquaculture stocks and increased
competition — real or perceived — with some commercial fisheries. But the new paper notes “ a recent
investigation of four coastal ecosystems has demonstrated the potential for large increases in whale
abundance without major changes to existing food-web structures or substantial impacts on fishery
production.”
Recovery of whales key to ecosystems
News Tonight Africa 7/7 (“Whales Play Key Role in Maintaining Ocean’s Functionality,” News
Tonight Africa, July 7, 2014, http://newstonight.co.za/content/whales-play-key-role-maintaining-oceans-functionality#ixzz36pVj56m0)
After endeavoring for several decades to divulge significant information about whales, researchers have
revealed that whales are the engineers of the sea. The researchers found that whales play an important
role in maintaining ocean's functionality, global carbon storage and the health of commercial fisheries.¶
"The decline in great whale numbers, estimated to be at least 66 percent and perhaps as high as 90
percent, has likely altered the structure and function of the oceans, but recovery is possible and in many
cases is already underway", said University of Vermont conservation biologist Joe Roman and his
colleagues in a study published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.¶ The biologists
said the continued recovery of great whales will be pivotal to protect marine ecosystems from
destabilizing stresses. The scientists said that baleen and sperm whales are the ocean's engineers. They
are together known as the great whales and feed on great numbers of fish and invertebrates. Whales
themselves are also the food of other predators. Also, there are many species that live on whale
carcasses that drop to the seafloor.¶ The recovery of humpbacks, gray whales, sperm whales and other
cetaceans after being threatened by overhunting is a positive sign for the ecosystem of the ocean, said
Roman. Nutrients are recycles by whales and primary productivity is enhanced as well in areas where
they feed.
Whales good for marine ecosystems
Wall Street OTC 7/6- Wall Street OTC, 2014 (“Scientists Declare Whales as ‘engineers’ of the Sea,”
Alvin Barnes, July 6th, Available online at http://www.wallstreetotc.com/scientists-decalare-whales-asengineers-of-the-sea/25551/, Accessed 7-7-14)
Marine experts from a University of Vermont have conducted an investigation suggesting the importance of 13
types of extraordinary whale.
The latest study believes that whales show huge positive impact on the globe’s carbon storage and has a good
impact on health when it comes to fisheries.
It has to be noted that scientists and researchers in the past has suggested that whales are excessively uncommon and are least likely to have
any effect on the marine, ocean environment.
The study distributed in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment declares whales as the
“engineers” of the oceans and curators of the deep.
Baleen and sperm whales, known collectively as the “great whales,” include the largest animals to have ever lived on Earth. They eat
many fish and invertebrates, and distribute nutrients in the ocean and their carcasses, dropping to the
seafloor also provide as habitat for many species of animals.
“Among their many ecological roles, whales recycle nutrients and enhance primary productivity in areas
where they feed,” said Joe Roman, who is a biologist at the University of Vermont. Whales do this by
feeding at depth and releasing fecal plumes near the surface — which supports plankton growth — a
remarkable process described as a “whale pump.”
He said that the ability of whales to recover can help improve predictability and stability of marine
ecosystems.
“The decline in great whale numbers estimated to be at least 66 percent and perhaps as high as 90 per cent, has likely
altered the structure and function of the oceans, but recovery is possible and in many cases is already underway,” Roman and
his colleagues wrote in the journal.
“The continued recovery
of great whales may help to buffer marine ecosystems from destabilizing stresses,”
the researchers wrote. This recovered role may be especially important as climate change threatens ocean
ecosystems with rising temperatures and acidification.
Whales are good for ocean health
Mother Jones 7/7- Mother Jones, 2014 (“The Incredible Thing About Whale Poop Is That It Fights
Climate Change,” John Metcalfe, July 7th, Available online at
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/incredible-whale-poop-might-help-fight-climatechange, Accessed 7-7-14)
But a group of scientists from the University of Vermont and elsewhere think the
ocean's future health has one thing going
for it: the restoration of whale populations. They believe that having more whales in the water creates a
more stable marine environment, partly through something called a "whale pump"—a polite term for how
these majestic animals defecate.
Commercial hunting of great whales, meaning the baleen and sperm variety, led to a decline in their numbers as
high as 66 percent to 90 percent, the scientists write in a new study in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. This
mammalian decimation "likely altered the structure and function of the oceans," says lead author Joe Roman,
"but recovery is possible and in many cases is already under way."
The researchers—who are whale
biologists—present a couple of arguments for how these animals help secure
the climate-threatened ocean. The first is their bathroom behavior: After feeding on krill in the briny
deep, whales head back to the surface to take massive No. 2s. You can see the "pumping" process in action amid this
group of sperm whales off the coast of Sri Lanka:
You have to feel for the person who took that photo. But these
"flocculent fecal plumes" happen to be laden with
nutrients and are widely consumed by plankton, which in turn takes away carbon from the atmosphere
when they photosynthesize, die, and wind up on the ocean floor. A previous study of the Southern Ocean, to cite just
one example, indicated that sperm-whale defecation might remove hundreds of thousands of tons of
atmospheric carbon each year by enhancing such plankton growth. Thus, these large whales "may help to
buffer marine ecosystems from destabilizing stresses" like warmer temperatures and acidification, the
researchers claim.
The other nice thing whales do for the climate is eat tons of food and then die. In life, they are fantastic
predators. But in death, their swollen bodies are huge sarcophagi for carbon. When the Grim Reaper comes calling,
whales sink and sequester lots and lots of carbon at the bottom of the sea, like this dearly departed fellow:
nitrogen
Whales sustain the "whale pump"--solves nitrogen cycling
Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy 10/11/10 ("The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary
Productivity in a Coastal Basin", Joe Roman Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of
Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America James J. McCarthy Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013255//AKP)
It is well known that microbes, zooplankton, and fish are important sources of recycled nitrogen in
coastal waters, yet marine mammals have largely been ignored or dismissed in this cycle. Using field
measurements and population data, we find that marine mammals can enhance primary productivity
in their feeding areas by concentrating nitrogen near the surface through the release of flocculent
fecal plumes. Whales and seals may be responsible for replenishing 2.3×104 metric tons of N per year
in the Gulf of Maine's euphotic zone, more than the input of all rivers combined. This upward “whale
pump” played a much larger role before commercial harvest, when marine mammal recycling of
nitrogen was likely more than three times atmospheric N input. Even with reduced populations, marine
mammals provide an important ecosystem service by sustaining productivity in regions where they
occur in high densities.
whale carcasses
Whales are critical to the environment-- their detritus feeds entire ecosystems
(whaling kills this cycle)
Craig R. Smith 2006 ("Bigger is Better: The Role of Whales as Detritus in Marine Ecosystems",)
Departmetn of Oceanography University of Hawaii at Manoa, 7/7/14,
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/csmith/Files/Smith%20Bigger%20is%20Better.pdf//AKP
Whale carcasses are end members in the spectrum of marine detritus, constituting the largest, most
energy-rich organic particles in the ocean. Most great-whale carcasses sink essentially intact to the
deep-sea floor, where they are recycled by a succession of scavenger, enrichment-opportunist, and
sulfophilic assemblages. Although the flux of organic carbon in whale falls is small compared to total
detrital flux, the massive energy concentrated in a whale fall can support a diverse deep-sea
community (~370 species in the northeast Pacific) for decades , including a significant number of
potential whale-fall specialists (> 32 species). The ecosystem impacts of detrital whales in epipelagic,
shelf, and intertidal ecosystems is poorly known but appears to be small, although some highly mobile
intertidal scavengers (e.g., polar bears) could obtain important nutritional inputs from whale carrion.
Commercial whaling has drastically reduced the flux of whale detritus to all marine ecosystems . In
intertidal habitats, this may have caused population declines in some scavenging species (e.g., the
California condor) dependent on whale carrion. At the deep-sea floor, whaling led to substantial habitat
loss to whale-fall communities and likely caused the first anthropogenic extinctions of marine
invertebrates in the 1800’s in the North Atlantic. Extinctions of whale-fall specialists are probably
ongoing , and to date are likely to have been most severe in North Atlantic, intermediate in Southern
Ocean, and least intense in northeast Pacific whale-fall communities
food security
Whales key to food security and environmental health
Eli Kintisch 3 July 2014
covers policy news for Science with an emphasis on climate and energy research. Since joining Science in 2005 he has covered patent policy, science budgets, cabinet officials and the politicization of science. His scoops
include breaking the story of President Barack Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, before he was named.
Eli's work has appeared in The Washington Post, Slate, Discover, MIT Technology Review, The Daily Beast was a 2009 Kavli fellow and he has delivered talks at Columbia University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Rebounding whale populations are good for ocean ecosystems;
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/07/rebounding-whale-populations-are-good-oceanecosystems
and other institutions.
Far from depleting the resources of ocean ecosystems, growing numbers of large whales may be critical
to keeping these environments healthy. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which finds that rebounding populations of
baleen and sperm whales may be boosting marine food webs around the world. The work is the latest volley in a longrunning debate about the ecological role of whales and how their return to the oceans may affect global fisheries that face myriad threats.¶ Scientists have
noted the gradual global recovery of various species of large whales. But many disagree about the
impact this is having on ocean ecosystems. Some have cast whales as potential competitors to fishing fleets, because they vacuum up tons
of invertebrates and small fish that might otherwise be available to commercially valuable species. Under that line of reasoning, some have argued in favor of the
continuation of commercial whaling. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, researchers argued that reducing certain whale populations would aid stocks of krill, a
ubiquitous crustacean in the Southern Ocean that is a key food source for baleen whales and other marine species. ¶ But the new study notes that krill populations
remained constant or even declined after great whales experienced big declines. How so? The authors reason that the whales
helped provide
nutrients critical to krill and other species low on the food web. For instance, the mammals release
massive "fecal plumes" and urine streams that fertilize surface waters with nitrogen and iron, the
authors note, and help enhance productivity by mixing up the top layers of the ocean when diving.¶ Whales
also move nutrients horizontally around the ocean. Humpback whales, for example, are a species of baleen whale known for grand migrations from the upper
latitudes—like Pacific waters near Alaska—to the subtropics where nutrients are more scarce, near Hawaii and Mexico. Using historic and current population data,
the study’s authors calculate thatrebounded
populations of whales could increase the productivity of phytoplankton
in some subtropical waters by as much as 15% above the current level.¶ Another underappreciated contribution to marine
ecosystems, the authors report online today inFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, is the bounty of organic material the animals provide to deep-sea
ecosystems when they die. A so-called whale fall of a 40-ton gray whale provides a boost of carbon to the seafloor community equivalent to more than 2000 years
of normal detritus and nutrient cycling.¶ “The
reduction of whale carcasses during the age of commercial whaling may
have caused some of the earliest human-caused extinctions in the ocean,” writes the study’s first author, conservation
biologist Joe Roman of the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an e-mail. “More than 60 species have been discovered that are
found only on whale falls in recent decades. By removing this habitat through hunting, we may well have
lost many species before we even knew they existed.”¶ Such new understandings, Roman and his colleagues write, “warrants a shift in
view from whales being positively valued as exploitable goods … to one that recognizes that these animals play key roles in healthy marine ecosystems.”¶ The new
study is a useful addition to the debate on the role of whales in global ecosystems, writes marine ecologist Lisa Ballance of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in San Diego, California, in an e-mail. “As [whales]
recover, we can indeed expect their influence on marine
ecosystems to change the structure and function of those systems relative to the past 100 years.”
warming
Whales key to solve for Climate Change
Revell 7/5 (Tom, graduated with an undergraduate journalism degree in 2012 and a master's degree
in history in 2013, both from the University of Lincoln, “More whales may help oceans deal with climate
change,” Blue and Green Tomorrow, July 5, 2014,
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/07/05/more-whales-may-help-oceans-deal-with-climatechange/)
As concern grows about the health of the world’s oceans, threatened by rising temperatures,
acidification and overfishing, a new report has claimed there is at least one reason to be optimistic
about the future of the depths: the return of whale populations.¶ Scientists have previously suggested
that whales are too rare and nomadic to have much of an impact on the wider marine ecosystem.
However, a new study published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment casts whales as
“engineers” of the seas. ¶ In the paper, researchers from the University of Vermont suggest that the 13
species of great whale have an important and positive influence on the function of oceans, on carbon
storage, and on the state of fisheries around the world.¶ An ocean repopulated with whales would
therefore be an ocean better prepared for the challenge of climate change. ¶ “As humpbacks, grey
whales, sperm whales and other cetaceans recover from centuries of overhunting, we are beginning to
see that they also play an important role in the ocean”, said study author Joe Roman. ¶ They do this, the
paper suggests, primarily by spreading nutrients across the seas in their feces.¶ In a slightly grim process
known as “whale pump“, the huge mammals feed in the depths and releasing faecal plumes near the
surface, providing food for plankton and boosting the productivity of threatened ecosystems. Due to the
vast distances whales travel, these benefits are spread far and wide.
Whales key for sequestering carbon
Pershing et. al. 10- Andrew J. Pershing, School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, Gulf of
Maine Research Institute, 2010 (“The Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why Bigger Was
Better,” Plos One, August 26th, Available online at
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012444, Accessed 7-7-14)
Humans have reduced the abundance of many large marine vertebrates, including whales, large fish, and sharks, to only a
small percentage of their pre-exploitation levels. Industrial fishing and whaling also tended to preferentially harvest
the largest species and largest individuals within a population. We consider the consequences of removing these
animals on the ocean's ability to store carbon.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Because body size is critical to our arguments, our
analysis focuses on populations of baleen whales. Using reconstructions
of pre-whaling and modern abundances, we consider the impact of whaling on the amount of carbon stored in
living whales and on the amount of carbon exported to the deep sea by sinking whale carcasses.
Populations of large baleen whales now store 9.1×106 tons less carbon than before whaling. Some of the lost
storage has been offset by increases in smaller competitors; however, due to the relative metabolic efficiency of larger organisms, a shift
toward smaller animals could decrease the total community biomass by 30% or more. Because of their large
size and few predators, whales and other large marine vertebrates can efficiently export carbon from the surface waters
to the deep sea. We estimate that rebuilding whale populations would remove 1.6×105 tons of carbon
each year through sinking whale carcasses.
Conclusions/Significance
Even though fish and whales are only a small portion of the ocean's overall biomass, fishing
and whaling have altered the
ocean's ability to store and sequester carbon. Although these changes are small relative to the total ocean carbon sink,
rebuilding populations of fish and whales would be comparable to other carbon management schemes,
including ocean iron fertilization.
Whales a key carbon sink
Harvard Kennedy School 10- Harvard Kennedy School, 2010 (“Impact of whaling on the ocean
carbon cycle,” Leighton Walter Kille, November 29th, Available online at
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/impact-of-whaling-on-the-oceancarbon-cycle#, Accessed 7-7-14)
When humans hunt and fish, they tend to favor animals that provide significant resources. In the oceans,
whales, sharks and other large vertebrates have been targeted for centuries, and consequently their populations
levels have fallen to a fraction of their natural levels.
This has a negative effect on species and ecosystems, and can also impact the climate: When whales and
other large animals flourish in the ocean, they carry a substantial amount of carbon to the sea floor upon
dying. Whales and other large marine vertebrates could effectively function as carbon credits. To better understand this
process, researchers from the University of Maine, Gulf of Maine Research Institute and the University of British Columbia conducted a study,
“The Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why Bigger Was Better.” The 2010 study was published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed,
open-access online publication.
The study’s key findings include:
Compared to pre-exploitation levels, the current populations of large baleen whales store 9.1 million
fewer tons of carbon.
About 160,000 tons of carbon per year could be removed from the atmosphere if whale populations were
restored to pre-industrial levels. This amount is equivalent to adding 843 hectares of forest.
Restoring the whale populations compares favorably with unproven schemes such as iron fertilization in
removing carbon from the ocean surface.
Whales have the potential to solve for climate change
Metcalfe, 14, (John, correspondent for City Lab, 7/4/14,
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2014/07/whale-poop-might-help-fight-climate-change/373957/)
The seas are becoming ever more acidic due to humanity's CO2 flooding the atmosphere. The altered
PH of the water makes for a bevy of problems, from making fish act in really weird ways to dissolving
the shells of creatures critical to the marine food chain. But a group of scientists from the University
of Vermont and elsewhere think the ocean's future health has one thing going for it: the restoration
of whale populations. They believe that having more whales in the water creates a more stable
marine environment, partly through something called a "whale pump"—a polite term for how these
majestic animals defecate. Commercial hunting of great whales, meaning the baleen and sperm
variety, led to a decline in their numbers as high as 66 percent to 90 percent, the scientists write in a
new study in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. This mammalian decimation "likely altered
the structure and function of the oceans," says lead author Joe Roman, "but recovery is possible and
in many cases is already under way." The researchers—who are whale biologists—present a couple
of arguments for how these animals help secure the climate-threatened ocean. The first is their
bathroom behavior: After feeding on krill in the briny deep, whales head back to the surface to take
massive No. 2s. You can see the "pumping" process in action amid this group of sperm whales off the
coast of Sri Lanka: You have to feel for the person who took that photo. But these "flocculent fecal
plumes" happen to be laden with nutrients and are widely consumed by plankton, which in turn
takes away carbon from the atmosphere when they photosynthesize, die, and wind up on the ocean
floor. A previous study of the Southern Ocean, to cite just one example, indicated that sperm-whale
defecation might remove hundreds of thousands of tons of atmospheric carbon each year by
enhancing such plankton growth. Thus, these large whales "may help to buffer marine ecosystems
from destabilizing stresses" like warmer temperatures and acidification, the researchers claim. The
other nice thing whales do for the climate is eat tons of food and then die. In life, they are fantastic
predators. But in death, their swollen bodies are huge sarcophagi for carbon. When the Grim Reaper
comes calling, whales sink and sequester lots and lots of carbon at the bottom of the sea, like this
dearly departed fellow:
biod
Whaling causes mass biodiversity loss
Smith, Department of Oceanography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, 3
[Craig R., Whales, Whaling and Marine Ecosystems, University of California Press, “Bigger is Better: The
Role of Whales as Detritus in Marine Ecosystems”, December 2003,
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/csmith/Files/Smith-%20Bigger%20is%20Better.pdf,
ML]
Whale carcasses are end members in the spectrum of marine detritus, constituting the largest, most
energy-rich organic particles in the ocean. Most great-whale carcasses sink essentially intact to the
deep-sea floor, where they are recycled by a succession of scavenger, enrichment-opportunist, and
sulfophilic assemblages. Although the flux of organic carbon in whale falls is small compared to total
detrital flux, the massive energy concentrated in a whale fall can support a diverse deep-sea community
(~370 species in the northeast Pacific) for decades, including a significant number of potential whale-fall
specialists (> 32 species). The ecosystem impacts of detrital whales in epipelagic, shelf, and intertidal
ecosystems is poorly known but appears to be small, although some highly mobile intertidal scavengers
(e.g., polar bears) could obtain important nutritional inputs from whale carrion. Commercial whaling has
drastically reduced the flux of whale detritus to all marine ecosystems. In intertidal habitats, this may
have caused population declines in some scavenging species (e.g., the California condor) dependent on
whale carrion. At the deep-sea floor, whaling led to substantial habitat loss to whale-fall communities
and likely caused the first anthropogenic extinctions of marine invertebrates in the 1800’s in the North
Atlantic. Extinctions of whale-fall specialists are probably ongoing, and to date are likely to have been
most severe in North Atlantic, intermediate in Southern Ocean, and least intense in northeast Pacific
whale-fall communities.
Whales good – keystone species, boost the economy, and intrinsic moral value
DEFRA, 7
[Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, “Protecting Whales A global responsibility”,
November 1, 2007,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183344/protectingwhales__1_.pdf, ML]
The ecological argument: Whales are at the top of the ocean’s complex food web and so have an
important place in marine ecosystems. When a marine predator is removed, this can have dramatic
consequences for the rest of the ecosystem, causing negative changes in the presence and numbers of
other species, which can lead to a loss in biodiversity. These changes can have economic implications.
The economic argument: There is no economic need to kill whales because there are alternatives to all
products derived from whales. There is, moreover, a sustainable profitable alternative to slaughter.
Whale watching is a growing industry, operating in over 90 countries and territories, generating income
which is estimated at over 1 billion US dollars a year. It provides employment in coastal communities,
both in the whale watching operations themselves and in services to meet tourists’ needs for
accommodation and food. Local communities can derive huge economic benefits from whales without
killing them. See also the Information Sheet on Whale watching – the benefits Japan claims that the IWC
moratorium on commercial whaling is reducing commercial fish stocks because whales both eat large
quantities of fish and compete with fish for food. It claims that whales and other marine mammals
worldwide eat more than five times the amount of fish caught by commercial fishermen. The implication
is that fewer whales would mean more fish available to fishermen. However, Japan has been using
questionable figures and simplistic arguments to convince countries which rely heavily on fishing that
whaling is justified for the wider common good. The UK and other countries think that these arguments
are deeply flawed. Many experts in the IWC Scientific Committee and elsewhere have criticised
Japanese science in this area for its biased approach and for ignoring the complex way in which species
interact in ecosystems. It is far too simplistic to argue that the removal of whales will automatically
result in an increase in fish stocks. Those making such claims see predator-prey relations as a simple
food chain but the reality is that oceans have complex food webs. For example, not many fish species
eaten by whales are targeted by commercial fisheries, and some species eaten by whales may in fact be
major predators of other commercially important fish. Equally, it has been shown that over-exploitation
by humans is mainly responsible for the low stocks or collapse of many commercial fisheries. Removal of
other top predators will not solve the fundamental problem of over-fishing. A small, and declining,
number of people in the world eat whale meat. In Norway it is confined to two or three coastal areas
and in Iceland very few people eat whale. In Japan a recent survey suggested that less than 1% of the
population – and hardly any young people – eat whale. Only in a few coastal places is there a history of
eating whale and demand is so low that stockpiles of whale meat are growing. This counters arguments
that anti-whaling countries are attacking the cultural tastes of the whaling nations. The moral argument:
Whales are intelligent, social and sensitive. Scientists therefore make the reasonable assumption that
they are susceptible to cruelty both individually as victims and, through bereavement, as family groups.
Whaling methods are inherently and inescapably cruel, involving an unacceptable level of suffering.
Death is caused by a harpoon with an explosive grenade head which penetrates into the whale before
detonating. It is fired from a moving ship at a submerged, moving target often in difficult sea conditions
with poor visibility. Whales are often not killed instantaneously, so a gunshot or second harpoon
follows. The IWC has expressed concern about Japanese hunting methods, with 60% of whales not dying
instantaneously and some taking hours to die. Japan is now refusing to provide data to the IWC on time
to death of whales killed in its hunts. If such inhumane methods were used for the slaughter of similarly
intelligent land animals there would be international outrage. Japan compares whaling to cattle
slaughter but this is not credible. Cattle are not pursued, are stunned before being killed and have an
instant death under carefully controlled conditions. This contrasts with the fate suffered by whales: the
stress of the chase, the first harpoon strike followed by an often long and potentially painful time before
death. The intrinsic value argument: We value whales because they are complex, advanced creatures.
Blue whales can measure up to 30 metres long and weigh up to 150 tonnes. Fin and bowhead whales
can live for over 100 years. The gray whales’ migration between their winter breeding grounds off
Mexico and feeding area in the Bering Sea is a round distance of about 10,000 kilometres – one of the
longest migrations by any mammal. We also value whales because they are highly intelligent and social
animals. Many whales are known to cooperate in finding food and have been seen to defend themselves
by forming a circle surrounding calves and wounded animals. Some whales also help injured individuals
of the same species, even lifting them to the surface to breathe. Whales can communicate across vast
distances – it is believed that some species can hear each other as much as 800 kilometres apart.
Individuals have their own unique signature calls and many people enjoy and are inspired by hearing
whale ‘songs’. Whilst considerable research effort goes towards estimating the numbers of whales in
the oceans, science is only just beginning to understand the enigmatic lives of the largest animals on
earth and the impact of our activities upon them. It is our global responsibility to protect whales for
future generations. The UK’s policy on whaling is not solely based on ecological, economic and moral
arguments and values informed by science, but takes account of the precautionary principles of
international law. If whaling continues without a rigorous and robust management scheme, many whale
species could become extinct within our lifetime. Whales are a common heritage that is truly global, as
most travel vast distances across the world’s oceans. Whales are the responsibility of all countries,
whether or not they have coasts. All countries should therefore recognise their responsibility to protect
whales.
biod impacts
( ) Biodiversity loss risks extinction.
Raj ‘12
(P. J. Sanjeeva Raj, former Head of Zoology Department, Madras Christian College, “Beware the Loss of Biodiversity,” The Hindu,
September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/beware-the-loss-of-biodiversity/article3927062.ece)
He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is sure
to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to
lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the “Eremozoic Era, the Age of Loneliness.” Loss
of biodiversity is a much greater
threat to human survival than even climate change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has designated the decade 2011- 2020 as
the ‘Biodiversity Decade’ with the chief objective of enabling humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that
during October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from 193 party
countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the Earth Summit or the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for
CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries. Biodiversity
provides all basic needs for our healthy
survival — oxygen , food , medicines , fibre, fuel, energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees,
dragonflies, bats, frogs, house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great economic loss as well as posing
an imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity mission before us is to inventorise the existing biodiversity,
conserve it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.
Hotspot conservation key to human survival
C.E.P.F. ‘8
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund unites seven entities committed to enabling
nongovernmental and private sector organizations to help protect vital ecosystems. L’Agence Française de Développement,
Conservation International, The European Union, The Global Environment Facility, The Government of Japan, The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and The World Bank “Rationale for Investment – Strategic Framework, FY 2008-2012” –
http://www.cepf.net/about_cepf/strategy/strategic_framework/Pages/rationale_for_investment.aspx
As might be expected, very
large proportions of threatened species occur within and are often unique to the hotspots.
Between them, the hotspots hold at least 150,000 plant species found nowhere else on Earth, 50 percent of the world’s total endemic species. In addition,
77 percent of threatened amphibian species are hotspot endemics, along with 73 percent of threatened bird species and 51 percent of
threatened mammal species. The status of species can be one of the most important indicators of ecosystem health.
Their demise can endanger the vitality and ability of ecosystems to provide services important for human
survival : air and water cleansing, flood and climate control, soil regeneration, crop pollination, food, medicines, and raw
materials. Many people and many species share a common vulnerability. By strategically focusing on the hotspots in developing
countries, CEPF provides critically needed resources to assist civil society groups in helping preserve the diversity of life and healthy ecosystems as essential
components of stable and thriving societies. The hotspots concept complements other systems for assessing global conservation priorities. All hotspots contain at
least one Global 200 Ecoregion identified by WWF for their species richness, endemism, taxonomic uniqueness, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and
global rarity. All but three contain at least one Endemic Bird Area identified by BirdLife International for holding two or more endemic bird species. In addition,
nearly 80 percent of the sites identified by the Alliance for Zero Extinction1 are located in the hotspots. These high-priority areas for conservation hold threatened
species as endemics to a single site.
No matter how successful conservation activities are elsewhere, the state of
the hotspots is the real measure of the conservation challenge. Unless the global community succeeds
in conserving this small fraction of the planet’s land area, more than half of Earth’s diversity of life will be lost.
at: marine biod =resilient/alt causes
Marine Ecosystems not resilient and alt causes are a bad gamble. Best science and risk
framing goes Aff.
Langston ‘11
(internally quoting Brad Warren, who directs the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. Sustainable
Fisheries Partnership (SFP) is an NGO working to reshape the world of corporate responsibility through the creation of powerful
information tools and a methodology that allows companies to directly engage with suppliers of natural resources. Jennifer
Langston is a researcher on sustainability issues and Sightline Daily editor – Formerly an author at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
This post is part of the research project: Northwest Ocean Acidification – “Are You a Banker or a Gambler?” – July 27th –
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/27/are-you-a-banker-or-a-gambler/)
Some might argue that oceans are resilient places, that nature abhors a vacuum, and that other kinds of algae or
grasses that thrive in more acidic seas could replace losses at the bottom of the food web. In truth, we don’t yet
know how complicated marine ecosystems will adapt to ocean acidification. The effects could range from minor
to apocalyptic.
In that sense, you get to choose how scared you want to be, says
Brad Warren, who directs the
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. But the most knowledgeable scientists tend to
eschew the more optimistic view, he said. And a smart businessperson pays attention to signs of trouble,
tries not to get caught behind the curve, and needs to rethink old strategies when they’re no longer
working. In other words, says Warren: If you think of someone who has a fiduciary duty for the systems that
feed us and provide jobs to half a billion people in the world—from subsistence hunting to those making a lot of money—one
can view that with a gambler’s instinct or with a stewardship instinct. What would you rather be—a
banker or a gambler—with this resource?
( ) Resilience is misleading. Recovery is possible – but not if we cross forthcoming
tipping points.
Ayers ‘13
Internally quoting Dr. Sylvia Alice Earle – who is a marine biologist, explorer, author, and lecturer. Since 1998 she has been a
National Geographic explorer-in-residence. Earle was the first female chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and was named by Time Magazine as its first Hero for the Planet in 1998. Jane Ayers is an
independent journalist that has written pieces for USA Today, Los Angeles Times Interview, The Nation, SF Chronicle, Truthout.
She is also Director of her own Media outlet. “Women Say 'Enough is Enough' to Climate Changes Worldwide” – NATION OF
CHANGE – Published: Friday 11 October 2013 – http://www.nationofchange.org/women-say-enough-enough-climate-changesworldwide-1381498329
Concerning the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Dr. Earle lamented, “Radioactivity is one more impact we have infected into the ocean system.
Oceans are resilient but we are facing tipping points . With carbon at 400/ we have crossed the line. How much decline in
plankton is acceptable? We all like to breathe but if we destroy the systems that make oxygen and that take up the carbon, then what? This is
the last time we have to assert ourselves and make it right . Most oxygen is generated by creatures in
the sea. Everyone has a stake in this. Yes, we need to take care of the water, but we also need to take care of the living parts of
the water, i.e. the fish.” Pointing to a crossroads mankind is facing, Dr. Earle explained, “I joked at the International Women for Earth & Climate
Summit that women can help find solutions to climate change by focusing on the oceans because half the fish in the ocean are female. But
seriously, we are in a moment in time, at a crossroads, where we are facing global rising sea levels, floods increasing, etc.
We are at a pivotal point in time , and I am emphasizing the role of oceans to governments, and the world. The plankton play a
largely neglected role but they generate the oxygen that takes up the carbon. The plankton are most important to humankind
surviving, and makes the planet function properly. “ Stating that the ocean keeps us alive, Dr. Earle explained, “Most people
might think the ocean is only a source of recreation or fishing. But we must recognize that the ocean keeps us alive . It is a
cornerstone of life’s system, and only now are we appreciating how important oceans are to every breath we take, to every drink of
water we injest. We have impacted the oceans over the last fifty years, and now we have an unprecedented
chance to solve some of these problems.”
( ) Resiliency not infinite. Must reverse trends now in order to recover from damage
already-done.
Tulloch ‘9
Internally quoting Ben Halpern, a scientists from the Zoological Society of London – James Tulloch – Editor at Allianz – Allianz
November 18th – 2009 – http://www.conocimiento.allianz.com.ar/?513/climate-change-and-overfishing-top-threats-to-oceans
The future looks bleak, but there is hope. “Oceans are resilient, says Halpern, “if we act soon they can
recover.” Dead zones can be eliminated. Whales and seals hunted to near extinction did recover once protected. Some sectors are acting.
Merchant shipping is cutting the risk of oil spills by banning single-hulled ships from 2010, and trying to reduce the spread of invasive species
via ballast water. More stubborn is the fishing industry. The obvious answer is to fish less. As The Economist magazine points out, “nothing did
so much good for fish stocks in northern Europe in the past 150 years as the Second World War”. Trawlers stuck in port allowed fisheries to
revive. Abolishing government subsidies for fishing, and for trawler fuel, is one strategy. Individual transferable quotas, or ‘catch shares’, is
another, giving partial ownership of a fish stock. This has worked in Iceland, New Zealand, and the western United States. “Fishers become very
interested in making sure the stock is healthy and sustainable when their income depends on it,” says Halpern. It could also protect stocks in
developing countries from marauding foreign factory ships. Marine reserves are a proven solution, argues Norris. “We have to move from
hunter-gatherer mode to having the oceans more tightly managed.” Coral reef reserves in Indonesia and Kenya, and kelp forest reserves in New
Zealand and South Africa, have successfully revived biodiversity. They would also maintain the seas as effective carbon sinks, says the United
Nations, which wants a global ‘Blue Carbon’ regime (like REDD for forests) to protect ecosystems like mangroves and salt marshes. The
oceans can no longer be a free-for-all. A combination of preservation, regulation, and ownership—‘marine planning’ or
‘ecosystem management’—is the best bet to save our seas. Otherwise the places where life started will
become lifeless.
( ) Resiliency thesis false. Alt causes just feed the brink.
Diwakar ‘10
Dr. Prasoon Diwakar – Center for Materials Under eXtreme Environment, Purdue University. He holds a PhD in Mechanical
Engineering. He is a former employee at the Center for Disease Control. He has an academic and research background in
Mechanical Engineering, Analytical Chemistry, Environmental Engineering, and Environmental Chemistry – “The Deep Blue:
World Ocean Day” – Science is Beautiful – June 9, 2010 – http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-deep-blueworld-ocean-day
World Ocean day was celebrated yesterday, June 8th. The
importance of protecting our Oceans and it’s ecosystem can
not be emphasized more in the wake of BP oil spill disaster. But it’s not like we have not been polluting our Oceans before this spill.
We keep doing that on a regular basis– industrial waters, overfishing, excessive usage of plastic bags ending up in ocean
currents , Ocean acidification due to excessive anthropogenic CO2 and list goes on. It is likely that roughly one billion gallons of oil
enters our oceans each year as a result of man’s activities. Only 8% of this input is believed to derive from natural sources. At least 22% is
intentionally released as a function of normal tanker “operational discharges,” 12% enters from accidental tanker spills and another 36% from
runoff and municipal and industrial wastes. [American Zoologist , 1993]. I keep
hearing politicians and people talking about that
our Oceans are resilient and it can tolerate any kind of garbage we put in. No it is not . It can do to a limit
(depending on the type of waste we are putting in, amount of waste, and time available to the marine organisms to bounce back) and I think
we have already crossed that limit. The Ocean ecosystem is very fragile due to all the mess we have put in there
and I would prefer to see beautiful marine life rather see images of dark crude oil gushing out incessantly. I have stopped updating about BP
spill because its beyond my comprehension now seeing the response of BP, politicians, News channels. It’s not the time to get political mileage
out of the disaster. When BP should be concentrating on the spill and cleaning beaches, paying out affected locals, it’s busy in PR campaign to
clean it’s image. Search for BP spill on Google and you will find first sponsored link from BP.. then Tony Hayward, CEO BP, talking about how he
and BP will make things right in a new BP commercial with beaches shown in the background… Action is the best PR not mere words, telling lies
and getting exposed is worst PR.. Brown pelicans drenched in crude oil exposes all the lies of the amount of spill.. Is it 5,000 gallons per day,
10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or more, no one knows. Is it that hard to estimate the amount of spill knowing the dimensions of pipe, flow rates,
temperature, viscosity etc?
at: alt cause- warming/ocean acidification
Even if warming’s inevitable, marine conservation better protects against effects of
climate change.
Brock ‘12
(et al; Robert Brock, co-Chair of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center
– “Scientific Guidelines for Designing Resilient Marine Protected Area Networks in a Changing Climate” – Commission for
Environmental Cooperation – July – report available via: http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10820-scientific-guidelinesdesigning-resilient-marine-protected-area-networks-in-changing)
Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks must be designed to be integrated, mutually supportive and focused on sustaining key
ecological functions, services and resources. As such, they can provide a mechanism to adapt to and mitigate climate
change effects on ecosystems. MPA networks are especially suited to address spatial issues of connectivity (e.g.,
connecting critical places for life stages of key species), habitat heterogeneity, and the spatial arrangement and
composition of constituent habitats, all of which can contribute to ecosystem resilience . Some of those properties can
be supported through the size and placement of protected areas (e.g., abundance and size structure of upper trophic levels, species richness),
and the reduction of other pressures such as fishing. Some ecosystem properties may not be amenable to spatial management tools but can be
used to predict their vulnerability to climate change (e.g., phenological matches, flexibility of migration routes, dependence on critical habitats,
functional redundancy, response diversity, community evenness: ICES 2011a).
Risk of warming and Ocean acidification will be not be substantial – their impact
claims are hyperbole
Codling ‘11
Jo Codling, formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU and is based in Perth, Western Australia,
“Ocean Acidification — a little bit less alkalinity could be a good thing,” September 2011,
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ocean-acidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-a-good-thing/
Studies of how marine life copes with less alkaline conditions include many experiments with water at pH values in a range beyond anything
that is likely on planet Earth — they go beyond the bounds of what’s possible. There are estimates that the pH of the ocean has shifted about
0.1 pH unit in the last 200 years, yet some
studies consider the effects of water that is shifted by 2 or even 4 entire
pH units. Four pH units means 10,000 fold change in the concentration of hydrogen ions). That’s a shift so large, it’s not going
to occur in the next few thousand years , even under the worst of the worst case scenarios by the
most sadistic models. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible for CO2 levels to rise high enough to effect that
kind of change , even if we burned every last fossil, every tree, plant microbe, and vaporized life on
earth. (Yet still someone thought it was worth studying what would happen if, hypothetically, that happened. Hmm.) 1103 studies on
acidification say there’s no need to panic CO2 science has an extraordinary data base of 1103 studies of the effects
of “acidification” on marine life. They reason that any change beyond 0.5 pH units is “far far beyond
the realms of reality” even if you are concerned about coral reefs in the year 2300 (see Tans 2009). Even the IPCC’s highest
end “scenario A2″ estimate predicts a peak change in the range of 0 .6 units by 2300 . Many of the
headlines forecasting “Death to Reefs” come from studies of ocean water at extreme pH’s that will
never occur globally , and that are beyond even what the IPCC is forecasting. Some headlines come from studies of hydrothermal vents
where CO2 bubbles up from the ocean floor. Not surprisingly they find changes to marine life near the vents, but then, the pH of these areas
ranges right down to 2.8. They are an extreme environment, nothing like what we might expect to convert the worlds oceans too.
asia pivot extenstions
2ac culture genocide add-on
US military war games in the Pacific are a form of unacceptable cultural destruction –
they justify endless violence against indigenous populations which must be rejected
Bancroft-Hinchey 13 [Timothy, Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization, independent
research and media organization, October 28, 2013, “Militarization and War Games in the Pacific:
America to Destroy Paradise Island,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-to-destroy-paradiseisland/5355976] WD
Pagan Island, an idyllic Pacific Island in the Marianas, home to thousands of species of flora and fauna ,
some of them unique, and enjoying a perfect ecological balance , is facing Armageddon : in March of
this year the US military announced its intention to use the Island as a live-fire training range. In plain
English, they plan to blast it to pieces . This is not the first time the US military will either take over an
island or trash it, and then leave it uninhabitable for decades to come. It has happened before,
countless times. It happened in San Clemente, it happened in Diego Garcia, it happened in Vieques, in
Ka’ula, in Kaho’olawe, in Farallon de Medinilla, in Kwajelein, Enewetak and Bikini. Now it is the turn of
Pagan (pa-gán) Island.On March 14 this year the Department of the Navy made a statement in the Federal
Register of its intention “to prepare the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military
Training Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement… to establish a series of live-fire and
maneuver Ranges and Training Areas (RTAs) within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI) to meet this purpose.” (1) The entire island will be used, according to the documentation: “The U.S. military intends
to use the entire island with a full spectrum of weapons and joint training activities.” (2) So, goodbye to the
unique species which have inhabited this paradise for thousands of years and goodbye to the
livelihoods of the Pagan Islanders, the indigenous population which has lived with and beside the
endemic species in harmony for three thousand years . How many of the island’s rare birds, bats,
insects and plants could be destroyed by toxins or by bombing campaigns?
Preservation of the cultures of indigenous peoples is necessary to solve extinction
Weatherford 94 [Jack, anthropologist, “Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?,” p. 287-291] WD
The world now stands united in a single, global civilization.
Collapse in one part could trigger a chain reaction that may well sweep away cities across the globe.
Will the fate of Yaxchilán be the fate of all cities, of all civilization? Are they doomed to rise, flourish, and then fall back
into the earth from which they came? Whether we take an optimistic view or a pessimistic one, it seems clear that we
stand now at the conclusion of a great age of human history. This ten-thousand-year episode seems to be coming to an
end, winding down. For now, it appears that civilization has won out over all other ways of life. Civilized people have defeated the
tribal people of the world who have been killed or scattered. But just at the moment when victory
seems in the air for civilization, just at the moment when it has defeated all external foes and made itself master of the world,
without any competing system to rival it, civilization seems to be in worse danger than ever before. No longer in
fear of enemies from outside, civilization seems more vulnerable than ever to enemies from within . It
Today we have no local and regional civilizations.
has become a victim of its own success. In its quest for dominance, civilization chewed up the forest, leeched the soil, stripped the plains,
clogged the rivers, mined the mountains, polluted the oceans, and fouled the air.
In the process of progress, civilization
destroyed one species of plant and animal after another. Propelled by the gospel of agriculture, civilization moved
forcefully across the globe, but it soon began to die of exhaustion, leaving millions of humans to starve.
Some of the oldest places in the agricultural world became some of the first to collapse. Just as it seems to have completed its
victory over tribal people, the nation-state has begun to dissolve. Breaking apart into ethnic chunks and cultural
enclaves, the number of states has multiplied in the twentieth century to the point that the concept of a nation-state itself starts to deteriorate.
The nation-state absorbed the remaining tribal people but has proven incapable of incorporating
them fully into the national society as equal members.
The state swallowed them up but could not digest them. The
state could destroy the old languages and cultures, and it easily divided and even relocated whole nations. But the state proved far less
effective at incorporating the detribalized people into the new national culture.
Even though the state expanded across the
frontier, it could not make the frontier disappear.
The frontier moved into the urban areas with the detribalized masses of
defeated nations, emancipated slaves, and exploited laborers. After ten thousand years of struggle, humans may have been left with a Pyrrhic
Now that the victory has been won, we stoop under the
burdensome costs and damages to a world that we may not be able to heal or repair. Unable to cope
with the rapidly changing natural, social, and cultural environment that civilization made, we see the
collapse of the social institutions of the city and the state that brought us this far. The cities and institutions of
victory whose cost may be much greater than its benefits.
civilization have now become social dinosaurs. Even though we may look back with pride over the last ten thousand years of evolution and cite
the massive number of humans and the ability of human society and the city to feed and care for all of them, one major fluctuation in the world
might easily end all of that.
The civilization we have built stretches like a delicate and fragile membrane on this
Earth. It will not require anything as dramatic as a collision with a giant asteroid to destroy civilization.
Civilization seems perfectly capable of creating its own Armageddon. During the twentieth century, civilization experience a number of major
scares, a series of warning shots. Civilization proved capable of waging world war on itself. Toward that end, we developed nuclear energy and
came close to provoking a nuclear holocaust, and we may well do so yet. When we survived World War I, then World War II, and finally the
nuclear threat of the Cold War, we felt safe. When catastrophe did not follow the warning, we felt relief, as though the danger had passed, but
danger still approaches us. Civilization experienced several “super plagues” ranging from the devastating
world influenza epidemic early in the century to AIDS at the close of the century. These may be only
weak harbingers of the epidemics and plagues to come. Even as life expectancy in most countries has continued to climb
throughout the twentieth century, diseases from cancer to syphilis have grown stronger and more deadly. If war or
new plagues do not bring down civilization, it might easily collapse as a result of environmental degradation and the disruption of productive
agricultural lands. If the great collapse comes, it might well come from something that we do not yet suspect.
Perhaps war, disease, famine, and environmental degradation will be only parts of the process and not the causes. Today all of us are
unquestionably part of a global society, but that common membership does not produce cultural uniformity around the globe. The challenge
now facing us is to live in harmony without living in uniformity, to be united by some forces such as worldwide commerce, pop culture, and
We need to share some values
such as a commitment to fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly
different in other areas such as life-styles, spirituality, musical tastes, and community life. We need to find a
communications, but to remain peacefully different in other areas such as religion and ethnicity.
way for all of us to walk in two worlds at once, to be part of the world culture, without sacrificing the cultural heritage of our own families and
traditions.
At the same time we need to find ways to allow other people to walk in two worlds, or perhaps
even to walk in four or five worlds at once. We cannot go backwards in history and change one hour or
one moment, but we do have the power to change the present and thus alter the future. The first step
in that process should come by respecting the mutual right of all people to survive with dignity and to
control their own destinies without surrendering their cultures .
The aborigines of Australia, the Tibetans of China, the
Lacandon of Mexico, the Tuareg of Mali, the Aleuts of Alaska, the Ainu of Japan, the Maori of New Zealand, the Aymara of Bolivia, and the
millions of other ethnic groups around the world deserve the same human rights and cultural dignity as
suburbanites in Los Angeles, bureaucrats in London, bankers in Paris, reporters in Atlanta, marketing
executives in Vancouver, artists in Berlin, surfers in Sydney, or industrialists in Tokyo. In recent centuries, Western civilization has played the
leading role on the stage of human history. We should not mistake this one act for the whole drama of human history, nor should we assume
that the present act is the final one just because it is before us at the moment. Much came before us, and much remains yet to be enacted.
We must recognize the value of all people not merely out of nostalgic sentiment for the oppressed or
merely to keep them like exhibits in a nature park. We must recognize their rights and value because
we may need the combined knowledge of all cultures if we are to overcome the problems that now
threaten to overwhelm us. At first glance, the Aleuts who hunt seals on isolated islands in the Bering
Sea may seem like unimportant actors on the world stage of today, but their ancestors once played a
vital role in human survival of the Ice Age. The Quechua woman sitting in the dusty market of Cochamba may seem
backward and insignificant, but her ancestors led the way into an agricultural revolution from which we still
benefit. Because we do not know the problems that lie ahead of us, we do not know which set of
human skills or which cultural perspective we will need.
The coming age of human history threatens to be one of
cultural conflicts between and within countries, conflicts that rip cities apart. If we continue down the same path that we now tread, the
problems visible today in Tibet or Mexico may seem trifling compared with the conflicts yet to come.
If we cannot change our
course, then our civilization too may become as dead as the stones of Yaxchilán, and one day the
descendants of some alien civilization will stare at our ruined cities and wonder why we disappeared.
Destruction of culture is the most perilous threat to humanity and all other existential
problems – it has intrinsic and utilitarian value
Guruswamy et al 99 [Lakshman, Jason Robert, & Catina Drywater, Professor of Law and Director of
the National Energy and Environmental Law and Policy Institute, JD University of Tulsa, 34 Tulsa LJ 713,
Summer, l/n “Protecting the Cultural and Natural Heritage: Finding Common Ground”] WD
The cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, a segment of the DNA of our global community, faces
elimination. Because a significant part of the cultural heritage of humankind is finite and non-renewable , it
confronts a threat more perilous than the possible destruction facing the biological diversity of the natural
heritage. n1 More poignantly, the reasons for protecting biological diversity apply with even greater force to
the cultural heritage. While species and animals facing extinction can reproduce themselves and be raised in captivity, cultural
resources are not capable of such renewal, and are unable to propagate themselves. Once destroyed,
they are lost forever.¶ This paper focuses, very briefly, on how this critical, non-renewable, component of human civilization may be
preserved. The "cultural heritage" being canvassed in this article possesses intrinsic religious and cultural
importance as the heritage of humanity as well as utilitarian value as the DNA of our civilization . It
traverses a broad spectrum of human creativity expressed in archaeological sites, monuments, art,
sculpture, architecture, oral & written records, and living cultures. This cultural heritage deserves
protection for historical, religious, aesthetic, ethnological, anthropological, and scientific reasons
spanning both utilitarian and non-utilitarian rationales .¶ From a utilitarian standpoint, the cultural heritage
embodies invaluable non-replicable information and data about the historic and prehistoric story of
humankind. Such information may relate to the social, economic, cultural, environmental and climatic
conditions of [*48] past peoples, their evolving ecologies, adaptive strategies and early forms of
environmental management. The destruction of these storehouses of knowledge , and the information
contained in these libraries of life, could critically affect how we respond to the continuing challenges
of population growth, resource exhaustion, pollution, and environmental management . From a nonutilitarian perspective, the despoliation of cultural resources, where they form part of the religious and
cultural traditions of people and civilizations, desecrates the sacred.
South Korea
Korea will participate in war games in the pacific
Guardian, June 10
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/china-naval-exercises-rim-pacific “China joins in world's largest naval
exercises”)
Chinese ships headed for waters near Hawaii on Tuesday to participate for the first time in the world's largest
naval exercises – a rare opportunity to build trust with the US and regional rivals including the Philippines and Japan. China's participation in the rim of the
Pacific exercises, beginning on 26 June, will enable Chinese naval officers to rub shoulders with US counterparts as well as those from countries with which it has
maritime disputes in the South China and East China seas. Washington and Beijing have been seeking closer military ties following an incident last December when
a US navy cruiser, the USS Cowpens, nearly collided with a ship accompanying China's sole aircraft carrier in the South China Sea – the most serious sea
Twenty-three countries will take part in this year's drills, including
Britain, Australia, Canada, France, India, Indonesia and South Korea. China's defense ministry said four ships – the
confrontation between the two nations in years.
destroyer Haikou, missile frigate Yueyang, the oiler Yueyang, and hospital ship Peace Ark – departed on Monday. It said the squadron is carrying 1,100 officers and
sailors, including a commando unit and diving team, along with two helicopters. The statement quoted navy deputy chief of staff Hong Xumeng as saying China's
participation constituted "an important mission of military diplomacy" and a further step in strengthening China-US relations. China's move shows a new maturity
in its foreign relations whereby it won't allow individual disagreements to upset overall ties, said Ni Lexiong, a military expert at Shanghai's University of Political
Science and Law. "The rule of the game now is that we can argue, we can quarrel, but at the same time, we can work together. And everybody has shown respect
for that rule," Ni said. Frictions along China's maritime periphery are seen as heightening the need for better communication and closer coordination with other
countries' navies. Chinese patrol boats are currently involved in standoffs over territorial disputes with its neighbors in the South China Sea, and with Japan over
disputed uninhabited islands north of Taiwan. China has never before dispatched ships to take part in the exercises, which are held every other year, although it
sent military observers to watch the drills in 1998.
no SCS war now
Economic interdependence checks serious China-ASEAN fights over SCS.
Chaibi ‘13
Abraham Chaibi – Author at Politics in Spires and Summer Associate at Institute for Defense Analyses – “The outlook for
continuing stability in the South China Sea” – Politics in Spires – March 4, 2013 – http://politicsinspires.org/the-outlook-forcontinuing-stability-in-the-south-china-sea/
East Asia’s rapid economic and military development has captured global attention, but pundits are quick to point to the South China Sea,
North Korea, and Taiwan as potential obstacles to the region’s continued growth. Analysis of news coverage demonstrates that regional
economies and tensions have been growing in tandem. The
South China Sea has historically been of particular interest
because of the number of conflicting claims on the islands and sea-lanes it encompasses. China, Malaysia, Brunei, the
Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, among others, have often engaged in bilateral disagreements with resulting
spikes in diplomatic tension and even military confrontation. Of note, these conflicts have never escalated to a
full-scale regional war . Direct extrapolation suggests that previous restraint in military interactions implies the
nations involved do not consider the potential benefits sufficient to justify an upset to the balance of
power. However, contemporary changes in economic and security conditions complicate the issue. While current tensions appear
unlikely to lead to a full-scale military conflict, the diversion of national resources needed to maintain the status quo is
substantial. Institutional changes to increase transparency; clarify US treaties with ASEAN nations; and increase states’ internal enforcement of
international agreements, although initially costly, would allow the neighbouring states to redirect these resources to long-term growth.
Historically, China has been involved in a majority of the military conflicts in the South China Sea. A 1947 Chinese map delineates China’s
controversial claim to approximately 80% of the sea. China aggressively used its navy to conclude a dispute with Vietnam in the Battle of the
Paracel Islands in 1974 and then in 1988 during the Johnson South Reef Skirmish for the Spratly Islands. Conflict was narrowly averted in 1995
when the Philippines chose not to shell fort-like Chinese military structures on Mischief Reef (China maintained they were only intended as
shelter for fisherman); however, the Philippines continues to assert that this is an example of “creeping occupation”. This form of venting
tensions, while far short of total war, is extremely costly over the long run; the combination of of resources, energy, and lives expended to
establish a claim to the islands creates a significant and avoidable opportunity cost. These skirmishes are not merely an imprint of the 20th
century but continue today as witnessed by the Chinese establishment of the Sansha garrison-city in 2012 and the Sino-Philippines stand-off in
the Scarborough Shoal. What
then is the evidence suggesting a continued reluctance to engage in full-scale
military confrontation? Although in the past conflict has often arisen between economically interdependent
nations (viz. the previous peak of global trade in 1914), the China-ASEAN relationship is one of fundamental
interdependence of production, visible in the prevalence of international supply chaining in manufacturing processes, rather than
solely trade and labour movement[i]. The burgeoning economic interdependence and growth of neighbouring states
contributes a major incentive to prevent a conflagration. $5.3 trillion of trade, of which approximately 20% is US, transits
the South China Sea annually and any interruption would not only severely restrict regional trade revenues, but would also very likely
guarantee US military intervention[ii]. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is becoming increasingly interconnected and 2015
will mark a key turning point with the opening of internal ASEAN borders for free movement of labor. The ASEAN bloc has also concluded a
number of reconciliation agreements with China. Regarding security, both the 2002 Code of Conduct and the 2011 Guidelines to the Code of
Conduct are intended to help coordinate diplomacy and maintain peace in South China Sea disputes. Economically China has been ASEAN’s
largest trading partner since 2009, and at its opening in 2010 the ASEAN-China free trade area (ACFTA) became the largest in the world by
population. These arrangements come at a time when growing estimates of the value of the natural resources contained in the South China Sea
are generating pressures associated with ensuring energy security.
We control uniqueness. No South China Sea war unless China’s fired-upon.
Du ‘14
(Roger Yu Du is an analyst at Global Risk Insights. Global Risk Insights provides the web’s best political risk analysis for
businesses and investors. Our contributors are some of the brightest minds in economics, politics, finance, and international
relations. GRI has been referenced by leading publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and Christian
Science Monitor. “China territorial deadlocks hurt regional trade” – Global Risk Insights – June 7, 2014 –
http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/06/07/china-territorial-deadlocks-hurt-regional-trade/)
Since 2007, China has been in frequent territorial disputes with the Philippines, Japan, Malaysia and
Vietnam, which eventually led to some level of military standoff in the South China and East China Seas. In
November 2013, China set up its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone that covers the disputed Diaoyu Island with Japan, justifying its
military presence in the area. Several close encounters between Chinese and Japanese planes ensued. In
Services Limited, a Chinese state-owned company, deployed
May 2014, China Oilfield
its oil rig in the contested waters, which eventually triggered
riots against China in Vietnam. It seems that China is getting more assertive about its territorial claims and not shying away from
competition. Although tensions have escalated, it is unlikely that they will lead to larger scale military
confrontations or even war
in the next decade. Most of the East Asian states have important domestic mandates that would
require a relatively peaceful international environment. China is gradually restructuring its domestic economy. According to some analysts, it
would take over ten years for China to complete a series of reforms to evade the middle-income trap. In the meantime, Southeast
Asian
countries are China’s potential export markets and sources of cheap labor, while Japan and South Korea could
provide China with investments and technology. Unless fired upon , it is unwise to wage a war that would benefit so
little compared with what China could achieve after its successful economic transformation.
Vietnam won’t initiate conflict now because they lack alliances with the US
Du ‘14
(Roger Yu Du is an analyst at Global Risk Insights. Global Risk Insights provides the web’s best political risk analysis for
businesses and investors. Our contributors are some of the brightest minds in economics, politics, finance, and international
relations. GRI has been referenced by leading publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and Christian
Science Monitor. “China territorial deadlocks hurt regional trade” – Global Risk Insights – June 7, 2014 –
http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/06/07/china-territorial-deadlocks-hurt-regional-trade/)
Countries in dispute with China also have incentives that will prevent them from going too far. With a US
military pact, Japan can afford to take a tougher position against China’s demands, as it has during Abe’s term.
Indeed, Japan’s hawkish stance successfully deterred China from sending more patrol ships to the contested waters since late last year.
However, the US expressed its unwillingness to see a war between China and Japan and urged Japan to resort to diplomatic solutions in
multiple occasions. Moreover, Abe’s administration is also trying to revitalize Japan’s domestic economy, which is currently falling short of its
original goals. While fiscal expenditure on the military cause may be less effective in bolstering Japanese economy than Abenomics, any
belligerent moves would surely drive investors away.
Without any backing from the world’s powerhouse, Vietnam is
in a n even weaker position when dealing with China, making it less likely to proactively start a war . As
Vietnam’s economy relies heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI) and tourism, investors’ confidence has a big impact on Vietnam’s policies.
Unique Link – No SCS war because China perceives US regional commitment is low
now.
Want China Times ‘14
This article was written by staff reporters – but it Internally quotes Professor Gong Yingchun from China Foreign Affairs
University in Beijing and Qu Xing, the president of the China Institute of International Studies – “Philippines and China unlikely
to go to war: academics” – June 6th – http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140606000111&cid=1101
Professor Gong Yingchun from China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing told the state-run China News
Service on June 6 that the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea
is unlikely to escalate into real armed conflict.
After the Philippines filed its case concerning the legality of China's nine-
dotted line claim over the South China Sea to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Hong Lei, the spokesperson of the Chinese foreign ministry
said that Beijing refuses to participate in the arbitration because Manila has no legal grounds to file. Hong said that the Chinese government
had already ruled out any possibility of solving its territorial dispute in the South China Sea through arbitration back in 2006. Qu Xing, the
president of the China Institute of International Studies, told the news agency that the Philippines has no power and influence to inflict any
damage on the national interests of China. Manila is striving to garner international support by turning the case over to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, however, this suggests that the Philippines alone is too weak to defend its territorial claims in the region. To strengthen its military
relationship with the US, the Philippines launched the Balikatan 2014 joint exercises with the United States last month. Manila is also planning
to allow the US Military to operate from three of its military facilities. While
a huge amount of money is being invested by
the Philippine government to purchase advanced weapons from other nations, Chinese analysts said
Manila will not go to engage in a conflict with Beijing because it will be unable to get political support
from the US.
No US-China war over the South China Sea. Status quo headed towards cooperation.
Thayer ‘13
(Carlyle A. Thayer – Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales, May 13, “Why China and the US won’t go to war
over the South China Sea”, East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum .org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-towar-over-the-south-china-sea/)
China’s increasing assertiveness in the S outh C hina S ea is challenging US primacy in the Asia Pacific. Even before Washington
announced its official policy of rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its military
posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through
Darwin.Since then, the United States has deployed Combat Littoral Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military
access to the Philippines. But these developments do
not presage armed conflict between China and the U nited S tates.
The P eople’s L iberation A rmy Navy has been circumspect in its involvement in S outh C hina S ea territorial disputes, and
the U nited S tates has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China.
Armed conflict between China and the U nited S tates in the S outh C hina S ea appears unlikely. Another,
more probable, scenario is that both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate to maintain
security in the S outh C hina S ea. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to
Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific
Command, recently stated, ‘there has also been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case … it is a
strategy of collaboration and cooperation’.
US-China tension over SCS won’t escalate – history proves.
Taylor ‘14
Brendan – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian and PhD – National Australian University, “The
South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2014, Volume 34, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis
Finally, the
capacity of Beijing and Washington to navigate crises in their bilateral relationship further
suggests that the S outh C hina S ea is not a flashpoint . Over the past two or more decades, the U nited S tates
and China have gone to great lengths to manage bilateral tensions and prevent them from spiraling out
of control. A recent example occurred in May 2012, when the two arrived at a mutually acceptable
solution after the blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng sought refuge at the U.S. embassy in Beijing.48
In the S outh C hina S ea, two major, modern Sino–U.S. crises have been successfully managed. The first
occurred in April 2001, when a U.S. EP-3 conducting routine surveillance in airspace above the S outh
C hina S ea collided with a Chinese J-8 jet fighter and was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan
Island. To be sure, efforts to address this crisis did not initially proceed particularly smoothly, as Chinese officials
refused to answer incoming calls from the U.S. Embassy. Ultimately, however, those most intimately involved in the crisis—
such as then-Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Dennis Blair—have written subsequently how top U.S. officials
“made every effort to exercise prudence and restraint while they collected more information about the nature of the incident.”
They have also acknowledged that their Chinese counterparts “made a series of grudging concessions that
ultimately resulted in success…after they decided that it was important to overall Sino–U.S. relations to
solve the incident.”49 Again in March 2009 , while diplomatic tensions between Beijing and Washington
heightened in the immediate aftermath of an incident involving the harassment of the USNS Impeccable
by five Chinese vessels, good sense also prevailed as senior U.S. and Chinese officials issued statements
maintaining that such incidents would not become the norm and pledging deeper cooperation to ensure
so.50 Added to these examples of effective crisis management, it is also worth noting that Washington reportedly
facilitated a compromise to the April 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff.51
containment bad
We control direction of the link – Pivot forces China to act more aggressively.
Gupta ‘14
Ms Rukmani Gupta was formerly an associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. She is currently the
Armed Forces Analyst for APAC with IHS Jane’s. . ASIAN STRATEGIC REVIEW: US Pivot and Asian Security – a book edited by S.D.
Muni, Vivek Chadha – From Chapter seven: “US Pivot to Asia and China: Rhetoric, Responses and Repercussions”
“http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidsa.in%2Fsys
tem%2Ffiles%2Fbook_ASR2013.pdf&ei=AY-XU8rjNuaO8gG3g4CQBg&usg=AFQjCNG_ooiEIMhuGCnMzg7oy_t67sZTgQ
It is evident that though rhetoric on the US pivot by Chinese officials has been relatively bland, emphasising the positive prospects of stability in
the region, popular discourse as reflected in semi-official publications does not view the US pivot as benign.
Across military, diplomatic and economic realms, China has sought to mitigate the ability of the US to squeeze Chinese influence and options.
Along with increased military acquisitions and exercises, a less compromising rhetoric on territorial issues that may involve the US military has
been adopted by China. In this regard,
the US pivot can be seen as forcing China’s hand to react more aggressively.
On the diplomatic front, China considers US involvement in maritime issues of Southeast Asia as a direct
provocation. In this sphere, even as it heightens military preparedness, China has sought to soothe apprehensions of neighbouring
countries and actively participate in regional forums. Economics is increasingly being used by China as both a stick (in the case of the Philippines
during the stand-off over Scarborough Shoal) and as a carrot (proposals of an ASEAN infrastructure bank). There is little doubt that China will
fight to keep the economic initiative in regional integration. Even as its neighbours in Southeast Asia welcome US engagement in the region, it is
clear that no country wants to have to pick between China and the US. By engaging diplomatically and economically, China seems to reassure
its neighbours that they would not have to make such a choice.
Deepening engagement with countries surrounding China only isolates them and
makes war more likely
Ratner ‘13
Dr. Ely Ratner is Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American
Security, “Rebalancing to Asia with an Insecure China,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring, 2013, Vol 36, no 2, pp 21-38
China’s foreign policies have for decades reflected the principles of biding time, pursuing a restrained
foreign policy, and viewing the first decades of the twenty-/ first century as a period of strategic opportunity to focus primarily on internal
development.41 This strategy, however, has relied on the belief in Beijing that China’s commitment to the
path of ‘‘peaceful rise’’ was leading the country toward greater prosperity and security, a supposition
coming under increasing scrutiny in Beijing.42 U.S. analysts are correct to assert that, to date, China’s
leaders have continued to recognize the importance of pursuing a constructive U.S.—/China
relationship.43 That said, particularly with China emerging from the inward-/looking period of its
decennial leadership transition, an array of potential scenarios/Chinese economic slowdown, domestic
political cleavages over the pace and direction of economic reform, a spike in nationalism due to
perceived external challenges/ could raise the political cost for Chinese leaders who seek to perpetuate
U.S.—/ China relations in their current state. The danger in the years ahead is that deepened U.S. engagement in
Asia and its associated perceptions in China could amplify already existent voices in Beijing who argue
that the current trajectory of regional affairs is placing China under siege in a deteriorating security
environment.44 Precisely how Beijing would respond is unknown, but it is hard to imagine that the United States
would benefit from a China less committed to its relations with the United States. More rapid military
modernization, the development of trade or diplomatic blocs that exclude the United States, assertive
behavior in its near seas, the cultivation of explicit security ties with regional partners, more aggressive
use of cyber intrusions into the United States, and increasingly discriminatory trade practices are among
the policies Beijing could pursue. Even if China viewed its options in these domains as relatively limited
and ultimately undesirable, it could still throw sand in the gears of U.S. efforts in the region. Although
China’s behavior has been problematic on regional issues ranging from the South and East China Seas to North Korea, Burma, and ASEAN,
there is no doubt that Beijing could create far more mischief if it perceived a truly zero-/sum rivalry with
the United States that compelled a hard-/nosed competition for influence in Asia. Preventing this
outcome/and the major power war that could accompany it/are chief among the tasks of U.S. China
policy. There are real and significant areas of competition between the United States and China, and structuring the relationship
to manage them is a more sensible approach than believing they can be solved or willed away through
reassurance or by augmenting mutual trust. With the rebalancing effort galloping forward, and the
United States unwilling (under current conditions) to entertain the acts of retrenchment which Beijing is
calling for, Washington will need to devise its Asia policies to account for a suspicious and agitated
Beijing. This means implicitly, if not explicitly, engineering engagement to focus more on laying the
institutional groundwork for crisis management. The Strategic Security Dialogue (SSD) has provided an important forum to do
just that, bringing together Chinese civilian and military leaders with their U.S. counterparts to discuss sensitive bilateral and regional security
issues. At the same time, U.S.
policymakers will ultimately have to come to terms with the fact that dialogue
and reassurance will only go so far. The domestic and international sources of China’s interests and
insecurities run far deeper than short-/term policy decisions in Washington. Accepting this reality, the
United States should eschew the notion that U.S.—/China relations represent ‘‘the most important
bilateral relationship in the world,’’ and should resist the oft-/made remark that ‘‘virtually no global
challenge can be met without China—/U.S. cooperation.’’45 Neither statement is particularly accurate,
and both serve to create unrealistic expectations, produce unnecessary disappointment and animus,
and ultimately contribute to greater bilateral friction.
In particular, the military aspects of the pivot threatens China and sparks a war by
forcing them to respond in kind.
Kay ‘13
Dr. Sean Kay is a Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ohio Wesleyan University specializing in
international politics, international security, international organizations, and U.S. foreign and defense policy. He is also the
Director of the Arneson Institute for Practical Politics and Public Affairs and Chair of the International Studies Program. Sean
Kay is a Mershon Associate at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and a NonResident Fellow at the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, D.C. specializing in international security. “America’s Asia Pivot – A
Return to Realism?” – Working Paper Prepared for the Center for International Security and Peace Studies – October 2013 –
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Fcepsi-cipss.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FSeanKayWorkingpaper_5x5.pdf&ei=jI6XU7a8JcW28AHGrIDgCg&usg=AFQjCNF0wKneKLskCakFk_XB9wZA6xhanQ
The pivot reflected a return to realist priorities in line with advancing the national interest in terms of the emerging
distribution of power in the world and establishing a new hierarchy of foreign policy priorities. Getting the
presence in Asia “right” was going to be a tough balancing act. Absent the realist guidance of restraint there
was a risk that an overly military-oriented pivot to Asia could spark China to see the growing American
presence as a threat and thus respond with enhanced military capabilities – further prompting American
concerns about China and its rise. China did indicate worry about the military aspects of the American pivot.
In a 2013 informal military planning document, China concluded that: “…some countries are strengthening their Asia-Pacific military alliances,
expanding military presence in the region, and frequently making the situation there tenser.”40
Strengthening the US alliance network increases the risk the US will get drawn-into
wars.
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 United States is thus likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an increasing
source of contention with China. Senior U.S. policy makers have made clear that the United States has legitimate and important
strategic interests in Asia. Moreover, the United States retains considerable strength as the dominant power in the region, even if some of its
relative advantages have declined in recent years. The U.S. has reiterated the strategic value of its alliances and the importance of the interests
of its allies. This leaves China, the United States, and its allies with increasingly complex and difficult decisions. Reassuring Beijing requires the
U.S. to either weaken or redefine its alliance system to accommodate China’s security preferences. This could prove dangerously destabilizing
as vulnerable countries realize they must take action to defend their interests. It would also mean a significant weakening of influence in a
region of the world that is of vital strategic importance to the future of the U.S. economy. However, reassuring
allies requires a
greater U.S. willingness to confront China in sovereignty disputes and other issues. This risks deterioration in U.S.China relations and potential destabilization of the regional order. China and the United States and its allies will need creative
policymaking to balance these competing concerns and ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region.
China perceives the Pivot as a US containment strategy.
Chadha ‘14
(Col Vivek Chadha (Retd) is a Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses -- ASIAN STRATEGIC REVIEW: US
Pivot and Asian Security – a book edited by S.D. Muni, Vivek Chadha – From Chapter Three: “Military Implications of the
US Rebalancing Strategy” – by Vivek Chadha –
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidsa.in%2Fsyst
em%2Ffiles%2Fbook_ASR2013.pdf&ei=AY-XU8rjNuaO8gG3g4CQBg&usg=AFQjCNG_ooiEIMhuGCnMzg7oy_t67sZTgQ)
While there has been a reluctance to make direct references to each other by the US
and China, however, mutual discomfort
clearly evident. The China White Paper of 2013 makes an indirect reference to US attempts
to contain China. It says: “Some country has strengthened its Asia- Pacific military alliances, expanding its military
presence in the region, and frequently makes the situation there tenser...Major powers are vigorously developing new and
between them remains
more sophisticated military technologies so as to ensure that they can maintain strategic superiorities in international competition in such areas
as outer space and cyber space.”26 Therefore, the
China factor was and remains a key determinant of the US
strategy in a bid to safeguard its interests in the region, given that China has both the potential and reason to challenge the
status quo maintained under the US security umbrella.
China perceives renewed commitment to the Pivot as military containment.
Mishra ‘14
Dr Rahul Mishra is a Research Fellow at Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi. He specialises on political, economic, foreign
policy and security aspects of countries and regional groupings of Southeast Asia. ASIAN STRATEGIC REVIEW: US Pivot and Asian
Security – a book edited by S.D. Muni, Vivek Chadha – From Chapter Ten: “The US Rebalancing Strategy: Responses from
Southeast Asia”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidsa.in%2Fsyst
em%2Ffiles%2Fbook_ASR2013.pdf&ei=AY-XU8rjNuaO8gG3g4CQBg&usg=AFQjCNG_ooiEIMhuGCnMzg7oy_t67sZTgQ
Not surprisingly, China
has been sceptical of renewed interest and intensified activism of the US in this part of the
world. From the time of release of the first comprehensive statement regarding the US Pivot or Rebalancing
towards Asia till date, reactions from Chinese leaders and the media have largely been negative.8 As Amitav Acharya opines,
“China has viewed these initiatives with much suspicion and regards them as detrimental to its interests. It sees
Washington’s use of the EAS to address the South China Sea disputes as blatant interference and
unnecessary internationalisation of the issue, which it prefers to address bilaterally with the respective parties. It deems the TPP as an
exclusionary framework aimed at countering China’s economic influence. As
for Washington’s rebalancing , Beijing considers
it another name for containment.”9 Beijing perceives that the US Rebalancing towards Asia has squeezed its strategic space in
Asia.10 Many Chinese are concerned that the ‘Pivot to Asia’ is little more than code for an increase in US
naval power in the region, aimed at boxing them in.11 In fact, many believe that the military dimension of the rebalancing seems
directed at them and smacks of containment, and they resent it.12 China has, over and again, protested against the US ship visits in the
region.
at: alliances check china
Deterrence and allies strategy will fail. China will put SCS resources over its desire for
regional peace.
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/
Because China’s domestic prosperity will is increasingly inseparable from the region’s prosperity, China has a strong incentive to seek greater
control over the terms of the region’s security. For
China to entrust the future that security to an outside power such as
the United States and its allies is tantamount to expecting China to entrust much of its own prosperity and
security to the United States and its allies. Reshaping the Regional Order Central authorities have opted instead to pursue a
strategy of development as the principal means to achieve the domestic and international security needed to sustain the country’s growth. At
the CICA summit, Xi Jinping stated, “Development is the foundation for security.” Indeed, it is worth recalling that as early as 1997, the
15th
Party Congress report stated that “ development” is the “key to resolving all of China’s problems.” The
concept of development is so important to China’s approach to addressing security threats that it merits
closer analysis. As used by China’s leaders, “development” means the calculated application of superior resources to change the economic,
political, and security facts of a situation in order to extract goods of security, stability, economic gain, and national prestige. In the language of
the CCP, this is a process which brings about the “progressive social qualitative and quantitative change in productivity from a situation” and
thereby “brings benefit to the Chinese people.” While primarily economic, development also includes policies and actions which realize
political, social, administrative, and other forms of “progressive” change. China’s
sovereignty disputes with its neighbors,
including those with Vietnam regarding oil rig Haiyang Shiyou 981, with Japan regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands,
and with the Philippines in the South China Sea, serve merely as a symptom of a broader problem in the eyes
of Chinese leaders: the supersession of the regional political and security order by a new economic reality . China
regards many features of the regional order as legacies of an era in which the U.S. enjoyed overwhelming economic, political and military
predominance in the region, conditions which have eroded over time, and in the case of economics, no longer obtain. For China, the most
lasting resolution therefore does not lie in “fixing” particular dispute issues, but in comprehensively “developing” the political, security, and
social order to accord with a new reality defined by Chinese economic power. In a broad sense, regional integration serves a function similar to
the pattern observed in domestic issues of unrest in which China seeks to address the source of instability through comprehensive approach to
development. In both cases, China’s superior resources give it considerable leverage to both incentivize and pressure recalcitrant opposition
into accommodation. In the words of a Chinese commentary, “Development is the strategy for treating insecurity; it eliminates the root factors
which cause instability” (People’s Daily, May 20).
China puts economics first – US alliances won’t deter conflict.
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/
Chinese leaders seek structural reform to both the domestic and international order to maintain economic growth and
realize the country’s revitalization. Directives in high-level strategy documents such as the 18th Party Congress report and Third Plenum
decision, and the establishment of central leading groups focused on systemic reform, underscore the urgency with which PRC leaders regard
this issue. Because these reforms are viewed as necessary to enable the country’s continued development and survival, Beijing
is unlikely
to abandon these demands. On the contrary, the imperative to sustain growth will likely intensify pressure
to realize these changes over time. The harsh criticism of the U.S. led security architecture seen in Xi’s remarks at the CICA summit and PRC
commentary may thus well serve as a foretaste if China remains frustrated in its efforts to realign the regional order in accordance with its
strategic priorities. The
United States is thus likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an
increasing source of contention with China. Senior U.S. policy makers have made clear that the United States has legitimate and
important strategic interests in Asia. Moreover, the United States retains considerable strength as the dominant power in the region, even if
some of its relative advantages have declined in recent years. The U.S. has reiterated the strategic value of its alliances and the importance of
the interests of its allies. This leaves China, the United States, and its allies with increasingly complex and difficult decisions. Reassuring Beijing
requires the U.S. to either weaken or redefine its alliance system to accommodate China’s security preferences. This could prove dangerously
destabilizing as vulnerable countries realize they must take action to defend their interests. It would also mean a significant weakening of
influence in a region of the world that is of vital strategic importance to the future of the U.S. economy. However, reassuring allies requires a
greater U.S. willingness to confront China in sovereignty disputes and other issues. This risks deterioration in U.S.-China relations and potential
destabilization of the regional order. China and the United States and its allies will need creative policymaking to balance these competing
concerns and ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region.
Pivot and Alliances will not deter – recent history proves.
Ross ‘12
Robert S. Ross, Professor of Political Science at Boston College and an Associate at the John King Fairbank Center for Chinese
Studies at Harvard University, “The Problem With the Pivot: Obama’s New Asia Policy Is Unnecessary and Counterproductive,”
Foreign Affairs, November/December, pp 70-82
Even if the United States had limited its response to China’s¶ nationalist diplomacy to improving defense ties with
its maritime¶ allies in the region, China’s leaders would not have been pleased. But¶ those steps were necessary
for U.S. security, occurred far from China’s¶ borders, and built on the policies of previous administrations. When¶ Washington got
directly involved in China’s sovereignty disputes¶ and increased its presence on China’s land borders, however, Beijing¶
predictably saw this departure from past U.S. policy as gratuitous,¶ expansionist, and threatening. As might
be expected from a great¶ power faced with a deteriorating strategic environment, China has¶ pushed back against the pivot
with concrete policies rather than the¶ merely aggressive rhetoric it employed in the past.¶ One result has
been that China has all but given up its effort to¶ use its leverage over North Korea to get it to abandon its
nuclear¶ program. Since 2011, Beijing has substantially increased its food aid¶ to Pyongyang, imported more of North Korea’s mineral
resources,¶ and made significant investments in North Korean mining, infrastructure,¶ and manufacturing. China has also withdrawn its support
for the¶ six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, forcing Washington¶ to pursue bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Meanwhile,
North¶ Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons capability.¶ The
pla has also put pressure on those of China’s
neighbors that¶ have boosted their defense cooperation with the United States. In¶ the spring of 2011, tensions
between Beijing and Hanoi escalated as Chinese patrol ships harassed Vietnamese seismic survey boats in¶ disputed
waters, and several Chinese military o⁄cers advocated the use¶ of force against the Vietnamese navy. Similarly, China’s maritime¶
confrontation earlier this year with the Philippines over the contested¶ Scarborough Shoal suggests that
Beijing¶ will push back against countries that rely¶ on the United States to support them in¶ sovereignty disputes. China sent
combatready¶ patrols to defend its claim to the¶ shoal and, after the Philippines withdrew¶ its ships, established a permanent presence¶ there.
Also this year, Chinese national oil¶ companies announced unprecedented plans¶ to drill for oil in disputed waters—the¶ other claimants have
been active in these¶ waters for years—and the
pla formed a new military garrison charged¶ with defending the
country’s territorial claims in the South China¶ Sea. Since then, China has continued to actively strengthen its¶ presence
throughout the disputed waters and islands.¶ As all these events suggest, the Obama administration’s pivot has¶
not contributed to stability in Asia. Quite the opposite: it has made¶ the region more tense and conflict-prone. Military aircraft
and naval¶ ships now crowd the region’s skies and waters. And the United States¶ risks getting involved in hostilities over
strategically irrelevant and¶ economically marginal islands.¶ If the risk is greatest of an accidental conflict, then it seems
counter intuititve to increase the risk of an accident
at: pivot inevitable- effectiveness key
China is not concerned with announcement of The Pivot. They’ll only react if it builds
alliances on the ground.
Heath ‘14
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 U.S. is likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an increasing source of contention with
China. While the back and forth between the Chinese and U.S. and Japanese speakers at the Shangri-La Dialogue has gained considerable attention, less scrutiny
has been paid to the comments by General Wang Guanzhong advocating a “new Asian security concept.” Wang was echoing Chinese President Xi Jinping, who
similarly outlined a vision of an Asian security order managed by Asian countries at the fourth Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures (CICA)
summit, on May 20-21 in Shanghai, China (Xinhua, May 21, 2014). In many ways, advocacy of a revised security order to better accord with Chinese preferences is
not new. PRC officials first introduced the principles of the new security concept in 1997. Around 2005, Chinese leaders unveiled a series of major concepts,
including the Harmonious World, and its derivative, the Harmonious Asia, to provide a clearer vision of how China hoped to shape the global and regional order to
accommodate the country’s rise. The new Asian security concept raised by Xi at the CICA summit, like the ideas promoted by preceding leaders, proposes the
development of political and security relationships, institutions, and structures to complement the region’s deep integration with China’s economy. Details remain
vague, however. While the tenets of the Asian security order preferred by China are not new, PRC
leaders have stepped up criticism of the
U.S.-led security architecture in Asia as an obstacle to this vision. To be clear, Chinese leaders have not designated the United States an enemy.
On the contrary, the urgency behind China’s advocacy of the “new type great power relationship,” a policy ideal of close cooperation between relative peer powers
to co-manage contentious issues, belies the extent to which China, as a rising power, has hoped to avoid the onset of a classic security dilemma with United States,
the status quo power. China, after all, continues to require regional stability to maintain its focus on national development. However, it is increasingly finding its
security and developmental needs at odds with the current security order. Security Concerns The
sources underpinning China’s 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 China’s pursuit of
regional security and the nation’s 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 region’s 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.
no escalation
( ) China won’t escalate SCS conflicts.
Taylor ‘14
Brendan – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian and PhD – National Australian University, “The
South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2014, Volume 34, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis
But doubts
remain over whether Beijing truly regards the S outh C hina S ea as a “core interest.” Michael Swaine
reports that his investigation of Chinese official sources “failed to unearth a single example of a PRC
official or an official PRC document or media source that publicly and explicitly identifies the South China Sea as a PRC
‘core interest.’”25 By contrast, Chinese officials have not exhibited such reticence when referring publicly to Taiwan or Tibet in such terms.
Nor has Beijing shown any reluctance to threaten or to actually use military force in relation to these. During the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait Crisis,
Beijing twice fired ballistic missiles into waters off Taiwan in an effort to intimidate voters in advance of the island’s first democratic
presidential election.26 China went further in March 2005 when the National People’s Congress passed an “anti-secession law” requiring the
use of “non-peaceful means” against Taiwan in the event its leaders sought to establish formal independence from the mainland.27
Explicit threats and promises of this nature are absent in official Chinese statements on the S outh C hina S ea even
when, as in May 2012, the normally smooth-talking Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying ambiguously warned the
Philippines “not to misjudge the situation” and not to “escalate tensions without considering consequences” at the
height of the Scarborough Shoal standoff.28 Indeed, although Beijing appears eager to demonstrate its growing naval
capabilities by conducting military exercises in the South China Sea—as in March 2013 when it controversially conducted
exercises within 50 miles of the Malaysian coastline—it is striking that Chinese efforts to actually exercise jurisdiction in this
region continue to be confined, by and large, to the use of civil maritime law enforcement vessels.29
( ) US-China war won’t escalate
Dobbins ‘12
James Dobbins, directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, previously served as American
Ambassador to the European Community and Assistant Secretary of State, August/September 2012, “War with China,” Survival, Vol. 54, No. 4,
p. 7-24
It is important to begin any such analysis by recognising that China
is seeking neither territorial aggrandisement nor
ideological sway over its neighbours. It shows no interest in matching US military expenditures, achieving
a comparable global reach, or assuming defence commitments beyond its immediate periphery. Such
intentions might change, but if so, the United States would probably receive considerable warning, given the lead
times needed to develop such capabilities. Despite cautious and pragmatic Chinese policies, the risk of conflict with the United States remains,
and this risk will grow in consequence and perhaps in probability as China’s strength increases. Among the sources of conflict most likely to
occasion a China–US military clash over the next 30 years, listed in descending order of probability, are changes in the status of North Korea
and Taiwan, Sino-American confrontation in cyberspace, and disputes arising from China’s uneasy relationships with Japan and India. All these
sources are on China’s immediate periphery, where Chinese security interests and capabilities seem likely to remain focused.
important to stress that a China–US military conflict is not probable
It is
in any of these cases, but that judgement is
based on the view that the United States will retain the capacity to deter behaviour that could lead to such a clash throughout this period.
economic interdependence checks
) China-ASEAN spats haven’t escalated over the SCS. The reason is economic
interdependence.
Weismman ‘10
Mikael Weissmann – Associated Researcher at Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Researcher at FOI, Lecturer at
Stockholm University “THE SOUTH CHINA SEA CONFLICT AND SINO-ASEAN RELATIONS: A STUDY IN CONFLICT PREVENTION AND
PEACE BUILDING” – ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2010, pp. 35-69. Available at: http://www.ui.se/upl/files/49747.pdf
When applying the peace continuum to the SCS conflict, it becomes clear that the conflict has been
transformed since the early 1990s, when it was best characterized as a very fragile, unstable peace. At the time,
military forces were seizing claims and a conflict between the Philippines and China over the Mischief Reef in 1995 stopped short of military
conflict mainly because of the unequal power of the two. Since
then the conflict has moved toward a more stable peace.
Despite tensions and unresolved underlying incompatibilities in the SCS, war is considered most unlikely as the SCS
conflict cannot be separated from the overarching Sino-ASEAN relations. Since the early 1990s, peaceful
relations between China and ASEAN have been institutionalized, and there has been a strong regional
integration process that links the two and makes them economically interdependent. Thus, as a manifestation of the
latter, the conflict is tilting toward a stable peace where war is very unlikely , rather than toward an unstable peace.
( ) Economic ties will prevent conflict over the SCS.
Galiano ‘11
Emilia Galiano, m.a. candidate at Johns Hopkins university, “The People's Republic of China: an Alternative Model?”, BC Journal,
June 11, http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/the-peoples-republic-of-china.html?printerFriendly=true
According to Mearsheimer, every great power aims at becoming a regional hegemon since this is the only condition that will guarantee its security.8 to be
able to achieve this goal, states will develop their economic and military capabilities to the fullest possible extent. According to Mearsheimer: “In the anarchic world
of international politics it is better to be godzilla than Bambi.”9 Both the United States and China would compete for regional hegemony in the Asia Pacific region,
according to this view. Moreover, a future clash between them will be almost inevitable: China will pursue assertive policies to reform the system, while the united
States will aim for the maintenance of the status quo. Nevertheless, this perspective
cannot account for the rising economic
interdependence between these two countries, nor for the increasing disengagement of the United
States from the region, and thus the increasing reliance on Japan and China in dealing with security
issues in Asia-Pacific. The participation of China in the talks regarding the North Korean nuclear crisis is one
prominent example. Another perspective applied to the Chinese case is the balance of power theory, which forecasts that,
given the insecurity of living in an anarchic environment and the presence of superior powers in the
system, a country can choose between balancing or bandwagoning—that is, to look for reliable allies to counter the
predominant countries in the system or side with the latter against the weakest.10 the predictions resulting from the application of this perspective to Asia would
be as follows: on the one hand, China would balance the superior power of the united States, looking for allies in the region and upgrading its defense systems; on
the other hand, as China rises, other countries, both in the region and in the global system, should increasingly balance Chinese rising power, if they feel it is a
threat. Nevertheless, these
predictions can be countered by some arguments drawn from liberal theorists. Again,
the rising interdependence and cooperation between the united States and China cannot really be
explained by the balancing theory : if China did seek to balance a more powerful America, which it saw as a threat, it would surely
not engage in trade, finance its domestic debt, or cooperate on security issues. It is true that East Asian countries,
especially Japan and South Korea, are balancing Chinese power and bandwagoning with the United States by modernizing their defense apparatuses and regularly
carrying out military exercises with American troops. Yet it is also true that these
same countries have pursued economic
cooperation, which leads to ever increasing economic flows in terms of trade and FDI, with a country
they should perceive as threatening. This economic integration has led to the creation of a China-ASEAN free trade area, the Chiang Mai
Initiative, and projects for a potentially wider free trade area that includes Japan and South Korea. Economic cooperation pursued both by the People’s Republic of
China and other countries in the region has been accompanied by a cooperative attitude towards security issues and a moderate stance on territorial disputes on
the part of all the parties involved.11 Although I do not want to spend too much time here describing the situation in the east and South China Seas, suffice it to say
that governments are trying to avoid confrontational attitudes; some steps towards a resolution of the dispute have been taken, including the Declaration on the
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002 and a 2008 agreement on the joint exploration of the seabed near the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Incidents are still
possible, however, as demonstrated by the recent issue concerning a Chinese fishing boat near the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Balance
of power theory,
offensive realism, and hegemonic stability theory are insufficient to explain China’s behavior in the
international arena and the responses of other stakeholders in the system. Put differently, this behavior
would be explained only if one could assume that economic objectives can be separated from strategic
and security issues. This assumption is not possible in a realist framework , in which economic growth, security, and
power are closely interrelated: in such a framework, economic integration is only possible if it does not lead to an excessive
dependence, if it serves vital interests of the state, and if the trade partner is not perceived as a threat.12 relative gains from trade and security externalities
arising from economic integration can help sustain this argument: on the one hand, countries will only engage in trade if the partner’s relative gains are not
excessively high; on the other, trade will mainly occur between allies who will invest gains from trade in mutual security.13 taking either of these approaches, how
can the rising economic ties binding countries in the Asian region and in the world to China be explained? If China is perceived as a threat because of its assertive
interests, why are these countries not balancing the rising Chinese power by cutting these economic ties?14 Liberal theory could provide a more moderate
perspective: China
has not pursued aggressive objectives because it has been integrated into the global
economy. According to institutionalism, becoming part of international institutions and regimes
facilitated cooperation and understanding with rival countries. This strand of liberalism considers that issues concerning anarchy
and security can be overcome through cooperation, which is possible within international institutions where information is easier to acquire and transaction costs
are lower. Moreover,
considering interdependence liberalism, greater economic interdependence would
highly increase the costs of a possible conflict. Now that China’s economy is growing at double-digit
rates thanks to huge flows of FDI and the exports of cheap, labor-intensive goods, why would it try to
disrupt and challenge the system? Economic growth also fosters the emergence of domestic social groups, who profit from economic reforms
and greater openness and will favor even more liberalization and integration with the global economy. However, while liberals criticize realists by pointing out the
importance of institutions and economic incentives resulting from increased integration, realists in turn criticize liberals as being too utopian and not seeing that
China’s real intentions are aggressive in the long run. According to realist scholars, the supposed attitudinal change in China’s foreign policy is nothing but a “Charm
offensive.”15 this last critique highlights the problematic fact that deciphering a country’s intentions is indeed difficult—the more so given that China in particular
still has some strong territorial claims, feels victimized, and is ruled by a party seeking to legitimize itself internally, partly by drawing on nationalistic ideology.
Moreover, it is important to note that at the regional level China is not really binding itself to a given set of values or procedures, as all the regional forums it
participates in are discussion forums. This makes drawing conclusions about the efficacy of these institutions difficult. Before considering the last perspective,
constructivism, I would like to summarize the issues treated up to this point by citing the opinion of a constructivist scholar. Legro, in an article published in 2007,
points out that both
realism and liberalism are overly deterministic in that they do not leave room for
considering the effects of unpredictable events.16 More than predicting future behavior, constructivists explain China’s present
increased integration and moderate attitude within international organizations. They focus on the concept of socialization: China’s exposure to Western values,
decision-making processes, and behavioral procedures have completely changed the set of incentives the country faces. In
the end, this is what “the
ASEAN Way” is all about—integrating the People’s Republic of China in a regional framework, and thereby
encouraging the country to share a set of common values and views regarding regional security and the promotion of economic development.17 Liberalization of its
domestic economy and integration into the international system have indeed contributed to the development of new ideas regarding China’s foreign policy, such as
the “new Security Concept” and the preference for multilateralism, in order to attain a common, comprehensive, and cooperative kind of security.18 Constructivism
might seem appealing given its ability to explain why China has adopted a more moderate foreign policy stance, which is no longer guided by the exportation of
Communist revolution, and why the countries in the region have not engaged in balancing behavior. Nevertheless, this perspective fails to deliver a comprehensive
interpretation of China’s economic and security objectives. In particular, it fails to explain the prioritization of the goal of economic growth, which is arguably the
single most important determinant of the country’s foreign policy, both now and in the future. The
prioritization of economic growth has
been included in the CCP’s domestic agenda in order to ensure the country’s development and the
party’s survival; it has not only produced an agenda of gradual domestic political reforms, but also a new
attitude in the international arena— one guided by the need to ensure a stable and peaceful environment to allow for the country’s continued
economic prosperity. This development can hardly be linked to a this is mainly concerned with international relations and how complex regimes, based on specific
values, together with socialization dynamics can shape a country’s behavior. By focusing on the prioritization of economic objectives and the CCP’s survival, I am
adopting a different level of analysis from one of nation-states as main actors to one that focuses on nation states as domestic actors and looks at their incentives
and preferences. Such a change in the level of analysis allows perception into what makes China’s
foreign policy choices so unusual and
not ascribable to any particular theory or perspective. It also introduces the next section about the domestic situation. The
prioritization of economic development is linked to the lack of political reforms and the prospects of survival for the CCP.
pivot fails
Pivot can’t solve – it won’t ever be a true US priority.
Raimondo ‘14
Justin Raimondo is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. His is also the editorial director of Antiwar.com – “Obama’s
Asian Pivot Stumbles” – Antiwar.com – April 28, 2014 - http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/04/27/obamas-asian-pivotstumbles/
For those of us who wondered "whatever happened to the ‘Asian pivot?’" the answer is now in: it was
the diplomatic-strategic equivalent of vaporware, i.e. it was never a Serious Thing in the first place. For those not
familiar with the foreign policy wonk-speak, the Asian Pivot was supposed to have been a major turning point in
American foreign policy, a pivot away from the Middle East and Europe and toward the rising power of China. It
didn’t work out that way. First there was the Syrian diversion, in which the President threatened to bomb that country in
response to a ginned-up "crisis" – provoked by a false-flag chemical weapons attack staged by Turkey in cooperation with Syria’s Islamist rebels.
When that move fell flat on its face, the spotlight moved not to Asia but on to Europe – southeastern Europe, specifically,
where an American-sponsored regime-change operation in Ukraine was in progress. The backfiring of this little adventure, ending in the
Russian annexation of Crimea, has been an embarrassment for the administration, with an out-of-control "interim government" in Kiev stuffed
with dubious characters and a new cold war with Russia dominating the headlines. Now,
finally, the Americans are getting
around to their long-neglected "pivot" – but it looks like the President is tripping over himself in the
attempt to carry it out. His four-nation tour of our Asian protectorates was supposed to reassure everyone that Uncle Sam has their
backs: in the end, however, it wound up calling into question Washington’s willingness – and ability – to make good on its promises. The
credibility gap began to widen on Obama’s very first stop, Tokyo, where he declared that the US-Japanese security treaty covered Japan’s
administration of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands – a sprinkling of atolls claimed by both Tokyo and Beijing. But is the United States really going to
go to war with China over a motley collection of uninhabited atolls, most of which are underwater much of the time? The Japanese may be
forgiven for doubting it. That’s the reason for their current national debate over repealing the provision in the postwar Japanese constitution
that effectively prevents the country from having any kind of real military, including nuclear weapons. Washington is bluffing, and the Japanese
know it. Next stop – South Korea, where Obama immediately embroiled himself in a longstanding dispute over Korean "comfort women" forced
into sex slavery by Japanese occupation troops during World War II. Chastising the Japanese, and following this up with bromides about looking
to the future, his holier-than-thou riff satisfied no one: the Japanese were angered because he waited until after leaving Japan to make his
remarks – a kind of underhanded way of staking out his position. The Koreans weren’t satisfied either, because anything less than unconditional
support for the Korean position is insufficient. They’re still fighting World War II over there – not to mention reenacting the Korean war.
Standing next to South Korean President Park Guen-hye – daughter of former military dictator Park Chung-hee, who ruled the nation with an
iron fist from 1963 to 1979 – Obama stood pensively by as South Korea’s first woman chief executive railed against Pyongyang’s "provocations"
and threatened the North with unspecified retaliation if they detonated another nuclear device. (The North Koreans, in their response, outdid
Ms. Park by a couple of country miles.) Reaffirming America’s "unwavering" commitment to the defense of the South, the President planted yet
another tripwire on Asian soil. In Kuala Lumpur, the President waded into the missing airliner controversy, which was roiled by former Prime
Mahatir Mohamad’s remarks directed at Boeing, which he says should be held responsible for the disaster rather than Malaysian Airlines, the
state-owned carrier. This is yet another China-related issue: many of the passengers were Chinese, and their families are directing their anger at
the Malaysians, further exacerbating preexisting tensions over the Spratley islands question. The capstone of this triumphal tour is slated for
Monday, in the Philippines, where Benigno Aquino III and President Obama will hail the signing of a new military agreement that will allow for
an increased US military presence. After being kicked out of the country in 1992, it looks like the Americans will once again take up their old
post at Subic Bay. While the President made a point in Kuala Lumpur of reasserting his intent to implement the Asian pivot and refocus
attention on the region, Ukraine came up at every stop. In Tokyo he made a point of lecturing the Russians about their dependence on oil
wealth, mocking Moscow for its underlying weakness in spite of Putin’s Pyrrhic victory in Crimea. The subtext, as the Chinese read it: don’t try
this at home. If we’re going to have a new cold war with Russia then it wouldn’t be complete without a Moscow-Beijing alliance, now would it?
If we’re going to go retro, then why not go all the way? It’s plain to see where this little narrative is headed: first a series of learned disquisitions
on the New Eurasianism in The New Republic and the New York Review of Books, followed by a John Kerry "town hall" with the Dalai Lama
emceed by Miriam Elder. The contours of the emerging mythology are taking shape before our very eyes: the Eurasian "central powers" are a
new Axis of Evil, a fresh threat to world peace and Anglo-American hegemony emanating from the top of the world. Such myth-making has
pecuniary as well as political uses. If the US is now engaged in a two-front cold war against the Eurasian central powers, then the strategic
rationale for maintaining the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously – long the basis of our military posture – is revived and reinforced.
Guess we can’t cut the military budget after all. For all the folderol, the
so-called Asian pivot is really just a feint: we have
neither the ability nor does the Obama administration have the desire to confront China militarily. Coverage of Obama’s Asian trip
generally emphasized the decision to "skip" Beijing, yet the really significant omission on Obama’s itinerary was Taiwan.
goes nuclear
US-Sino war goes nuclear. Crisis management and hotlines won’t check
Lowther ‘13
Note: when this card has a line that reads “it says”, it is referencing a 42-page report by the Washington DC-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Ask your lab leaders about the CSIS and the PONI (Project on
Nuclear Issues) – several of them have worked for that organization and will have unique insights. The study at
hand was prepared by the CSIS’ Project on Nuclear Issues. The Tapiei Time article was written by William Lowther,
who is the Washington DC staff writer for that organization and he is citing a report by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 3-16-2013, “Taiwan could spark nuclear war: report,” Taipei Times,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211
“Although
Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military
Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the bases for
miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of suspicion,” the
report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would result in
a military or even nuclear response by the other party. To make things worse, “neither side seems to believe the
other’s declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very uncertain endeavor,
could be especially difficult in any conflict,” it says. Although conflict “mercifully” seems unlikely at this point, the report concludes that “it cannot be
ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or unlucky.” The report says: “ With both sides possessing and looking set to retain
formidable nuclear weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously dangerous and quite possibly devastating.”
2ac off case
topicality
t-development
Plan develops non-military safety zones
NBC 13 (December 15. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/bad-news-whales-dolphinsnavy-expand-sonar-testing-f2D11749987)
Some scientists
want the Navy to create safety zones that would guarantee no high-intensity sonar
activity near marine sanctuaries and areas with a high concentration of blue, fin and gray whales seasonally. "There are the
ocean equivalent of deserts where sonar exercises could be conducted which would be vastly safer," said
Lindy Weilgart, a biologist at Dalhousie University in Canada who doesn't receive any Navy funding.