Order is XT, ASPEC, Case, politics, China, Russia, Sweden
Taylor 5 - Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (Michael and Julie Howard, “Investing in Africa's future”, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)
USAID’s Bureau for Africa is responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating USAID’s development strategies and programs in sub-Saharan Africa.
a. PICs solve—they should PIC out of extra-T plank
b. Don’t reject the team—worst case, disregard extra-T planks
c. Potential abuse is judge intervention—it’s impossible to quantify abuse in particular instances
1.No resolutional basis—arbitrary specs are unpredictable and justify always making us specify one more thing—the plan would be 8 minutes long
2.We meet—specified USFG—only congress can appropriate funding
3.We meet—specified USAID—solves their process-focus education
4.Increases ground—they get more links by reading evidence on normal means—their interpretation is worse because hyper-specific plans generate unpredictable offense that moots generics
5.No right to agent ground—no reason to vote us down as long as we’re topical
6.Agent counterplans bad—
a.Topic specific education—generic process counterplans encourage generic debates—analytic education is inevitable and topic education prevents stale debate
b.Moots our entire case—running disads alone test overall plan desirability and solves ground loss
a. Magnitude—overpopulation is the only scenario for extinction—it makes environmental destruction, deforestation, and ozone depletion inevitable, that's Cote—they concede the precautionary principle d-rule calculus so even a risk and you vote aff, that’s World Bank
b. Timeframe and probability--Kenya's is a key flashpoint—recent election violence prove that overpopulation puts Kenya on the brink of state collapse, which escalates to great power wars over oil, that's Glick
c. Root cause—reducing overpopulation reduces the incentive for international competition--and upholding international law de-escalates all war because free speech prevents the mobilization of the body politic for military conflict, that's Dsouza
d. Systemic—half a million maternal deaths annually outweigh their one-shot impact
Population increasing, prefer our ev—
a. Africa specific—population is projected to triple
b. cites statistics by from qualified studies
c. their card has no warrant
We solve—USAID services empirically stabilize population growth through services, condoms, and counseling and will reduce unsafe abortions, that’s Cohen and Lasher
a.you can still believe that abortion is bad even if you’re taxed
b.taxation is inevitable now
c.doesn’t turn our advantage—our free speech and human right impacts aren’t deontological, they’re specific to NGOs monitoring rights violations by African governments
Recent election violence abated, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg, that’s CSM—plan solves the root cause of demographic conflicts—it’s not about election violence, but future conflict
Voluntary key—it’s provides culturally sensitive clinics and avoids stigmatization—empirically, no one will attend coercive clinics, that’s Spahn and Cohen
Gudorf wrong—consensus is on our side
Andreason 99 (Rod, 1999 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 769)
To its credit, the ICPD in Cairo explicitly rejected coercion in population planning programs." It concluded that coercive programs have caused serious violations of human rights. The Programme of Action includes several statements opposing the use of coercion.9 The Conference delegates are to be commended for stating opposition to at least the more blatant forms of coercion; however, subtle forms are not as likely to be eradicated. Unfortunately, some voices oppose the ICPD's more humane stance and still push for more coercive programs. One ICPD critic declared that, [T]o the extent that this agenda aims at totally non-coercive solutions to overpopulation, it is doomed from the start to some degree of failure. We have simply waited too long in that we do not have enough lead-time left to make totally voluntary means work.... . . . There can be little doubt that reductions of twenty-five to eighty percent will require some form of coercion.80 Fortunately, such voices appear to be in the minority. "If there were indisputable evidence that specific disasters would occur unless population growth rates were drastically and immediately curbed, strong measures might be warranted. But there is no such evidence."81 The Cairo Conference members took a significant step in the right direction. The results of dramatic drops in birthrates should cause them to take the next step: not promoting population reduction at all.
1.Non-unique—fifty billion in foreign aid last week, that’s KCCI
2.No internal link—unpopular legislation won’t make GOP switch their opposition on LOST—they wouldn’t backlash against themselves
3.Non-unique—their card says Senate should act, not that it will—there’s no GOP support for LOST in the status quo
4. Lost won’t pass and won’t be voted on until elections
World Magazine 1/26 (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13691)
The treaty requires 67 votes in the Senate for ratification, a high enough hurdle that opposition from a bloc of conservative senators kept Democrats from bringing LOST to the Senate floor for a vote late last year. Whether the Law of the Sea becomes the law of the land may depend on how many of those senators are still in office—and which presidential candidate is celebrating—after the November elections.
5.Empirically denied—many issues have come up since October, including a failed repeal of the gag rule, free trade, FISA, elections, economy, and Iraq—if all that didn’t knock LOST of the agenda, then plan only delays ratification, not blocks it
LOST will be decided on ideology, not politics—increasing multilateral spirit is key
Progress Report 7 (Oct, The Neoconservatives' New Fight, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/10/pr20071029)
With little notoriety, a major political storm is brewing over the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On one side, an impressive coalition has formed, uniting the Bush administration, business groups, environmentalists, oil companies, a large bipartisan majority of U.S. senators, and 155 different nations under one tent. On the other side, a small contingent of knee-jerk isolationists is threatening to sink a seemingly non-controversial treaty that would "create a system for negotiating drilling, mining, and fishing rights." Revealing their core distrust of multilateralism, a familiar cadre of right-wing voices such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, neconservative hawk Frank Gaffney, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and others are aggressively attempting to thwart passage of the UNCLOS treaty. "The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation," writes Scott Paul, deputy director of government relations for Citizens for Global Solutions. "Its champions detest all forms of international organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior." The same far-right ideologues who have argued that the United States should feel unencumbered by international law to go to war, torture, and pollute are now raising their heads in opposition to the UNCLOS treaty. For that reason, the convention is the "the perfect issue for progressives to rally around," writes The American Prospect's Kate Sheppard, because "it reveals the outrage from the outer edges of the right for what it really is: anti-cooperative isolationism that is both unfounded in fact and counter to American interests." Moreover, winning the battle over the Law of the Sea is an important step toward restoring America's international reputation and paving the path for future international agreements on climate change, weapons proliferation, and a host of other issues.
Plan changes ideology by building multilateral pressure and leadership
CRR 2k (http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_bushggr_violation.pdf)
The global gag rule causes foreign NGOs, and others, in foreign countries to scorn the United States for imposing restrictions on their right to democratic participation, free speech and reproductive self-determination.58 Foreign women’s groups are ostracizing foreign NGOs who cave in to USAID’s global gag rule requirement in order to obtain funding. The global gag rule only serves to foster anti-American sentiments, particularly related to U.S. foreign assistance programs around the world. A heightened anti-U.S. climate around the world only hampers the ability of the U.S. government to maintain its leadership role in international settings.
7. and, that’s an external heg good impact
Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
8. Biden turn— Plan is a concession from Bush to Biden
Feminist Daily 3 (July 10, Boxer Amendment to Reverse Global Gag Rule Passes Senate, http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7919)
Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Joseph Biden (D-DE), and Patty Murray (D-WA) as well as Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the amendment would allow nonprofit organizations around the world to receive USAID funds even if they provide information about abortions.
Working with Biden is more key than PC
Schlafly 9/21 – attourney, Masters in PolSci from Harvard, JD from Washington U Law School (Phyllis, Law of the Sea treaty doesn't hold water, http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/9494.html)
With all the critical problems facing America today, it's hard to see why President George W. Bush is wasting whatever is left of his political capital to partner with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is scheduled to hold a hearing loaded with pro-treaty witnesses and then try to sneak through ratification while the public is focused on other globalism and giveaway mischief.
9. Turn—plan restores US-Kenya relations key to fighting terrorism—stability is on the brink
WP 8 (1/7, Kenya 'critical' to U.S. military, http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NATION/405397742/1001&template=printart)
A destabilized Kenya would deprive the United States of one of its staunchest allies in Africa, because Nairobi since September 11 has provided military bases, communications networks and intelligence-sharing to prevent al Qaeda from making inroads on the continent. "For the eastern portion of Africa, Kenya is critical," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations on the Horn of Africa. "They are strategically located in the area bordering Somalia," he said. "They were critical for us in Somalia in the early 1990s. Without them, we could not have operated. They allowed us to use their bases while we were conducting operations in and out of Somalia, and they still allow us to use those bases today." A failed state in Kenya, as exists in Somalia, would erase "one of the top friendly militaries to the United States in Africa," the retired three-star general said. The prospect of a destabilized Kenya arose in recent weeks in the aftermath of a contested Dec. 27 election that kept President Mwai Kibaki in power. International observers reported ballot-counting irregularities. Street violence broke out in the capital of Nairobi, killing more than 300. Alarmed, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispatched her top African diplomat to Kenya to urge reconciliation between the opposing parties. U.S. envoy Jendayi E. Frazer met Saturday with Mr. Kibaki, who announced a power-sharing proposal in an effort to end the crisis. "What we have here is one of the most promising countries in Africa on the brink," said Michelle Gavin, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Kenya is not peripheral to the struggle against terrorism," she said. "Kenya has been a reliable partner."Ms. Gavin fears a destabilized Kenya would be "extending the failed state space already occupied by Somalia that has appeal for terrorists."
10. CIL solves benefits to LOST
WSJ 7 (11/3, A Sinkable Treaty, http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010820)
Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty. We also hear that the U.S. must have its proverbial "seat at the table" in negotiations over such claims. But the nations with a direct geographic Arctic claim ought to be able to cut a deal without giving Cuba or Zimbabwe a seat. America's historic experience with similar multinational bodies (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Commission) hardly justifies confidence that having a seat will enhance our influence, rather than constrain it. The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size, with no fewer than 320 articles and nine annexes. These cover everything from "Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship" (Article 27) to "Anadromous stocks" and "Catadromous Species" (Articles 65 and 66) to the "Jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber" (Article 187). Much of this is anodyne, but perhaps the Senators should read the fine print before voting. They might be surprised by what they find. Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities. The Administration says these are excluded from the treaty and, further, that the U.S. gets to decide what constitutes such activity. But then how to explain Article 20, which states that "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag." How will this affect the ability of U.S. submarines to gather intelligence in coastal waters or deploy special forces on hostile shores? Last we checked, a $1 billion submarine called the USS Jimmy Carter had been built precisely for that purpose. The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars--which some environmentalists say harm marine life--could run afoul of Article 196. This states that countries "shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control." Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is . . . not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis. Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation the treaty confers on the International Seabed Authority. The details of this innovation are buried in Article 13 of the treaty's third annex, and contain a mix of "production charges" and annual million-dollar "administrative" fees. Such measures are all but unprecedented for an international organization and have a potential for corruption, especially when the taxes can run as high as 70% of net proceeds. Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.
11.Not intrinsic—USFG can do plan and pass LOST
a.Resolutional basis—judge assumes the role of the entire USFG
b.Best model—assuming control over future actions allows in-depth focus on unavoidable costs
c.Justified by counterplans that test advantage intrinsicness
1. China relations now
UPI 7 (11/30, U.S.-China relations sour over Taiwan, http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/30/us-china_relations_sour_over_taiwan/6775/print_view/)
A diplomatic row is brewing between China and the United States over the Bush administrations offer to build-up Taiwan's anti-missile artillery. China canceled a port visit by the USS Kitty Hawk following a refusal by Beijing to deny port access to U.S. minesweeping ships seeking shelter during a storm. Chinese officials reversed the move against the USS Kitty Hawk on "humanitarian grounds" but said China had "grave concern" about weapons sales to Taiwan, the International Herald Tribune said Friday. Spokesmen said Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama affected U.S.-Chinese relations as well. Top U.S. officials expressed concern recently over China's increased defense spending following announcements to upgrade Taiwan's Patriot missile batteries for nearly $940 million. Beijing officials contested the move saying it posed a strategic threat to China.
2. NGOs turn—
a.Plan trades off with US aid to governments
Reece-Evans 3 – Masters Thesis from Western Washington University (Linsay, Thinking Locally, Acting Globally: The Implications of the Global Gag Rule, p. 76)
Several phone and email interviews conducted with representatives of NGOs also indicated that while the direct effects of the GGR may be difficult to classify, many indirect effects exist. One frequently mentioned result was a decrease in the standard of reproductive health services. According to Barbara Crane of IPAS, when an NGO refuses to sign the GGR, USAID must find other service providers to fund. This often leads to funding being channeled into government programs rather than NGOS, which leads to a reduction in quality of services as government programs tend to be less effective and less concerned with long term care, such as is required with contraceptive methods like Norplant and IUDS. Another effect of USA]ID's funding changes is that of lag time; while new providers are trained, existent services may be inadequate or unavailable. According to Crane, when organizations lose USAID funding, they also lose a substantial source of technical support, such as training, manuals, and publishing, that is unlikely to be replaced.
b.China derives influence from African governments, but doesn’t care about NGOs
Gill 6 (Bates, Center for Strategic and International Studies, “China’s Expanding Role in Africa Implications for the United States”, 12/1, Report of the CSIS Delegation to China on China-Africa-U.S. Relations, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/chinainafrica.pdf)
The Chinese approach is neither familiar nor well equipped to engage with the emergent and increasingly vocal and influential nongovernmental groups in Africa. Following the end of the Cold War, as the political environment in Africa liberalized, incipient grass roots groups, suddenly less constrained, began to proliferate. As the 1990s advanced, their expertise and presence began to be seen across multiple sectors: electoral preparations and monitoring; independent media; and advocacy for economic reform, human rights, protection of vulnerable populations, and empowerment of women, among others. By the end of the 1990s, the nongovernmental sector was firmly established in many countries as an essential partner in any national policymaking deliberations. Indeed, the nongovernmental sector began to seed smart, reformist talent to serve government reform efforts and became central to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) peer review process in places like Ghana and Kenya. 5. China’s policymakers are confident that a state-centric approach to Africa will build strategically on Beijing’s core strengths and align with the stated preferences of African countries. Beijing’s principal and highly preferred means of engagement with Africa is through official government-to-government relations.
3. No war
Korb 2 – CFR vice president (Lawrence, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4675/does_chinas_rapid_military_buildup_threaten_us_interests_in_east_asia_no.html)
China's participation in the global economy, its stake in regional stability and even its successful bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing are reasons enough for China to avoid confrontations with the United States over Taiwan, not to mention the fact that they would lose a military struggle. In the short term, in spite of all the aggressive blustering by Chinese and Taiwanese politicians, it appears that they both wish to maintain the status quo for the foreseeable future.
4. No escalation
Mandelbaum 99 (Michael, Is Major War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/)
Major war is obsolete in the way that slavery, dueling, or foot-binding are obsolete. It is a social practice that was once considered normal, useful, even desirable, but that now seems odious. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of economic activity is obsolete. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible, indeed a superior, way of achieving a socially desirable goal, but that changing conditions have made ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.” Why is this so? Most simply, the costs have risen and the benefits of major war have shriveled. The costs of fighting such a war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this century of nuclear weapons, but they would have been high even had mankind never split the atom. As for the benefits, these now seem, at least from the point of view of the major powers, modest to non-existent. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat, if not extinct. War is no longer regarded by anyone, probably not even Saddam Hussein after his unhappy experience, as a paying proposition. And as for the ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past, these are in steep decline. Here the collapse of communism was an important milestone, for that ideology was inherently bellicose. This is not to say that the world has reached the end of ideology; quite the contrary. But the ideology that is now in the ascendant, our own, liberalism, tends to be pacific. Moreover, I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. One of these is the rise of democracy, for democracies, I believe, tend to be peaceful.
1.Non-unique—their own evidence proves Russia is backlashing against the US so relations low
2. US Russia relations lowBremmer 8 – president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy (Ian, 2/13, Russia's Confidence Ignores Potential Long-Term Woes, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/russias_confidence_ignores_pot.html)
The list of issues that have soured Russia's relations with the United States is a long one. Russia's withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, its vow to veto any U.N. resolution that recognizes Kosovo's independence, and the Kremlin's furious reaction to U.S. plans to place missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic are simply the latest conflicts to divide the two governments.
3. Empirically denied—if relations were high, Putin would not be coddling up to Iran’s nukes now 4.Cross apply the turn—we decrease USAID influence with African governments, that’s Reece-Evans—their link is based on perception, so Russia would perceive it as US ceding influence with governments to China
5.Turn—we make USAID less focused on democracy and more on family planning
a.we’re not democracy promotion
b.USAID does not inherently promote democracy—we use it solely for family planning centers
c.their internal link assumes Western election-reform aid TO RUSSIA—we set up health centers in Africa
1.Vote against conditionality—
a.Kills stable offense—block makes 2AC time key
b.Erodes policy comparison—regression to least-covered option is not real world
c.Counter-interpretation dispo solves their offense
2.NGOs say no to Sweden because of gag rule
Pantin 1 – WEnews correspondent (Laurence, 02/23/01, Europeans May Match Funds Cut By Global Gag Rule, http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=458)
Susan Cohen, assistant director for Policy Development at the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington, D.C. said that, if history is any indication, family planning clinics that counsel their patients about abortion will chose to accept U.S. funds in order to keep their doors open. But the trade-off is clear: They will have to keep their mouths shut about the possibility of terminating unwanted or hazardous pregnancies. "The EU cannot help them with that because by virtue of the definition of the policy," Cohen said, "once a non-governmental organization decides to accept the U.S funds, it cannot work with any European government or any other donor, who might want to replace the funding or continue the funding they may have had for their abortion-related work."
3.Say No is a disad to the counterplan—switching to other donors takes decades and wastes precious resources, that’s Cohen
4.Perm do both
a.net benefits are double solvency and Say No disad
b. solves perception links because it’s perceived as multilateral aid
A.NGO networking—gag rule causes a chilling effect that stifles all pro-choice speech—NGO lobbying of African governments is vital to legalize abortion in Africa, that’s Neier
B.Enforcement—only USAID has key experience, training, and monitoring skills to ensure stability and quality of services, that’s Cohen
C.Culture—only USAID has been doing this longer than any other country and coordinates effectively with locals to provide culturally sensitive strategies, that’s Shepherd—the impact is that no one will go to their clinics
D.Kenya—their government models the gag rule as an excuse to prosecute abortion clinics
E.Reproductive health model—the global family planning movement is shifting towards a population control model as a result of the gag rule, that’s Sinding—US leadership is key to overcome the chilling effect and set a model for a reproductive health approach—this sets global precedents against coercive family planning—coercion turns solvency because it fails and only stigmatizes clinics, that’s Spahn
6.Broad RH definition inhibits Swedish aid sustainability
PAI 7 (http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Paying_their_Fair_Share/SWEDEN.shtml)
Sweden’s financial allocations to population programs are difficult to assess. Reasons for this difficulty include the government’s broad definition of sexual and reproductive health and rights; the devaluation of the Swedish currency relative to the dollar; and a shift in aid mechanisms from more focused projects to sector-wide approaches.
7.Counterplan doesn’t specify NGOs so normal means is UNFPA
PAI 7 (http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Paying_their_Fair_Share/SWEDEN.shtml)
Over the past decade, Sweden has consistently channeled 40 to 60 percent of its population aid through multilateral organizations. Organizations supported by Sweden include UNFPA, UNAIDS, and the WHO human reproduction research program. However, Sweden’s U.S. dollar contribution to UNFPA fell from $18.4 million in 1993 to $15.1 million in 1997. The Swedish contribution also declined in national currency terms from 1994 and 1997, but then rose slightly in 1998. This small increase, however, is likely to be lost in exchange rate conversion.
8.Counterplan won’t reach NGOS
Crane 4 (Barbara B Crane and Jennifer Dusenberry, Reproductive Health Matters, “Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: the US Global Gag Rule”, Volume 12, Issue 24, November 2004, Pages 128-137, Science Direct)
In some countries, NGOs that lose USAID funding, such as the Family Guidance Association in Ethiopia, eventually find other donors. That too can be problematic in that some bilateral donors who have funded NGOs in the past have changed their funding philosophy, with health funds now channelled to governments under sector-wide approaches or more recently overall budget support. Moreover, donors who have been willing to step in and fill the gap for an NGO in response to the Gag Rule may not be prepared to provide sustained funding. International agencies such as UNFPA cannot be of much help as they mainly direct their funds through governments.
9.No solvency—cross-x proves their card doesn’t exist
10.Fiat should be limited to the USFG —
a.Resolutional basis—topic implies judge only has US jurisdiction—what another country could do isn’t a reason to reject US action
b.Best decision model—no literature assumes a decision-maker that has choice between US and other nations—this makes literature comparison impossible and creates artificial education
c.Infinite regress—thousands of actors overstretch aff research and skews in-depth case discussion