Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

Exclusively China CPExclusively China CP......................................................................................................................1

Summary......................................................................................................................................2

China CP Ans – Climate Change.................................................................................................3

Exclusively China CP Ans – SCS Specific..................................................................................5

China CP Ans – North Korea Specific.........................................................................................7

China CP Ans – Human Rights Specific......................................................................................9

China CP Ans – Generic Cooperation Add On..........................................................................12

1

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

Summary The NegativeThis file is a generic counterplan that can be read against almost any affirmative on the topic. Instead of having the United States and China cooperate over the action of the plan, the counterplan would have China do it unilaterally

To win the counterplan, one needs to focus on three important issues –

First, the plan and counterplan are different. If the 1ac plan text says United States federal government and with China then it is obviously a different action. Winning that argument distinguishes the plan from the counterplan.

Second, the counterplan has the same effect as the plan. This is what is often called the “solvency deficit” debate. Does the counterplan solve all of the same advantages, to the same degree, as the affirmative? The main arguments against the counterplan will be discussed below. However, the focus of debating the counterplan should be on winning that the China acting alone (or unilaterally) is sufficient to solve the specific advantages the affirmative isolates.

Third, the counterplan needs to have a net benefit. The Japan disad would be the most common net benefit. By acting alone, the counterplan would be able to avoid the US angering Japan and hurting their alliance. Sometimes there will be an internal net benefit that says that absent the counterplan, the AFF solve their advantages. These are specific to each AFF.

The AffirmativeBeating the counterplan consists of winning one of the three arguments that are discussed above: the counterplan is no different than the plan, the counterplan doesn’t solve one or more of the advantages of the 1ac, or there is no net benefit to the counterplan.

The main “solvency deficit” arguments for the counterplan will center around cooperation being key. With large issues like global warming, China alone isn’t enough and we need to share technology to have more effective solutions.

2

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – Climate Change

(__) Prefer experts – Cooperation ensures collaboration and tech innovation Gillis, New York Times reporter, 15

(Justin Gillis, 12/5/15, “If China Doesn't Cooperate, Is There Any Hope?,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/can-we-do-anything-without-chinas-cooperation)

Any country could make the argument that it alone cannot solve climate change. That is true, but beside the point - it

is just another way of saying that all countries are responsible. So the problem cannot be solved without global action. China's emissions are now twice those of the United States, but it still looks to the United States and to Europe for technical innovation - and the Chinese leadership is paying close attention to whether the United States is serious about cutting emissions . Experts with longstanding contacts in China believe that the more ambitious the United States is, the more ambitious the Chinese will be. These experts also believe that strong climate goals in rich countries will help create the political conditions for broad global action. Moreover, such goals will encourage industry in those countries to develop low-carbon technologies , which could then be sold to the rest of the world. In that sense, climate change is a huge business opportunity.

(__) Trust DA – The AFF is key to reversing a culture of distrust around US-China relations – the counterplan makes extinction inevitableReynolds, Foreign Policy Analyst, 16

(Ben Reynolds is a writer and foreign policy analyst based in New York. His commentary has appeared in a number of forums, including The Diplomat, Russia Today, and AAJ; 6/30/16, “Climate Change Outcomes of the 2016 Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” China US Focus, http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/climate-change-outcomes-of-the-2016-strategic-and-economic-dialogue/)

More than anything, the challenge of climate change should highlight the absolute necessity of U.S.- China cooperation and the extraordinary dangers of a deepening rivalry . Climate change poses a potentially existential threat to contemporary society . The U.S. and China are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide, and some scientists have suggested that a strong enough pact between the two countries would be enough to put the world back on track to relative climate stability. But the changes necessary to achieve climate stability will require painful compromises and sacrifices , neither of which will be feasible if the world’s largest emitters view each other with suspicion . The strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China continues to deepen, and this trend seems likely to continue under a presumptive Clinton administration. Yet, because of

the challenge of climate change, we need the U.S. and China to embrace unprecedented levels of cooperation now more than ever. There are few historical examples of the leaders of competing great powers embracing peaceful cooperation to secure the common good. It will take a serious reorientation to ensure that we place the fate of our children before the struggle for hegemony.

3

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – Climate Change(__) Timeframe DA – The plan creates a transition to smarter agriculture while the counterplan ensures that China reverts back to its old production habitsHongzhou, Associate Research Fellow, 2015 (zhang, the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore., “China-US Climate Change Cooperation: Beyond Energy”, http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-us-climate-change-cooperation-beyond-energy/)

In the case of China, the current economic slowdown, if it persists, could force the country to rethink its ambitious plans for carbon emission reduction. For years, the bottom line for China on climate change mitigation has been to strike a balance between economic development and climate concerns. While in recent years, amid rapidly worsening pollution, China has been more willing to take decisive action such as breaking away from cheap coal and closing down energy intensive factories to curb domestic greenhouse gas emission at the expense of economic growth. However, it does not mean that climate change concerns will prevail over economic development. With hundreds of millions of people still living in poverty and per-capita incomes lagging far behind those of the developed

countries, China’s development needs are immense and the government’s top priority is to maintain stable growth. Therefore, if the economic situation in China worsens, it will be no surprise if the Chinese government retreats from efforts to curb emissions in favor of stabilizing economic growth. Agriculture and Food Systems In seeking potential areas to expand Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation, agriculture offers great potential. For starters, agriculture is both a major contributor to and victim of climate change. On the one hand, while the exact contribution of the agricultural and related sectors to total greenhouse gas emission remains debatable, studies show

that emissions generated by agricultural and related sector activities could be much higher than the public perceives: The overall food system could contribute 25-50 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions . Therefore, reducing agriculture’s GHG emission should be central to limiting climate change. On the other hand, agricultural production and the food system are highly vulnerable to climate change. Certainly, global warming is not uniformly problematic – it could lead to improved productivity in certain tropical regions and extend the cropping period or allow multiple harvests in temperate zones. For the world as whole, however, climate change

poses a dire threat to agricultural production and global food security, an assertion widely supported by findings from numerous studies. Climate change will trigger or exacerbate global food insecurity, which might eventually lead to hunger, famine, social unrest, the rise of terrorism, and refugees. Next, as the biggest agricultural producers and traders, the U.S. and China are also among the world’s top agricultural emitters. This highlights the critical role the two countries have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the farm sector. Moreover, unlike Canada and Russia, where agriculture may well benefit from global warming, the impacts of climate change on the agricultural sectors of both China and the United States are negative. Extreme weather brings uncertainty to future

food production and threatens food security. China and United States are already deeply locked in the food-climate nexus, given their strong agricultural ties. Those close ties bring both opportunities and challenges to the efforts of the two countries to deal with climate change . On the one hand, given that China’s farm sector is heavily reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical inputs and is dominated small household farming, importing soybeans, corn, and other agricultural products from the United States, apart from contributing to China’s food security, allows China to implement its afforestation and land restoration plans, which are important steps in reducing greenhouse emissions in China. On the other hand, close agricultural ties also mean that the climate impacts in one country will have repercussions for the other. To take a somewhat more obscure agricultural product, alfalfa, as an example, the United States, the largest alfalfa producer in the world, accounted for nearly 95 percent of China’s total alfalfa imports in 2012. As alfalfa requires substantial volumes of water, the Sino-U.S. alfalfa trade has come in for criticism amid a historic drought in Californian the largest alfalfa producing region in the United States. The potential

climate impact of the evolving Sino-U.S. agricultural ties would not be limited to those two countries alone; rather, the whole word could be affected. The United S tates has long been the biggest supplier of agricultural products to China. Increasingly, however, there are concerns in China that

an over reliance on U.S. for food will jeopardize China’s food security and even its national security. Thus, China has been pursuing a diversification strategy. This is especially the case with soybeans. In the late 1990s, China imported more than 80 percent of its soybeans from the United States; now, it is importing more soybeans from Latin American countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina. In 2014, the U.S. share of China’s total soybean imports declined to about 40 percent. While diversifying imports away from the U.S. is beneficial to China’s food security, it has negative repercussions for global climate change mitigation because China’s soaring soybean imports from Latin America are contributing to deforestation in the Amazon, considered to be the biggest carbon sink in the world. As deforestation progresses, it releases carbon, with a

direct impact on the entire world, helping to drive climate change. The U.S. and China should prioritize agricultural and food security in their bilateral efforts to combat climate change. The two countries could play a major role in shifting agriculture from being part of the problem to being part of the solution to climate change, by expanding bilateral agricultural trade and investment cooperation, stepping up efforts in agricultural research and technology, and strengthening global food systems .

4

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

Exclusively China CP Ans – SCS Specific (__)(__) Military to military exchanges are critical for harmonized policy engagementJisi, Dean of the School of International Studies, 2011

(Wang, peking university, Strategic Security Dialogue puts Military Exchange in the Framework of General Strategic Trust, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/strategic-security-dialogue-puts-military-exchange-in-the-framework-of-general-strategic-trust/)

A3: I think the military to military relationship is very crucial in bilateral relations between United States and China. But I think also it is an indicator of the overall US-China relationship. And military relationships have been a sensitive issue between the two sides. If you go back to the history, both sides have used military to military exchange as an instrument to show their anger, or to show their anxiety in the pervious crisis: EP3 air collision crisis, and even before when you know, Li Denghui visited United States in 1995, China showed its anger and also suspended military to military exchanges. So I think this kind of situation was not very conducive to the current US-China relationship, although we can understand the past problems. The more important thing for this dialogue is that the military to military relationship not a simply bilateral military to military per se, but is put into the general framework of strategic trust. And I think it is also very important for the civilian side on both sides, to know more about the military thinking, their perceptions of each other, their ideas about the over all relationship. So I think it is very very important for both the civilian side and the military side to get to know each other. The military to military people sit together, but they also sit together with the civilians, with the economic policy makers, with political policy makers, with those who have little knowledge about the military to military relationship. So it is very very important for them to do so.

(__) The AFF maintains growth while strengthening relations – Unilateral action clouds political judgementAuner, WPR Reporter, 2014

(Eric, “Expanded Military Ties With China May Be of Limited Utility for U.S.”, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/13709/expanded-military-ties-with-china-may-be-of-limited-utility-for-u-s)

As with other aspects of the U.S.-China relationship, military ties between the two countries are underdeveloped, and China remains wary of U.S. intentions. But the Obama administration, which has its own worries about China, appears to believe that greater cooperation and consultation can produce gains for U.S. interests. Standing alongside Chinese Minster of Defense Chang Wanquan during a joint press conference in Beijing last week, Hagel welcomed the rise of a “stable and prosperous China.” To enhance military-to-military relations between the two countries, Hagel said , the United States believes “its approach should be to build a sustained and substantive dialogue to

5

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

AT: Exclusively China CP – SCS Specific

(__) The AFF maintains growth while strengthening relations – Unilateral action clouds political judgementAuner, WPR Reporter, 2014

(Eric, “Expanded Military Ties With China May Be of Limited Utility for U.S.”, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/13709/expanded-military-ties-with-china-may-be-of-limited-utility-for-u-s)

As with other aspects of the U.S.-China relationship, military ties between the two countries are underdeveloped, and China remains wary of U.S. intentions. But the Obama administration, which has its own worries about China, appears to believe that greater cooperation and consultation can produce gains for U.S. interests. Standing alongside Chinese Minster of Defense Chang Wanquan during a joint press conference in Beijing last week, Hagel welcomed the rise of a “stable and prosperous China.” To enhance military-to-military relations between the two countries, Hagel said , the United States believes “its approach should be to build a sustained and substantive dialogue to deepen practical cooperation in areas of common interest.” Referring obliquely to a number of outstanding disputes between the U.S. and China, such as U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Hagel added that there is a need “to manage competition and manage differences through openness and communication.” Rep. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, points to the advantages and limitations of the kind of military-to-military exchanges Hagel outlined. They “can do much to provide context and clarity to the ongoing security relationship between Washington and Beijing,” says Forbes. He cautions, however, that the United States “must never allow these exchanges to undermine our core interest in a peaceful, prosperous Asia or to view such contacts as a panacea.”

6

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – North Korea Specific (__)(__) The Counterplan destroys national security while the AFF cements legitimacy Lee, Research Fellow at Sejong Institute, 2016

(Seong-Hyon, “What New Approach Should the U.S. and China Take to North Korea?”, https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-new-approach-should-us-and-china-take-north-korea)

Thanks, John, for initiating a very rich and timely discussion. John appears to echo a common American worldview that looks at the North Korean issue under the canopy of America’s China policy. Under this frame, Washington in fact yields to the notion that North Korea belongs to the Chinese sphere of influence. Thus, when North Korea engineers trouble, Americans blame it on China. It’s like when a dog bites a man, the man blames it on the dog’s owner, not the dog. This mentality helps us to understand why the U.S. came up with the “China card” in dealing with North Korea. Washington “outsourced” the task of dealing with North Korea to China, by inviting the latter to host the Six Party Talks, a multilateral platform aimed at North Korea’s denuclearization. With that, the U.S. settled down in the back seat, while China was elbowed into the driver’s seat. Every time the car veered off course, the driver got scolded. The widespread “North Korea is China’s problem to fix” narrative is a brilliant piece of U.S. public diplomacy that warrants serious soul-searching, because relying on the tactic of buck-passing goes against the very spirit of what America stands for. America’s North Korea policy, dubbed “strategic patience,” is a convenient recipe for ignoring North Korea, while Washington points fingers at China. Washington has been avoiding negotiations with Pyongyang, delegating the task to Beijing. China sees it as unfair. It’s in fact up to America, not China, to show leadership. Doing so serves American national interest. It’s Biblical, too. Washington’s current policy is unpatriotic because it doesn’t serve American national interest. Globally speaking, America’s national interest has two pillars; one is to defend its current superpower status, the other is to safeguard its credibility. During his State of the Union address, Obama proclaimed: “When it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead. They call us.” Obama was talking about American credibility. When people trust America and its leadership, America can continue its leading superpower status by sustaining the current global governance system, which it established and thus suits American interests. The world is watching how America deals with the North Korean challenge. America’s credibility and leadership is at stake. Washington’s current policy of outsourcing the challenge to China is un-Biblical. Sure, dealing with a regime like North Korea is a dirty business, requiring patience and long-term commitment. It could be domestically unpopular too. So, it’s not everyone’s challenge. It takes a special country. It takes special leadership. And that’s America. In the New Testament’s Galatians 6:9, it says: “Let us not become weary in doing good.” After two decades of frustrating, fruitless negotiations, Washington felt disgusted with the Pyongyang regime and humiliated for the very idea of sitting across the negotiating table with North Koreans. But it cannot outsource the challenge to a country like China. America should lead the way.

7

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

AT: Exclusively China CP – North Korea Specific (__) US and China cooperation is key to quell a North Korean Nuclear war Stefan, Senior Fellow at EastWest Institute, 16 (Franz, 19/16“Sino-US Cooperation Over North Korea Is Now More Important Than Ever “ http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/sino-us-cooperation-over-north-korea-is-now-more-important-than-ever/)

Apart from this apparent confluence of Chinese and US interests, there are three reasons why both countries need to cooperate more tightly than ever on managing the ongoing crisis on the Korean Peninsula. First, given the Republic of Korea (ROK) government’s uncompromising stance with respect to North Korean provocations, there will be an increased chance of more severe inter-Korean crises occurring over the next two years. (There will be little chance of a Korean-led détente initiative until the end of the presidency of Park Geun-hye in 2018, given the government’s current

policies.) Second, notwithstanding repeated calls for putting a “military option” back on the table, a large-scale joint US-ROK military operation against North Korea is increasingly becoming less realistic. Third, ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula have the potential to undermine trust and increase military competition between China and the United States, a development that is set to detrimentally affect overall Sino-US relations and cannot be in the interest of either party.Seoul, under the government of Park Geun-hye and after repeated provocations from the North, has

abandoned engagement and stepped up its bellicose rhetoric and uncompromising stance against North Korea. Over the last decades, both sides have mastered the game of bringing tensions to the precipice and then pulling back. However, as tensions rise, there is less and less flexibility in this perennial brinkmanship with both sides in danger of losing control during a future confrontation as martial propaganda and provocations will reach unprecedented heights. In addition, there is little understanding how much control Kim Jong-un genuinely exercises over the military and the party and whether they would stand down in the face of South Korean provocations when given the order by the supreme leader.Certain South Korean policies have also helped to further fuel tensions. For example, ever since 2010, South Korea has implemented a “disproportional response” theory of deterrence. As John Delury, a professor at Yonsei University, explained in an interview with The Diplomat: “Seoul has proclaimed that for every one shot fired by the North, the South will hit back with 3 to 5 times greater force. That principle for deterring the North along the contested maritime border seems to apply to the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone] as well.” This concept of deterrence increases the chance of an escalating spiral of attacks and counter-attacks that could eventually lead to full-scale war.A military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula has the potential to once more draw in both the United States and China. Beijing is committed to the defense of the North under the 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, whereas the United States and South Korea have kept a mutual defense treaty since 1953. However, China has repeatedly said that in a conflict provoked by the North, it would not uphold its treaty obligations. (Indeed, according to a

US scholar, China has tried to have the clause requiring it to defend North Korea revoked.)Any type of large-scale military operation on the Korean Peninsula will almost certainly involve large-scale destruction of human life and property. As the commander of US forces in South Korea, General Curtis Scaparrotti recently testified: “Given the size of the forces and the weaponry involved, this would be more akin to the Korean War and World War II–very complex, probably high casualty.” North Korean artillery could shell Seoul with thousands of rounds within the first hour of a full-scale war.

8

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – Human Rights Specific (__) The United States is key – the counterplan cements non-compliance and American apathyPhillips, Professor of History, 2012 (Steven, Towson University, “Human rights must be at the center of U.S.-China policy,” Baltimore Sun, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-china-20120507-story.html)

For several reasons, human rights must remain a significant part of America's China policy: •First, enhancing America's military capabilities in the region may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Simply reacting to China's military build-up will create an arms race that no one wants. Through greater attention to human rights, the United States can focus on what it is for, rather than whom

it is against. Promotion of human rights can be one non-military way to promote regional cooperation. •Second, when Americans vacillate on human rights, it fosters the idea that the United States and its ideals are in decline . The United States is one of the few nations willing and able to openly rebuke China on human rights or other issues. If support for human rights in China is lukewarm in Washington, it will become almost non-existent elsewhere . Human rights should be a key component of American "soft power."

(__) The US has leverage over China and now is the time to use it – we can get China to do what we want King, political columnist, 2012 (Ruth, citing Gordon Chang, JD @ Cornell, “WHAT OBAMA NEEDS TO SAY TO CHINA’S NEXT SUPREMO: GORDON CHANG,” http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012 /02/14/what-obama-needs-to-say-to-chinas-next-supremo-gordon-chang/)Vice President Xi Jinping, slated to become China’s next supremo, arrives at the White House tomorrow. We have been told [1] that the Obama administration will

not “sacrifice the important issues for the sake of having a comfortable visit,” yet there is a sense of pessimism in Washington about America’s ability to persuade China to move in the right direction. It seems that everyone here believes that Beijing owns the century and controls our destiny. The truth,

however, is that we have the ability to get China to do what we want. Why? Because at the moment the Chinese economy is faltering — most indicators are pointing to low single-digit growth and “hot money” is

gushing out of the country — and Washington holds the key to rescuing it. China at the moment is in trouble because, among other things, export growth, once the engine of its economic “miracle,” has been on a long downward trend. Last month, exports fell 0.5% on a year-to-year basis and 14.2% month-on-month, a performance well below consensus estimates. That’s a problem for Beijing because it is dependent on sales abroad to keep Chinese

factories humming and workers employed, and the American market is extraordinarily important to them. The general narrative is that, when the global downturn hit in 2008, Chinese exporters started selling more to other markets and became less reliant on tapped-out American consumers. The facts tell the opposite story, however. In 2008, 90.1% of China’s overall trade surplus related to sales to the United States. That already staggering figure increased to 115.7% in 2009, and 149.2% in 2010. And last year? Last year, the figure was a simply unbelievable 190.5%. In 2011, China’s trade surplus against the United States hit $295.5 billion, easily surpassing the 2010 record of $273.1 billion. It would seem, on first glance, that China’s dependence on the

American market cannot continue this sharp upward trend. Nonetheless, we have to remember that the reason for increasing Chinese reliance on us was that factory orders from the 27-nation European Union, China’s largest export market, collapsed in the second half of the year. As a result, Chinese factory owners began to flee because they could not pay their debts,

some of them even committed suicide, and worker protests flared. This year, it appears, the drought of European orders to China will last the entire year. It’s possible, therefore, that sales to the U.S. will account for an even larger share of China’s total.

All this means that President Obama has enormous leverage over Xi Jinping’s Communist Party,

whose legitimacy depends on the continual delivery of prosperity. So despite what everyone here thinks, we can get China to stop its cyber attacks on us, end its harassment of American vessels on international waters,

cease its threats over a dozen issues. We can even pressure the Chinese to withdraw their support for the Iranian regime and scale back help to North Korea. Xi has adopted an unusually conciliatory tone to America before his visit, and his colleagues in Beijing have toned down their verbal assaults on

us in recent weeks. They know that, in fact, they are playing a weak hand. And they know the meaning of “190.5%.” We have the leverage over China. They only issue is whether we have the political will to use it.

9

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – Human Rights Ext(__) Cooperation is key – It spill over Neier, President Emeritus of the Open Society Foundations, 2013

(Aryeh, Human rights activist and and recipient of seven honorary degrees, www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/06/can-the-us-help-advance-human-rights-in-china/276841)

I think it is important to recognize the urgency of attempting to advance human rights in the U.S.-China relationship. First and foremost, it is urgent because such a vast number of persons in China itself are deeply affected. Second, it is urgent because it is impossible to promote h uman r ights globally if there is no advance in human rights in China .

10

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

Exclusively China CP Ans – Human Rights Specific (__) Transparency DA – Even if they make reforms, there is not a free flow of information to tackle internal corruption – China alone fails Transparency International 2014 (Anti-corruption: Changing China, http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/anti_corruption_changing_china)

China is now well into the second year of its aggressive war against corruption. The ruling Communist Party has committed thousands of its members to the cause and put many more behind bars. But as Wang Qishan – a senior leader of the Central Commission for Discipline and Inspection, the agency mandated to tackle corruption – admitted last week, the Party faces severe challenges to change behaviours that have become so much a part of everyday life. From the perspective of an anti-corruption organisation, this is not surprising. Despite the fact that there has been a widespread information campaign to denounce corruption and teach integrity , there is a legitimate concern about how the Communist Party’s war on corruption is being waged . There is a lack of independence of the judiciary, a lack of clarity on what constitutes corruption, and a lack of transparency in the process of prosecuting wrongdoing. Hundreds of people have been arrested for corruption from low-level civil servants to top party officials and big multinationals like GlaxoSmithKline have been prosecuted. It is difficult not to see some of the high-profile arrests as being politically motivated. Too often corruption investigations take place behind closed doors , often in specially designed, padded interrogation centres, and more often than not, those arrested confess. Anti-corruption activists can find themselves the subject of investigation simply for speaking out on asset declarations. Government officials simply disappear from their day jobs when the corruption police show up and never return to work. Suicide rates are on the rise and the number of people fleeing China because of corruption is increasing. This week the authorities announced the confession of one of China’s top generals following a bribery scandal. The greater number of stories in the national and international press about corruption in the past year in China is only likely to increase people’s perception that corruption is rampant, even if the authorities are seen to be tackling it.

11

Exclusively China Counterplan (Aff Ans) SLUDL/NAUDL 2016-2017JV & Varsity Only

China CP Ans – Generic Cooperation Add On

(__) U.S.-China cooperation is crucial to address all global challenges. Cohen Chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group et al. 2009

(William, a strategic business consulting firm, served as Secretary of Defense from 1997 until 2001, served in the U.S. Senate from 1979 to 1997 and in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1979, et al., 2009 (“Smart Power in U.S.-China Relations,” Smart Power in U.S.-China Relations: A Report of the CSIS Commission on China, March, Available Online at http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090304_mcgiffert_uschinasmartpower_web.pdf, p. 1)

The evolution of Sino-U.S. relations over the next months, years, and decades has the potential to have a greater impact on global security and prosperity than any other bilateral or multilateral arrangement. In this sense, many analysts consider the U.S.-China diplomatic relationship to be the most influential in the world. Without question, strong and stable U.S. alliances provide the foundation for the protection and promotion of U.S. and global interests. Yet within that broad framework, the trajectory of U.S.-China relations will determine the success, or failure, of efforts to address the toughest global challenges : global financial stability , energy security and climate change , nonproliferation , and terrorism , among other pressing issues. Shepherding that trajectory in the most constructive direction possible must therefore be a priority for Washington and Beijing. Virtually no major global challenge can be met without U.S.-China cooperation .

12