Aff China Influence

Aff China Influence	1

***China Influence***	2

2AC Chinese Influence	3

2AC Chinese Influence	4

2AC Chinese Influence	5

2AC Chinese Influence

1. Case Solves outweighs the disad-

2. China wants a peaceful rise to avoid conflict

Tellis, January-February 2005 (Ashley J., senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/resources/directory.php?issue_id=146#146)

And for good reason: While China’s economic growth over the last 20 years has generated tremendous wealth at home, it has also stirred apprehension abroad. Beijing knows that the United States and countries throughout Asia are casting a wary eye in its direction, worried that China could ultimately become a regional hegemon that threatens their security. It has become obvious to Beijing that a new Chinese grand strategy is required—one that would allow it to continue its economic growth, technological modernization, and military buildup without provoking other countries into a costly rivalry. The China we see striding on the world stage today is cut from the cloth of that new grand strategy. Beijing began by making nice in its own neighborhood. It has sought to develop friendly relations with the major states on its periphery—Russia, Japan, India, and the Central and Southeast Asian states—that are potential balancing partners in any future U.S.-led, anti-Chinese coalition. This good neighbor approach is dramatically different from its behavior of the 1990s. Instead of invoking Chinese claims in territorial and maritime disputes as it did during that decade, Beijing today has made a special effort to assure other states that it has the best intentions. China agreed to codes of conduct where territorial disputes have economic consequences, such as the South China Sea. It began to resolve border disputes with important neighbors, such as India. It started to take its nonproliferation obligations much more seriously than before, including efforts to tighten export controls of potentially dangerous dual-use technologies. And it expressed a willingness to shelve political disputes that cannot be reconciled immediately, so long as none of the other parties (such as Taiwan) disrupts the status quo. In 1994, during Washington’s nuclear standoff with Pyongyang, Beijing’s role was minor. Today, it is the driving force behind the complex six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. No relationship factors more into this diplomatic about-face than China’s relationship with the United States. Beijing has gone out of its way to mollify Washington, trying to demonstrate that it has neither the intention nor the capability of challenging U.S. leadership in Asia—even as it seeks to promote a regional environment where a U.S. political-military presence will eventually become unnecessary. Toward this end, Beijing has used the war on terror to position itself as a U.S. partner. Yet, it has also sought to preempt a potential U.S.-led coalition by deepening economic ties with American allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. These countries would pay a steep economic price if they were to support any U.S.-led, anti-Chinese policies in the future. And China has adroitly exploited every manifestation of regional dissatisfaction with America’s obsessive and overbearing war on terror, seeking to cast itself as a friendly, noninterfering alternative to U.S. might in the region. It is even proposing new institutional arrangements wherein China can exercise a leadership role that excludes the United States, such as the East Asian Economic Zone.

3. Chinese Economy

A. Chinese influence key to their economy

Kurlantzick, 2007 (Joshua, visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowment’s China Program, Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power is Transforming the World. p. 159-160)

China's growing soft power also is having some economic benefits. China's enormous consumption of resources offers an opportunity to developing countries, and they are trying to make the most of China's needs for oil, gas, minerals, and other commodities. China now drives trade in Asia, a role the United States and Japan historically filled, and China's commodity demands are allowing Latin American and African nations to run trade surpluses and potentially use the money to build stronger social and educational institutions. These surpluses forestall the kind of debt that once crippled many developing world economies. They have another benefit, too— feeding China's economy creates jobs, reducing the kind of social unrest that in many Latin American countries has driven migrants north toward the United States. Even countries facing intense competitive pressure from China understand this opportunity. Though Mexico’s industries compete directly with China’s, a comprehensive opinion survey taken in 2004 shows that few Mexicans worry about China – “the development of China as a world power rank[s] at the bottom of the list of threats that Mexicans consider critical.” Malaysia has run trade deficits with China, but a study of Malaysian businesspeople found that “in spite of the purported threats of free trade from China, the majority of the private sector respondents views China positively.” While Malaysia’s previous prime minister warned, “China is an economic threat for Southeast Asia,” the current Malaysian leader, Abdullah Badawi, an advocate of the China-Southeast Asia free trade deal, asserted that “Malaysia does not feel threatened by the emergence of China as an economic powerhouse.”

B. Chinese economic downturn causes World War III

Plate, June 30, 2003 (Tom, professor of Policy and Communication Studies at UCLA where he founded the Asia Pacific Media Network, “WHY NOT INVADE CHINA? With allies like the neo-cons, Bush scarcely needs enemies”, , http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/TomPlate2003/06302003.htm)

But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want them and cant handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

2AC Chinese Influence

4. Taiwan

A. Chinese influence is critical to preventing a Taiwanese push for independence

Gill and Huang, June 2006 (Bates holds the CSIS Freeman Chair in China, Yanzhong is an assistant professor at the John Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Survival, “Sources and limits of Chinese 'soft power',” Volume 48 Issue 2, pg 17-36, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a747985000&fulltext=713240928)

A most intriguing example of China's soft power can be seen in its relations with Taiwan. In 2005, China launched a charm offensive against the politicians and people in the island by inviting opposition party leaders to visit the mainland, extending tuition benefits to Taiwanese studying at mainland universities, and, through a zero-tariff policy on imports of Taiwan's fruit, offering export incentive perks to farmers in the south of Taiwan (traditionally a pro-Taiwan independence stronghold). This 'hearts-and-minds' policy not only aims to reduce the perception of military threat from China, but also gives the Chinese government leverage to exercise influence in Taiwan's political culture and society, and politically marginalise Taiwan's independence-oriented president, Chen Shui-bian. In part as a result of Beijing's manoeuvres in recent years - and Chen's increasingly frustrated but worrisome responses - the possibility for Taiwan independence seems more distant and difficult. Chen Shiubian has increasingly alienated American supporters in Washington who do not appreciate what they see as his provocative political stance on cross-Strait issues. In the meantime, some 1 million, or about 5%, of the Taiwan population lives and works in China, and Taiwan business has invested more than $100bn on the mainland.

B. Taiwanese push for independence will escalate into a global nuclear holocaust

Hsiung, 2001 (James, Professor of Politics and International Law at NY,U 21st Century World Order and the Asia Pacific, p. 359-360)

Admittedly, it is harmless for an analyst like Lind to be so oblivious of lessons from the past and of the reasons behind both the dogs barking and not barking. But decision-makers cannot afford such luxury. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Senior Minister, issued a grave warning presumably directed at all government leaders, including the United States, that the Taiwan powder keg could ignite a conflagration that will engulf the entire region. It might even embroil the United States in a nuclear holocaust that nobody wants. Oftentimes, well-meaning analysts raise the question whether China, with its present military capability and modest defense expenditures (about U.S. $15 billion annually), can or cannot take Taiwan by force. But this is the wrong question to pose. As the late patriarch Deng Xiapoing put it, “We’d rather have it proven that we tried but failed [to stop it] even by force, than be accused [by our disgruntled compatriots and posterity] of not trying to stop Taiwan from going independent.” Earlier, I raised the issue of stability within the U.S.-China-Japan triad, precisely with the U.S.-Japan alliance in view. Apparently, many in Japan have apprehensions about the stability. Japanese Nobel laureate (for literature) Ohe Kenzaburo, for instance, once told a pen pal that he was fearful of the outcome of a conflict between the United States and China over the question of Taiwan. Because of its alliance relationship, Japan would be embroiled in a conflict that it did not choose and that might escalate into a nuclear holocaust. From the ashes of such a nuclear conflict, he figured, some form of life may still be found in the combatant nuclear giants, China and the United States. But, Kenaburo rued, there would be absolutely nothing left in Japan or Taiwan in the conflict’s wake. By now, I hope it is clear why stability in the U.S.-China-Japan triadic relationship is a sine qua non for geopolitical peace in the Asia Pacific region.

5. Human Rights-

A. China is turning toward using their soft power to promote human rights and intervening

Kurlantzick, 2007 (Joshua, visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowment’s China Program. Also a special correspondent for The New Republic and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect.Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World Pg 202-203)

Beijing also may be warming to the idea that Chinese support for authoritarian regimes can create instability – instability that, in the long run, doesn’t benefit China itself. In Burma, the junta’s backward, erratic rule has not only created the drug and HIV crises that threaten China but also endangered local Chinese businessmen, who never know when the political situation will turn violent or when they must pay off to keep operating. Fearful of Burma’s instability, Chinese officials have not only cracked down on gambling and drugs in the China-Burma frontier but also pushed for political reform inside Burma. According to several Burma watchers, Chinese officials have held quiet meeting with activist organizations battling the Burmese government, brining those opposition figures to China for talks. During the most recent visit of Burma’s prime minister to China, Chinese officials pushed Burma to improve its dialogue with opposition groups, with Wen Jiabao calling for “reconciliation” in Burma. “China is increasingly circumspect in its defense of Burma,” one diplomat told the Burma analyst Larry Jagan. Even more surprising, Beijing has allowed Burma’s human rights crisis to be placed on the agenda of the UN Security Council, a momentous decision for a country skeptical of allowing the United Nations to meddles in other nations’ affairs. The Burma example may become representative — China may increasingly use its soft power to promote stability in places where the United States has little influence. Having China, along with the United States, prodding these countries means that leaders in places like Burma or North Korea cannot write off the pressure as merely an American initiative. China is especially likely to use its influence when Beijing fears that instability in another nation could spill over into China, either by spreading drugs and disease (Burma), or by caushing massive refugee flows (North Korea), or by exacerbating terrorism (Central Asian) — and when those countries do not possess significant amounts of oil, gas, or other resources

2AC Chinese Influence

B. Lack of human rights, allows for the justification of all atrocities

Callahan, 1973 (Daniel, Director of the Institute for Society, Ethics, and Life Science, The Tyranny of Survival, p.91-93)

The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted population-control policies. For all these reasons it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life—then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories.