Words in the Resolution 1/2

Little Rock Central 2013-2014 Trisha Bhattacharyya

Resolution: USFG should subs inc its econ engagement towards Venezuela, Cuba, or Mexico Econ engagement: trade, aid, loans, financial investment same b/c of money THREE WAYS OF CONSIDERING ECON ENGAGEMENT: History: o econ plays a role Machiavelli - was the first one to say state exercise of power shouldn't be based on ideology, but SHOULD be realist - take history, current events, anything necessary into contxt to maintain power o M maintained that econ power was necessary for state power o Mercantilism - countries should export more that import was in the age of imperialism - spheres of influence to est. strong econ ties w/ colonies econ engagement about solidyfing trade ties w/ colonies for state power o Liberalism - total free markets Adam Smith wrote Walth of Nations tie wealth w/ sovereign power labor mixed w/ raw materials for state power notion of wealth = prestige, currency for relations btwn countries moved from direct relation between wealth and power to more complex picture btwn wealth and state power History of econ engagement term o see it first in 1945 World War II is happening Hirschman did a study on direct relationship btwn variables - national security and state power correlates how to econ engagement said that relations solidify national security and power thru persuasion, not coercion coercive vs persuasive CRUCIAL DISTINCTION o 1980s - Wagner questioned that you can make another state want what you want said that econ engagement MUST be coercive debate - econ engagement shouldn't be unconditional (no requirements on the other side) vs conditional aid quid pro quo - you give me one thing, ill give you something else will be cps that add conditions to unconditional plans o EX: Marshall Plan - we gave shit ton of money to Euro to rebuild - successful b/c L:2 solid democratic states o EX: unsuccessful in Latin America - rejected aid from US and let to authoritarian policies, no democracies, etc. Public Policies: o Ronald Reagan - 1980s, advocated using econ constructive engagement w/ South Africa wanted to end apartheid o Bill Clinton - NAFTA, advocated Free Trade Agreement of Americas, granting China Most Favored Nation status got rid of all tariffs in China, lowest sanctions, embargos, etc. o George Bush - moved us away from econ engage or neoliberalism and moved to neoconservatism or security based policy (coercive) o Obama - revitalization of new areas enviro security, services and people falling under term econ eng

Words in the Resolution 2/2

Little Rock Central 2013-2014 Trisha Bhattacharyya

3 questions on how we should define E.E. in debate short term vs long term - is it economic engagement in investing in a one shot policy? (invest in specific sector once) or is it a question of setting up long term determinate in economic action? (like new free trade agreement) is economic solely positive or can it be negative? do you have to create new insitutions or can lifting sanctions/embargos still be economic engagement? unconditional vs conditional engagement can econ engagement include conditions? How much coercive power is necessary to make someone want what you want? Think about: term its - means belonging to US - but in econ engagement context, does it require countrys approval/negotiations? towards - engagement has to be gov to gov, or can you engage orgs/specific people in a certain country o if yes - troubling b/c can hold whole host of actors