AVHS

THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

Cooperation Af
FRAMEWORK [1/7]........................................................................................................................ 1
VALUE/CRITERION [2/7]................................................................................................................. 2
COOPERATION LINK AND IMPACT [3/7]........................................................................................... 3
TERRORISM (LINKS) [4/7].............................................................................................................. 4
TERROR (LINKS) [5/7]................................................................................................................... 5
TERROR (SOLVENCY) [6/7]............................................................................................................. 6
TERROR (IMPACTS) [7/7]............................................................................................................... 7
COOPERATION FL.......................................................................................................................... 8
A2: HEG MEAN WE DONT NEED SP................................................................................................ 9
A2 HARD POWER SOLVES............................................................................................................ 10
A2 WE CAN DO IT OURSELVESWE HAVE POWER..........................................................................11

-INDEX-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

FRAMEWORK [1/7]
I Affirm. I contextually interpret submission to be the ratification and accession to the Rome Treaty of
the International Criminal Court.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is based on the principle of complimentarily making it highly unlikely a U.S.
national would ever be prosecuted.

Johan van der Vyver [JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 9/23/2003 Fredrick K Cox Interntional law center.]

, any State (not only States Parties) can bring an application before a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC protesting
Whenever the ICC seeks to exercise jurisdiction

[protest] the admissibility of the case in the ICC on any of the following grounds: The case is
being investigated by that State; The perpetrator is being prosecuted in that State for the crime under investigation; The
case has been investigated by that State and it has been decided not to prosecute the person
concerned (there was no probable cause); The person concerned has already been prosecuted by that State for the crime under investigation; The case is
not of sufficient gravity to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. Any of these grounds will exclude the
exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC unless it has been proved that the State lodging the objection was
unable to genuinely conduct the investigation or trial. Inability is confined to a total or partial
collapse of the criminal justice system of the State concerned. It is inconceivable that inability will ever
apply to the United States, and it is highly unlikely that prosecuting authorities of the United
States will conduct sham investigations or trials.

Also, by remaining outside of the treaty the U.S. is worse off because we loose the ability to shape the
treaty.

JOYNER and POSTERARO [CHRISTOPHER C. and CHRISTOPHER C. THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:
RETHINKING THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN NATIONAL INTERESTS AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE Criminal Law Forum 10: 359385, 1999.]

, by remaining outside the framework of the Rome Statute, the United States will forfeit the opportunity
Significant, too

to shape the rules of procedure, the definition of crimes, the eventual selection of the Prosecutor,
and perhaps most importantly, the chance to select the judges and the inclusion among them of a United States national. There is a
long history of influence in appointing Americans to top posts in international tribunals . Those United
States judges have enjoyed considerable influence in shaping the direction of such tribunals. One need only to examine the record of the

[ICJ] International Court of Justice, the Nuremberg Tribunal and the [ICTY] International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to realize
the contributions made by and influence of Americans on those bodies

Any procedural flaws with the ICC should operate as affirmative offense because the ICC still operates
whether we affirm or negate but by joining the court the U.S. can use its influence to solve those
problems.

-1-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

VALUE/CRITERION [2/7]
The Value is government legitimacy because the goal of any government must be to maintain power
and the support of its populace. Minimally a legal structure that encourages more violence is
antithetical to principles of rule of law and requires reformation. Individuals would not consent to a
legal system that fails to protect rights. The purpose of law is to instill order and reduce violence.
Thus, governments have a first order obligation to reduce violence.

However, government obligations only arise domestically. Governments have an obligation to protect
their citizens but not everyone.

David Luban, [Professor of Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University explains in the Yale Law Journal in 2004: [Frederick Haas
Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University Law Center, ARTICLE: A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity, The Yale Journal of
International Law, Winter, 2004, 29 Yale J. Int'l L. 85 p. 126]

The ban on crimes against humanityarising, supposedly, from all humankinds revulsion at the gravest possible offensespresents itself as a more powerful norm than any
international norms are less powerful than domestic norms, because they have
that we can think of. But

less connection with legitimate political processes of lawmaking. In domestic law, it is the connection between the
state, the legal norms it promulgates, and the community whose values those norms express that makes the state a legitimate party in interest when those norms are
transgressed. Legitimacy arises from the consent of the governedfrom popular sovereignty institutionalized through democratic governance mechanisms. If legitimacy
requires popular sovereignty, then international law, formed by state actions and diplomatic undertakings many steps removed from popular control, necessarily has less
legitimacy than domestic law. As Paul Kahn puts it: The rule of law is not simply a matter of getting the content of rights correct. It is first of all an expression of our sense of
ourselves as a single, historical community engaging in self-government through law. To obey the law, on this conception, is to participate in the project of popular sovereignty.
That project makes us a single community with a uniqueand uniquely meaningfulhistory. It seems plain that just as all humankind has no such common project, neither
A state is charged with advancing the interests of its own
does the international community of states. On the contrary.

people, not of people in general. To be sure, governments may fall far short of advancing the interests of their own people, but even if they do not,
their duties to their own people are likely to make them unresponsive to universal human
interests, precisely because domestic interests come first. This is no less true in democracies than in tyrannies: popular
sovereignty means the sovereignty of our people, not all of people everywhere.

States have an obligation to protect the rights of their citizens because individuals give up their right
to self-defense under the assumption that the government will safeguard their rights and protect them
from violence. The formation of the state is predicated on this obligation and as such, protection of
citizens is the states primary goal.

Thus, the standard is promoting U.S. national interests.

The Affirmative thesis is that our reluctance to join the ICC has hindered international cooperation,
which is necessary to protect U.S. interests.

-2-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

COOPERATION LINK AND IMPACT [3/7]

First, United States opposition to the ICC has devastated multilateral credibility this single act is the
linchpin of American legitimacy.

William L. Nash [Mitrovica Regional Administrator for the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and
Former US Army General, 2000 (The ICC and the Deployment of U.S. Armed Forces The United States and the
International Cirminal Court]
How the [US] exercises leadership in its current position of military, political, and economic strength will affect
United States

more than military successes; it will significantly determine the future role of the [US] United States in the world. The

overwhelming vote against the U.S. proposal to allow states to shelter their nationals form the ICC shows that most nations, including some of the

strongest allies of the United States, recoil at what they perceive as an open display of U.S.
exceptionalism. This perception is dangerous. Over the long term, it undermines the capacity of
the United States to lead. The ICC unfortunately is not the only issue fueling this perception. But because it goes to the

heart of accountability international norms and because it is the first new international security
institution in decades, it is a particularly resonant issue by which to measure U.S. attitude toward
global leadership objectives, it may reduce demands for U.S. military action. Many proponents overstate the ICCs potential positive effects, much as many
opponents inflate the risks. But the Court certainly has the potential to contribute to the kind of international environment the United States has long sought. In addition, the
U.S. absence from the Court would be a significant
ICC is the first security-related international institution since the United Nations.

and supremely isolating act. It will underscore U.S. ambivalence about joining in collective
efforts and institutions to enhance security, an attitude that, however reasonably presented, weakens the claim of the United States to
international leadership. Other nations increasingly question the intentions of a leading power that
appears willing to lead exclusively on its own terms. The [US] United States loses leverage and
credibility by fueling impressions that its cooperation in international politics requires and exemption from the rules.

Cooperation will be necessary to solve growing future threats to U.S. Security. It is necessary to solve
pandemics, economic collapse, nuclear war and more.

Nye, and Armitage [Joseph and Richard, CSIS Reports A Smarter, More Secure America,
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4156/type,1/, 11/6 2007]

If a people or nation believes

Soft power is the ability to attract people to our side without coercion. Legitimacy is central to soft power.

American objectives to be legitimate, we are more likely to persuade them to follow our lead
without using threats and bribes. Legitimacy can also reduce opposition toand the costs ofusing hard

power when the situation demands. Appealing to others values, interests, and preferences can, in certain circumstances, replace the
dependence on carrots and sticks. Cooperation is always a matter of degree, and it is profoundly influenced by

attractionThe information age has heightened political consciousness, but also made political groupings less cohesive. Small, adaptable,
transnational networks have access to tools of destruction that are increasingly cheap, easy to
conceal, and more readily available. Although the integration of the global economy has brought tremendous benefits, threats such
as pandemic disease and the collapse of financial markets are more distributed and more likely
to arise without warning. The threat of widespread physical harm to the planet posed by nuclear
catastrophe has existed for half a century, though the realization of the threat will become more likely as the number of
nuclear weapons states increases. The potential security challenges posed by climate change
raise the possibility of an entirely new set of threats for the United States to consider States
and non-state actors who improve their ability to draw in allies will gain competitive advantages
in todays environment. Those who alienate potential friends will stand at greater risk. China has
invested in its soft power to ensure access to resources and to ensure against efforts to undermine its military modernization. Terrorists depend on their ability to attract
support from the crowd at least as much as their ability to destroy the enemys will to fight.

-3-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

TERRORISM (LINKS) [4/7]

Second, currently, international cooperation, which is necessary to fight terrorism, is inadequate do to
a lack of U.S. leadership.

Giuseppe Nesi [International Cooperation in Counter-terrorism: The United Nations And Regional Organizations
in the Fight Against Terrorism 2006]
As stated in the previous section, the international community needs more cooperation against terrorism.
However, due to several reasons attributed to the variations in understanding the concept of terrorism at the national level, the international
cooperation has not reached the point where the international community desires it to be To
conclude, we can clearly state that currently international cooperation is far from able to deal with financing of

terrorism in an efficient way, as the failures described throughout this articles conceal an undertow composed of three tensions that make headway in
this sense rather difficult, there are still too many terrorist safe havens, that is, ungoverned, undergoverned, or ill-governed areas of a
country and non-physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, and operate in relative security because of inadequate
. It is in these safe havens that the inadequacy of some jurisdictions for regulating financial flows is most obvious[ly]
governance capacity, political will, or both

due to the lack of political concern with issues such as terrorism. Secondly, some states have only taken
money laundering seriously, but the anti-money laundering professionals who work there have wilfully ignored the hazards of not taking

terror finance seriously enough, a negligent attitude that could well turn against them. In some regions legislation against terrorist financing is much
weaker than laws against money laundering. The existence of these loopholes due to the lack of political will favours, among other things, the abuse of the

global financial system by terrorist networks permitting their financing. These loopholes still impede[s] the effective mutual legal assistance and cross-

border information-sharing in physical safe havens, and provide security for terrorist leaders,
allowing them to plan acts of terrorism around the world. International cooperation is once
again fundamental to the development of effective and sound counter-terrorism policies. Such
cooperation, however, ought to build upon a sense of mutual respect and recognition of the
commonality in anti-terrorist objectives among nations. Although the United States government can act (as it
often has) unilaterally based on its might as a superpower, it would in the long run benefit from respecting the provisions of

international law. The moral leadership of the United States is a necessary condition for the nation's political leadership on a global scale.

The current U.S. position regarding the ICC creates a double standard that undermines international
law enforcement that prevents crimes against humanity. This is especially true for building coalitions
to fight against terrorism.

Robert C. Johansen 2006 (article "The Impact of U.S. Policy toward the International Criminal Court on the Prevention of Genocide,
War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity". Human Rights Quarterly. Professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and
Senior fellow at the Kroc Institute for international peace studies)
The United States operates with a double standard in expecting others to respect fundamental
international laws, which Washington has enforced on others through ad hoc tribunals created by the Security Council,
through a Council referral to the ICC, and through the use of its own superior military power, while insisting on exemptions from international
107
accountability for US citizens. Double standards undermine law enforcement and peoples' willing compliance with the law, especially in a decentralized

international legal system. A legal fabric torn by exemptions for a major actor is a weakened fabric, less

able to deter future infractions and more likely to instill hatred and outrage against the inequities imposed
by the United States. US denial of reciprocal rights for others [it] also interferes with building a strong worldwide

coalition to increase compliance with international norms against terrorism 108 and to stop
terrorist acts that are crimes against humanity.

-4-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

TERROR (LINKS) [5/7]

Not submitting to the court hinders attempts to solve globally interdependent security issues like
terrorism, which requires multilateralism. The international community views the ICC as a test of U.S.
willingness to cooperate.

Sarah Sewall and Carl Kaysen. ["The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Choices Ahead" Committee on
International Security Studies of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The United States and the International Criminal Court:
National Security and International Law]
The U.S. attitude toward the ICC is linked to both domestic and international perceptions of the legitimacy of
American leadership. Joseph Nye has written about the sources and importance of soft power
even for states possessing a surplus of economic or military might Efforts to regulate and fuel the global
economy, protect the environment, manage weapons proliferation, and defend against terrorism all rely upon an
international legal framework; they cannot be achieved unilaterally. Every new international legal instrument or
institution has entailed obligations and required concessions of some form. The price of the accommodation can be far outweighed by the benefits of both the specific
institution and the expansion of a legal framework hospitable to American interests and values An essential element of that legal framework is the idea of equality under the
The U.S. position regarding the ICC is
law. Seeking an exemption from that principle weakens any claim to champion the international rule of law.

problematic in this regard. The U.S. position toward the ICC also has international ramifications.12 To the majority of
states, including many of our closest allies, the ICC represents an acid test of America's
commitment to international and universal concepts of justice and human rights its willingness to be
bound by the rules it establishes for others. American reluctance to back the Court , indeed the U.S. threat
to become a "spoiler", undermines to some degree the U.S. ability to sustain the international relationships that

are critical for future American security and prosperity

Joining the ICC would also facilitate cooperation through intelligence sharing and by promoting more
coordination.
Laura Dickinson [Using the Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and The Rule of Law Southern
California Law Review sept 2002]
An international criminal proceeding could help to strengthen the needed intelligence-sharing
networks and could help to provide a framework for screening sensitive information that would have greater
legitimacy than a purely U.S. run process. Some intelligence experts have suggested even
before September 11 that an international court would be beneficial precisely because it would
strengthen and develop intelligence sharing networks and procedures. Moreover, as in the domestic context,
procedures could be put in place to protect highly classified information from coming to public view, The ICTY and ICTR already have adopted such procedures, but new rules
could be developed for specific concerns. For example, evidence that might compromise security if it came to light could be reviewed in camera by a multilateral intelligence
panel . A decision made by such a panel to keep the information secret would have greater legitimacy that a purely unilateral determination within the U.S. In addition such a

panel [it] could form the basis for an enhanced structure for ongoing intelligence sharing.

-5-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

TERROR (SOLVENCY) [6/7]

Additionally, International cooperation is required in order to effectively combat terrorism and prevent
attacks.

Joseph Nye ["Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics" Foreign Policy Association Event
(http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=225504)]
We may be able for example to use our military power effectively as we did in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government or as we did in the three and a half week
campaign in Iraq, butthe problems of wrapping up an organization like Al-Qaeda or governing a country like Iraq is that
they are much less susceptible to solutions by military power alone. Looking at Afghanistan you'll notice that we where able to replace
the Taliban Government quickly but we only wrapped up about a quarter of Al Qaeda using military power . When you have a terrorist network

with cells in 50 or 60 countries you simply can't bomb them all. Some of these cells are in places like Hamburg or Detroit, where
you cant bomb them, the only way you can deal with that kind of a threat is through close civilian
cooperation. Meaning intelligence sharing, police work across borders, tracing financial flows
and so forth. The difficulty I see is if we focus solely on our military power and solely on hard power, we may forget that what we really
need is to get others to cooperate with us to deal with these new types of threats when we
have less soft power than Bin Laden in those countries it makes it more difficult for us to prevail. If you accept my
reasoning -that you need cooperation from other countries- when you allow the status or attractiveness of the U.S. to
deteriorate to the point where being pro-American is toxic in domestic politics in another
country, it's going to make leaders unwilling to cooperate with us. Unless the moderates win in
that struggle inside Islam, we're not going to win. In other words, we have to be able to attract
moderates if we're going to be able to prevent Bin Laden from attracting them , relating back to Rumsfeld's
metric of them getting more than we are able to deter and kill.

Specifically, nuclear terrorism represents a monumental security risk to the U.S. Cooperation is
necessary to avoid nuclear terror.

Sybille Nyeck [The Urgency of Nuclear Terrorism AGW http://www.thewitness.org/agw/nyeck012605.html]

the Bush administration's unilateralism in the war on terrorism has not been
It is now obvious that

successful. Nuclear terrorism is preventable, but such an endeavor would require[s] that the international
community join the U.S. in a thoughtful as well as forceful real battle against nuclear proliferation. UN Security Council Resolution
1373 (and its additional protocol) and the Nunn-Lugar program in the U.S. are both valuable references for successful collaborative efforts to fight nuclear proliferation at home
. A consensus on common interests with credible actions against nuclear terrorism necessitates a
and abroad

close collaboration with China and Russia. This is where prudent diplomacy comes into play. The U.S.
cannot solely rely on technology to fight nuclear terrorism. Allison insists that a humble U.S. foreign
policy with a strategic, yet sensitive, rationale is imperative to regaining international
credibility.

-6-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

TERROR (IMPACTS) [7/7]

The impact of an act of nuclear terror would be devastating. It could kill millions and result in
escalating global conflict.

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed [Extinction! Al- Ahram 26 August - 1 September 2004 Issue No. 705]

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if --
and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the
time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and

frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of

human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would

proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the
still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from
which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side
triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution
infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Also, the risk of a catastrophic attack that could potentially kill millions such as a nuclear attack is
alarmingly high.

Matthew Bunn [ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, in 2006 on p. 107 A
Mathematical Model of the Risk of Nuclear Terrorism Vol. 607, No. 1]
the expected value of preventing such an event) would be more than $1 trillion, in this example, given the significant chance that such a theft would lead to actual nuclear
this study would support estimates of a 30 to 50 percent
terrorism. Assumptions similar to those proposed in

probability of nuclear terrorism over the next decade. (By chance, the 29 percent over ten years estimate in this
numerical example is identical to the average estimate of the probability of a nuclear attack over the

next ten years in a poll of selected international security experts by Senator Richard Lugar in
2005.)

Also, a single terrorist attack can provoke political overreactions from the United States and lead to
unnecessary wars, which could cause hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties such as the war in
Iraq.

Robert Lifton [Superpower Syndrome: Americas Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World. 2003]

Such psychological transformation from weakness and shame to collective pride and a sense of life-power, as
well as power over others, can release enormous amounts of aggressive energy, a dangerous potential that has been
present from the beginning of the American war on terrorismWar-making can quickly become
associated with war fever, the mobilization of public excitement to the point of collective experience of transcendence. War then becomes heroic, even
mythic, a task that must be carried out for the defense of ones own nation, to realize its special destiny and the immortality of its people. In this case, the growth of war fever
[comes] in several stages: it began with Bushs personal declaration of war immediately after September 11 th, had a modest rise with the successful invasion of Afghanistan,
and then a wave of ultrapatriotic excessestriumphalism, and the labeling of critics as disloyal of treasonousat the time of the invasion of Iraq. War fever tends always to be
subject to dillusionment. Its underside is death anxiety, in this case related less to combat than to fears of new terrorist attacks at home or against Americans abroadand later
The amorphousness of the war on terrorism was such that a country like
to growing casualties in occupied Iraq

Iraq, with a murderous dictator who had surely engaged in acts of terrorism in the past, could on that basis be treated as if it had
major responsibility for 9/11. There was no evidence at all that it did

-7-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

-8-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

COOPERATION FL
A2: No reason it is the most important, there are other disagreements.
The ICC more than any other issues strains relations with our most important allies.

Quentin Peel [International Affair Editor for the Financial Times, 7/7/2002 (Europe Must Now Defend Itself
Financial Times) http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/region/0704cu2.htm]

The dispute between America and Europe over the future of the International Criminal Court is potentially the most
dangerous and divisive dispute across the Atlantic since September 11. That may sound exaggerated, if
differences over the Middle East peace process, or invading Iraq, are considered. Then there are
disagreements over the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the nuclear test ban treaty, the protocol on biological
weapons, trade disputes over the uses of biotechnology, agricultural subsidies and steel imports, And, of course, there is missile
defense. The list is getting alarmingly long. But most of these are disagreements over policy , even if they are pretty profound.
Some are simply differences over strategy or tactics. Others are about money. The trouble with
the confrontation over the ICC is that it is ideological. That makes it much more difficult to deal with.

A2: Obama Sovles.

Even after the election of Obama the ICC remains a lynchpin for international cooperation. The
rebound of American Legitimacy brought on by Obama will evaporate unless he changes the
substance of our policies.

Daniel Larison [What Does Obama Win Mean For U.S. Relations With The World American Conservative.
2008]
It is clear that he will be given more leeway in the beginning, and there is more tolerance in most foreign countries for
Obama to make mistakes early. However, as one of the commenters has noted, Moscow is wasting no time making clear its objections to missile defense in central-
eastern Europe and suggesting countermeasures (possibly tactical missiles to Kaliningrad) if Washington goes ahead with the plan. More than most foreign
. From his gradually more antagonistic
governments, Moscow seems to have few illusions about what Obamas election means for them

response to the war in Georgia to his selection of Joe Expand NATO Forever Biden as his running mate, Obama made
abundantly clear what they could reasonably expect from a future Obama administration, which
unfortunately isnt very much. The potential pitfall for Obama abroad is that there
is widespread expectation in Europe of a departure not only from the Bush style of foreign
policy, but also a departure from much of the substance, particularly as it relates to various
international treaties and institutions. Trans-Atlantic dreams may be the right way to describe European expectations, because they seem to
have so little basis in political reality. Some of what many Europeans dream of is probably not going to happen

(e.g., the test ban treaty, the ICC), and for the most part expecting much in this area comes from
Europeans projecting what they think a good American President ought to do. Obama may attempt to
do some of the things Europeans hope for, but even though both he and McCain have endorsed the Kyoto Protocols that does not necessarily make ratification politically
possible. The ICC ratification will be a particularly tough fight.

-9-
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

A2: HEG MEAN WE DONT NEED SP

Soft power is the key element of heg.

NYE ["The Benefits of Soft Power" Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. 2004 http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html]

Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. The power to attractto get others to want what you want, to frame
the issues, to set the agendahas its roots in thousands of years of human experience. Skillful leaders have always understood that

attractiveness stems from credibility and legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the
barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear. When the
United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it went about its
policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq,

but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood and treasure than would otherwise have been the case. Similarly, if Yasser Arafat had chosen

the soft power model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King rather than the hard power of terrorism, he could have attracted moderate
Israelis and would have a Palestinian state by now. I said at the start that leadership is inextricably
intertwined with power. Leaders have to make crucial choices about the types of power that they use. Woe be to followers of those
leaders who ignore or devalue the significance of soft power.

Generally a lack of international support will not be in the interest of the U.S. because it creates
counterbalancing to U.S. power and policy, which cripples our ability to pursue our interests
effectively.

Fakiolas, and Fakiolas [Efstathios T. and Tassos E., Pax Americana or Multilateralism? Reflecting on the United
States Grand Strategic Vision of Hegemony in the Wake of the 11 September Attacks, Project Muse]

The other reason is because abusing preponderance might provoke counterbalancing. ,

Instead manipulating primacy and
hegemonic pretensions with prudence and sense of restraint is most effective in mustering loyalty and sustaining international support. In essence, this is meant to imply that
balancing behavior will be less likely if foreign elites hold positive images of the United States,
share similar outlooks on most global problems, and in general regard US preponderance as
benevolent, beneficial, and legitimate.111 Besides the broader question of the power ability, it is herein that stands the Achilles heel of
Bushs grandiose pursuit of Pax Americana. His vision of hegemony in the form of a Pax Americana triggers widespread
opposition due to the fact that it is portrayed as aggressive and colonial by other states policy
makers and public opinion. Obviously, he has devalued the fact that the effectiveness of grand
strategy increasingly becomes a function of how well one is able to manipulate symbols to
create or reinforce images.112 In other words, George W. Bush has drawn little attention to the need to articulate, deploy, and socialize great
powers other than Britain and Japan in a frame of reference compatible with their interests that is, to inculcate in them US beliefs, values orientation, and vision in such a
way as to correspond with their national preferences.

- 10 -
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

A2 HARD POWER SOLVES

Readiness is currently low meaning the U.S. military does not pose a significant threat to other
nations.

The Washington Times [We are at a crisis point March 21, 2007 [Lexis]

With each passing day, the readiness crisis of America's armed forces worsens as the emerging
threats seem to multiply. On this crucial issue, there is bipartisan agreement in the Congress. At last week's hearing of the readiness panel of the House
Armed Services Committee, subcommittee chairman Solomon Ortiz, a moderate Texas Democrat, laid it on the line . "I have seen the classified Army-readiness reports, and
based on those reports," Mr. Ortiz declared, "I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure" if the Army is "called to deploy to an emerging threat." Liberal Democratic
"We are at a crisis point across the board." In a
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who also serves on Armed Services, told The Washington Post,

secret analysis sent to Congress last month, according to a recent report by the New York
Times, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that the
military now faces a "significant" (upgraded from "moderate") risk of failing in carrying out its
tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan and emerging threats elsewhere. "As you look around the globe, it's hard to see where, in the near
term, our commitments will diminish," Gen. Pace told the full House Armed Services Committee in early February. "You can start anyplace, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, North Korea, back around to Pakistan and I probably missed a few there's no dearth of
Unfortunately, as America's
challenges out there for our armed forces." But there clearly is a dearth of equipment for the nation's war fighters.

armed forces begin their fifth year in Iraq and significantly increase their presence in
Afghanistan as the sixth anniversary of operations in that country approaches, our military
readiness strains intensify. "It's not an issue of affordability," Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told the military-readiness subcommittee.
"This is the richest country in the world with a $13 trillion economy. It is really an issue of national priority.

- 11 -
 AVHS
THEIS COOPERATION AFF J/F 09

A2 WE CAN DO IT OURSELVESWE HAVE

POWER

Unilateralism tanks heg, by alienating alliesmultilateralism promotes soft power which is key to heg

Nye (Joseph S, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School
of Government, The Paradox of American Power: Why the Worlds only Superpower Cant Go It Alone, Oxford
University Press, 2002) pg 16-17

, if American diplomacy is unilateral and arrogant, our preponderance would not prevent other.
Nonetheless

states and non-state actors from taking actions that complicate American calculations and con-
strain our freedom of action.45 For example, some allies may follow the American bandwagon on the largest security issues but form coalitions to
balance American behavior in other areas such as trade or the environment. And diplomatic maneuvering short of alliance can have political effects. As William Safire observed
when presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush first met, "Well aware of the weakness of his hand, Putin is emulating Nixon's strategy by playing the China card. Pointedly,
just before meeting with Bush, Putin traveled to Shanghai to set up a regional cooperation semi-alliance with Jiang Zemin and some of his Asian fellow travelers."46 Putin's
tactics, according to one reporter, "put Mr. Bush on the defensive, and Mr. Bush was at pains to assert that America is not about to go it alone in international affairs."47 Pax
Americana is likely to last not only because of unmatched American hard power but also to the extent that the United States "is' uniquely capable of engaging in `strategic
restraint,' reassuring partners and facilitating cooperation."48 The open and pluralistic way in which our foreign policy
is made can often reduce surprises, allow others to have a voice, and contribute to our soft
power. Moreover, the impact of American preponderance is softened when it is embodied in a
web of multilateral institutions that allow others to participate in decisions and that act as a sort
of world constitution to limit the capriciousness of American power. That was the lesson we learned as we struggled to
create an antiterrorist coalition in the wake of the September 2001 attacks . When the society and culture of the hegemon

are attractive, the sense of threat and need to balance it are reduced. 49 Whether
other countries will unite to balance American power will depend on how the United States
behaves as well as the power resources of potential challengers.

- 12 -