Neg China Reaction da 1NC

Africa

1NC

Economic competition in Africa now

Sun and Olin-Ammentorp 14

(Yun Sun, senior associate with the East Asia Program at the Stimson Center and Jane Olin-Ammentorp, Research Contractor of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 4/28/14 “The US and China in Africa: Competition or Cooperation?” Accessed 7/31/15 from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/africa-in-focus/posts/2014/04/28-us-china-africa-policy-sun LC)

African policymakers need effective and efficient policies to benefit from the competition between the U.S. and China. At the moment, such policies are lacking. Many experts note that, if African countries can prioritize and be clearer in their demands in engagement with these powers, Africa can exploit the different comparative advantages of the U.S. and China. China’s advantage is frequently cited to be speed, as AGI Senior Fellow Amadou Sy noted during our April 16 discussion. Infrastructure projects built by Chinese companies are quickly popping up around the continent. On the other hand, the U.S. has superior technology and capacity to provide an operator role in the oil and gas industry and to supply African countries with high-tech machinery. In addition, some research suggests that countries with increased exports to the United States, as opposed to the European Union and China, have experienced enhanced productivity, labor demand and value addition.

Plan destroys economic competition, resulting in Chinese economic domination in Africa

Sun and Rettig 14

(Yun Sun, senior associate with the East Asia Program at the Stimson Center and Michael Rettig, communications associate at the Brookings Institution. 8/5/14 “American and Chinese trade with Africa: Rhetoric vs. reality” in The Hill Accessed 7/29/15 from http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/214270-american-and-chinese-trade-with-africa-rhetoric-vs-reality LC)

On Aug. 4, President Obama welcomed leaders from across the African continent to Washington for a three-day U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. One major topic of discussion, in addition to the political and security issues, will inevitably be how to enhance U.S.-Africa economic relations.¶ Since 2000, U.S. trade relations with Africa have been dictated by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). As a unilateral preference scheme of the U.S. to promote trade and investment in Africa, AGOA was meant to boost U.S. trade with Africa and the development of the continent. However, 14 years in, U.S. trade in goods with Africa has demonstrated a perplexing downward trend since 2011. U.S.-Africa trade dwindled from $125 billion in 2011 to $99 billion in 2012 and $85 billion in 2013. For the first five months of 2014, U.S.-Africa trade in goods totaled about $31 billion. At this rate, the total trade volume in 2014 could be well below $80 billion in a continuation of the declining trend.¶ In comparison, Beijing has been quite low-key in disseminating its Africa trade promotion efforts, although its trade with Africa has been growing exponentially. China surpassed the U.S. as Africa's largest trading partner in 2009. China-Africa trade reached $166 billion in 2011, an 83 percent rise from 2009. The bilateral trade further increased another 19.3 percent to $198 billion in 2012, and passed the $200 billion threshold to $210 billion in 2013. In terms of trade volume, Chinese trade with Africa not only dwarfs U.S. trade with Africa, but the gap is as large as 2.5 times the magnitude of last year.¶ The rhetoric and realities of American and Chinese trade with Africa present an interesting contrast. Despite the callings in the U.S. to boost economic relations with Africa and to "compete" with the expanding Chinese economic influence on the continent, the results seem less than impressive. On the other hand, although the Chinese have remained quieter about their Africa trade promotion, the trade figures have been growing fast.¶ The decline of U.S. trade with Africa is largely attributable to the watershed 2008 financial crisis. Before the crisis, U.S.-Africa trade had been progressively increasing, but aside from a short 2010-2011 rebound, it has fallen since. In efforts to explain the decline, much was made by some analysts of reduced remittances or uncertainty around the 2012 renewal of AGOA's third-country fabric provision. However, while these dynamics might have affected certain countries, they did not necessarily have a major effect on the overall U.S.-Africa trade relationship.¶ Instead, the data point largely to just one culprit: oil and gas. In the wake of the financial crisis, African exporters faced a one-two punch: U.S. oil consumption began a 9 percent decline (from 20.7 million barrels per day in 2008 to 18.9 million in 2013) and the cost of oil dropped 70 percent from $140 per barrel to as low as $32 per barrel within a year. From 2008 to 2013, oil and gas exports from AGOA countries to the U.S. plummeted by 66 percent from $60 billion to $20 billion. By contrast, non-oil exports fell only $400 million, or about 6 percent, during the same period, and U.S. exports to those same countries actually grew. Because the U.S.-Africa trade relationship is so dependent on African oil exports, however, it was remarkably vulnerable to oil price shocks. Indeed, after oil, some of the next top U.S. imports from Africa (though far less in value) include precious stones, cocoa and ores — more commodities vulnerable to price shocks and reflective of a not-so-diversified trade relationship.¶ The most recent U.S. effort to turn this trade relationship around was released in Tanzania in July 2013 under the framework of Trade Africa. Among the goals in the initial phase, the plan intends to increase exports to the U.S. from the East African Regional Community (EAC) by 40 percent. To facilitate that goal, the U.S. plans to explore an investment treaty, operate a trade hub that will "provide information, advisory services, risk mitigation and financing ... to U.S. and East African investors and exporters," and advance its "Doing Business in Africa" campaign, which includes "trade missions, reverse trade missions, trade shows, and business-to-business matchmaking in key sectors."¶ Admirable on the surface, it remains questionable whether the plan will come to pass. Forming a sustainable U.S.-Africa trade relationship would require not just growth, but also diversification away from reliance on commodities. Oil discoveries in the EAC may very well contribute to a 40 percent increase in U.S.-Africa trade, but such trade would still remain vulnerable to global price shocks. If instead, Trade Africa were to include sector-specific benchmarks for manufacturing or the EAC's burgeoning tech sectors, any resulting growth in trade could be more resilient.¶ On Chinese trade with Africa, although the total trade volume has still grown in 2013, the speed of such growth has slowed down — from 19.3 percent in 2012 to 5.9 percent in 2013. Such a rate is also lower than the growth of China's overall foreign trade: 7.6 percent in the same year. While the broad context is the slowdown of China's economic growth and of its foreign trade, exports by Africa suffer in particular because, like the U.S., China's demand for raw materials has declined.¶ China ran a small deficit of $24.6 billion in its trade with Africa, while its exports are still largely dominated by finished products including machineries, electronics, automobiles, textiles, etc. Meanwhile, despite the reiterated efforts that China would reduce the percentage of natural resources imports in Sino-African trade, natural resources remain dominant. In total, China's crude oil imports from Africa made up 23 percent of China's global imports in 2013, making Africa the largest exporter of crude oil for China.¶ China bears high hope for the development of Sino-African trade. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang pronounced the plan to double bilateral trade to $400 billion by 2020. As China struggles with its own economic restructuring, it has been hoped that emerging markets such as Africa would assist the process. China aims to transfer some of its labor-intensive and manufacturing sectors such as textile, garment and household appliances to Africa for an "alignment of industrial development strategies between China and Africa." And to boost such a development, China is eager to contribute to the infrastructure of the continent, including active involvement in highway, railway, telecommunications, electric power and other projects that facilitate regional connectivity. At the same time, the ambition will translate into heightened investment efforts in Africa and a growing market for Chinese infrastructure contractors.¶ While these may be good news for Africa and Sino-Africa relations, they also have significant implications for the United States. Most evidently, if the U.S. is to successfully compete with China on economic engagement in Africa, the pressure is mounting. As the interest in a U.S.-China competition in Africa rises and people question whether the U.S. is losing out to China, it should be noted that if the U.S. is not enhancing its own investment and trade efforts in Africa anyway, portraying China as a threat does not necessarily help improve America's position.¶ Despite enthusiastic rhetoric in some corners, U.S. trade with Africa seems on faulty footing and unlikely to grow. U.S. oil consumption remains down since 2008, and imports are now further held down by a natural gas boom at home. Non-oil trade between the U.S. and Africa is growing, but only modestly overall. U.S. businesses continue to view private investment in Africa as risky, and government actions to mitigate such risk will prove harder as Congress looks to eliminate tools like the Export-Import Bank. If the U.S. values a strong economic relationship with Africa, or seeks to balance a Chinese presence there, much remains to be done in both diversifying and growing trade.

Chinese economic dominance leads to global economic instability

Krauss and Bradsher 7/24/15

(Clifford Krauss, New York Times national business correspondent covering energy and Keith Bradsher, New York Times business and economics reporter 7/24/15 “China’s Global Ambitions, With Loans and Strings Attached” New York Times, accessed 7/31/15 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/ business/ international/chinas-global-ambitions-with-loans-and-strings-attached.html LC)

While China has been important to the world economy for decades, the country is now wielding its financial heft with the confidence and purpose of a global superpower. With the center of financial gravity shifting, China is aggressively asserting its economic clout to win diplomatic allies, invest its vast wealth, promote its currency and secure much-needed natural resources.¶ It represents a new phase in China’s evolution. As the country’s wealth has swelled and its needs have evolved, President Xi Jinping and the rest of the leadership have pushed to extend China’s reach on a global scale.¶ China’s currency, the renminbi, is expected to be anointed soon as a global reserve currency, putting it in an elite category with the dollar, the euro, the pound and the yen. China’s state-owned development bank has surpassed the World Bank in international lending. And its effort to create an internationally funded institution to finance transportation and other infrastructure has drawn the support of 57 countries, including several of the United States’ closest allies, despite opposition from the Obama administration.¶ Even the current stock market slump is unlikely to shake the country’s resolve. China has nearly $4 trillion in foreign currency reserves, which it is determined to invest overseas to earn a profit and exert its influence.¶ China’s growing economic power coincides with an increasingly assertive foreign policy. It is building aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and stealth jets. In a contested sea, China is turning reefs and atolls near the southern Philippines into artificial islands, with at least one airstrip able to handle the largest military planes. The United States has challenged the move, conducting surveillance flights in the area and discussing plans to send warships.¶ China represents “a civilization and history that awakens admiration to those who know it,” President Rafael Correa of Ecuador proclaimed on Twitter, as his jet landed in Beijing for a meeting with officials in January.¶ China’s leaders portray the overseas investments as symbiotic. “The current industrial cooperation between China and Latin America arrives at the right moment,” Prime Minister Li Keqiang said in a visit to Chile in late May. “China has equipment manufacturing capacity and integrated technology with competitive prices, while Latin America has the demand for infrastructure expansion and industrial upgrading.”¶ But the show of financial strength also makes China — and the world — more vulnerable. Long an engine of global growth, China is taking on new risks by exposing itself to shaky political regimes, volatile emerging markets and other economic forces beyond its control.

Economic collapse leads to extinction

Harris and Burrows 09

[Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/ twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

2NC: Links

US presence key to prevent Chinese dominance—otherwise war and economic collapse

Kane and Carpenter 06

(Lt. Col. Gregory C. Kane and Col. Patrick O. Carpenter, US Army, 3/15/6 “Strategic Competition for the Continent of Africa” accessed 7/31/15 from handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA449648 LC)

Over the past decade the United States has been slow to expand its business and¶ political enterprises in the continent of Africa. In the interim, China, the world’s most populous¶ country, the fourth largest economy, and the third largest standing military force, has jumped¶ onto the continent full force. In other words, “the Chinese, sensing Africa’s tremendous¶ potential upside, are making strategic economic inroads into a continent that, outside of oil¶ investments, has long been written off by most Western companies as too risky because of poor¶ governance or threat of conflict. US companies, in particular, have been caught flat-footed by¶ the Chinese financial strikes, according to American and other experts on Africa’s economic¶ potential.”1¶ Chinese investments, both public and private sector, are aimed at securing further¶ access to a largely untapped market, ensuring the continued flow of resources to fuel their economic growth, and building alliances around the region to counter the United States as the¶ world’s most influential and economic power. This is an economic and political struggle that¶ could conceivably lead to the US and other western nations being cut off from required energy¶ resources, squeezed out of future markets, and faced with stagnating or negative economic¶ growth. In other words: “China’s aggressive search [for oil specifically] is putting it in growing¶ competition with the United States, the world’s largest oil consumer. Some observers even¶ warn of a possible showdown between the two economic giants.”2

2NC: Economic Dominance Bad

US-China economic competition in Africa creates jobs best way to stimulate the future and prevent al-Shabaab recruitment

Lee and Vogt 7/28/15

(Carol E., a White House correspondent in the Washington bureau and Heidi, Wall Street Journal East Africa correspondent. 7/28/15 “Obama Becomes First U.S. President to Address African Union” in The Wall Street Journal Accessed 7/29/15 from http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-becomes-first-u-s-president-to-address-african-union-1438090849 LC)

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia—President Barack Obama on Tuesday became the first American president to address the African Union in the institution’s 52-year history, a moment lauded for its historical significance but one that underscored how far behind the U.S. is in investing in the continent.¶ Mr. Obama’s visit capped a five-day African trip where he pledged enhanced U.S. economic ties. The U.S., however, is playing catch-up to other world powers, particularly China, which built the 54-member Union’s headquarters where Mr. Obama spoke.¶ His statements reflected the way that burgeoning Chinese investment in Africa has changed the way major Western powers like the U.S. approach the continent. The promise of rapid economic growth has dramatically increased many African economies’ leverage with foreign powers. Mr. Obama spent as much time courting African governments as criticizing Ethiopia’s repression of opposition leaders and calling out Burundi’s president for ignoring constitutional term limits.¶ “African governments are in a better position because they can negotiate,” between the U.S. and China, said Ahmed Salim, an East Africa analyst with Teneo Intelligence in Dubai. “From an African government perspective, it’s a win.”¶ The president has made the case in Kenya and Ethiopia that African economies should embrace the U.S. over other world powers because America’s approach isn’t to simply give aid but also to build the continent’s capacity to flourish on its own.¶ “Now, the United States isn’t the only country that sees your growth as an opportunity,” Mr. Obama told an enthusiastic audience Tuesday in a hall named after the late South African leader Nelson Mandela. “But economic relationships can’t simply be about building other countries’ infrastructure with foreign labor or extracting Africa’s natural resources,” he said. “Real economic partnerships have to be a good deal for Africa—they have to create jobs and capacity for Africans.”¶ Mr. Obama used this trip to Africa to market America’s particular offering—one that is shorter on direct funding and more slanted toward encouraging private businesses to invest—such as the Obama administration’s trademark Power Africa program, which is designed to expand access to electricity on the continent, but has been slow to show concrete results.¶ “The pledge of private money can’t really be a pledge. It’s only a hope,” said Deborah Brautigam, the director of the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. Ms. Brautigam called it a myth that Chinese investment doesn’t create jobs, saying Chinese projects often employ many African workers as well as Chinese contractors. She said the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do if it is going to compete with China on infrastructure projects in Africa. “The U.S. is only recently moving into that area and we’re doing it very slowly and with not much in terms of money,” Ms. Brautigam said.¶ Even while Mr. Obama highlighted the business potential of the African continent on this trip, the visit didn’t include any new African initiatives. Instead, Mr. Obama found himself defending Power Africa—saying it takes time to build power plants—and announcing funding for entrepreneurship globally.¶ Mr. Obama also called on African leaders to end widespread government corruption and advance democracy and human rights as part of the continent’s drive toward economic growth. At the same time, he used China as an example of how he engages with countries that don’t share U.S. governing values.¶ “I may interact with a government, out of necessity, where we have common interest,” Mr. Obama told civil-society leaders in Kenya on Sunday. “But if there are areas where I disagree, I will also be very blunt in my disagreement. And that’s true whether it’s Russia or China, or some of our European friends, or a great friend like Kenya.”¶ On Tuesday, Mr. Obama received some of his most enthusiastic applause for sharp comments on democracy, particularly his calls for African leaders who cling to power without term limits.¶ “We all know what the ingredients of real democracy are. They include free and fair elections, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly,” Mr. Obama said. “Democracy is not just formal elections.”¶ Mr. Obama singled out Ethiopia as a burgeoning democracy that held elections without violence. He didn’t, however, repeat his characterization of Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn as “democratically elected.”¶ Mr. Obama’s decision to engage with leaders such as Mr. Desalegn rather than isolate them is fundamental to his approach to foreign policy and an acknowledgment that if he doesn’t another country will.¶ “These countries have options,” said a senior administration official traveling with the president. “It’s not as if they have nowhere to go. This is the world as it is, and engagement is our best lever.”¶ Mr. Obama used a personal anecdote to argue why term limits can benefit a democracy.¶ “I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran I could win,” Mr. Obama said, referring to a third term. “But I can’t.”¶ The trip was a personal journey for Mr. Obama as the first African-American U.S. president whose father was born in Kenya. His familial ties to Africa and the story of his unlikely ascent to the presidency gave added weight to his words.¶ The White House hopes it will also help the U.S. more quickly make up for the lack of time Mr. Obama has spent focusing on Africa.¶ Mr. Obama, in Kenya and Ethiopia, focused on his two signature Africa initiatives: a program for African farmers, Feed the Future; and Power Africa. He noted on Tuesday his plans to host a U.S.-Africa Business Forum next year focused on trade and investment.¶ “America’s approach to development—the central focus of our engagement with Africa—is focused on helping you build your own capacity to realize that vision,” Mr. Obama said.¶ He described engaging young Africans as the most urgent challenge facing the continent, given the growth in population and the spread of terrorist groups like Somalia-based al-Shabaab.¶ Security threats are among Mr. Obama’s most pressing challenges in engaging Africa. Mr. Obama said he will host a summit at the United Nations this fall aimed strengthening international support for peacekeeping, including in Africa.¶ “The choices made today will shape the trajectory of Africa for decades to come,” Mr. Obama said. “As you build the Africa you believe in, you will have no better partner and friend than the United States of America.”