ASEAN DA

DDI 2008 C/M

T-Money page 1

Strat Sheet................................................................................ .................................1

Shell 1/3.................................................................................. ...................................3

Shell 2/3.................................................................................. ...................................4

Shell 3/3.................................................................................. ...................................5

Internal Link: Conflicts............................................................................. ...................6

Multilateral cooperation Key.......................................................................................7

ASEAN Needs Energy Stability....................................................................................8

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 1/2..............................................................9

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 2/2............................................................10

Ext: Link............................................................................................................... .....11

Ext: Internal Link...................................................................................................... .12

Ext: US Key.......................................................................................... .....................13

Ext: Impacts Nuke War.............................................................................................14

Ext: Impacts Nuke war  Ozone layer......................................................................15

2AC Shell....................................................................................... ...........................16

2AC Ext: Non-Unique................................................................................................18

2AC Ext: Turns 1/2....................................................................................................19

2AC Ext: Turns 2/2....................................................................................................20

Strat Sheet

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 2

So this disadvantage isn’t actually the best disadvantage out there, but you can run it for
the hell of it. Basically, what the disadvantage is TRYING to say is that the US and ASEAN
(Association of Southeast Asian Nations), have agreed to multilaterally work on policies
together. The affirmative’s plan is unilateralist which detracts from multilateralism and
that’s bad. South Asia is already unstable and they got nukes, so us backing out of a clean
energy policy leaves them hanging and makes them think we broke our “promise”. This
causes regional instability and nuclear war.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 3

Shell 1/3

1. US and ASEAN have agreed to pursue and invest in clean energy multilaterally

Asian Political News, weekly reports covers current political news in Asia, November 21, 2005,
“2ND LD: U.S. ASEAN agree on enhanced comprehensive partnership”,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15868343. [T-Jacob]
The agreement aimed at promoting strategic dialogue between the United States and Southeast Asian nations comes
at a time when the China-led East Asian summit, which excludes Washington, will be launched next month.
According to the statement, the partnership ''is comprehensive, action-oriented, and forward-looking, and
comprising political and security cooperation, economic cooperation, and social and development cooperation.'' The
statement calls on foreign, trade and economics ministers to begin talks to develop an action plan, with the
assistance of senior officials, to implement the partnership. The initiative covers 17 areas of cooperation in the
political and security, economic, and social and development fields. The areas include seeking a trade and
investment accord, combating pirates, arms proliferation and terrorism, promoting clean energy, attaining
sustainable development, and fighting bird flu, AIDs and other infectious disease. Among them, the United States
will support the integration of ASEAN leading to an ASEAN Community and back the ASEAN Regional Forum as
the ''premier regional political and security forum in the Asia-Pacific forum with ASEAN as the driving force.''

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 4

Shell 2/3

2. ASEAN perception of US unilateralism is widely disapproved and has perpetuated

anti-Americanism in an unstable region.

Joseph Chinyong Liow & Tan See Seng, an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Internal
Conflict Programmes at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) in Singapore and
Deputy of Head Studies at IDSS, November 14, 2006, “A New Era in US-ASEAN Relations?”,
http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/IDSS1192006.pdf. [T-Jacob].
THIS week Singapore will host a visit by United States President George W. Bush. According to White House
sources, the occasion will provide the embattled president to lay out his vision of how the US and Asian nations can
collaborate in tackling the problems of poverty, disease, terrorism and energy security. But while speculation has
been rife on how a Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress would change the Bush Administration’s foreign policy
towards the Middle East, less attention has been paid to a series of developments, which predate the recent
Democrat victory in the mid-term elections, that could potentially herald a new era in U.S.-ASEAN ties.
Washington’s relations with Southeast Asia have been characterised as ambivalent. Its policy towards the Southeast
Asian region during and after the Cold War has vacillated between deep engagement and benign neglect. However,
with the terrorist bombings in Bali, Indonesia on October 10, 2002, Southeast Asia resolutely resurfaced on the
American policy radar. The region was immediately labeled by US officials and pundits alike as the “second front”
of the Global War on Terror. This, of course, was not exactly the terms of engagement Southeast Asians would have
preferred, although some allowed that this sort of attention, while unfortunate, was better than none. Be that as it
may, ensuing American preoccupation with Afghanistan and Iraq was perceived within regional quarters to have
distanced Washington from Southeast Asian security concerns yet again. This perception appeared to be confirmed
by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s glaring absence from the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting of August
2005. This marked the nadir of U.S.-ASEAN relations in recent times. Turning the Corner? Of late, there is
compelling evidence that Washington is recalibrating its policy towards Southeast Asia. At least four developments
over the past few months are noteworthy. First, in November 2005, President Bush met with leaders of the seven
ASEAN states which are members of APEC (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and
Vietnam) on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Busan, South Korea. The meeting resulted in the establishment of
the US-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, which was envisaged to advance cooperation on political, security,
economic, and social fronts. The significance of this achievement transcended the scope of the agreement; its timing
was equally critical since it came nary three months after Secretary Rice’s notable absence at the 2005 ARF meeting.
Second, in May 2006, Senator Richard Lugar tabled the “US Ambassador for ASEAN Act” to the Congress. The
proposed legislation was co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, including former US presidential candidate John Kerry.
The role of the ASEAN envoy was to engage ASEAN as a whole rather than bilaterally with each ASEAN member government.
Given Washington’s traditional apprehension with ASEAN regionalism and its preference for bilateral engagement with its
Southeast Asian partners, this initiative signals a rethinking of the importance of ASEAN as a regional institution in US policy.
Third, on October 1, 2006, the Pentagon announced the creation of a key post, at the assistant secretary for defence level, within
the Department of Defense focusing on Asian security. While North Korea, the rise of China, and terrorism were cited as the key
strategic concerns driving this initiative, provisions, interestingly enough, were nonetheless made for a deputy assistant secretary
to cover Southeast Asia. This shift is crucial given that the Pentagon’s past approach to Asia had been to lump the
entire Asian region under the office of assistant secretary for international security. This clearly demonstrates a more
nuanced appreciation for the complexities and diversity of security issues in the vast Asian region, not least
Southeast Asia. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that think-tanks and research institutions in the US which focus
on the Asia-Pacific region have received increased attention, not to mention funding, from the US Government. This
further demonstrates an acknowledgement on the part of Washington that informed engagement with Southeast Asia
should be predicated on, among other things, research and intellectual exchanges between US scholars and their
regional counterparts. Why Bother? What accounts for this apparent turn in US policy towards Southeast Asia?
There are at least three reasons. First, Washington must surely realise that in the contest for influence in the region,

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 5

the US has been losing out to China. Over the past decade, Beijing has demonstrated a diplomatic savvy as
expressed by a range of declarations and agreements reached with ASEAN, such as the ASEAN-China free trade
agreement, the Declaration on the South China Sea, Chinese accession to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation, and the like. This contrasts starkly with the ambiguous state of US-Southeast

Shell 3/3
Asian ties over the same period. Against this backdrop, the recent developments initiated by Washington could mark
an attempt both to counter Chinese influence and enhance America’s standing in Southeast Asia. Related to the
above point are the issues of anti-Americanism, which has been on the rise since September 11, 2001, and the
growing disapproval of perceived US unilateralism. Already, the past few years have witnessed widespread anti-
American protests and demonstrations in various Southeast Asian countries. A fair part of this had to do with
Washington’s seeming lack of sensitivity for regional considerations. Adopting a more nuanced and institution-based
engagement, as appears to be the case with these recent initiatives, will be important to enhancing communication
and understanding between the US and Southeast Asia, thereby alleviating anti-American sentiments.

3. Multilateralism key for ASEAN stability and US – Asia policies.

Satu P. Limaye, Ph.D Research fellow and Head of South Asia Program and Japan Institute of
International Affairs, December 1, 2007, “United States – ASEAN relations on ASEAN’s fortieth
anniversary: a glass half full”, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7378608/United-States-
ASEAN-relations-on.html#abstract. [T-Jacob].
Calibrating Bilateralism, Sub-Regionalism, Regionalism, Globalism and Multilateralism in US-ASEAN Relations.
First, the United States is challenged to calibrate relations with ASEAN as an organization; with Southeast Asia as a
geographical sub-region of wider US East Asia policies; with Southeast Asia as part of US global strategies, interests
and values; and most importantly on a day-to-day basis with sovereign, unique countries. Meanwhile, ASEAN and
its member-countries are simultaneously calibrating their own relations with the United States. The United States,
however, has a wider range of imperatives affecting its relations with ASEAN than ASEAN does in dealing with
America. These imperatives often have spill-over effects in the various approaches to Southeast Asia. One example
is US concerns about Myanmar's human rights and democracy situation impinging upon US attitudes towards
ASEAN's efficacy as an organization, or global democracy and human rights considerations complicating bilateral
relations with individual ASEAN states. Moreover, both the United States and ASEAN must balance domestic
considerations--further complicating the management of mutual relations.

4. Regional collapse in south Asia leads to World War 3.

S. Rajaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, September 1, 1992, “ASEAN: The

Way Ahead”, http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm. [T-Jacob].
This Foreword focuses on regionalism rather than on ASEAN because the latter is no more than a local
manifestation of a global political, economic and cultural development which will shape the history of the
next century. Should regionalism collapse, then ASEAN too will go the way of earlier regional attempts
like SEATO, ASA and MAPHlLlNDO. All that remains today of these earlier experiments are their
bleached bones. Should the new regional efforts collapse, then globalism, the final stage of historical
development, will also fall apart. Then we will inevitably enter another Dark Ages and World War III,
fought this time not with gun-powder, but with nuclear weapons far more devastating than those exploded
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern technology and science are pushing the world simultaneously in the
direction of regionalism and globalism. What is responsible for today's economic disintegration, disorder

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 6

and violence is the resistance offered by nationalism to the irresistible counter-pressures of regionalism and
globalism.

Internal Link: Conflicts

ASEAN is instable with 100’s of conflicts tearing it apart.

S. Rajaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, September 1, 1992, “ASEAN: The Way
Ahead”, http://www.aseansec.org/13991.htm. [T-Jacob].
The most remarkable feature about the two regional organizations is their continuity and coherence despite the
persistence and often unmanageable turbulence and tensions that have and still characterize the post-war world.
There have been some 100 international, civil, racial and religious conflicts. Far from abating, these are growing in
number. By comparison the European Community and ASEAN are the still centres in the eye of the storm. There is
apprehension that chaos, not order, is the draft of world politics and economies today. For many, the expectation is
that tomorrow will be worse than yesterday and that history has been a descent from the Golden Age to the Dark
Ages. To quote the poet Yeats, though the world is seemingly intact: "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold." Yet
the two multi-racial and multi-cultural regional organizations I have mentioned con- tinue to grow in maturity,
cohesiveness, and confidence. They believe that regionalism can survive the buffeting winds and storms. The
European Community, unlike ASEAN, has had far more experience with regional organization because its founding
members, in particular Britain, France, Holland, Belgium and even Germany participated in the creation and
management of far-flung complex global empires. Their scientific and technological cultures were many light years
ahead of all preceding cultures and civilizations. However eminent and admirable pre-European tradi- tional
civilizations were, the 19th and 20th century culture created by the West cannot be surpassed or displaced by
invoking ancient creeds. Only Japan has so far demonstrated that the gap between medieval and modern cultures can
be narrowed and possibly over taken. Moreover, only Western nations and Japan have demonstrated a capacity for
con- structing massive modern empires, though unfortunately, they demonstrated this by their ability to organize and
unleash modern wars. No Asian nation, however, has fought, let alone won, wars of comparable magnitude. Saddam
Hussein's chest-thumping has the resonance of hollow drums.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 7

Multilateral cooperation Key

US – ASEAN pact states that multilateral cooperation will be used for energy policies

ASEAN secretariat, official database for the association of Southeast Asian nations, 2008,
“Joint Vision Statement on the ASEAN – US Enhanced Partnership”,
http://www.aseansec.org/17871.htm. [T-Jacob].
ASEAN and the United States hereby:1. Agree to launch an ASEAN-United States Enhanced Partnership that is
comprehensive, action oriented and forward-looking, and comprising political and security cooperation, economic
cooperation and social and development cooperation including, but not limited to, the following elements:
Political and Security Cooperation
2. Support the integration of ASEAN, leading to an ASEAN Community through, inter alia, the implementation of
the Vientiane Action Programme (VAP) and appropriate successor plans;
3. Acknowledge that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) acts as a code of conduct
governing inter-State relations in the region for the promotion of peace and stability, and its role as a unifying
concept for ASEAN and respect the spirit and principles of the TAC, in line with the commitment of ASEAN and
the United States to enhance their partnership;
4. Support the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) as the premier regional political and security forum in the Asia-
Pacific region with ASEAN as the driving force;
5. Recognize the importance of non-proliferation in all aspects of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia;
6. Promote closer cooperation on combating transnational crimes, including inter alia, terrorism, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, and enhancing maritime and border
security, and express readiness to build on the ASEAN-United States Joint Declaration for Cooperation to Combat
International Terrorism signed in Bandar Seri Begawan in 2002 to develop joint activities;
7. Cooperate in multilateral frameworks, including the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the APEC,
emphasize the importance of ambitious outcomes in the Doha Round that would bring tangible benefits to all,
support the early accession of Laos and Viet Nam to the WTO, and consider the admission of ASEAN Member
Countries that are not members of APEC into that forum;
Economic Cooperation
8. Strengthen economic cooperation by, inter alia, continuing to implement the EAI which serves as a mechanism to
enhance trade and investment flows between ASEAN and the United States, and in this regard, agree to work
together to conclude a region-wide ASEAN-United States Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA);
9. Further enhance economic linkages, which will assist in sustaining economic growth in ASEAN and the U.S.,
and cooperate jointly in support of ASEAN’s realization of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2020, if not
earlier; 10. Enhance economic cooperation in areas to be mutually agreed upon between ASEAN and the U.S.,
including but not limited to trade and investment facilitation; and undertake missions and measures to strengthen the
investment climate in ASEAN thereby encouraging US investment into the region;
11. Collaborate to reform and strengthen international financial institutions and in the areas of economic
surveillance through the sharing of macroeconomic and financial information where disclosure of information is
permitted by domestic laws and regulations of the respective countries, and agree to work more closely in
international financial institutions to promote the influence of Asia to a level more commensurate with its economic

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 8

weight;
12. Promote greater interaction between their respective private sectors, recognizing the pivotal role of the business
community;
13. Pursue the development and employment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies of all kinds, including
renewable and other low-emitting sources of energy, enhance ASEAN’s regional energy infrastructure, promote
energy security, promote the protection of the environment and the sustainability of natural resources, recognizing
that economic growth is a necessary condition for deploying the cleaner technologies needed for continued
environmental improvement, and pledge further collaboration in all modes of transport, including air maritime, and
multimodal transport to facilitate the movement of peoples and goods;

ASEAN Needs Energy Stability

ASEAN is seeking to promote greater energy stability.

Xinhua, official press agency for the government of the People’s Republic of China, July 13,
2005, “ASEAN ministers call for greater energy stability, security, sustainability”.
http://english.people.com.cn/200507/13/eng20050713_195911.html. [T-Jacob]
ASEAN energy ministers on Wednesday called for strengthening cooperation among the member countries to
promote greater energy stability, security and sustainability in the region. In a joint media statement issued at the
conclusion of the 23rd ASEAN Ministers on Energy Meeting (AMEM), ministers appeal to put high priority to
promotion of energy efficiency in the transportation and industrial sectors, "as this may be one of the most
economical and effective way to mitigate the adverse impacts of higher oil prices." ASEAN will continue to
implement efficient policy programs to encourage the use of energy labels and standards to improve energy
efficiency of appliances and equipment, the statement said. Meanwhile, ministers agreed to intensify effort to
promote public-private partnership in promoting solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass energy. "We are
committed to create a favorable investment climate in the oil, gas and electricity industries in the region," they said.
They also promised to promote the use of natural gas through the cross-border Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline Project.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 9

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 1/2

Asian countries shift to alternative energy is crucial to global security.

Arne Walther, Secretary General of the International Energy Forum, January 24, 2005, “A New
Asian Energy Idea”, http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v48n04-5OD01.htm. [T-Jacob].
For the first time, energy ministers of the principal oil and gas importing and exporting countries in Asia are
gathered for informal discussions on a regional basis of an issue of utmost national and international concern –
energy security, stability and sustainability. The number of countries around the table is not great. But your clout as
energy producers and consumers is. You represent more than half of the world’s population, the bulk of the world’s
oil and gas reserves and the greater part of the surging global energy demand expected in the decades ahead. Asian
economies have taken off. The gross domestic products of China, Japan and India are surpassed only by the US. Few
would dispute the vision that the 21st century is Asia’s century. Asian energy cooperation will be crucial for that
vision. Energy cooperation will have wider economic and political consequence in your region as well. The impact
will be global. India has taken an important international initiative in convening this Round Table with Kuwait as
co-host, in association with the Secretariat of the IEF. It could well be that we will look back on our discussions
today as the gathering that gave a decisive political spark to the development of a new and evolving Asian Energy
Identity. The Need For Dialogue The increase in global energy demand in the years ahead will be substantial. An
add-on of almost two-thirds of today’s level is foreseen by the year 2030. Of that increase, 85% will be met by fossil
fuels. Most of this increase will come in the developing countries, especially those in Asia, as they industrialize and
their economies grow. Total investments of $16 trillion are required for the energy supply infrastructure needed to
satisfy global demand the next 25 years.For both energy exporting and importing countries, energy is crucial for
national economic and social development. Energy is important for commercial and political relations between
countries. It fuels the world economy. Production and consumption of energy impact the environment. Energy
influences, and is influenced by, international politics. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine an area, where nations are
more interdependent than in the confluence of energy, environment and economic development. Energy Security
Your discussions of energy security in the Asian regional context today, will no doubt pick up on discussions and
shared global perspectives from the IEF Ministerial in Amsterdam in May last year. One might say that energy
security is what the producer-consumer dialogue boils down to. Your more detailed discussions, and what your
governments choose to operationalize in terms of policy, can feed constructively into the next full IEF Ministerial
that Qatar’s Deputy Prime Minister ΄Abd Allah al-'Attiyah will host in Doha in 2006. Energy security is a complex
and broad-based issue. It is about oil, diversification of supplies and energy mix. It is about investments, technical
arrangements and infrastructure. It also has to do with overarching imperatives of economy, politics and the
environment. Energy security has domestic and foreign policy implications. It translates into producer-consumer
interdependence, where mutual vulnerability and win-win opportunity is the name of the game. Nowhere could this
be more true than in Asia. With energy hungry, growing economies in the East and South. With ample reserves of oil
and gas in the West. East and South Asia rely on West Asia for four out of every five barrels of their imported oil.
West Asian nations send two out of every three barrels of their oil exports eastwards in Asia. And global energy
trade, almost entirely in fossil fuels, is set to expand rapidly. Inter- and intra-regional trade in oil can double in the

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 10

next 25 years. The mismatch between where these sources of energy are produced and where they are used will
increase, linking regions and sub-regions closer together, but also posing new challenges. Vulnerability to
disruptions of energy supply, due to politically motivated sabotage or technical mishap, can increase. Maintaining
the security of international sea-lanes and pipelines on- and offshore will assume increasing importance for energy
security. There is, of course, no quick and lasting fix to the challenge of global energy security. The cluster of energy
security issues must be addressed in on-going dialogue not only between nations at political level, regionally and
globally, but also in dialogue and partnerships between governments and industry. Back-to-back with the
Amsterdam Ministerial, ministers discussed the importance of investments for energy security with CEOs of leading
energy companies in the First International Energy Business Forum. The International Energy Forum As active
participants in the International Energy Forum, you know first hand how unique the IEF is with its global
perspective and participation. It gathers the industrialized economies of the IEA, the petroleum exporting countries
of OPEC, and, very importantly, energy producing and consuming countries outside these two main producer and
consumer organizations, countries such as China and India at this table, that will increasingly impact the global
energy scenario. In the IEF, ministers exchange policy views and look for consensus-

Internal Link: Energy k/t Global Security 2/2

oriented approaches to energy challenges ahead, across traditional economic, political and energy dividing lines. A
cardinal task for the IEF Secretariat in the months ahead is to support host country Qatar, and co-hosts China and
Italy, in preparing for the Doha Ministerial next year. The Secretariat will also help to ensure the continuity of the
ministerial level energy dialogue between the biannual meetings by facilitating supportive meetings and roundtables
in cooperation with governments and organizations. While our perspective is global, we recognize how key regional
cooperation is to global energy security in a multi-polar energy world. The Secretariat has a catalyst role to play in
linking regional and inter-regional activities to the global dialogue in the IEF. In October last year, at the request of
the Energy Minister of Russia, we took part in the 4th Russian Oil and Gas Week and held a joint roundtable on
Eurasian energy cooperation. Our meeting today will see follow-up in the meeting later this year that ASEAN+3
(China, Japan and Korea) have requested us to facilitate with a larger group of West Asian oil and gas exporting
countries. We are planning for meetings in other regional contexts as well, one to be hosted by South Africa, another
by Mexico later this year. These meetings, and our meeting today, emanate from proposals by Ministers at the
Amsterdam IEF for Secretariat activity leading up to the Doha Ministerial next year. In the wider global
perspective, the Secretariat is set to coordinate the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI) developed by the IEA, OPEC,
APEC, Eurostat, OLADE and the UN. Our objective is to contribute to the oil data transparency that is so important
for market stability and global energy security. In Conclusion The Secretariat has been set up to serve your global
energy dialogue endeavor in the IEF. The Asian dimensions of this global dialogue can assume only increasing
importance in the years ahead. We are looking forward to the findings of this timely, top-level round table and to its
follow up. Your conclusions and policies do make a global difference. We are encouraged, Ministers, by your
commitment to energy dialogue and cooperation, and by your support, politically and financially, to IEF Secretariat
activity. Our mission is to cater to your energy policy priorities.

Asian energy security affects global energy security.

ERU, Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan contains the Tashkent University of World
Economy and Diplomacy, May 1, 2008, “Energy an important Factor of Security & Stability –
Roundtable”, http://www.uzembassy-
kuwait.mfa.uz/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3410. [T-Jacob]
International experts from the Central Asian, Northeast and South Asian countries, Europe and America, as well as
Russia are reported to have participated at the roundtable. The problems of providing for stability of world energy
markets and energy security are of a global nature. The prospects of raising extraction and reserves of hydrocarbon

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 11

and uranium raw materials, their long-term supplies and price policy are now discussed at various high-profile
levels. And here the Central Asian countries, their regional partners such as Russia, China, and the EU states which
are the largest world producers of oil, natural gas, uranium, coal and electricity power are not an exclusion. At the
same time, they are also the leading consumers of the aforesaid raw. Roundtable saw the exchange of views on
prospects of development of energy cooperation both inside Central Asia and among the countries of the region and
foreign consumers, suppliers and transit countries. The Central Asian states and the region, as a whole, which has
considerable resource-energy potential, an ever more often is being considered now as an active participant of world
geopolitical and geo-strategic processes, including in the area of energy. It turns into the subject of broad expert
discussions at various levels.

Ext: Link

A US unilateralist energy stance leaves south Asia vulnerable posing a threat to US

security.

Tarique Niazi, teaches Environmental Sociology at the University of Wisconsin and specializes
in resource-based conflicts, January 3, 2008, “Pushback to Unilateralism: the China-India-Russia
Alliance”, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4853. [T-Jacob].
The SCO's geopolitical pushback to the unipolar-unilateral makeover of the world is, however, defensive. Both
China and Russia are being protective of their turf. Their internal divisions caused by "extremism, splitism, and
terrorism" further unnerve them at even a slight hint of U.S. or NATO proximity to their "near-abroad." They have
created the SCO and CSTO, and formed the Caspian Sea Alliance to put distance between their respective "spheres
of influence" and NATO-US presence. Many argue that this alliance-building is a reaction to U.S. unilateralism.
These alliances, however, cannot threaten U.S. security interests in the region. The allied nations have been
consistently reassuring the U.S. that their alliances are not directed at "third party." In fact, SCO member states have
helped the U.S. to protect its security interests in the region. In the run-up to U.S. military action in Afghanistan in
2001, the Russian President Putin, according to Bob Woodward, stunned the top U.S. policy makers with his
unsolicited offer to let U.S. combat jets use the Russian airspace to strike the Taliban government in Kabul.32 The
Bush White House was not even sure if Russians would agree to U.S. airbases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan for
which it sought Putin's consent. More importantly, China, which shares a long border with Kyrgyzstan and is next
door neighbor to Uzbekistan, went along with the U.S. bases in both countries. Besides, and it is noteworthy for
American policy makers, the three nations that broke out in spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for 9/11 victims
were not Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, but Russia, Iran and China--in that order--where hundreds of thousands of
marchers held candle-lit vigils and mourned the tragic deaths of 3,000 Americans in terrorist attacks. In strictly
strategic sense, the U.S. by itself and together with its allies, especially Australia, Britain and Japan, continues to be
the dominant force in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean, which are the
key sources and supply routes of energy shipments for China and trade goods for Central Asia. This makes China
and the region vulnerable to U.S. retaliation in the event of any perceived or real threat to U.S. security interests. Yet
the Asian-Eurasian regional powers, which are coalescing into the SCO, CSTO and Caspian Alliance, have the
potential to entangle U.S. economic interests, especially energy interests. On this score too, the U.S. has been able to
circumvent such potential challenges by establishing bilateral relations with the region's energy-rich nations,
particularly Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Of these, Kazakhstan is the richest nation, with three-fourths

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 12

of the region's oil and about half of its gas reserves; Azerbaijan owns one-sixth of the region's oil and10 percent of
gas reserves; and Turkmenistan possesses close to half of the region's gas and 5 percent of oil reserves. In 1993,
Chevron concluded a $20b deal with Kazakhstan to develop its Tengiz oil field, which is estimated to contain
recoverable oil reserves of 6-9 billion barrels of oil. An $8b Azerbaijan International Consortium, led by BP-Amoco-
Statoil, is already developing oil fields off the shores of Azerbaijan. Similarly, the U.S. has successfully pushed for a
multi-billion dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline as an alternative to the $10b Iran-
Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. Above all, the U.S. enjoys worldwide economic and military superiority that
allows it to force its way through closed doors, if needed. As the world's strongest nation, multilateralists argue, the
United States serves its interests best when it works in a multilateral framework on which China, India and Russia
all agree. A starting point for multilateralism can be war-torn Afghanistan where the SCO and CSTO both want a
piece of action. The U.S. should welcome both to share in counter-insurgency operations for which both China and
Russia have a long-standing career. This will free up 25,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which can be exclusively
deployed for counter-terrorism; while NATO forces can undertake reconstruction work that has long remained
frozen. If it happens, it will turn Afghanistan into the North Star of multilateralism. To the U.S.' further advantage,
India's alliance with China and Russia would privilege multilateralism over multipolarism. The latter, as Indian
Foreign Minister Sinha in his 2003 address cautioned, has the potential to reprise the cold war rivalries that could set
the world on a dangerous course. Multilateralism, on the other hand, would further strengthen the continuing
economic integration worldwide, and thus lay the foundation for political integration as well.

Ext: Internal Link

Loss of international attention in south Asia causes loss of economic stability
Diego Valderrama, international economist, 2005, “Asian collapse as model for impending U.S.
Economic Collapse: Fiscal Sustainability and Contingent Liabilities from Recent Credit
Expansions in South Korea and Thailand”, http://skeptically.org/economics/id8.html. [T-Jacob].
While South Korea and Thailand had relatively sustainable fiscal policies prior to the Asian crisis, the long-term cost of the
bailout of their financial sectors amounted to an estimated 30 to 40 percent of output, which was largely financed by public
borrowing. The recent credit expansions in South Korea and Thailand have created new contingent liabilities for the gov-
ernments of the two countries. This paper evaluates the impact of these rapid credit expansions on the Sustainability of fiscal policy
in South Korea and Thailand. In Thailand, a rapid credit expansion preceded the currency collapse that heralded the Asian crisis.
Fiscal policy in South Korea appears to be consistent with its long-run budget constraint, while fiscal policy in Thailand is not
consistent with its long-run budget constraint. A loss in international confidence may considerably tighten their borrowing limit
very rapidly, regardless of the long-run Sustainability of fiscal policy. {This is the same conclusion that Alan Greenspan has
repeatedly made about the economic policies of the US Republican Party based upon a similar credit expansion in the US
economy. Read or watch for example his hearing before Congress 4/20/05.—JK}

ASEAN countries contain nuclear weapons.

Abdul Khalik, writer for the Jakarta Post, July 29, 2007, “ASEAN Agrees On Concrete Plan to
Rid Region of Nukes”, http://www.indonesia-
ottawa.org/information/details.php?type=news_copy&id=4442. [T-Jacob]
Heightened fears of a nuclear race have pushed the ASEAN countries to commit to a nuclear-free region, for, despite
the major powers' intentions to carry out nuclear disarmament and avoid proliferation, they continue to hold nuclear
tests. North Korea's apparent intention to become a nuclear power and suspicions that Iran may be capable of the
same have sparked fears that the nuclear arm race could spread to Southeast Asia. Philippine Foreign Minister
Alberto Romulo said that nuclear weapons-free zones are important tools in promoting nuclear disarmament and
nonproliferation. "Part of ASEAN's advocacy in the meetings here in Manila is to encourage the five weapons states
to adhere to the protocols of the treaty," he said. Manila is hosting the ASEAN Ministers Meeting (AMM) and
ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the largest security gathering in the Asia-Pacific region, from Sunday to Thursday.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 13

Aside from agreeing the implementation of a nuclear-free zone treaty, the ASEAN delegation is close to reaching
agreement on the landmark charter that will transform the grouping into a rules-based organization after lengthy,
exhaustive deliberations that extended well into the wee hours of the morning over the past two days.

Ext: US Key

Increased US engagement in ASEAN improves economic success and eliminates terrorism

in the region.

Daniel Ikenson, trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute, December 13, 2002, “U.S.-Singapore
FTA packs quite a punch”, http://www.freetrade.org/node/266/print. [T-Jacob].
A U.S. deal with ASEAN would improve that region's capacity to serve as an economic engine - a role Japan and
Europe have proven incapable of fulfilling adequately. It will also signal to China and Japan that the United States is
serious about this potentially lucrative region. Beyond the obvious economic benefits, this goal is consistent with the
"competitive liberalization" philosophy. By staking a claim to ASEAN, the U.S. could deprive China or Japan of the
opportunity to pursue a similar strategy there - or at least avoid being outflanked by them. While ASEAN and China
have already begun discussing prospects for bringing China into the group, current ASEAN members desire a deal
with the U.S., nonetheless. China's growing economic power is a source of concern for ASEAN nations, all of whom
compete with China for Western investment, and most of whom would like to mitigate their dependence on the
Chinese market. Indeed, they would also like greater immunity from China's weak currency policy, which has made
Chinese exports even more competitive. In this regard, a U.S-ASEAN deal would provide greater investment
opportunities and alternative paths for economic growth in this geo-politically significant region. Recognizing the
link between economic stagnation and terrorism in Islamic countries, the Bush administration hopes to use trade
policy to advance foreign policy objectives. Indeed, this is Zoellick's primary justification for pursuing talks with
Morocco. It is also applicable to Southeast Asia. The USSFTA - and its possible extension to ASEAN -- ties U.S.
economic interests directly to a region of foreign policy concern. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, was
the setting for the worst post-911 terrorist carnage to date. Al Qaeda cells are known to operate in the Philippines.
Terrorist threats against sites in Thailand and other countries in the region have been pervasive. Increased U.S.
engagement in the region would not only improve mutual economic prospects, but it help with the objective of
eliminating breeding grounds for terrorism.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 14

Ext: Impacts Nuke War

Nuclear war in South Asia would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

FPIF, foreign policy in focus creates reports on foreign policy topics through compilations of
various professors and directors works, “Nuclear War in South Asia”,
http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html. [T-Jacob]
The effects of a nuclear weapon explosion are so immense and so different from those of conventional weapons that
it is useful to present, as a case study, a familiar hypothetical "target." The nuclear weapon used by the United States
to attack Hiroshima had a yield equivalent to 15 thousand tons of TNT and was detonated at 580 meters above the
surface of the earth. This yield is comparable to the yields of the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan claimed
they tested in May 1998. We describe therefore the effects of a single explosion of a Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb
at an elevation of 600 meters over Bombay (Mumbai), India. The consequences of such an explosion for any other
large, densely populated, South Asian city would be similar. The short-term effects of a nuclear explosion--those that
occur within the first few weeks--can be classified as either prompt or delayed effects. In addition, there are long-
term effects, primarily related to radiation from fallout, that can develop over years. Approximately 5,000 kilometers
east of New Delhi and 55 years ago two nuclear weapons were used by the United States to kill over 190,000 people
in Japan. Agonizing deaths took place for approximately a month after the explosions--indeed deaths continued for
weeks after Japan surrendered. The impacts on that country and the world from these atomic bombings have been
enormous, and continue to the present. Can one predict the effects of the use of nuclear weapons against cities in
India or Pakistan today? In some ways "yes" and in many important ways "no." The effects of a nuclear weapon
explosion are so immense and so different from those of conventional weapons that it is useful to present, as a case
study, a familiar hypothetical "target." The nuclear weapon used by the United States to attack Hiroshima had a yield
equivalent to 15 thousand tons of TNT and was detonated at 580 meters above the surface of the earth. This yield is
comparable to the yields of the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan claimed they tested in May 1998. We
describe therefore the effects of a single explosion of a Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb at an elevation of 600 meters

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 15

over Bombay (Mumbai), India. The consequences of such an explosion for any other large, densely populated,
South Asian city would be similar.

Ext: Impacts Nuke war  Ozone layer

South Asian nuclear war would destroy ozone affecting the entire world.

Maggie Fox, part of Reuters, April 8, 2008, “South Asia Nuclear War Would Destroy Ozone”,
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/08/2210789.htm. [T-Jacob]
Fires from burning cities would send 5 million tonnes of soot or more into the lowest part of earth's atmosphere, the
troposphere, the US researchers report today online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And
heat from the sun would carry these blackened particles into the stratosphere, say the University of Colorado
scientists. "The sunlight really heats it up and sends it up to the top of the stratosphere," says Dr Michael Mills of the
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, who chose nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan as one of
several possible examples. Up in the stratosphere, the soot would absorb radiation from the sun and heat surrounding
gases, causing chemical reactions that break down ozone. "We find column ozone losses in excess of 20% globally,
25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50-70% at northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with substantial losses
continuing for five additional years," the researchers write. This would let in enough ultraviolet radiation to cause
cancer, damage eyes and skin, damage crops and other plants and injure animals. Mills and colleagues based their
computer model on other research on how much fire would be produced by a regional nuclear conflict. "Certainly
there is a growing number of large nuclear-armed states that have a growing number of weapons. This could be
typical of what you might see," Mills says.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 16

2AC Shell
1. No link: 1NC link evidence has no direct correlation between unilateralism
collapsing multilateralism.

2. Turn: Countries follow US policy; ASEAN will model energy policy off plan.

3. No Impact: the US has passed numerous policies, impacts have never happened.

4. Non-Unique: ASEAN already stable

Seah Chiang Nee, international journalist, December 10, 2005, “ASEAN: a Singapore
perspective: ‘We’re not doing too badly’”,
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/ForeignAfair/CTrendsFA-051210.htm. [T-Jacob]
Asean's stable transformation - helped by the end of the Cold War - had been phenomenal. It expanded
from five to 10 members, covering all of Southeast Asia. Communist Vietnam, the feared predator, joined
the group in 1995 contributed significantly. Others were Brunei (1984), Laos (1997), Myanmar (1999), and
Cambodia (1999). Realistically, however, the dangers have not disappeared - and probably never will.
Instead of facing pajama-clad communist guerillas in the jungle, the region now faces cross-border suicide
bombers - equally fanatical - strapped with explosives blowing people up. It is also threatened by invisible
foes like SARS viruses or the bird flu or AIDS, all potentially much more deadly. With the new dangers
come fresh opportunities. Its political status has increased worldwide, with powers big and small seeking to

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 17

work together with us. Asean has, of course, no standing army, its defence ministers have never even met
but nevertheless is a small soft power that can exert some influence on Asian matters. Being the smallest
member, Singapore pays special importance to membership in diplomatic and economic groupings, big and
small. Indirectly, it provides diplomatic deterrence, however small, against would-be predators. Asean is
therefore regarded here as a very crucial outfit. From Day One of its history, its foreign policy had followed
its trade routes. So it is a little impatient with Asean's pace of economic cooperation.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 18

2AC Ext: Non-Unique

East Asia is peaceful, there are few threats—This Means that the US should let the region
handle itself.

Cato Institute, prestigious think tank, 2005, “East Asian Defense Commitments”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf [T-Jacob]
American policy in the Far East has succeeded. For five decades Washington provided a defense shield behind
which noncommunist governments throughout East Asia were able to grow economically (despite their recent
setbacks) and democratically. Japan is the world’s second-ranked economic power; Taiwan’s dramatic jump from
poverty to prosperity forced the leaders of the communist mainland to undertake fundamental economic reforms.
South Korea now outstrips North Korea by virtually every measure of national power. After years of failure, the
Philippines seems to be on the path to prosperity, while countries like Thailand have grown dramatically. Major
threats to America’s allies and interests have diminished. There is no more Soviet Union; a much weaker Russia has
neither the capability nor the will for Asian adventurism. Elsewhere real, tough-minded communism has dissolved
into a cynical excuse for incumbent officeholders to maintain power. More than 15 years after the Tiananmen Square
massacre, China is combining support for greater economic liberty with respect for greater individual autonomy. So
far Beijing’s military renewal has been modest, and China has been assertive rather than aggressive, though its saber
rattling at Taiwan remains of concern.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 19

2AC Ext: Turns 1/2

US Withdrawal Is Key To US Japanese Relations and Japanese Independence

Cato Institute, prestigious think tank, 2005, “East Asian Defense Commitments”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf. [T-Jacob].
Washington should follow a similar strategy in Japan, which no longer faces a superpower threat. Whatever dangers
to Japan remain or might arise in the future, from, say, an aggressive China or DPRK, could be met by a modest
Japanese military buildup. Of course, many of Japan’s neighbors have long viewed Washington’s presence more as
an occupation force to contain Tokyo than as a defense against other threats. But the Japanese do not possess a
double dose of original sin; their nation, along with the rest of the world, has changed dramatically over the last half
century. The Japanese people have neither the desire nor the incentive to start another conflict, having come to
economic prominence in East Asia peacefully. Moreover, Tokyo is unlikely to accept a permanent foreign
watchdog, and tensions will grow as the lack of other missions for the U.S. forces becomes increasingly obvious.
Popular anger is already evident in Okinawa, where American military facilities occupy one-fifth of the island’s
landmass. Washington should develop a four-year program for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Japan, starting
with those in Okinawa. At the end of that period, Washington and Tokyo should replace their mutual defense treaty
with a more limited agreement providing for emergency base and port access, joint military exercises, and
intelligence sharing.

US withdrawal from Southeast Asia ensures increased national security

Cato Institute, prestigious think tank, 2005, “East Asian Defense Commitments”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf. [T-Jacob].
East Asia is likely to grow more important to the United States in coming years. That makes it essential that
Washington simultaneously reduce the military burden on the American economy and force its trading competitors
to bear the full cost of their own defense. Otherwise, U.S. firms will be less able to take advantage of expanding
regional economic opportunities. More important, the United States will be more secure if friendly powers in the
region, instead of relying on America, are able and willing to contain nearby conflicts. Jettisoning antiquated
alliances and commitments and reducing a bloated force structure does not mean the United States would no longer
be an Asian-Pacific power. After bringing its forces home from South Korea and Japan, America should center a
reduced defense presence around Wake Island, Guam, and Hawaii. The United States would remain the globe’s
strongest military power, with the ability to intervene throughout East Asia if necessary. However, American policy
would be dictated by the interests of the American people, not those of the populous and prosperous security
dependents that Washington has accumulated throughout the region.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 20

2AC Ext: Turns 2/2

US Withdrawal From East Asia Solves North Korean Nuclear Crisis

Larry Niksch, part of the foreign affairs, defense, and trade division, February 21, 2006, “North
Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program”, CRS Brief. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB91141.pdf
In addition to the old agenda with the new emphasis on light water reactors, North Korea also raised the “regional
disarmament” agenda that it had announced on March 31, 2005. North Korean negotiators declared that North Korea
would “abandon our nuclear weapons and nuclear program” when the United States agreed to “normalization” of
relations and “nuclear threats from the United States are removed.” They asserted that the United States must
dismantle U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea (the United States claims there are no nuclear weapons in South
Korea), cease bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea, end the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” in the U.S. defense
commitment to South Korea, and agree to negotiate a “peace mechanism” with North Korea to replace the 1953
Korean armistice agreement. The North Koreans also reportedly raised U.S. forces in Japan as part of the “U.S.
nuclear threat.” It appears that North Korea did not lay out the entirety of this agenda at the meetings. North Korean
official commentary before and after the meeting also called for restrictions on U.S. “nuclear strike forces” and joint
U.S.-South Korean military exercises on the Korean peninsula, and a withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea
under a peace mechanism. The commentary emphasized that major U.S. military concessions related to Pyongyang’s
agenda is a requirement for settlement of the nuclear issue. In agreeing in the six party statement to a separate
negotiations of a peace agreement, North Korea may have decided to shift its focus from the United States to South
Korea, believing that South Korea now may be prepared to make greater concessions concerning U.S. troops in
South Korea than the Bush Administration would.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money

ASEAN DA
DDI 2008 C/M
T-Money page 21

2AC Ext: Non-Unique

There is no threat from the Philippines

Cato Institute, prestigious think tank, 2005, “East Asian Defense Commitments”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-58.pdf. [T-Jacob].
The United States need not expand base access elsewhere in the region. Washington should drop proposals to
increase defense cooperation with Singapore and tightly circumscribe the scope of its Visiting Forces Agreement
with the Philippines, which was promoted by former president Joseph Estrada and other Filipino supporters as a
mechanism for drawing the United States into any confrontation between the Philippines and China. The United
States needs also to limit any future military training missions, sharply insulating American forces from involvement
in domestic conflicts, such as that involving the Abu Sayyaf, essentially a gang of bandits. The United States has
suffered no damage attributable to the closing of its bases in the Philippines, which had become expensive
anachronisms, in 1992. Instead of upgrading U.S. military ties, Washington should be transferring security
responsibilities to its allies and friends.

TEAM INDIA SCORES AGAIN! ~ Vikrizzle & T-money