Pro

Arianna and I affirm, Resolved: The United States should accede to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea without reservations.
 1. Earth’s last mining frontier
The World Resources Forum in 2015 reports that due to the current rate of consumption, the
demand for natural resources exceeds 41% spare capacity of the Earth, and currently over 80%
of the world population lives in countries that use more resources than their own ecosystems
can renew.
https://www.wrforum.org/opinion/planet-earth-limits-natural-resources/

Fortunately, deep seabed mining solves.

Letman from the National Geographic in 2018 reports that Papua New Guinea and Japan have
already taken advantage of deep seabed mining. They have made numerous advances in
remotely operated vehicles, robotics, and communications technology to pioneer excavations.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-race-to-mine-deep-sea-drones-
seafloor-environmental-impact/

Unfortunately, US companies want to join in on this opportunity but can’t, Tong in 2017 reports
that companies like [GMC, Deep Reach Technology, Ocean Minerals, and Odyssey Marine
Exploration]
http://www.savethehighseas.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Table_Companies-with-an-
interest-in-deep-seabed-mining_May2017-1-1.pdf
are interested in investing in DSB mining, however the lack of trust in current makeshift provisions
that US has substituted in place of UNCLOS has not promised to give these companies the legal
certainty that they need.

Carrington from the Guardian in 2017 explains the metals found in rich deposits are critical for
smart electronics and crucial green technologies, such as electric cars. As the world population
rises, the demand is now outstripping the production from mines on land for some important
elements. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/04/is-deep-sea-mining-vital-for-
greener-future-even-if-it-means-destroying-precious-ecosystems

Carrington continues that these metals are 50,000 times more concentrated in deep sea
deposits than in land ores. “Because the grades [concentrations] are so much higher, there is
much less impact. Deep sea mining is the lesser of two evils.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/04/is-deep-sea-mining-
vital-for-greener-future-even-if-it-means-destroying-precious-ecosystems

Clouse of The Guardian 2017 furthers that these seafloors contain materials that are crucial to a
low-carbon future, such as lithium, a material that is often used in electric cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/28/deep-sea-mining-environmental-mistakes

Deep seabed mining is beneficial for a few reasons

1. A green future needs these resources-

Baggaley from Mach in 2017reports that the bottom of the ocean is strewn with deposits rich in
gold, copper, manganese, cobalt, and other resources that supply our electronics, green
technology and other vital tools.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/these-fearsome-robots-will-bring-mining-deep-
ocean-n724901

The UCS reports that the use of renewable energy can provide 80% of U.S electricity by 2050.
Renewable energy provides many substantial benefits. It dramatically reduces global warming emissions,
improves public health, and provides jobs and other economic benefits.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-
electricity.html#.W4mLU6ROmaM

2. Economic sustainability

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042815036538/1-s2.0-S1877042815036538-main.pdf?_tid=ea096f22-b5bc-
400b-b5a3-dbace206d90b&acdnat=1535694040_6d29a2846681fe36ac15874d4519d986

Vervoort from the Global Sea Mineral Resources in 2018 explains that the demand for
renewable energy and electric vehicles will continue to rise. By 2030, 40 million electric
vehicles will be built per year. Only by focusing on responsible primary mining such as
deep-sea mining and on circular economy will we achieve these Sustainable
Development Goals of the UN
https://www.deme-group.com/gsr/news/deep-sea-mining-can-support-circular-economy

Impact is two fold

1. saving lives-
Suh from the United Nations Environment Program in 2017reports that CO2 emissions would
grow by about 60% to 2050. In the absence of efforts to stabilize the atmospheric concentration
of GHGs, the average global temperature is projected to rise 5.5 degrees in the long term and 4
degrees by the end of this century which is important because a warming temperature reduces
oxygen and suffocates marine life.
file:///Users/michellesun/Downloads/report_green_technology_choices_web_02062017.pdf
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Berwyn from the Pacific Standard in 2017reported that American technology could drive down
global CO2 emissions by 25 percent.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/new-research-says-tech-transfer-cut-emissions-25-percent
Furthermore, DukeUniversity reports in 2018that as many as 153 million premature deaths could
be avoided worldwide if governments speed up their plan to reduce carbon emissions and limit
global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180319145243.htm
Deep seabed mining is essential for helping provide resources for green technology which reduces
carbon emissions and ultimately saves many lives.
2. economy-
Moore from the Huffington postreports that development of resources in the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas off Alaska’s coast would create approximately 54,700 jobs per year nationwide with $145
billion payroll and would generate $193 billion in federal, state and local revenue.
He continues to report that the delay in ratifying this treaty has already cost the loss of one of four
seabed mines and that if we don’t adhere soon we will lose the remaining three. Further, losing this
industry would cost millions in consumer losses and foregone tax revenues and billions in the
balance of trade because the US is forced to import rather than produce these minerals.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-norton-moore/restoring-americas-oceans_b_1712081.html
PRO FRONTLINES
 REM DEFINITION
Rare Earth Element is a set of 17 chemical elements found in the earth’s crust. These 17 elements are
those such as: neodymium, yttrium, samarium, lanthanum, and dysprosium.

Vmineral.com
 A2: DEEP SEABED MINING BAD
1. Deep sea mining is a lot cleaner than land mining. Indeed, Carrington of The Guardian
finds in 2017 that the need for metals is inevitable, but deep sea mining is a better way to
obtain them than land mine because metals around found in higher quantities and thus,
easier to mine.
2. Fitch of Geographical finds in 2014 that the ISA is in charge of processing deep sea mining
applications, and they are on track to implement environmental regulations which have
been recommended by marine scientists, making deep sea mining safer for the
environment because of regulations under UNCLOS.
3. T- according to Alexander of Vice in 2014, ISA issued deep sea mining contracts are
leading to discoveries of biodiversity which creates the potential for new drugs and cures
for diseases like cancer which can only be found in the deep sea bed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/04/15/chinas-rare-earth-metals-monopoly-neednt-
put-an-electronics-stranglehold-on-america/#45a8a05f2d6d

1. The new sources don’t have a clear image of how detrimental it actually is
2. High deposits doesn’t make it as bad
3. Although these hydrothermal vents are being damaged, these hydrothermal vents will
ultimately repopulate and that’s just the natural way of life
 A2: CHINA BUYING
1. . Ibelle of Northeastern University in 2018 that because China wants to monopolize
REMs, competition will cause them to flood the market with cheap REMs. This means
producing green technology is less expensive, resolving what the Union of Concerned
Scientists says is currently holding back renewable technologies.
2. we aren’t talking about rems, we are talking about just regular earth metals b/c low
carbon tech requires so many more metals that high carbon tech.
Don’t tell me that green tech requires rems because our bell card tells us that many
companies are trying to use non rems for technology

3. China is actually planning on slowing down their exports to the U.S

4. They’re mining from the land which is a lot more dangerous to the environment than deep
seabed mining and I feel like the goal of any person in this round is to prevent deaths.

5. Also the us gains more profit mining themselves, and its better for us to be independent
because we have the technology to be able to mine
 A2: JAPAN BUYING
1. Japan hasn’t got enough for the US to depend.
2. More and more countries are joining the race to deep seabed mine independently. The US must
join independently by association.
3. Also the us gains more profit mining themselves, and its better for us to be independent
because we have the technology to be able to mine
 CON
________ and I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States should accede to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea without reservations.
 Contention 1: Involving the US in UNCLOS reduces
diplomatic efforts with China
National Interest August 2016 explains that China is already suspicious about the U.S.
involvement in the South China Sea. If the U.S. were to ratify UNCLOS, then US members
would be able to serve on the arbitration panels that determine the rulings of cases that reach the
UNCLOS tribunal. Problematically, in the eyes on China, the presence of Americans on the
panel would further anger China as they view international legal regimes as vehicles for
advancing US interests and its hegemonic presence.

Straits Times May 2016 finds that for a long time, the freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea was never an issue. However, with increased U.S. involvement, the US has created and
played up this issue. Since 2015, under the guise of safeguarding navigation in the South China
Sea, the US chose to increase military presence. In essence, the US version of freedom of the
seas means that the US navy is able to freely traverse the world. As early as 2011, the US has
claimed to deploy over 60% of its military resources to the Asia-Pacific, expanding its arms
build-up and thus tensions as a result too.

National Interests concludes that with US ratification of UNCLOS, China would choose to
follow their calculated judgment of defending its own sovereignty and strategic value instead of
upholding UNCLOS’s decision.

The impact is a reduction in diplomacy which consequently leads to war.

Mitchell of Iowa State University finds that failure to uphold UNCLOS’s ruling would increase
the probability of war. In an empirical study analyzing all the past UNCLOS treaties and
agreements, conclusive evidence was found that UNCLOS systematically fails to promote a
peaceful settlement in maritime disputes. In fact, the failure to reach an agreement between two
parties increases the probability of militarization by two-fold. Problematically, Eric Posner of
Slate Magazine, finds that tensions in the South East Asian region are among the highest in the
world and within the region is the highest probability of war. By increasing militarization, we
push this heated region closer to war.
 Contention 2: The US is currently reducing
involvement in the South China Sea
Subpoint A: The United States’ relationship with China and the Association of South East Asian
Nations or ASEAN for short is worsening

South China Morning Post explains that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently had a
diplomatic failure throughout South East Asia. Out of the three nations he visited, Malaysia,
Singapore, and Indonesia, all three came out of the talks further alienated from the U.S.
Meanwhile, regional media has slowly started the trend of South East Asian countries being
pulled towards China.

Emanuele Scimia 2018 furthers that the trade wars between China and the US have caused
China to move towards the prospects of increasing regional trade. Combined with the decline of
trade between the US and South East Asian nations, and suddenly ASEAN and China are
looking towards each other for bilateral trade and thus increased diplomacy between the two
regions.

This increase in relations between ASEAN and China is crucial because

Subpoint B: ASEAN and China are solving the South China Sea issue themselves without US
involvement

Japan Times explains as of last week, the 11 countries collectively finished the draft code for
the South China Sea, which formally outlined the laws, including recognizing the South China
Sea as international waters. Furthermore, bettering relations could be observed through joint-
exercises being practiced by both parties including: oil and gas explorations and China’s
inclusion of South East Asian militaries in their military exercises. Importantly, such exercises
show an increase in transparency, trust, and communications.
If you affirm the resolution, you reverse this trend of increasing diplomacy between China and
ASEAN, because Straits Times explains that whenever the U.S. has increased their presence in
the South East Asian region they encouraged the South East Asian nations to seek confrontation
over consultation with China, which ultimately saw a repeal in bilateral agreements. By
affirming the resolution and ratifying UNCLOS, you pave the way for the U.S to increase their
presence.
Thus, we urge you to negate
CON FRONTLINE
 Philippine vs China Tribunal Ruling
(look on the cards Word Doc)
 Important Stuff
1. It isn’t Hypocritical to not sign. National Interest August 3-2016 explains that there is
nothing hypocritical about the U.S.’s decision to withhold from signing UNCLOS. This
is because the U.S. has voluntarily pledged to respect the all legal commitments. There’s
a huge difference between following international law and being on a committee that
helps make the laws. Not signing doesn’t mean the U.S. is refusing to respect
international law

2. U.S. Encourages confrontation over diplomacy. SOFT POWER >HARD POWER

Straits Times May 19-2016 The U.S. involvement has blinded the countries in the South
East Asian region that they can address the issue of the South China Sea through
confrontation instead of consultation/diplomacy. He concludes that with increased U.S.
involvement, it would most like end with a split in ASEAN, thus ending all diplomatic
efforts.

This is the Brightline, joining UNCLOS means that the U.S. takes a more active
stance in the region and thus as a result they start encouraging more confrontation
instead of consultation. Ends bilateral agreements.

a) Harvard National Security Journal March 15-2015 furthers that resolving

ASEAN-China territorial disputes is at the top of the priority of the U.S. when it
comes to taking initiative to joining UNCLOS. Thus, if you affirm, by joining
UNCLOS, the U.S. begins to take a more active stance in the SCS and South East
Asian nations, which is bad as Straits times tells you

3. 2016 China v Philippines case was heavily manipulated by U.S. behind the scenes to
ensure the Philippines won. U.S. is obviously going to take more cases to the tribunal and
strike China down, thus reducing diplomacy,

i. Since we tell u joining UNCLOS will only add us to the arbitration

panel, it’s pretty obvious we’re only gonna use that to our advantage.

ii. Look to Harvard National Security Journal which tells you specifically
once we join, the U.S. would try to use the arbitration panel to solve all the
territorial disputes. Problematically, historical precedence from the 2016
China V. Philippines cases tells us that the U.S. will ensure China loses.
THIS is important because it’s repeated failed diplomacy!! This is
uniqueness that links into our Mitchell Card.
4. Scimia in C2 is very important because this shows the reason why the Chinese
reversed their narrative and started to increase regional trade. This is because of the
U.S. tariffs and the need for economic security.

a. Link this to cards found in Frontline: Trade increasing in the Status Quo
which shows trade is increasing significantly between China and ASEAN.

5. Japan times in C2 about joint military and economic activity and increase in
diplomacy. Very important because this is first time we see impact materialize since
2002, when the draft code as first initiated.

6. If the new draft code in C2 holds then we will see a decrease in U.S. involvement,
which is exactly what the Japan times articles says. Draft code means that U.S.
needs permission from its allies to even enter SCS, thus a decrease.

7. Link into Japan Times: We show solvency with the most recent evidence. Global Times
September 12-2018 furthers that diplomacy is continuing to get better between ASEAN
as diplomatic talks are continually increasing between the two regions. This includes
furthering join exercises and solving disputes between maritime claims and establishing
the first draft code.

8. William Gallo of VOA June 6-2016 explains that the problem with UNCLOS is that it
works with a tribunal system when looking over maritime dispute. Just look how the
court system works in the U.S. the UNCLOS tribunal must rule in favor of one party.
Problematically, this means that 1 party wins on all terms while the other party is left
with nothing, like in the Philippines v China case. However, diplomacy cannot occur with
the tribunal system when there is one clear winner and one clear loser because that leaves
no room for compromise.

9. Broome in 2017 finds that once diplomacy starts failing over and over, it becomes harder
to start up diplomacy again because of the perception of no chance at success. He cites
the example of N.K. where continual failure in a diplomatic solution pushed N.K further
away from the U.S.

10. On C1. Impact: war breaks out irrationally, not rationally. Tensions are too high
and someone makes shoots a missile. Thus, MAD won’t prevent war.
 Easy Arguments to Frontline

Contention 1:
1. The U.S. will use the tribunal to try to reduce Chinese influence. (will be unsuccessful) 2016
China v Philippines case was heavily manipulated by the U.S. behind the scenes to ensure
the Philippines won. U.S. is obviously going to take more cases to the tribunal and strike
China down, thus reducing diplomacy,

i. Since we tell u joining UNCLOS will only add us to the arbitration

panel, it’s pretty obvious we’re only gonna use that to our advantage.

ii. Look to Harvard National Security Journal which tells you specifically
once we join, the U.S. would try to use the arbitration panel to solve all the
territorial disputes. Problematically, historical precedence from the 2016
China V. Philippines cases tells us that the U.S. will ensure China loses.
THIS is important because it’s repeated failed diplomacy!! This is
uniqueness that links into our Mitchell Card.

2. Failure of Tribunal system to promote diplomacy. William Gallo of VOA June 6-2016
explains that the problem with UNCLOS is that it works with a tribunal system when
looking over maritime dispute. Just look how the court system works in the U.S. the
UNCLOS tribunal must rule in favor of one party. Problematically, this means that 1
party wins on all terms while the other party is left with nothing, like in the Philippines v
China case. However, diplomacy cannot occur with the tribunal system when there is one
clear winner and one clear loser because that leaves no room for compromise

3. Once diplomacy fails, it’s harder to restart. Broome in 2017 finds that once diplomacy
starts failing over and over, it becomes harder to start up diplomacy again because of the
perception of no chance at success. He cites the example of N.K. where continual failure
in a diplomatic solution pushed N.K further away from the U.S.
Contention 2:
1. U.S. Encourages confrontation over diplomacy. SOFT POWER >HARD POWER

Straits Times May 19-2016 The U.S. involvement has blinded the countries in the South
East Asian region that they can address the issue of the South China Sea through
confrontation instead of consultation/diplomacy. He concludes that with increased U.S.
involvement, it would most like end with a split in ASEAN, thus ending all diplomatic
efforts.

This is the Brightline, joining UNCLOS means that the U.S. takes a more active
stance in the region and thus as a result they start encouraging more confrontation
instead of consultation. Ends bilateral agreements.

b) Harvard National Security Journal March 15-2015 furthers that resolving

ASEAN-China territorial disputes is at the top of the priority of the U.S. when it
comes to taking initiative to joining UNCLOS. Thus, if you affirm, by joining
UNCLOS, the U.S. begins to take a more active stance in the SCS and South East
Asian nations, which is bad as Straits times tells you.

2. Continuing the Status quo means a reduction in U.S. presence. If the new draft code in
C2 holds then we will see a decrease in U.S. involvement, which is exactly what the
Japan times articles says. Draft code means that U.S. needs permission from its allies to
even enter SCS, thus a decrease.

3. Golden Age of Diplomacy. East Asia Forum September 11-2018 explains that the
Chinese-ASEAN relations have been improving since the decrease in U.S. relations and
have finally started to materialize in the Status quo. For example, they’re finally
upholding the draft code, joint-resource exploration, joint military exercises, reduction in
Chinese aggression (removal of submarines from ASEAN ports, established a way for
maritime consultation, and China is literally supplying ASEAN with ships. WE ARE IN
THE GOLDEN AGE when it comes to ASEAN-China relations.

4. Bilateral trade between ASEAN and China are at an all-time high. XinHua September
13-2018 explains that trade relationships between China and ASEAN could not possibly
 be better than the Status Quo. ALL of these shows
long-term dedication to increasing relations

a. Both parties are seeking to ratify a free trade agreement to remove all tariffs to
increase trade and investment between the two parties
b. International expos between China and ASEAN are seeking to expand imports
and exports while also seeking to increase bilateral investment
c. New technology and innovation is being shared at between the two parties as over
2700 firms have shared ideas between the two regions. 2.6% increase from last
time
d. China has invested into infrastructure which has resulted in a new trade routes
that decreases shipping routes by 2 WEEKS! (if they link to food security we win so badly)

5. Trade projected to grow at the highest rate ever. CGTN September 12-2018 explains
that amid growing trade relations, the ASEAN-China trade volume is expected to go up
by 25% this year. (used to only be 10% growth, if they ask about uniqueness)

6. Continuation on increase in relations. Global Times September 12-2018 furthers that

diplomacy is continuing to get better between ASEAN as diplomatic talks are continually
increasing between the two regions. This includes furthering join exercises and solving
disputes between maritime claims and establishing the first draft code.
C1: Reducing Chinese Diplomacy
 China Dislikes U.S. Navy

1. UNCLOS rules in favor of China against the US. The Guardian June 27-2018
explains that China looks to uphold the UNCLOS provision of requiring naval ships to
obtain permission prior to entering foreign territorial waters and in addition disallowing
military exercises.

2. U.S. is increasing its navy The Guardian June 27-2018 finds that the U.S. has
increased militarization by consistently sending destroyers, cruisers, carrier, and bombers
into the South China Sea meanwhile it completely disregards other countries sovereignty.
Naturally, much of the Chinese build-up has been in response to the U.S. military
provocation.
 U.S. is increasing the presence of its navy

1. William Gallo of VOA June 6-2016 explains that since 2015 the U.S. has
increasingly sent more troops to the South China Sea such as warships, bombers and
surveillance aircrafts.
 Joining UNCLOS will piss off China

1. Straits Times May 19-2016 finds that the U.S. further alienates China by practicing a
double standard. Since the 1980’s, U.S. allies, Vietnam and the Philippines, had illegally
occupied 42 islands. This furthers the Chinese narrative of the U.S. being hypocrites and
only using international law and legal regimes to further U.S. interests and their
hegemonic presence.

2. Sara Mitchell of Iowa State University finds that UNCLOS is unfortunately a very poor
measure when it comes to solving maritime disputes, and more often than not, the result
of failed disputes is an increase in militarization because nations likely view the existing
distribution of maritime resources unacceptable.
 Tribunal System Negates Diplomacy

1. William Gallo of VOA June 6-2016 explains that the problem with UNCLOS is that it
works with a tribunal system when looking over maritime dispute. Just look how the
court system works in the U.S. the UNCLOS tribunal must rule in favor of one party.
Problematically, this means that 1 party wins on all terms while the other party is left
with nothing, like in the Philippines v China case. However, diplomacy cannot occur with
the tribunal system when there is one clear winner and one clear loser because that leaves
no room for compromise.
 Failed Diplomacy

1. Broome in 2017 finds that once diplomacy starts failing over and over, it becomes harder
to start up diplomacy again because of the perception of no chance at success. He cites
the example of N.K. where continual failure in a diplomatic solution pushed N.K further
away from the U.S.

2. Diplomacy is crucial to reducing the chance of conflict Regan in 2004 finds that
successful diplomacy however reduces the chance of conflict by 3-fold and in addition
reduces the length of conflicts by 86%. Unfortunately, ratifying UNCLOS negates any
chance at successful diplomacy.

3. IDK if this is relevant but it was in the Regan Card – Economic intervention, such as
the U.S. tariffs on China are found to increase the probability of war by 121% and the
probability to extend a conflict by 50%. Dunno how this relates to
UNCLOS, but hey it might be helpful somewhere….
C2: ASEAN – China Solves
 ASEAN and China will Resolve the Issue

1. SCS is free to traverse for trade The

Guardian June 27-2018 finds that hundreds of thousands of merchant ships are easily
able to pass through the South China Sea without any difficulty in recent year because of
the joint China and ASEAN consensus to main stability and free trade.

2. Must be between ASEAN and China The

Guardian June 27-2018 explains that a peaceful South China Sea is crucial to the
prosperity of China and the South East Asian region. Thus, it’s up to China and ASEAN
to find a peaceful solution themselves without U.S. involvement.

3. Top Priority of ASEAN and China Straits Times

May 19-2016 finds that a duel-tracked approach in addressing the South China Sea issue
is crucial. Thus, the only way the dispute gets solved is through friendly negotiations
between China and ASEAN. Luckily, he finds that ensuring peace and stability in the
South China Sea is a number one priority between China and ASEAN.

4. Agree U.S. should had no say Colin Koh

of SCMP August 1-2018 finds that all regional parties involved agreed that a diplomatic
solution should be reached between only the nations in the South China Sea region, and
not the U.S.

5. Japan Times August 6-2018 (just more specifics from the case) ASEAN and China
had a breakthrough recently in terms of improving their relations. Joint military exercises
and regional exploration for oils only continues to further signify China’s willingness to
increase cooperation with ASEAN.

6. Continuation on increase in relations. Global Times September 12-2018 furthers that

diplomacy is continuing to get better between ASEAN as diplomatic talks are continually
increasing between the two regions. This includes furthering join exercises and solving
disputes between maritime claims and establishing the first draft code.
 Trade Increasing in Status Quo

1. Japan Times tells you that Joint Economic exercises are increasing between ASEAN and
China. Furthermore, for the first time they finished the draft code establishing
international maritime laws and the SCS as international waters that allow for free trade.

2. XinHua September 13-2018 explains that trade relationships between China and
ASEAN could not possibly be better than the Status Quo.
ALL of these shows long-term dedication to increasing relations

a. Both parties are seeking to ratify a free trade agreement to remove all tariffs to
increase trade and investment between the two parties
b. International expos between China and ASEAN are seeking to expand imports
and exports while also seeking to increase bilateral investment
c. New technology and innovation is being shared at between the two parties as over
2700 firms have shared ideas between the two regions. 2.6% increase from last
time
d. China has invested into infrastructure which has resulted in a new trade routes
that decreases shipping routes by 2 WEEKS! (if they link to food security we win so badly)

3. CGTN September 12-2018 explains that amid growing trade relations, the ASEAN-
China trade volume is expected to go up by 25% this year. (used to only be 10% growth, if they ask
about uniqueness)

4. Trade used to be unilateral, now it’s bilateral. Obvious increase in relationships.

 Tensions are decreasing in the Status Quo

1. Look to the most recent evidence, Japans Times and Global Times, which tells you
diplomacy is at an all-time high between ASEAN and China.

2. East Asia Forum September 11-2018 explains that the Chinese-ASEAN relations have
been improving since the decrease in U.S. relations and have finally started to materialize
in the Status quo. For example, they’re finally upholding the draft code, joint-resource
exploration, military exercises, reduction in Chinese aggression (removal of submarines
from ASEAN ports, established a way for maritime consultation, and China is literally
supplying ASEAN with ships. WE ARE IN THE GOLDEN AGE when it comes to
ASEAN-China relations.

3. East Asia Forum September 11-2018 the relationships are literally so good that China
and ASEAN have established a hotline for direct communication in order to avoid
miscommunication. LITERALLY NEGATES ALL ESCALATION OF TENSIONS.
 U.S. – ASEAN relations are down

1. Emanuele Scimia of SCMP August 1-2018 finds that U.S. – ASEAN relations are
likely to plummet due to the trade deficit of $55.6 billion incurred between the two
regions, thus making it likely that ASEAN becomes the targets of Trump’s trade tariffs.
Thus, ASEAN is pushed towards the prospect of increasing trade with China.
 U.S. China trade down

1. CNBC finds that China is even more incentivized to look towards regional trade because trade
their trade index with the U.S. has gone down by 25% since January 2018. This just goes to
show how damaging the trade tariffs are to bilateral trade between the U.S. and China
 U.S. Involvement is worsening regional relationships

1. Straits Times May 19-2016 explains that due to U.S. interference South East Asian
countries have reduced bilateral agreements with China and decreased negotiations.
Instead, the U.S. eggs on South East Asian countries to actively seek confrontation with
China, which only goes to further reduce relations.

2. Straits Times May 19-2016 Recently, the U.S. increased military aid to the region by
signing the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.

3. U.S. Encourages confrontation over diplomacy Straits

Times May 19-2016 The U.S. involvement has blinded the countries in the South East
Asian region that they can address the issue of the South China Sea through confrontation
instead of consultation/diplomacy. He concludes that with increased U.S. involvement, it
would most like end with a split in ASEAN, thus ending all diplomatic efforts.

4. ***Eric Fish February 5-2016 crucially finds that U.S. is trying to reduce its
involvement in the South East Asian Region, which is crucial because signing UNCLOS
could reverse this trend and end diplomatic efforts between China and ASEAN.
 Less tensions = more trade

1. Schofield finds that trade in the SCS is crucial to food security of the South East Asian
nations. Thus disrupting trade is bad  People will starve.
Responses
 A2: Hypocritical to not sign

1. National Interest August 3-2016 explains that there is nothing hypocritical about the
U.S.’s decision to withhold from signing UNCLOS. This is because the U.S. has
voluntarily pledged to respect the all legal commitments. There’s a huge difference
between following international law and being on a committee that helps make the laws.
Not signing doesn’t mean the U.S. is refusing to respect international law

2. National Interest August 3-2016: Despite not signing UNCLOS, the US has upheld its
provisions far better than China has, as the last 3 U.S. administration have been
unequivocal about their support for the treaty in addition to adopting de-facto conformity.
Much better than China who directly violates the ruling of UNCLOS.
 A2: Need U.S. Military in SCS

1. Collin Koh of SCMP August 1-2018 finds that other countries navies that aren’t the
U.S. such as Australia, Canada, France, India, Japan, and Britain are found to be a major
contributor of peace and stability in the region.
This is most likely because they aren’t competing with China economically and as a
contender for a global superpower, thus China doesn’t fear their attempts at hegemony

2. Cross apply with [Frontline] “U.S. Involvement is worsening regional relationships”

and cross apply C1. where we tell you the U.S. presence is just seen as an attempt to
expand its hegemonic presence.
 A2: Arctic Drilling

1. Arctic Drilling is Dependent on Oil Prices, the Market is not looking favorable Karl
Mathiesen from the Guardian writes that prospects of oil exploration in the north are
heavily influenced by the price of oil. Problematically, the price of oil is at a 7-week low
and is projected to continually decline.
This is because currently U.S. – China trade disputes are putting a dent into oil price, but
furthermore Albert Khan finds that this is a long-term problem because currently there is
a huge of supply of oil, but no change in demand. Thus, basic economics tells us that oil
prices are likely to continue falling.

2. Oil companies have already witness the failure of drilling in the Arctic
Curtis Smith of National Geographic writes that Shell was the only company that
opted to take oil leases back in 2015 when they were offered. Shell was going to be
the pioneer company for Arctic drilling, thus future drilling efforts depended on its
success in order to attempt themselves. Unfortunately, Shell failed miserably. After
investing $7 billion and getting little out of it Shell backed off citing “simply not
enough oil to justify” and “too costly”

3. Oil companies aren’t stupid, they know the environmental risk and the dangers.
Brad Plumer of Vox finds that drilling in the Arctic is one of the most dangerous forms
of drilling imaginable, basically an accident waiting to happen. Thus, oil companies can
recognize the risk the comes with drilling in the Arctic and the many impending lawsuit
from environmentalist waiting to take place if an accident happens.
 A2: Rare Earth Minerals

1. A study done by University of Exeter in 2018 finds that mining for rare-earth
minerals has many adverse effects on the environment, including destruction of
habitats, releasing dangerous chemicals, and an increase in noise and light pollution.
Problematically, the damages created by rare-earth mineral mining would take
millennias to repair.

2. According to data collected by the U.S. government on the world’s supply of Rare
Earth Mineral Deposits, a lot of it seems to be found on land. Also what piece
of water is UNCLOS gonna add anyways??

3. James Vincent of the Verge in April 2018 finds that our ally and trade partner, Japan,
has just found 16 million tons of rare-earth minerals off its coast, which is essentially
enough to last for a life time. You literally put like almost none when you make phones
and stuff. I think 16 million tons is enough. Basic Supply and Demand.

4. “Rare” earth minerals aren’t actually rare. James Vincent of the Verge in April
2018 explains that the term rare in “rare earth minerals” is better replaced with the phrase
“moderately abundant”. The only reason they are given this name is because they aren’t
oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and iron which make up 90% of our mantle and crust (But
you know, the mantle and crust and pretty big XD). In fact, most of the rare earth
minerals are literally as common as copper. The only reason they hold a lot of value in
the market is because of the REFINING PROCESS IS HARD

5. James Vincent of the Verge in April 2018 You can see how common rare earth
minerals are when China, who controls 81% of all rare earth mineral mining, tried to
create a monopoly on “rare earth minerals in 2010” but failed miserably because the
supply is just so large. To put it in
perspective, OPEC control only 40% of the worlds crude oil and 60% of its export and
basically has a monopoly. 81% and NO
MONOPOLY, kinda proves abundant supply

Vedanth and Omar’s Crazy Responses to REM if the other team is good
(don’t have all the cards tho)

1. Delink it- The United States currently has access to REM deposits, it just can’t utilize
them. Spross in 2018 finds that America's problem has never been a lack of rare earth
deposits — it has plenty. The problem has been maintaining a domestic industry to mine
the minerals and transform them into final components. This means that the US does
have access to REMs.

2. CHAMPS. The Chinese Monopoly. Jeffery Green explains that Chinese prices are so low that U.S
companies can’t sell REMs at a commercial scale which translates into almost no profit for
American companies.

3. We should already be mining. Lauren Haigler of the American Security Project explains
that the U.S has the 2nd largest mining deposit but its not being used. If companies aren’t
even willing to mine near the coast, there is no way my opponents can convince you that
they would do it internationally where the transport cost is higher. Jeff Spross concludes
that the U.S simply doesn’t have a domestic industry that is willing to mine the REMs
and transform them into their usable form.

4. Delink it- The United States doesn’t have the proper infrastructure in order to process,
refine, or properly process REMS. Kennedy in 2014, finds that U.S. mining of rare
earths is pointless if it isn’t able to refine these resources into value added DoD ready
commodities: China maintains a global monopoly on all refining, metallurgical, alloy and
component technologies as well as OEM and material science facilities.

5. CHAMPS. Mitigate the Impact. Iain Murray explains that US companies will have to pay
levy fees and royalties which makes almost all mining unprofitable. Murray furthers that
with seabed mining already more expensive than land-based mining, companies will be
swimming away from the sea.

6. CHAMPS. They forget about the side effects. Jeff Spross finds that Mining rare earth metals is a
nasty business, with a lot of chemical and radioactive byproducts. Properly disposing of that
detritus is extremely costly, which makes mining rare earth metals for profit hard.

7. CHAMPS. UNCLOS isn’t necessary. Steven Groves explains that the U.S has bilateral
and multilateral agreements with other countries allowing us to mine outside of our EEZ
even without the licensing of UNCLOS. The problem isn’t that companies can’t mine,
it’s that they don’t want to.

Now lets talk about the environmental harms.

8. REMs only serve to hurt the environment through pollution, as The Guardian finds that
processing just one ton of rare earths produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste.
9. Jamail of Truthout explains in 2017 that a study published in Palaeoworld warns that
the release of arctic methane may be apocalyptic. This is because the mass release of
 methane leads to a perpetual cycle of warming that leaves the planet nearly inhabitable.
This is historically proven as during the Permian Mass Extinction event, there was a large
release of methane into the atmosphere which ultimately lead to the death of 90% of all
species on the planet, this is worsened by the fact that according to Shell’s 2015 Report,
they hold a very large interest in mining the very sea that was at the center of the
historical extinction.
10. It’s too good to be true- Alexander explains that deep sea mining is harmful because it
could cause immense destruction to ocean ecosystems and the people who depend on
them. Moreover, the full environmental impact of these operations is unknown, but even
the best-case scenario would involve the wholesale destruction of unique ecosystems.
Greenpeace International finds that Seabed mining could cause fish mortality, due to
habitat loss and a decline in food sources. They further that the remote deep and open
oceans host a major part of the world’s biodiversity and are vital for our survival on
Earth.

11. Gibbens of National Geographic explains in 2017 how mining caused the highest
number of human-induced earthquakes due to large amounts of material being removed
from the seabed floor. This is empirically proven as she furthers than many earthquakes
were clustered each around 217 individual mining sites.

A2: REM- Greentech

1. We don’t need them- More abundant minerals are far more effective as the ACS writes in
2012 that Scientists have described advances toward less expensive energy technology,
describing successful efforts to replace rare earth metals with more earth abundant materials
like zinc phosphide and copper oxide which have been found to be capable of generating
between 50 and 100% of the nation’s electricity within 20 years.

2. REM’s are overhyped- Most green energy technology usually uses some natural energy to
power a generator, function by pulling magnets through copper wire, facilitating the
movement of electrons. These magnets are why everyone thinks REMs like neodymium are
supposedly vital. However, Lovins of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists explains how other
types of systems such as induction or switched reluctance motors do the same thing at the
same efficiency, except they require silicon, the most abundant solid metal in the world.
Ironically, switched reluctance motors are used in mining operations.

3. Turn it- REM’s make oil cheaper Kirsten Guelly writes in 2013 the largest domestic use of REMs are
being used as catalysts in petroleum refinement through the fluid catalytic cracking process, which
turns crude oil into gasoline. Any increase in REM supply would decrease the price of rems, and has
two implications:

a. gas production cost decreases, driving up oil consumption, increasing dependence on oil.

b. Decreased oil prices make American green tech less cost competitive, short circuiting a
switch to green tech in the first place.
 A2: REMS- Green Tech- Carbon Capture Tech

1. DL. Carbon capture innovation takes decades. Minx of the Washington Post in 2018 explains
that the process of development involves research, testing, and gathering public support, and
that carbon capture tech will only become widely used by 2100. There are two harmful
implications: a) this type of green tech is difficult enough to develop that REMs won’t go to it
and b) even if their impact happens eventually, we’ll already be past the brink for climate
change because of the harms of oil drilling in the Arctic.

A2: REMs- Green Tech- Energy Poverty

1. Delink it- They have to prove how green tech would reach developing countries in the first
place.
2. Delink it again- Lomborg 14 explains that cheap electricity in developing countries is key to
powering agriculture and businesses that provide jobs and economic growth. The only way to
make green tech cheaper in the long run is long-term innovation. We outweigh on timeframe
because by the time that green tech can ever be implemented, our impacts will already occur.

A2: China REM Monopoly

1. They don’t have control anymore- Berke writes for Business Insider in 2018 that 16
million tons of REMs have been found off the coast of Japan- enough to supply the world
for centuries. If the US wants to diversify from the Chinese REM market, they have to
look no further than the island next door.
2. REMs aren’t rare. Tim Wostall explains that REMs aren’t really rare. U.S companies
just have no interest to mine them.

3. REM’s are overhyped- Most green energy technology usually uses some natural energy
to power a generator, function by pulling magnets through copper wire, facilitating the
movement of electrons. These magnets are why everyone thinks REMs like neodymium
are supposedly vital. However, Lovins of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists explains how
other types of systems such as induction or switched reluctance motors do the same thing
at the same efficiency, except they require silicon, the most abundant solid metal in the
world. Ironically, switched reluctance motors are used in mining operations. He
concludes that Chinese companies can’t control the global market, for whenever prices
get too high, demand goes down for REM’s, the market diversifies and innovates to other
sources.

4. Delink it- James Vincent of the Verge in 2018 writes, when China tries to take advantage
of and limit the global supply of REMs, other countries pick up the slack and increase
REM production. For this reason, Vincent concludes that it is impossible for China to
ever exploit their control of REMS without it actually backfiring and decreasing their
share of the global REM supply.
We can’t ever compete anway- Companies can’t compete in the status quo because China’s
low prices prevent other companies from competing. Ferry of the Hill finds that when Beijing
lowered their prices again, MolyCorp came close to bankruptcy and eventually shut down.
 A2: Hard Power Solves

1. What the specific warrant for why we need to station destroyers, battleships, and aircraft
carrier within the SCS???
Like isn’t the fact that we spend billions enough on the military enough of a warrant for
others to fear our hegemony. Like we have the strongest military in the world by far.
Their argument of hard power solves literally doesn’t make sense, we can have
deterrence without the need to flex our bloody navy 3 miles from China’s coastline. All
that’s going to do is piss off china more which is what our C1 specifically tells u not to
do.

2. A2: need to be near conflict. We have naval bases all over the pacific region, like
Okinawa and Hawaii, if u need intervention so badly, they’re literally like 2-3 hours
away. Give me a specific reason on why 2-3 hours is too much time!!! Not like the crisis
is gonna become way too escalated in 3 hours.
Worse comes to worse we sail ships across the pacific, that’s like 10 hours or something.

3. Also, this is completely non-unique. Why does signing UNCLOS suddenly mean more
hard power in the region anyways?
a. If it’s legitimacy - we already uphold UNCLOS as customary law, signing
literally doesn’t make a difference, we only join the arbitration panel.
b. Nine-dashed lines of China – Philippines v China case in 2016 ruled against the
nine dashed-lines of China, thus our presence is legitimized because we follow
customary law.
i. If they say China doesn’t uphold this ruling, well literally every other
country in UNCLOS does, so it’s pretty obvious which one makes more
sense. Also signing UNCLOS won’t make a difference anyways, because
just cause we sign doesn’t mean China is magically going to listen. Cross
apply with National Interest card that says China will maintain strategic
interest and sovereignty instead if we sign (Turn because this leads to less
diplomacy)
c. Non-unique: We’ve had hard power in SCS for years, why hasn’t it solved
anything???

4. Rand Corporation June 19-2018 finds in an empirical study analyzing past U.S.
military activities, a strong U.S. forward presence was commonly associated with an
increase in militarized disputes. Thus, hard power historically only incites conflict.
5. Ryan Pickrell of Daily Caller May 28-2018 explains that hard power literally isn’t
working in the SCS right now. We’ve sent in navy and destroyers to “calm” the waters
and China retaliated by sending in their own navy and threatening to take a more
confrontational approach if we continued.
 A2: China doesn’t listen to UNCLOS already anyways

1. Big difference is that firstly, this increases U.S. presence in SEA which impacts in
C2

2. Find some card that says China upholds some rulings (affirm = none are upheld) (For
example: China enforced reduction in Japanese fishing)
3. Find some card that says specifically China will take a more defensive stance and examples of how this happens. Ex. Repeal reforms if they feel threatened, or even go back on ASEAN
agreements.

4. 2016 China v Philippines case was heavily manipulated by U.S. behind the scenes to
ensure the Philippines won. U.S. is obviously going to take more cases to the
tribunal and strike China down, thus reducing diplomacy,

a. Since we tell u joining UNCLOS will only add us to the arbitration panel, it’s
pretty obvious we’re only gonna use that to our advantage.

b. Look to Harvard National Security Journal which tells you specifically once
we join, the U.S. would try to use the arbitration panel to solve all the territorial
disputes. Problematically, historical precedence from the 2016 China V.
Philippines cases tells us that the U.S. will ensure China loses. THIS is important
because it’s repeated failed diplomacy!! This is uniqueness that links into our
Mitchell Card.
 A2: Arms Race

1. Non-unique: Peter Pham of Forbes June 12-2017 explains that the “arm race” is
completely non-unique as the military spending for countries in ASEAN has been
increasing way before conflict ensued in the region (graph shows since 2004). It’s
literally been at an all-time high since the creation of the nations.

2. Also, we win on recency as we show you tensions are decreasing in the Status Quo. Arms
race not plausible, China literally supplying ASEAN.

3. Under Frontline C2: Tensions are decreasing in the status quo. Card that talks about
hotline, which stops chance of war I guess.
 A2: Redirecting Royalties

1. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/why-newfoundland-could-soon-be-
fighting-ottawa-over-paying-oil-money-to-other-countries

Article 82 has never been activated, royalties have never been collected.
Canada might, but no one enforces.

2. Delink it- Steven Groves from the Heritage Foundation writes that any Council
recommendation that is disapproved by the Assembly is returned to the Council “for
reconsideration in the light of the views expressed by the Assembly.” Therefore, in
function and form, the Assembly makes final determinations regarding the disposition of
Article 82 revenue.
 A2: Deepsea Bed Mining
(got from vedanth and omar, so no pdfs)

1. Delink it- Groves of the Heritage Foundation explains that UNCLOS just says that
nobody may lay sovereignty claims to the seabed floor or its resources. There are two
reasons why this doesn’t apply to the U.S. 1st, in order to be bound to what a treaty says,
you have to be a party of that treaty, and 2nd, the U.S. has made it clear starting in March
1983 in the 3rd U.N. Convention that even though they are not party to UNCLOS they
will still be able to mine the seabed resources without claiming sovereignty, therefore still
complying with U.N.C.L.O.S.
2. CHAMPS. UNCLOS isn’t necessary. Steven Groves explains that the U.S has bilateral
and multilateral agreements with other countries allowing us to mine outside of our EEZ
even without the licensing of UNCLOS. The problem isn’t that companies can’t mine,
it’s that they don’t want to.

3. CHAMPS. The ISA. Sebastian Losada explains that the ISA has granted permission to
companies like Lockheed Martin to 28 exploration zones across the Pacific and Atlantic
Ocean.
 A2: WMD/PSI

1. National Interest (under important stuff) tell you it’s non-unique cause we already have
the provisions to stop UNCLOS because we already uphold it as customary law. Only
difference is we join the tribunal. We don’t get any more navigational rights by signing
UNCLOS
2. Belcher finds the grounds for seizure and prosecution for WMD isn’t allowed under
UNCLOS because it is not recognized as an international crime.
3. Turn Belcher explains that grounds for searching ships under the suspicion of WMD
isn’t allowed under UNCLOS.
4. Look at their cards, probability of war due to nuclear weapons is probably very very low
 A2: Under Sea Cables
1. There is no impact to cutting cables. Louise Matsaki writes in 2018 that cables rupture
every couple of days from things like boats, anchors, and underwater earthquakes. You
never notice a difference, because the information is immediately rerouted. Even if
Russia cut every cable in the Atlantic, we would be fine because it would just be rerouted
across the Pacific.

2. Paolo Vargiu in 2013 tells us that the 1958 Geneva Conventions already cover the
provisions that UNCLOS covers. There’s no need for both.

3. Vargiu continues that bilateral investment treaties are significantly better for guaranteeing
safety than UNCLOS, and the US can use that with states as needed.
 A2: Stupid Phytoplankton
(got from Bryce)

1. Natural seeps are gradual, where oil spills/uses are high volume.
2. Organisms are adapted to natural seeps but are not adapted to oil spills/the effects of oil
use.

According to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, seeps flow at a very low rate.
Organisms that live nearby are adapted to conditions in and around seeps. Production,
transportation, and consumption of oil by humans generate high-volume inputs of oil in short
amounts of time. This significant exposure would not benefit organisms since they don’t have
NATURAL defenses to them.