Resolved, that on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

Resolved, that on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States. My partner and I can only see a negative ballot for 2 reasons. The rise of BRIC has been detrimental to the U.S. economy. The rise of BRIC is not a suitable replacement for U.S. leadership. To start, in order for pro to win this round they must prove that (A.) each country has had a positive impact. (B.) The pros outweigh the cons. Contention 1 BRIC has had a negative impact on the U.S. economy. All the four BRIC countries: a) are among the top seven largest countries in land area, b) among the top eight most populous countries (accounting for about 40 percent of the world population), c) among the ten biggest economies in terms of GDP purchasing power parity and d) are among the top fourteen biggest economies in terms of nominal GDP. Russia and China are also part of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the two of them, along with India, possess nuclear capabilities. America owes China 585 billion dollars, Brazil 141.9 billion dollars, Russia 69.7 billion and India 14.2 billions in debt. This is 5% of our GDP. In the times of the great depression our debt was 3.4% of our GDP. Trade has also been risky. We have had a $275.7 billion trade deficit with BRIC in 2008. We are trading, but we are paying more for what we get. This in return causes a deficit. BRIC gets the surplus and we get the deficit. How is that fair trade? According to the Washington Post, 7.5 million jobs have been lost in 2008 due to trade deficits with BRIC. Leading economist, Raymond L. Richman, the leading cause of our recession is our trade deficits. BRIC is the leader in trade deficits to the U.S. Trade with BRIC has been a horrible option for the U.S. Outsourcing has also been a negative affect. Outsourcing of our best-paying jobs, both globally and domestically, has contributed to a general decline in worker living standards. In the past year, 80% of working families saw a drop in real wages despite healthy gains in worker productivity. Job-loss has also been identified as a huge cause of the recession. Since 1986, 15 million high-paying manufacturing jobs have left the US and American workers. Contention 2 The rise of BRIC is not a suitable replacement for U.S. leadership. We have to see that BRIC's rise is causing our leadership to weaken. From 2004 to 2008 BRIC has grown 15%, meanwhile the U.S. shrunk 15% according to Business Weekly. These countries are not a suitable replacement for power. The fact is that a multi-polar world has been rising due to BRIC's rise. A multi-polar is negative because that is what caused the cold war. In the history of time multi-polar worlds lead to brutal wars. World war 2 nearly destroyed Europe. This was caused by nations who increased their hegemony to become better, then other nations also increased leading to a war. As you can see a multi-polar war has destroyed our American fabric in the cold war. BRIC'S rise is leading to the exclusion of the US. Sub-point A According to The Economists, in 2007, Brazil assembled 33 countries from across the Americas to discuss a host of issues ranging from defense to the economic slowdown. The two‐day gathering, at a resort near the northeastern city of Salvador, marked the first time that every country in Latin America and the Caribbean had met without the presence of the United States or Europeans. The message: it is Brazil, with a growing economy and a popular president in Luiz Inï¿½cio Lula da Silva, and not the United States that is now the leading power in the region. We can see that Brazil's rise is harming our foreign relations. Sub-point B An unnamed Russian Defense Ministry official was quoted by Itar-Tass detailing Russian contracts of anti-aircraft weapon systems to Syria and Iran — worth more than $1.3 billion — are being filled on schedule. Leaders of Hamas, Egypt, Syria, and others have been establishing warm relations with Russia during recent visits to Moscow. A very troubling sign of things to come is that Russia's stated foreign policy being driven by its "deep dislike of the U.S." is being applauded by state-sponsored terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria and by allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Sub-Point C China would not be a suitable replacement for our leadership. Moreover, though growth in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in recent decades have closely followed U.S. trends, China has run completely against the grain, surging as America has slowed and slumping as America has boomed. Because China has thus become an independent source of global growth, its imports will likely be an independent growth stimulus for others, securing its own long‐term trade expansion and overall sustainable growth. Also China and Russia have signed a peace treaty leaving the U.S. out the loop. This treaty included an expansion of trade. It is easy to see that China is harming our leadership. Sub-point D India would not be a suitable replacement for our leadership. Their rise has caused strained terms with India, which affects the U.S. We have to give money and weapons to both countries to sustain peace. How are we paying for this? Our tax dollars. Also India and Iran are causing problems. The U.S. and Iran are not on good terms considering the continuation of Iran's nuclear program. Ever since the United States and India started to transform their ties by changing the global nuclear order to accommodate India, Iran has emerged as a litmus test that India has had to pass from time to time to the satisfaction of US policy makers. India's traditionally close ties with Iran have become a factor influencing an US‐India partnership. India‐Iran ties have been termed variously as an "axis." a "strategic partnership," and even an "alliance". We have to see that India's rise is causing unfriendly nations to rise such as Iran.