Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism

[Preliminary Note: Judge, the affirmative will be using factual paraphrases instead of quotes from cards; however, all cards used for the round will be available upon request at any time during cross-examination and preparation time, as well as after the round for verification of authenticity and legitimate paraphrase.] What is the alternative to the WTO? Some argue that the world's only superpower need not be tied down by the constraints of the multilateral system. They claim that US sovereignty is compromised by international rules, and that multilateral institutions limit rather than expand US influence. Almost none of the trade issues facing the US today are any easier to solve unilaterally, bilaterally or regionally. The reality is probably just the opposite. It is because I agree with the Director-General of the World Trade Organization Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi that I must stand resolved, and affirm that free trade should be valued above protectionism. I offer the following definitions for today's round: •Free trade - Free trade is the unhindered flow of goods, services labor and capital between countries. It is carried out with very little or without government intervention measures that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones. •Should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. •Protectionism - Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention. Stability is the highest value to look to in today's round. With rampant unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere, massive economic meltdowns, and weighty devastation of the environment causing mass concern for people around the world, stability, or the property of a body that causes it when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition, is something almost universally desired. The side which produces the greatest amount of stability should win today's round. The best criterion for determining stability in today's round is by Promoting the Free Trade Model. The free-trade model is very simple to understand: put simply, it states that countries export products that use their abundant and cheap resources, and import products that use their scarce resources. Contention I: Preserving the WTO Holds Significant Benefits The most important part of promoting the free trade model is that it keeps the World Trade Organization running. The World Trade Organization, herein referred to as the "WTO" was founded in 1995 to promote and regulate trade, and also to mitigate conflicts between its 183 member nations (out of 196 nations around the world, leaving just 13 nations). These are several significant benefits to keeping the World Trade Organization: A.Conflict Resolution Bryan Mercurio of the University of New South Wales writes that though a regional system – protectionism – has certain short term benefits, the long-term effects of a fragmented system, lesser growth, and less poverty reduction are too poignant to ignore. Mercurio also suggests that with a collapse of the WTO – which we know will happen without a free trade model around the world – large countries would prey on the weakness of smaller ones, and cause large-scale conflicts worldwide. This is because the WTO has strong mitigation powers that keep large countries in check. The ability of conflict resolution is reason enough to preserve the WTO, but there are others. B.Environmental Policy According to Phillipe Legrain, WTO advisor, the WTO allows governments to protect human, animal, and plant life so long as it is not disguised protectionism. Also, the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture allows for the development of non-trade concerns like food security and environmental protection. Further, by fostering trade, the WTO promotes economic growth, which Legrain claims is the generally good for the environment and leads to long-term development. Without these measures by the WTO, it is likely that environments would be devastated for the purposes of short-term sustainability, which would essentially be economic suicide for the countries of the world. Once again, we see that the WTO is necessary. C.Cooperation Mr. Panitchpakdi, from whom I draw my quote, states that the WTO's involvement in multilateral actions is key to fostering cooperation, which nations like the United States the United Kingdom desperately need. Terrorism, poverty, health, and greater global involvement are both economic and social concerns, and are next to impossible to solve unilaterally. Multilateral action through WTO-fostered cooperation is a better means to accomplish these problems. Without the WTO, it would be more difficult for nations to cooperate because they would be lacking a central mitigatory force, allowing for the rampant rule of mega-corporations in the global market. Unilateral action, resulting in inevitable failure, would ensue. This must be avoided for both economic and social reasons. Contention II: The Ideology of the Model Has Important Consequences Peter Yu of Michigan State University discusses in an article the implications of a new trade policy between the United States and China. Essentially, he states that implementing a coercive policy – convincing countries to do things by threatening trade sanctions – is poor policy, not only because it's anti-free trade, but also because it holds the threat of starting a global trade war. This small change in the grand scheme of the free trade model may seem insignificant, but it has the potential to erupt global war. Even putting the WTO aside, it is imperative that the world continue to rely on the free trade model to ensure stability and prevent the outbreak of mass war. Contention III: Protectionism Creates a Welfare State Empirical evidence shows that the flip side of trade liberalization is a social welfare state, says D. Rodrik of the International Economy Institute. Rodrik states that globalization, as he calls it, has two major effects. First, it erodes the desire for free trade, and leads to more protectionist policies. Also, it expands what is called external risk. Countries that participate in globalization – which is noneconomic – are more susceptible to external risk, and therefore demand and receive more shelter from the variability of the global markets; this in turn leads to the creation of countless new social welfare programs. As we well know, social welfare programs bankrupt the economy and have the potential of bringing about the next great depression. Once again, keeping the free trade model and limiting protectionism is better for stability, not only at the international level, but on the individual national level as well. For these reasons, I urge an affirmative ballot.