US Should(Must) Systematically Embargo China

Because I do not want to ruin what many (including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton) consider the most important relationship in the twenty first century, I don"t think it is a good idea to embargo china Reason 1: similar foreign policy objectives China"s efforts to stop global terrorism align with ours: NBEN group wrote "Minister of Foreign Affairs Lu Janchao said that the Chinese government opposed terrorism in any form and intended to strengthen cooperation with international community to carry out counter terrorist mission. In his words such position of China is definite and invariable. China is a member of SOC, foreground task of which is the struggle with terrorism, separatism and extremism. About 6000 military men and more than 1000 weapons from Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, China and Uzbekistan took part in these drills." China"s international goals are also the same as ours The economist magazine wrote: "China and America have a lot in common. Both benefit from globalization and from open markets. Both want a broadly stable world in which nuclear weapons do not spread and rogue states, like Iran and North Korea, have little scope to cause mayhem. Both would lose incalculably from war." This is seen by their current efforts to crack down on North Korea and sponsor peace talks with Iran Reason 2: economic benefits China"s export market provides substantial benefits to Americans Annalyn Censky of CNN wrote. "U.S. businesses exported a record $104 billion in goods to China last year, nearly double the amount they exported just five years earlier. Growth in exports to China is critical to the government"s plan to double exports overall by 2015, a witch will create jobs at American manufacturers." China also helps to Decrease the cost of living: Robert Capp and Associates, a firm that advises American companies doing business in China says "low prices are the greatest benefit American consumers receive from China. "China produces products that Americans consume at large quantities, at prices lower than Americans would have to pay if the product was made elsewhere," he says. "American consumers' cost of living was moderated by the lowering of retail prices of goods produced in China." Daniel J. Ikenson of the wall street journal explains "Sanctions on china will cause higher prices on American consumers, thereby reducing Americans" real incomes. Higher prices at Wal-Mart and Target " two of the biggest retailers that bring Chinese goods to U.S. customers " will be felt especially hard by lower-income Americans. Trade sanctions would in effect amount to a regressive tax." And Last, China's investment into our economy is beneficial The congressional research service in December 2012 stated "Given its relatively low savings rate, the U.S. economy depends heavily on foreign capital inflows from countries with high savings rates (such as China) to meet its domestic investment needs and to fund the federal budget deficit. The willingness of foreigners to invest in the U.S. economy and purchase U.S. public debt has helped keep U.S. real interest rates low." On to my opponents case First, to china being authoritarian First attack: Sure china may be communist and may have a bad history, but ultimately what we need to look at is the status quo. China"s middle class has been growing and middle classes tend to hold more democratic values (Seymour lipset"s modernization theory) this is seen in many ways: One example: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao declared, "Tomorrow's China will be a country that fully achieves democracy, the rule of law, fairness, and justice. Without freedom, there is no real democracy. Without guarantee of economic and political rights, there is no real freedom Also: Nancy Qian, an economist at Yale University, has shown that the introduction of democratic village elections in China has improved accountability and increased expenditures on public services In addition to that: According to 2003 surveys cited in How East Asians View Democracy, edited by the researchers Yun-han Chu, Larry Diamond, Andrew Nathan, and Doh Chull Shin, 72.3 percent of the Chinese public polled said they believed that democracy is "desirable for our country now," and 67 percent said that democracy is "suitable for our country now." These two numbers track with those recorded for well-established East Asian democracies, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan Second Attack: ultimately, the United States needs to look to its own interests when making policies. The bottom line is oppressive or not, the way china treats its citizens has nothing to do with the US and this point has very little weight Now onto my opponent"s second point: china is volatile. First Attack: the only weight that this argument will have is if my opponent can prove definitively that china is somehow hurting the us with its so called "rouge actions" Second Attack: actions in previous decades are an irrational thing to punish the current leadership in china for so these examples must be recent Third Attack: my opponent must prove that the threat of china is big enough to sanction and give up all of the economic benefits. Fourth Attack: looking at china, we see a leader (Xi Jinping) who has stated that China will never pose a threat to another country, because the country needs a peaceful, stable and friendly environment for its development. Just refer to my democratization evidence, this idea my opponent has of china simply does not seem to be reality. And last my opponents practical point. Sure, we did not need china 20 years ago, but today we heavily depend on china. China owns about 10% of our national debt and our economy benefits greatly from trade (refer to offensive point 2). My opponent claims that it would be "fine" if we stopped dealing with china. Maybe it will be "fine" in that we won"t cease to exist, but cutting ties with china would be a devastation to the financial markets and thus consumer spending and it would decrease the quality of life for everyone by increasing the cost of living in addition to hurting businesses(as I explained in offensive point 1). In other words we would likely deepen our economic depression and hurt our people severely if we were to cut ties with china.