Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

Observations Throughout my opponent’s argument, he seems to misinterpret the meaning of containment. Containment of a nation does not entail severing economic ties with them or canceling our bilateral trade, it is simply a policy that prevents expansion of Chinese influence, in a militaristic, diplomatic, and economic respect. As agreed to in the definitions, this “policy of containment” entails a comprehensive plan to keep an unfriendly government from acquiring more power, and this translates into economic, militaristic, and diplomatic containment. The only thing containing entails is to limit influence in those three areas, not make acts of aggression. I would like voters to take this into consideration. Opener My opponent alludes to the fact that containment really means a complete militaristic, economic, and diplomatic containment of the nation. He also stated that this entailed containing them in the field of international politics, trade, military, and strategic alliances. This is all correct, but I do not think my opponent understands that the main goal of a containment plan is to reduce the amount of influence emanating from a certain nation. This isn’t a USSR style lockdown, but a stern plan to keep the country of China from expanding their influence on the Asian continent and across the world. Economics Trade is mutually beneficial with China and nations on the Asian continent and the Pacific. Cutting economic ties and abolishing bilateral trade with China does not belong in a policy of containment like the one we are arguing about. Simply countering the ability of China to expand their economic influence throughout Asia should be the aim of a containment plan. Appealing to the authority or foreign knowledge of Condoleeza Rice might be misplaced, given the fact that 10 years after the Iraq war [1], she reaffirmed her approval of a total foreign blunder. Maintaining good relations with a nation who is willing to cooperate and work with us is a great thing, however I have proved previously that China has no interest in sharing the spotlight with us on the Asian continent, and on the world stage for that matter, and we should therefore instate a policy of containment from preventing their influence from encompassing the Asian continent. This debate is not about the state of our allies’ relations with China, or their willingness to participate in the establishment of a policy of containment. I am arguing for the justification of containment, not a coalition of our allies. Goods flowing from Asia to the United States is a huge net benefit to the economy. This is why we cannot allow China to dictate the rules of commerce and trade in the continent by the passage of trade deals and establishment of institutions without the involvement of the United States that only broadens the economic influence of China throughout the Asian continent. Actively working with the developing nations and up and coming world powers such as India to create a mutually beneficial relationship of trade and commerce will allow us to continue to have a spot at the table in Asia and ensure that China does not write the rules for the future of the continent. As we can see from a study done on the increasingly large role of China in Asian politics [2], China has an offensive diplomatic and economic strategy for the region. Not only do they want to have their influence reach the four corners of the continent and beyond, they want to create an Asian hegemon with themselves sitting on the throne; an Asia devoid of U. S. involvement. Not only does this not bode well for our interests in Asia, it is detrimental to our relations with our allies in the region if we cannot promise our assistance should the need arise. My opponent suggests the notion that ending or slowing trade with Asian nations is necessary for a policy of containment with regard to China. This is fundamentally incorrect, because it is other nations in the region that we need to be more involved with in order to stop the growth of Chinese influence. In order to counter the shifting balance of power in Asia, we should not halt or slow down trade with crucial nations like India, we should work as hard as we can to spur increased involvement with these nations, economically, diplomatically, and in some cases, militarily. Any point my opponent brings up about containing the economic influence of China in the region being harmful is moot, given that countering influence entails INCREASED involvement with these nations that already provide a large portion of our bilateral trade. I argue that economic containment does not involve directly severing or damaging economic ties in the region, this is absurd. Instead, we need increased cooperation with the nations targeted by an offensive Chinese policy of diplomatic and economic involvement. The economic aggressions my opponent suggests comes with a policy of containment are ludicrous, and this would most definitely harm our economic ties in the region. However, containment is about limiting the power, the influence, of China diplomatically, economically, and militarily. By supporting containment, I am not arguing for the destruction of economic ties with China, I am advocating for increased involvement with Asian nations to ensure that Chinese influence does not spread to the point that they are able to remove us from the table, which is detrimental to our interests. In fact, decreased involvement like my opponent suggests would allow China to exert their influence on the region freely and possibly establish a hegemony without U. S. involvement, which is detrimental to the interest of the U. S. and its allies. [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://bit.ly...; Diplomacy/Military My opponent significantly downplays the impact of Chinese expansionism in the region, going so far as to suggest the slightest bit of military involvement would push China over the edge. This perspective is completely incorrect. When we analyze the position of China in the Pacific region through a geopolitical lens, they have backed themselves into a corner by aggressively expanding outwards into waters owned by several other nations, and sometimes encroaching upon the territory of U. S. allies [3]. This has given them a bad reputation on the international stage. Clearly based on Chinese expansionism in the region, we can see that they have utter disregard for international waters and the territory of other nations. The U. S. Navy needs to continue sailing their ships through these waters, sending the message that these waters are not available to be absurdly claimed by China, which in turn guarantees that these waters in the South China Sea and East China Sea remain a safe place for commerce beneficial to the U. S. and nations in the region. It is also important to note that military exercises with our allies is important, so that we are to guarantee their safety in case of a military confrontation. China shouldn’t feel threatened if they have proven time and time again that they are in fact the aggressors. The claim that the United States is a key partner with South American states is misguided. South America has been relatively overlooked by American foreign policy in the past decade [4], and China has become an increasingly large investment partner with nations in South America as of late [5]. This just goes to show that China is not only looking to replace the United States in areas of importance, but is also dedicated to reaching out to regions overlooked by U. S. foreign policy. This is also detrimental to U. S. interests, because like John Kerry said [5], “South America is our backyard. ” Chinese influence posing a threat so close to home is troubling, and this could permanently damage relations with South American nations for decades to come. Before China gains economic control of the South American continent, much like they are attempting to do in Asia and Africa, the United States needs a revitalized approach to the region that entails increased economic and diplomatic involvement. By doing so, we are containing the rise of Chinese influence to maintain our interests abroad. I have issues with this final contention in my opponent’s case. He attempts to argue that we should model our future approaches abroad after policies that were implemented in the past. This is incorrect, and our foreign policy needs to be adapted to fit every situation we come across, as each situation is unique, no matter how similar it may seem to previous events. Containing China like we contained Communism in the decades past is absurd, and our debate is about containing the power and influence of China. A policy of containment towards China requires a fresh perspective, and I would argue that this perspective entails increased involvement with nations subject to increasing Chinese influence, which would in turn counter the influence we are working to contain. While progress that the Chinese have made in regards to climate talks and increased trade involvement with Western nations may seem like China has a pristine record, it is their expanding influence in Asia and regions around the world that needs to be contained and is detrimental to our interests/ [3] . http://on.cfr.org... [4] . http://huff.to... [5] . http://wapo.st... Conclusion I have challenged my opponent’s arguments about the negatives of containment, as severing or harming economic ties with other nations will not accomplish much in regards to containing China’s influence, while increased involvement with nations subject to increasing Chinese influence can counteract an aggressive economic and diplomatic strategy employed by China. A thing for voters to recognize is that I have actually described scenarios of rising Chinese influence, I have justified a need for containment, and I have shown how to go about doing so, through advocating increased involvement in regions of increasing Chinese influence.