Datasets:

dgonier

/

debate-llm

like 0

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In truth Mr. Obama’s commitment to the defense of Israel has not wavered. His overtures to the Islamic world reflected a desire to undo the damage done by the Bush administration’s global war on terror. He kept a distance from the Middle East peace process — although he created a special envoy to the negotiations — because neither Israelis nor Palestinians were ready to take hard steps needed for a durable peace. Cognizant that the region has long been a graveyard of U.S. diplomats’ dreams Mr. Obama decided to preserve his diplomatic capital until circumstances indicated that there was a real chance of success. That moment is not yet here. But dynamics in the region along with his re-election demanded that he refocus on the Middle East and a visit was overdue. The trip had several objectives. Mr. Obama had to win the confidence of the Israeli people and assure them — and others — of the strength of their relationship with the U.S. At the same time he had to make the case for the Palestinians without suggesting that there is a zero-sum relationship between the two. </source> [/INST] <claim>Diplomatic capital is not being invested in the peace process now</claim> <psg>Obama kept a distance from the Middle East peace process because neither Israelis nor Palestinians were ready to take hard steps needed for a durable peace. Cognizant that the region has long been a graveyard of U.S. diplomats’ dreams Obama decided to preserve his diplomatic capital until circumstances indicated that there was a real chance of success. That moment is not yet here.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> American carmakers are already part of the collateral damage. “The U.S. has launched investigations continued existing duties and filed complaints at the World Trade Organization on a number of other Chinese products as well over the past year ” the D.C.-based lobbying shop ML Strategies wrote in its 2013 outlook. “In response China has taken similar actions on American products most notably certain automobiles imported from the U.S. The coming year will likely see a continuation of trade tensions between the U.S. and China.” Will there be a battle over island territory? The World Economic Forum the Swiss nonprofit that sponsors “Davos ” warns that China and Japan could be headed for a naval confrontation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Never heard of these five islands and three rocks in the Pacific Ocean? It’s a major headache for Kerry. He might have to defuse the nationalist tensions of both countries spending diplomatic capital on security issues instead of economic ones. After all the United States briefly had control of these islands after World War II and gave them to the Japanese in 1972 the same year China and Taiwan claimed ownership. </source> [/INST] <claim>Kerry is spending diplomatic capital on China</claim> <psg>The coming year will likely see a continuation of trade tensions between the U.S. and China.” The World Economic Forum warns that China and Japan could be headed for a naval confrontation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Never heard of these five islands and three rocks in the Pacific Ocean? It’s a major headache for Kerry. He might have to defuse the nationalist tensions of both countries spending diplomatic capital on security issues instead of economic ones.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In practice Kerry’s first three visits to the region as secretary of state – Turkey Israel and the West Bank – produced no clear signs that the administration of President Barack Obama is rethinking its relationships with the protagonists in the conflict – or its tendency to shrug off Israeli actions that run counter to official American policy and international law such as building Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While there were no expectations for immediate results the Kerry visits served to underscore the limits of U.S. influence in the region. In Istanbul Kerry stressed that “Turkey can be a key an important contribution to the process of peace in so many ways.” One of those ways he explained would be to help revive the ailing economy of the West Bank another to create a climate of peace in Gaza the Hamas-run coastal strip that often is the elephant in the room in discussions about the conflict. Both Israeli and Palestine Authority officials poured cold water on Turkey’s possible insertion into the peace process. Kerry was equally unsuccessful in trying to persuade Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to keep in place Prime Minister Salam Fayyad the U.S.-educated former World Bank economist whose drive to build institutions for a future Palestinian state drew more praise from the U.S. than from Palestinians. The two leaders had been at loggerheads and despite a phone call from Kerry Abbas accepted Fayyad’s resignation on April 14. Kerry appears undaunted by such setbacks. He plans more visits to the Middle East in the next few months. Before that an Arab League delegation is due in Washington on April 29 to discuss a peace proposal first introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by an Arab League summit in Beirut. The plan offered full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for territory it captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Israel rejected the proposal but the Arab League re-endorsed it five years later. Whether the initiative in its original form or with changes has better prospects of being accepted now than it had then is open to doubt. How much time and diplomatic capital Kerry can spend on reviving something that has been more process than peace for two decades ultimately depends on Obama who firmly directed foreign policy in his first term. Major decisions were shaped in the White House not the State Department something not likely to change in Obama’s second term. </source> [/INST] <claim>Kerry has no influence and his agenda is directed by Obama</claim> <psg>Kerry’s first three visits to the region as secretary of state – Turkey Israel and the West Bank – produced no clear signs that the administration of Obama is rethinking its relationships with the protagonists in the conflict – or its tendency to shrug off Israeli actions Kerry was equally unsuccessful in trying to persuade Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to keep in place Prime Minister Salam Fayyad the U.S.-educated former World Bank economist whose drive to build institutions for a future Palestinian state drew more praise from the U.S. than from Palestinians. How much time and diplomatic capital Kerry can spend on reviving something that has been more process than peace for two decades ultimately depends on Obama who firmly directed foreign policy in his first term. Major decisions were shaped in the White House not the State Department something not likely to change in Obama’s second term.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> What the United States does need and urgently is diplomatic capital. Free of charge our Cuba embargo has given Castro and his protege Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez an enemy straight from Central Casting with which to justify their regimes. The embargo also alienates people throughout Latin America including many who risked their lives fighting for democracy in their own countries. For many the embargo is the disproportionate wrath of the Americas' Goliath toward a country that dared to defy it. Ratcheting down the embargo and the assumptions about it would echo positively around the world. Venezuela though might be the most immediate logjam to unstick. President Chavez wants nothing more than an old-time Cold War enmity with the United States. The drama therein provides him with material for countless speeches and endless distractions as he mines at democratic institutions. Imagine how his rhetoric and policies might be retooled if Cuba and the United States suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism counter-narcotics and technical exchange projects. </source> [/INST] <claim>Lifting the Cuban embargo would increase US diplomatic capital</claim> <psg>What the U S does need urgently is diplomatic capital. Free of charge our Cuba embargo has given Castro an enemy straight from Central Casting with which to justify their regimes. The embargo also alienates people throughout Latin America the embargo is the disproportionate wrath of the Americas' Goliath toward a country that dared to defy it. Ratcheting down the embargo would echo positively around the world.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> One way in which the Peace Process might generate nuclear terrorism against Israel would be via its ongoing legitimization of various terrorist groups. For example when the Clinton Administration prodded Jerusalem to enter into the Oslo Process and proceeded to host Israel's formal agreement with the PLO on September 13 1993 9' it instantly transformed Yasser Arafat and his terrorist network into a jurisprudentially and politically acceptable organization. Such diplomatic actions could give aid and comfort to terrorist groups making it easier for- them to ultimately gain access to the essential implements of nuclear terrorist attack. </source> [/INST] <claim>The peace process leads to nuclear terrorism</claim> <psg>the Peace Process might generate nuclear terrorism via its ongoing legitimization of various terrorist groups diplomatic actions could give aid and comfort to terrorist groups making it easier for- them to ultimately gain access to the essential implements of nuclear terrorist attack.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> But rhetoric to the contrary there is reason to believe that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are actually eager for what it takes to achieve rapid diplomatic movement. On the one hand no Israeli government is likely to consider ceding critical assets to a Palestinian interlocutor so weak that it lost power in the one small piece of territory once under its total control. (Indeed press reports suggest that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert rebuffed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's political horizon proposal during his visit to Washington last week.) On the other hand no rump Palestinian government still reeling from defeat is likely to make concessions on the key issues -- such as refugees -- essential to any peace deal. </source> [/INST] <claim>Neither Israel nor Palestine is capable at the moment to entertain the prospect of peace the Peace process must be put on hold</claim> <psg>neither Israelis nor Palestinians are actually eager for what it takes to achieve rapid diplomatic movement. no Israeli government is likely to consider ceding critical assets to a Palestinian interlocutor so weak that it lost power in the one small piece of territory once under its total control. no rump Palestinian government still reeling from defeat is likely to make concessions on the key issues -- such as refugees -- essential to any peace deal.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Each year at least 2 000 endangered loggerhead sea turtles are caught by shark and halibut fishermen off the southern peninsula of Mexico's Baja California. The turtles drown after being accidentally hooked on longline gear or entangled in gillnets. then they're thrown back into the sea only to wash up dead on shore. Sea turtle deaths reached record levels last year and alarmingly high stranding rates continued this spring. Scientists and conservationists have urged Mexico to close fishing areas where sea turtle habitat and risky gear overlap -- but Mexico has failed to take action. The United States and Mexico share this loggerhead sea turtle population which is listed as endangered in both countries. Please act now using the form below. Tell Mexico you're fed up with its bycatch and that you support U.S. trade sanctions if Mexico doesn't step up and stop the killing. Stop the Bycatch of Loggerhead Sea Turtles I am writing to ask Mexico to act now and halt the ongoing loggerhead sea turtle bycatch off Baja California Sur. As you know for two decades scientists have documented turtles becoming hooked or entangled in the Gulf of Ulloa's longline and gillnet fisheries. These fisheries kill an estimated 2 000 loggerheads each year. Last July 483 loggerheads were found stranded on just one stretch of beach -- a 600 percent increase over previous years' averages. And alarmingly high stranding rates have continued this spring. The United States and Mexico share the North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle population which is listed as endangered in both countries. The United States has closed fishing areas where important sea turtle habitat and risky gear overlap and also requires its fishermen to adopt more sea turtle-friendly gear. Mexico can and must do the same -- or risk the population's extinction. If Mexico does not act I fully support U.S. trade sanctions until Mexico reduces sea turtle mortality and adopts 'comparable' turtle protection measures as required by international treaty and U.S. law. Sea turtles need protection on both sides of the border and I urge Mexico to act now to save these ancient and vanishing animals. </source> [/INST] <claim>[CP TEXT: The United States federal government ought not <substantially increase its economic engagement towards Mexico> unless Mexico adopts and enforces legislation for sea turtle conservation abiding by standards outlined in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.]</claim> <psg>Each year at least 2 000 endangered loggerhead sea turtles are caught off the southern peninsula of Mexico Sea turtle deaths reached record levels last year alarmingly high stranding rates continued this spring. Scientists and conservationists urged Mexico to close fishing areas where sea turtle habitat and risky gear overlap Mexico has failed to take action. this sea turtle population is listed as endangered in both countries. support U.S. trade sanctions if Mexico doesn't step up and stop the killing. ask Mexico to act now and halt the ongoing loggerhead sea turtle bycatch off Baja California Sur. scientists have documented turtles becoming hooked or entangled in the longline and gillnet fisheries. fisheries kill an estimated 2 000 loggerheads each year. alarmingly high stranding rates have continued this spring. the sea turtle population is endangered in both countries. The U S has closed areas where important sea turtle habitat and risky gear overlap and requires its fishermen to adopt more sea turtle-friendly gear. Mexico must do the same -- or risk the population's extinction. If Mexico does not act I fully support U.S. trade sanctions until Mexico reduces sea turtle mortality and adopts 'comparable' turtle protection measures as required by international treaty Sea turtles need protection on both sides of the border</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Sea turtles demonstrate the ultimate lesson of ecology – that everything is connected. Sea turtles are part of two vital ecosystems beaches and marine systems. If sea turtles become extinct both the marine and beach ecosystems will weaken. And since humans use the ocean as an important source for food and use beaches for many kinds of activities weakness in these ecosystems would have harmful effects on humans. Though sea turtles have been living and thriving in the world’s oceans for 150 million years they are now in danger of extinction largely because of changes brought about by humans. If we alter the oceans and beaches enough to wipe out sea turtles will those changes make it difficult for us to survive? And if we choose to do what’s necessary to save sea turtles might we save our own future? Beaches and dune systems do not get very many nutrients during the year so very little vegetation grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season. Not every nest will hatch not every egg in a nest will hatch and not all of the hatchlings in a nest will make it out of the nest. All the unhatched nests eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the dune vegetation. Even the left-over egg shells from hatched eggs provide nutrients. Dune plants use the nutrients from turtle eggs to grow and become stronger. As the dune vegetation grows stronger and healthier the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better. Healthy vegetation and strong root systems hold the sand in the dunes and protect the beach from erosion. As the number of turtles declines fewer eggs are laid in the beaches providing less nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be healthy or strong enough to maintain the dunes allowing beaches to wash away. Sea turtles eat jellyfish preventing the large “blooms” of jellyfish – including stinging jellyfish – that are increasingly wreaking havoc on fisheries recreation and other maritime activities throughout the oceans. Research has shown that sea turtles often act as keystone species. Sea grass beds grazed by green sea turtles are more productive than those that aren’t. Hawksbill turtles eat sponges preventing them from out-competing slow-growing corals. Both of these grazing activities maintain species diversity and the natural balance of fragile marine ecosystems. If sea turtles go extinct it will cause declines in all the species whose survival depends on healthy seagrass beds and coral reefs. That means that many marine species that humans harvest would be lost. Sea turtles and many species that are affected by their presence or absence are an important attraction for marine tourism a major source of income for many countries. These are some of the roles that we know sea turtles play in the essential health of ecosystems. Who knows what other roles we will discover as science reveals more about sea turtles? While humans have the ability to tinker with the “clockwork” of life we don’t have the ability to know when it’s okay to lose a few of the working parts. If you disagree try to take apart a clock and just throw away one of the pieces that doesn’t look that important. Put the clock back together and see if it still works. </source> [/INST] <claim>Destruction of the sea turtle population causes extinction – brink is now.</claim> <psg>Sea turtles are part of vital ecosystems If sea turtles become extinct both marine and beach ecosystems will weaken. weakness in these ecosystems would harm humans. sea turtles are now in danger of extinction If we wipe out sea turtles changes make it difficult to survive if we choose to do what’s necessary to save sea turtles we save our own future If sea turtles went extinct dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be healthy or strong enough to maintain the dunes allowing beaches to wash away. Sea turtles eat jellyfish preventing the large “blooms” that are wreaking havoc on oceans. Research has shown that sea turtles often act as keystone species. grazing activities maintain species diversity and the natural balance of fragile marine ecosystems. If sea turtles go extinct it will cause declines in all the species whose survival depends on healthy seagrass beds and coral reefs. many marine species that humans harvest would be lost. major the roles we know sea turtles play in the essential health of ecosystems. try to take apart a clock and just throw away one of the pieces that doesn’t look that important. Put the clock back together and see if it still works.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Several international agreements upon which a similar treaty for the sea turtles could be based exist. These international agreements include CITES and the Convention on Biodiversity. Using CITES is an obvious choice because sea turtles are listed in both Appendices I and II of CITES demonstrating the recognition by its signatories that sea turtles are endangered and need to be protected. In the Shrimp-Turtle case the United States could select an agreement that all parties to the dispute have signed and use it as a foundation for a more expansive treaty. However the question remains whether or not this kind of agreement enforced through trade sanctions would be GATT compliant. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE This Case Does Not Provide the United States with Guidance in Avoiding Future Conflict Between Its Domestic Court System and the WTO Despite the shortcomings of negotiated solutions in this case a nego-tiated solution could enable the United States to satisfy the requirements of both the WTO and the CIT. If the complainants agreed to comply vol-untarily with the requirements under Section 609 by implementing tur-tle-safe harvesting methods in exchange for U.S. technical assistance the United States would be able to comply with the mandate of CIT. A negotiated solution in this case however does not offer the United States a predictable model to follow in potential future conflicts. The lack of guidance for future cases will further muddle the U.S. analysis of avail-able tools for environmental protection. In the United States similar con-flicts between national laws (like Section 609) and the mandates of a multinational organization (WTO) will likely increase as the government views environmental protection as an important area. For example 143 After the Tuna-Dolphin opinion the parties through the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) established in 1949 negotiated a dolphin accord the International Dolphin Conservation Act (IDCA) of 1992. The IDCA lifted the tuna import ban against Mexico and Venezuela but provided for unilateral trade sanc-tions if they failed to comply with the moratorium. The Declaration of Panama was signed on October 4 1995 giving multinational effect to the IDCA. Finally on August 15 1997 the U.S. Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act to recognize the IDCA and to lift the ban on tuna imports from signatories of the Declaration of Panama. See Cadeddu supra note 53. </source> [/INST] <claim>[CP TEXT: The United States federal government ought not <substantially increase its economic engagement towards Mexico> unless Mexico adopts and enforces legislation for sea turtle conservation abiding by standards outlined in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.]</claim> <psg>Several international agreements upon which a treaty for the sea turtles could be based exist. international agreements include CITES and the Convention on Biodiversity. Using CITES is an obvious choice because sea turtles are listed in both Appendices I and II of CITES demonstrating the recognition by its signatories that sea turtles are endangered and need to be protected. this kind of agreement enforced through trade sanctions would enable the U S to satisfy the requirements of the CIT. If the complainants agreed to comply with requirements by implementing tur-tle-safe harvesting methods in exchange for U.S. assistance the U S would be able to comply For example The IDCA lifted the import ban against Mexico but provided for unilateral trade sanc-tions if they failed to comply with the moratorium. in on August 15 1997 the U.S. Congress amended the M M P Act to recognize the IDCA and to lift the ban on tuna imports from signatories of the Declaration of Panama.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The Center For Biological Diversity and Sea Turtle Restoration Project have petitioned the United States government to impose trade sanctions on Mexico for failing to abide by international sea turtle conservation agreements. Their core concern is described this way: “Over the past decade scientists estimate that Mexican gillnet and longline fisheries have killed over 2 000 endangered North Pacific Ocean loggerheads a year. Bycatch reached a record high last July when a mass mortality event left 483 loggerheads stranded on just one stretch of beach – a 600 percent increase over previous years’ averages. This extraordinarily high level of bycatch cannot be sustained and may ultimately drive this endangered sea turtle population to extinction.” [news release] The groups say the United States has leverage through the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. The decade-old agreement is designed to protect both dwindling sea turtle populations and the habitat they rely on for feeding and breeding. The “bycatch” of loggerhead sea turtles in gillnets is centered in ocean waters off Magdalena Bay Mexico the focal point of our documentary which will be released next week. In an interview earlier this week Sarah Uhlemann a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity said the surge in deaths of loggerheads is enough to invoke the “Pelly Amendment ” which allows the U.S. to sanction any country that violates the treaty. In the next several years a ban on imports of certain Mexican seafood products could be instituted by the U.S Commerce Department if government agencies find that the loggerhead bycatch has not been addressed. </source> [/INST] <claim>The counterplan conditions the affirmative on Mexican adoption of sea turtle protection measures sufficient to meet standards proposed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This solves case and is net beneficial – that’s CBD. </claim> <psg>The C B D and Sea Turtle Restoration Project petitioned the U S government to impose trade sanctions on Mexico for failing to abide by international sea turtle conservation agreements. extraordinarily high bycatch cannot be sustained and may ultimately drive this endangered sea turtle population to extinction. the U S has leverage through the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. the surge in deaths of loggerheads is enough to invoke the “Pelly Amendment ” which allows the U.S. to sanction any country that violates the treaty. a ban on imports of certain products could be instituted if government agencies find that bycatch has not been addressed.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The transformational power of the EU in Central and Eastern Europe was based on the clout of conditionality. Material benefits for the norm-takers in the form of assistance and institutional inclusion alters the potential of the EU’s ability to be an effective normmaker (Bjorkdahl 2005). The literature on norm diffusion indicates that without the incentive of potential membership EU’s influence over other countries’ domestic political developments is likely to be minimal (Tafel 2008: 2-4). Thus the promise of rewards and the leverage to obtain democratic outcomes declines with non-candidate countries. For those countries in the European neighborhood policy the impact of EU democracy promotion has been severely weakened thus “the highest size of incentives lies in the promise of membership and decreases in the associations and partnership agreements” (Schimmelfennig and Scholtz 2007b: 15). The lack of prospects of membership does not equate to the assumption that conditionality does not exist in the relation of the EU with Latin America. While positive incentives offered by the EU to a state in process of democratization can include institutional membership association status trade benefits technical assistance and other types of aid negatives incentives may also be an effective instrument to exert leverage (McDonagh 2008: 144). For instance the EU used negative incentives comprising of economic sanctions when President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in July 2009 by suspending all aid programs to Honduras. In the case of Latin America the incentive of membership is not on the table of negotiation as a positive incentive. However the 6 negotiation and conclusion of association agreements with Mexico and Chile have constituted positive incentives to reinforce the democratic practices in both countries. </source> [/INST] <claim>Err negative on the specificity of our evidence – their generic solvency deficits only assume quid pro quos in the abstract not the CP’s particular condition for which we have a specific and qualified solvency advocate which cites empirics and data – it’s impossible to quantify things like impact defense means it’s best to defer to expert comparison.</claim> <psg>transformational power was based on the clout of conditionality. Material benefits alters the potential to be an effective normmaker The lack of prospects of membership does not equate to the assumption that conditionality does not exist in the relation with Latin America. positive incentives offered to a state can include trade benefits technical assistance and other types of aid In the case of Latin America agreements with Mexico have constituted positive incentives to inforce practices</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> THE CASE FOR COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT The rise of global challenges to the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda makes multilateral cooperation an increasingly indispensable vehicle for the pursuit of U.S. national interests and objectives. The country has little choice but to collaborate with foreign governments and international institutions in order to grapple with today’s pressing transnational challenges whether these involve managing the global commons keeping peace in troubled regions ensuring global financial stability or curbing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In each of these realms – and so many others –multilateral frameworks for international cooperation permit the United States and its partners to consult resolve differences design solutions share burdens and risks coordinate action and monitor and enforce commitments. A strategy of multilateralism recognizes that the vigorous pursuit of U.S. national interests is often best accomplished through international institutions and partnerships. It recognizes that there are limits to going it alone particularly in dealing with challenges that transcend national borders and elicit global concern. In most cases multilateralism expands rather than restricts U.S. options permitting the United States to achieve otherwise unreachable goals to share burdens in pursuing these objectives and – not least – to win legitimacy for its policies. One of the dilemmas that the United States confronts in a “unipolar” world is how to exercise its overwhelming power in ways that neither threaten other countries nor encourage their resistance. Multilateralism provides a partial solution to this quandary. By exercising its leadership through consensual institutions that give voice and satisfaction to the less powerful while placing only modest constraints on its own policy autonomy and sovereign prerogatives the United States can reassure weaker states that fear exploitation or abandonment increase their willingness to follow the U.S. lead and consolidate a productive and peaceful world that will advance long-term U.S. interests. </source> [/INST] <claim>Ridiculous – their evidence is in the context of pressuring Mexico to implement democratic reforms not improve sea turtle protection. There’s no reason why the counterplan would trigger any backlash.</claim> <psg>the interest The country has little choice but to collaborate with international institutions multilateral frameworks permit the U S and its partners to design solutions share burdens and risks coordinate action and monitor and enforce commitments. pursuit of interests is best accomplished through international institutions multilateralism expands options permitting the U S to achieve otherwise unreachable goals and to win legitimacy for its policies. By exercising leadership through consensual institutions the U S can reassure weaker states that fear exploitation or abandonment increase willingness to follow U.S. lead</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> ¶4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word 'should'13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar.15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase 'and the same hereby is' (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e. an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 </source> [/INST] <claim>---The permutation severs out of the unconditional nature of plan adoption by opening up the mandates of the plan to modifications. Severance is illegitimate and a voting issue because it destroys negative ground. No counterplan could compete if the affirmative can pick and choose which parts to defend in the 2AC. </claim> <psg>The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word 'should' may be deemed a ruling in praesenti</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> First a few definitions. ‘Engagement’ is a foreign policy strategy of building close ties with the government and/or civil society and/or business community of another state. The intention of this strategy is to undermine illiberal political and economic practices and socialise government and other domestic actors into more liberal ways. Most cases of engagement entail primarily building economic links and encouraging trade and investment in particular. Some observers have variously labeled this strategy one of interdependence or of ‘oxygen’: economic activity leads to positive political consequences.19‘Conditionality’ in contrast is the linking by a state or international organisation of perceived benefits to another state(such as aid or trade concessions) to the fulfilment of economic and/or political conditions. ‘Positive conditionality’ entails promising benefits to a state if it fulfils the conditions. ‘negative conditionality’ involves reducing suspending or terminating those benefits if the state violates the conditions (in other words applying sanctions or a strategy of ‘asphyxiation’).20 To put it simply engagement implies ties but with no strings attached. conditionality attaches the strings. In another way of looking at it engagement is more of a bottom-up strategy to induce change in another country conditionality more of a top-down strategy </source> [/INST] <claim>---Severs ‘engagement’ – gotta be unconditional</claim> <psg>Engagement’ is a foreign policy strategy of building close ties with the government and/or civil society and/or business community of another state engagement entail building economic links and encouraging trade and investment Conditionality’ in contrast is the linking of perceived benefits to the fulfilment of conditions Positive conditionality’ entails promising benefits to a state if it fulfils the conditions. ‘negative conditionality’ involves reducing suspending or terminating those benefits if the state violates the conditions To put it simply engagement implies ties but with no strings attached. conditionality attaches the strings engagement is more of a bottom-up strategy conditionality more of a top-down strategy</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally 'ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms carbon nitrogen oxygen phosphorus and sulfur as well as other less abundant but necessary elements.' n858 In a very real and direct sense therefore human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that in general an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity 'indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable.' n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.  [*265]   Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However economic value or economic value equivalents should not be 'the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit.' n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves and we will take most of the biosphere with us. </source> [/INST] <claim>---Their interpretation is inferior-prefer our definition. It is in the legal context and more suitable to evaluating policy issues. Their interpretation makes the plan conditional and would allow congressional backlash to roll back the plan---plan stability is key to negative ground and clash. </claim> <psg>'ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms carbon nitrogen oxygen phosphorus and sulfur as well as other less abundant but necessary elements.' degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity 'indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable.' Thus maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. the United States has within its territory pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves and we will take most of the biosphere with us.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> There are five species of sea turtles that nest on Florida’s beaches. The most common is the loggerhead. The green turtle and leatherback are also found frequenting beaches throughout the state. The Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill sea turtles nest in Florida but not very often. All five species are listed as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Sea turtles are considered to be a keystone species within their ecosystems. The extinction of any one of the many sea turtle species would affect many other organisms within both beach systems and marine systems. Loggerhead sea turtles are considered a keystone species because their eggs actually nourish grass dunes along beaches. They are often referred to as floating reefs because their shells act as a home to as many as 100 different species such as barnacles small fish algae and shrimp. The green sea turtle is essential to the health of sea grass beds. Those that are grazed by the green sea turtle are much healthier and balanced than beds that are not. Hawksbill turtles are known for eating sponges which prevents them from overtaking slower growing corals in reef systems. Sea turtles also eat jellyfish helping to stabilize their population. The necessity of the sea turtle is recognized by The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. It coordinates two different sea turtle monitoring programs: the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey and the Index Nesting Beach Survey. Both programs track nesting data in hopes of understanding and promoting the overall health of the sea turtle. </source> [/INST] <claim>Loggerhead turtles are keystone species – key to global marine ecosystems.</claim> <psg>of sea turtles The most common is the loggerhead. listed as endangered under the E S A Sea turtles are keystone species within their ecosystems. The extinction of any sea turtle species would affect many other organisms within marine systems. Loggerhead sea turtles are keystone because their eggs actually nourish grass dunes along beaches. They are referred to as floating reefs because their shells act as a home to as many as 100 different species such as barnacles small fish algae and shrimp. essential to the health of sea grass beds. Sea turtles also eat jellyfish helping to stabilize their population. The necessity of the sea turtle is recognized by The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> A juvenile loggerhead drifts along the Florida coast of the United States. The state boasts the largest and best protected population of loggerheads in the world. Keystone of the Ocean The loggerhead turtle is a keystone species in the world’s oceans. As a carnivore it plays a central role in the food chain and is dependent upon the invertebrate populations that form the vast majority of its food supply. Loggerheads process large numbers of invertebrate prey breaking up the shells of mollusks such as conchs whelks and clams. Some of the broken shells pass through the turtle’s digestive system and some fall back to the bottom. The small pieces of shell are thus available for other animals to eat as a source of calcium. By digging around on the bottom loggerheads change ocean bottom communities both in physical structure and the living biological ecosystem. This may control the community organization of the areas in which the turtles forage. Nesting females transfer substantial amounts of nutrients—their eggs—to the terrestrial ecosystems around nesting breaches. For example up to 28 percent of the energy and 26 percent of the nitrogen placed into Florida egg clutches are transferred to predators. A substantial number of hatchlings become food for fish and birds as the hatchlings swim away form the nesting beach. Essentially loggerheads are swimming reefs. They support a large array of plants and animals that attach to their shells and ride through the oceans with the turtles. More than 100 species of animals from 13 phyla and 37 kinds of algae live on the backs of loggerheads. This baggage increases drag requiring extra energy to swim. It is not clear if there is any benefit to the turtle from this association though the varied community of plants an animals on the carapace may provide some camouflage. </source> [/INST] <claim>Loggerheads are key to global marine biodiversity – they are the keystone of the ocean.</claim> <psg>loggerheads Keystone of the Ocean The loggerhead is a keystone species in the world’s oceans. plays a central role in the food chain Loggerheads process large numbers of invertebrate prey broken shells pass through the turtle’s digestive system and some fall back to the bottom. The small pieces of shell are available for other animals to eat as a source of calcium loggerheads change ocean bottom communities both in physical structure and the living biological ecosystem. This may control the community organization of the areas in which the turtles forage. Nesting females transfer nutrients to the terrestrial ecosystems around nesting breaches. loggerheads are swimming reefs. support a large array of plants and animals that attach to their shells and ride through the oceans with the turtles. More than 100 species of animals from 13 phyla and 37 kinds of algae live on the backs of loggerheads.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The Gulf of Ulloa covers roughly the northern half of the Pacific coastline of Southern Baja. This is an area of the baja that has become world famous for it’s annual migration of gray whales. It is also a very productive marine environment due to currents and upwelling. In 2012 according to the Sea Turtle Restoration Project there was a 600% increase in dead turtles washing up on beaches. In July alone on one 40 kilometer stretch of beach 483 dead loggerhead turtles were counted. The increase in mortality is due to gill nets. That is a lot of dead turtles. So many in fact that on May 2nd the Sea Turtle Restoration Project with support from Mexican based NGO’s in conjunction the the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a legal petition with the Obama administration seeking a ban of Mexican sea food or other imports to the U.S. until Mexico reduces sea turtle mortality. Mexico has signed a treaty with the U.S. Called the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Under an American law called the “Pelly Amendment” conservation groups are asking the United States to certify that Mexico is diminishing the effectiveness of this treaty. If the secretary of commerce where to agree then Obama could sanction or ban Mexican imports until sea turtle bycatch is reduced. Don’t start holding your breath anytime soon waiting for that to happen. I spoke with Sarah Uhlemann the Lawyer for the CBD that filed this petition with the commerce department if there had been a response. “No they haven’t answered it and to be totally honest I don’t expect that they will answer it anytime soon international law is very tricky.” said Uhlemann. Actually by law the department of commerce has up to 4 years to answer the petition. Gill nets are not the only thing killing turtles in Mexico though. The illegal dorado fishery that exists in Mexico has a huge incidental turtle by catch that is well documented. Turtle by catch within the Sea of Cortes runs at 20%. That means for every 10 dorado that are caught on an illegal long line within the Sea of Cortes at least two turtles are caught along with them. This was reported from a study on long lines conducted by the Mexican research agency CIBNOR back in 2006. Juana Lopez was the lead scientist on the study. From dead turtles off the pacific coast of the southern baja to more dead turtles inside the Sea of Cortes to the extinction of the La Vaquita porpoise up north between San Felipe and Puerto Penasco to the thousands of tons of illegal dorado shipped state side annually it is painfully obvious that Mexico is not enforcing it’s own fishing laws nor living up to the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles treaty they have signed with the United States. It is also painfully obvious that the United States is going to continue to allow thousands of tons of illegal and unsustainably caught Mexican fish to enter into the very lucrative and highly profitable sea food market that exists in the United States. It is unfortunate but it would appear that in America just as Mexico money talks and bullshit walks. </source> [/INST] <claim>Mexico says no – corruption outweighs environmental interests empirics prove and international law’s too complex.</claim> <psg>C B D filed a legal petition with Obama seeking a ban of Mexican imports until Mexico reduces sea turtle mortality. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen. they haven’t answered it and don’t expect that they will answer it anytime soon international law is very tricky. it is painfully obvious that Mexico is not enforcing it’s own fishing laws and continue to allow thousands of tons of illegal and unsustainably caught Mexican fish to enter the market in Mexico money talks and bullshit walks.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The United States' attempts and threats to apply the Pelly and Packwood Amendments extraterritorially have achieved mixed success. No penalties have ever been imposed under the Pelly or Packwood Amendments yet the Amendments have successfully [*40] been used to deter non-compliance on occasion. In 1974 and 1986 respectively the United States' threats of trade sanctions against Japan and Norway for violating IWC policies convinced both countries to cease their offending whaling activities. 244 In later years however when the United States threatened Japan and Norway with Pelly sanctions both countries ignored the threats. 245 Most recently in the early 1990's Norway resumed commercial whaling despite the United States' threat of sanctions. 246 Similarly in 2000 Japan ignored the threat of U.S. sanctions for its expanded scientific research program. 247 In fact Japan responded to the United States' threats by promising to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization if the United States attempted to impose sanctions. 248 Thus while the threat of U.S. sanctions has sometimes encouraged countries to adopt and comply with whaling policies 249 in recent years those same nations have been less likely to bow to U.S. pressure because the United States has never actually imposed sanctions and because the WTO of which the United States is a member forbids member states from imposing unilateral trade sanctions. 250 The declining effectiveness of threatened U.S. sanctions suggests that while unilateral actions still provide an alternative to inaction the United States and the IWC can no longer rely on trade sanctions as the sole mechanism for enforcing whaling policies. As global communication and interaction improve and international trade increases it is doubtful whether unilateral measures or the threat thereof will continue to provide an effective and politically acceptable method of enforcing IWC or CITES policies. While some urge that unilateral measures can be effective tools for [*41] achieving environmental protection goals the use of unilateral measures frequently provoked conflict between nations. In an area of international law already characterized by severe discord and disorder it is unlikely that the United States will be able to ensure the continuing existence or compliance of whaling policies by threatening to impose trade sanctions. Thus the United States must remain a vocal advocate of whale conservation while seeking other ways to promote and ensure compliance with preservationist policies. </source> [/INST] <claim>Attempting to use economic pressure fails to effectively enforce CITES.</claim> <psg>U S attempts and threats to apply the Pelly Amendments extraterritorially have achieved mixed success. when the U S threatened Japan and Norway with Pelly sanctions both countries ignored the threats. in the early 1990's Norway resumed commercial whaling despite the United States' threat of sanctions. in 2000 Japan ignored the threat of U.S. sanctions for its expanded scientific research program. responded by promising to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization if the United States attempted to impose sanctions. nations have been less likely to bow to U.S. pressure because the United States has never actually imposed sanctions and because the WTO of which the United States is a member forbids member states from imposing unilateral trade sanctions it is doubtful whether unilateral measures or the threat thereof will continue to provide an effective and politically acceptable method of enforcing IWC or CITES policies unlikely that the United States will be able to ensure the continuing existence or compliance of whaling policies by threatening to impose trade sanctions. Thus</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In fact a closer look at the cross-country data reveals a kind of “green ceiling” that must be raised for nations to achieve higher environmental standards. According to the data no nation has achieved an environmental sustainability index rating of 50 or more without a per capita GDP of at least $2 142. no nation has achieved a rating of 60 or more without a per capita GDP of at least $6 436. and no nation has achieved a rating of 70 or more without a per capita GDP of at least $20 659. If the goal of U.S. policy is to encourage higher environmental standards abroad we must help less-developed countries achieve higher incomes—and trade liberalization at home and abroad must be an integral part of any pro-development policy. </source> [/INST] <claim>Can’t force compliance – trade liberalization creates a ceiling.</claim> <psg>closer look at the cross-country data reveals a “green ceiling” that must be raised for nations to achieve higher environmental standards. If the goal of U.S. policy is to encourage higher environmental standards abroad we must help less-developed countries achieve higher incomes—and trade liberalization at home and abroad must be an integral part of any pro-development policy.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The CITES Secretariat understands full well that if CITES is to survive as a relevant entity it must safeguard its credibility as a legitimate international regulatory organization. It must maintain the perception among the public press and policy-makers everywhere that science not emotion is the underpinning of its reason for existing. Even the appearance of partisan favoritism based not on science but on acceding to the demands of the richest and most powerful of member nations would signal the beginning of the end of CITES. </source> [/INST] <claim>Turn – singling out Mexico politicizes CITES – collapses treaty credibility.</claim> <psg>if CITES is to survive as a relevant entity it must safeguard its credibility as a legitimate international regulatory organization. It must maintain the perception among the public press and policy-makers everywhere that science not emotion is the underpinning of its reason for existing. Even the appearance of partisan favoritism based on acceding to the demands of the richest and most powerful of member nations would signal the beginning of the end of CITES.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> A. Enforcement Problems with CITES As one might expect an international environmental agreement with 145 signatory nations faces a number of enforcement difficulties. The first major obstacle to effective enforcement of the Convention is the pervasive inadequacy of national legislation. Article VIII establishes that each member nation is responsible for enforcement of the Convention's provisions within [*1299] the nation's borders. n48 Thus the effectiveness of the overall Convention is determined by the level of national legislation enforcing the Convention's provisions. n49 When one considers the difficulty encountered by the United States in maintaining adequate funding personnel and training to conduct inspections of international shipments it is no wonder that lesser-developed nations experience infinitely greater difficulties in enforcing the Convention. n50 </source> [/INST] <claim>CITES enforcement fails –</claim> <psg>Enforcement Proble The first major obstacle to effective enforcement of the Convention is the pervasive inadequacy of national legislation each member nation is responsible for enforcement of the Convention's provisions within the nation's borders effectiveness of the overall Convention is determined by the level of national legislation enforcing the Convention's provisions consider difficulty encountered by the United States in maintaining adequate funding personnel and training to conduct inspections of international shipments lesser-developed nations experience infinitely greater difficulties in enforcing the Convention.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The second great obstacle to the enforcement of CITES lies in the ineffective communication between the member nations. n51 One communication problem is the inadequate reporting of international wildlife transactions. n52 When the parties fail to submit accurate and detailed reports of wildlife transactions the Secretariat cannot monitor the level of compliance with the Convention. n53 </source> [/INST] <claim>b.) Lack of reporting –</claim> <psg>The great obstacle to the enforcement of CITES lies in the ineffective communication between the member nations. One problem is the inadequate reporting of international wildlife transactions. the parties fail to submit accurate and detailed reports of wildlife transactions the Secretariat cannot monitor the level of compliance</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> New laws have taken a huge step forward in creating protections for sea turtle nesting areas. As home to almost every species of sea turtle the way Mexico protects this animal is important on a global scale Mexico is famous for being the sea turtle capital of the world - a place where people can interact with them along the beautiful coastline. Literally every sea turtle species on earth nests on Mexico’s beaches save one that is only found in Australia. That is why the manner in which Mexico protects its sea turtles is important on a global scale. Current Mexican law classifies all sea turtle species as endangered and protects them from the harvesting of their meat skin shell or eggs. But up until now the only nesting habitat protected by law are those considered as sanctuaries and reserves. The good news is that recently Mexico passed laws offering a whole slate of new protections for sea turtle nesting grounds in the country. The new regulations extend habitat protections to 'all' sea turtle nesting sites. Here are just some of the things that this new and unprecedented regulation has accomplished for sea turtle nesting habitat: </source> [/INST] <claim>Status quo solves – Mexican sea turtle protection now.</claim> <psg>New laws have taken a huge step forward in creating protections for sea turtle s every sea turtle species on earth nests on Mexico’s beaches Current Mexican law classifies all sea turtle species as endangered and protects them from the harvesting of their meat skin shell or eggs. recently Mexico passed laws offering a whole slate of new protections for sea turtle nesting grounds in the country. new regulations extend habitat protections to 'all' sea turtle nesting sites. this new and unprecedented regulation has accomplished for sea turtle nesting habitat:</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> But many U.S. truckers especially small independent ones see the agreement as a David-vs.-Goliath battle that gives Mexican truckers a huge edge. 'It's the race to the bottom ' says trucker Scott Grenerth of Arlington Ohio. 'Shippers will say 'Oh you'll do it for less? Well we're going to hire you.' That happens all the time in this industry.' </source> [/INST] <claim>Plan hurts US truckers</claim> <psg>But many U.S. truckers especially small independent ones see the agreement as a David-vs.-Goliath battle that gives Mexican truckers a huge edge. 'It's the race to the bottom ' 'Shippers will say 'Oh you'll do it for less? Well we're going to hire you.' That happens all the time in this industry.'</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Hoffa says the agreement was sought by U.S. companies that have relocated to Mexico and now seek cheaper ways to ship goods north He says it could cost 'thousands and thousands of jobs.'¶ Norita Taylor a spokeswoman for the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association a Grain Valley Mo.-based organization that represents more than 150 000 independent drivers and small trucking firms says there is a potential for 'substantial' job loss. She says U.S. companies would hire Mexican drivers because they could pay them far less than U.S. drivers. </source> [/INST] <claim>Plan will cost thousands of jobs in trucking and manufacturing.</claim> <psg>the agreement was sought by U.S. companies that have relocated to Mexico and now seek cheaper ways to ship goods north He says it could cost 'thousands and thousands of jobs.'¶ says there is a potential for 'substantial' job loss. She says U.S. companies would hire Mexican drivers because they could pay them far less than U.S. drivers.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> “The cross-border trucking program clearly puts foreign interests above our own ” said Congressman Hunter. “It’s bad for the American economy. It’s bad for American truckers and the entire commercial trucking industry. And it’s bad for border security. Simply put the cross-border trucking program is a straight handout to Mexico at the expense of American jobs taxpayer dollars and security. </source> [/INST] <claim>Plan hurts the US economy security</claim> <psg>The cross-border trucking program clearly puts foreign interests above our own It’s bad for the American economy. It’s bad for American truckers and the entire commercial trucking industry. And it’s bad for border security. Simply put the cross-border trucking program is a straight handout to Mexico at the expense of American jobs taxpayer dollars and security.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> All of these arguments are happening at a time when new Mexican carriers are still applying to be a part of the program. Just this week a new carrier Servicio de Transporte Internacional y Local has applied to be a part of the program. If approved STIL would be the largest fleet – 20 trucks – to be approved so far. Their safety record is far from exemplary. The FMCSA completed a compliance review in February that found five violations including allowing a driver to operate a vehicle before a negative pre-employment controlled substance test result was returned. not maintaining an accident report for three years following an accident. failing to make drivers give them a list of traffic violations every 12 months. failing to require drivers to make records of duty status. failing to maintain completed inspection forms for 12 months after inspection dates. </source> [/INST] <claim>Mexican trucks unsafe- Fail inspections</claim> <psg>new Mexican carriers are still applying to be a part of the program. Their safety record is far from exemplary. The FMCSA completed a compliance review in February that found five violations including allowing a driver to operate a vehicle before a negative pre-employment controlled substance test result was returned. not maintaining an accident report failing to make drivers give them a list of traffic violations every 12 months. failing to require drivers to make records of duty status. failing to maintain completed inspection forms</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Barack Obama’s deal with the president of Mexico to allow Mexican trucks to carry their loads onto U.S. highways and roads is new evidence of his high-handed solo behaviorthat has become Standard Operating Procedure in the administration. Here are 10 reasons why Obama’s plan is dangerous and must be stopped by Congress and public protest. </source> [/INST] <claim>Turn: The CBT hurts the U.S. for 10 reasons:</claim> <psg>Obama’s deal to allow Mexican trucks to carry their loads onto U.S. highways and roads is new evidence of his high-handed solo behavior Here are reasons why Obama’s plan is dangerous</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> NAFTA allows for Mexican trucks to freely navigate our highways in exchange for American trucks supposedly having the same privileges on Mexican soil. The problem is that the escalating drug wars in Mexico have claimed 40 000 lives since 2006 and the desire to traverse in to Mexico is not nearly met by Mexican interest in trucking in to the States. Moreover  keeping an open border allows for the possibility of Mexican violence spilling over into the United States. The Mexican government’s inability to curb violence has created a lopsided situation where we are expected to allow Mexican trucks to roam free although no American company would risk sending their drivers cargo and vehicles into the hornet’s nest. </source> [/INST] <claim>CBT allows violence from Mexico to enter the U.S.</claim> <psg>. The problem is that the escalating drug wars in Mexico have claimed 40 000 lives since 2006 and the desire to traverse in to Mexico is not nearly met by Mexican interest in trucking in to the States keeping an open border allows for the possibility of Mexican violence spilling over into the United States. The Mexican government’s inability to curb violence has created a lopsided situation where we are expected to allow Mexican trucks to roam free although no American company would risk sending their drivers cargo and vehicles</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Methodology of the Oppressed pursues these decolonial lines of force and affinity through a selection of the so-called canon of Western theory to demonstrate[s] the shared desire for a postcolonial twenty-first century. This study shows that no canonical Western thought is free of de-colonial effects. Whether we read the work of Fredric Jameson Roland Barthes Hayden White Donna Haraway Jacques Derrida or Judith Butler we will see how each writing contains the decolonizing influences of what is defined in this book as postcolonial U.S. third world feminist criticism — in other words these works contain lines of force and affinity necessary in matrixing a decolonizing globalization that is no longer necessarily “postmodern.” Questions such as What is Western? What is “third world”? What is “first”? deconstruct under the weight of this analysis — which reconstructs theory and method to create a new vision and world of thought and action of theory and method of alliance. But are these still “Western” writers? Or have Western writers been so influenced by decolonizing forces during the twentieth century that they contain a certain utopian postcoloniality — an accountability from the beginning to what I call “U.S. third world feminism”? Part IV of this study asserts that the work of such thinkers contains the postcolonial U.S. third world feminism necessary for decolonizing the twenty-first century. If so their work can be seen as partially composing the prehistory of a coming third millennium.12 </source> [/INST] <claim>All canonical Western thought contains de-colonial effects—a combination of all philosophies is necessary for decolonizing the twenty-first century</claim> <psg>Methodology of the Oppressed demonstrate[s] the shared desire for a postcolonial twenty-first century. This study shows that no canonical Western thought is free of de-colonial effects. we will see how each writing contains the decolonizing influences of what is defined in this book as postcolonial U.S. third world feminist criticism — in other words these works contain lines of force and affinity necessary in matrixing a decolonizing globalization that is no longer necessarily “postmodern.” Questions such as What is Western? What is “third world”? What is “first”? deconstruct under the weight of this analysis the work of such thinkers contains the postcolonial U.S. third world feminism necessary for decolonizing the twenty-first century.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In addition to this strain austerity has been gendered. Governments such as the British government have utilised the emergency-mode of ‘austerity’ to focus its cuts on those who are least invested in by their ideology. The strain of the recession means there has been an increase in domestic violence from Britain to Spain to Greece just as domestic violence shelters are closing – those who are caught in dangerous and abusive situations are now less likely to have the financial means to leave their partners. Layered on top of this the re-emergence of right-wing and conservative national governments since 2008 have furthered blocked women’s interests as cuts have fallen disproportionately on services and benefits vital for women’s safety and development. A report by the European Women’s Lobby found women’s organisations are struggling throughout the region as a direct result of the recession and austerity. This increase of domestic violence loss of services and benefits for women and the curtailing of women’s organisations comes in addition to the general impact of the post-2008 recession: deterioration of working conditions and employment underemployment for women as temping agencies capitalise on their diminished opportunities and public sector cuts a sector in which women were the majority of workers. Globally the impact of austerity has been gendered just as poverty is gendered – this is the intersection of the austerity as a ‘war on the poor’ and austerity as a ‘war on women’. The ‘feminisation of poverty’ which was a pressing concern before 2008 has been deepened by the ‘austerity’ era firstly through the economic crisis itself and secondly as governments and international organisations have structured their cuts in ways that disproportionately hurt women and other structurally disadvantaged groups. </source> [/INST] <claim>Preventing economic decline is key to preserving women’s rights</claim> <psg>Governments have utilised the emergency-mode of ‘austerity’ to focus its cuts on those who are least invested in by their ideology. The strain of the recession means there has been an increase in domestic violence those who are caught in dangerous and abusive situations are now less likely to have the financial means to leave their partners. the re-emergence of right-wing and conservative national governments since 2008 have furthered blocked women’s interests cuts have fallen disproportionately on services and benefits vital for women’s safety and development. in addition deterioration of working conditions and employment underemployment for women as temping agencies capitalise on their diminished opportunities and public sector cuts a sector in which women were the majority of workers Globally the impact of austerity has been gendered</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> But it is also a mistake we believe to ground one's politics in either modern or postmodern theory alone. Against one-sided positions we advocate a version of reconstructive postmodernism that we call a politics of alliance and solidarity that builds on both modern and postmodern traditions. Unlike Laclau and Mouffe who believe that postmodern theory basically provides a basis for a new politics and who tend to reject the Enlightenment per se we believe that the Enlightenment continues to provide resources for political struggle today and are skeptical whether postmodern theory alone can provide sufficient assets for an emancipatory new politics. Yet the Enlightenment has its blindspots and dark sides (such as its relentless pursuit of the domination of nature and naive belief in 'progress ' so we believe that aspects of the postmodern critique of Enlightenment are valid and force us to rethink and reconstruct Enlightenment philosophy for the present age. And while we agree with Habermas that a reconstruction of the Enlightenment and modernity are in order unlike Habermas we believe that postmodern theory has important contributions to make to this project. Various forms of postmodern politics have been liberatory in breaking away from the abstract and ideological universalism of the Enlightenment and the reductionist class politics of Marxism but they tend to be insular and fragmenting focusing solely on the experiences and political issues of a given group even splintering further into distinct subgroups such as divide the feminist community. Identity politics are often structured around simplistic binary oppositions such as Us vs. Them and Good vs. Bad that pit people against one another making alliances consensus and compromise difficult or impossible. This has been the case for example with tendencies within radical feminism and ecofeminism which reproduce essentialism by stigmatizing men and 'male rationality' while exalting women as the bearers of peaceful and loving value and as being 'closer to nature.'[18] Elements in the black nationalist liberation movement in the 1960s and the early politics of Malcolm X were exclusionist and racist literally demonizing white people as an evil and inferior race. Similarly the sexual politics of some gay and lesbian groups tend to exclusively focus on their own interests while the mainstream environmental movement is notorious for resisting alliances with people of color and grass roots movements.[19] Even though each group needs to assert their identity as aggressively as possible postmodern identity politics should avoid falling into seriality and sheer fragmentation. These struggles though independent of one another should be articulated within counterhegemonic alliances and attack power formations on both the micro- and macro-levels. Not all universalistic appeals are ideological in the sense criticized by Marx. there are common grounds of experience common concerns and common forms of oppression that different groups share which should be articulated -- concerns such as the degradation of the environment and common forms of oppression that stem from capitalist exploitation and alienated labor. </source> [/INST] <claim>Perm fills the blind-spots and solves their link --can't simply generalize all modernism and 'male rationality'- alt degrades into insular and fragmented politics Best and Kellner 01 </claim> <psg>it is also a mistake we believe to ground one's politics in either modern or postmodern theory alone. Against one-sided positions we advocate a a politics of alliance and solidarity that builds on both modern and postmodern traditions we believe that the Enlightenment continues to provide resources for political struggle today and are skeptical whether postmodern theory alone can provide sufficient assets for an emancipatory new politics. Yet the Enlightenment has its blindspots so aspects of the critique are valid and force us to rethink postmodern politics tend to be insular and fragmenting focusing solely on a given group even splintering further the feminist community. Identity politics are often structured around simplistic binary oppositions such as Us vs. Them and Good vs. Bad that pit people against one another making alliances consensus and compromise difficult or impossible. This has been the case for example with tendencies within radical feminism and ecofeminism which reproduce essentialism by stigmatizing men and 'male rationality ] postmodern identity politics should avoid falling into seriality and sheer fragmentation. These struggles should be articulated within counterhegemonic alliances and attack power formations on both the micro- and macro-levels</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> There is considerable debate over the question of whether or not globalization is good for human rights. One view is that globalization enhances human rights leading to economic benefits and consequent political freedoms.91 The positive contributions of globalization have even led to the proposal that it be accepted as a new human right.92 In general trade theory predicts a significant increase in global welfare stemming from globalization indirectly enhancing the attainment of economic conditions necessary for economic and social rights. Many thus believe that market mechanisms and liberalized trade will lead to an improvement in the living standards of all people. Some also posit that free trade and economic freedom are necessary conditions of political freedom or at least contribute to the rule of law that is an essential component of human rights.93 Certainly globalization facilitates international exchanges that overcome the confines of a single nation or a civilization allowing participation in a global community. There is also the possibility that economic power can be utilized to sanction human rights violators more effectively.94 Ease of movement of people goods and services are enhanced. Increased availability and more efficient allocation of resources more open and competitive production and improved governance could lead to faster growth and more rights. In sum Judith Bello argues that:¶ Trade liberalization promotes the growth of stability-promoting middle class all over the globe. trade enhances efficiency and wealth and thereby creates potential revenue for environmental protection. Trade creates jobs in developing as well as developed countries thereby reducing the pressure on both illegal immigration and illicit drug trafficking. ¶ </source> [/INST] <claim>Turn-- Globalization is good for human rights- it creates economic conditions necessary for rights creates a global community that can pressure abusers and disincentives human rights abuse</claim> <psg> globalization enhances human rights leading to economic benefits and consequent political freedoms. trade theory predicts a significant increase in global welfare stemming from globalization enhancing the attainment of economic conditions necessary for social rights. . trade and economic freedom are necessary conditions of political freedom or at least contribute to the rule of law that is an essential component of human rights. globalization facilitates international exchanges allowing participation in a global community economic power can be utilized to sanction human rights violators more effectively. Increased availability and more efficient allocation of resources more open and competitive production and improved governance could lead to faster growth and more rights. Trade liberalization promotes the growth of stability-promoting middle class all over the globe. trade enhances efficiency and wealth and thereby creates potential revenue for environmental protection. Trade creates jobs in developing as well as developed countries thereby reducing the pressure on both illegal immigration and illicit drug trafficking.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Closer to home in Cuba expanded trade¶ with the United States would be a far more¶ promising policy to encourage political reform¶ than the failed four-decades-old economic¶ embargo. Since 1960 Americans have been¶ barred from trading with investing in or traveling¶ to Cuba. Besides infringing on the freedom¶ of Americans the embargo has made life even¶ more difficult for the people of Cuba and has¶ perversely handed Fidel Castro a convenient¶ excuse for the failures of his socialist experiment.¶ But just as importantly the embargo has blunted¶ the positive impact that expanding trade and¶ contact with Americans could have on Cuban¶ civil society. Cuba does trade with Canada and¶ Western Europe but potential trade with the¶ United States would be far greater. Based on the¶ evidence of this study the U.S. government¶ could more effectively promote political and¶ civil freedom in Cuba by allowing more trade¶ and travel than by maintaining the embargo.¶ The folly of imposing trade sanctions in the¶ name of promoting human rights abroad is that¶ sanctions deprive people in the target countries¶ of the technological tools and economic opportunities¶ that nurture political freedom.¶ In Central America negotiations for a free¶ trade agreement between the United States¶ and the five members of the Central American Common Market could be completed and a¶ final agreement considered by Congress as¶ early as 2004. The Central American Free¶ Trade Agreement will be vigorously debated¶ on its economic merits but the results of this¶ study argue that a free trade agreement will¶ have important and positive political and foreign-¶ policy implications for the region. As¶ recently as the 1980s Central America was¶ convulsed by civil strife internal repression ¶ and violent communist insurgencies. Today all¶ five CAFTA countries are democracies that¶ have progressively opened themselves to trade¶ with the United States and the rest of the¶ world. A free trade agreement with the United¶ States would institutionalize trade reform in¶ the region and with it reinforce the region’s¶ trend toward more stable democracy and full¶ respect for human rights and political freedom.¶ If members of Congress reject CAFTA on¶ parochial economic grounds they will in fact¶ be voting to undercut the region’s trend toward¶ greater political and civil freedom and with it¶ our national interest in a more stable and¶ democratic hemisphere. </source> [/INST] <claim>Economic engagement promotes the democratization and economic opportunities in Cuba—the very presence of the embargo operates as an excuse for human rights violations</claim> <psg>Closer to home in Cuba expanded trade with the United States would be a far more promising policy to encourage political reform than the failed four-decades-old economic embargo Besides infringing on the freedom of Americans the embargo has made life even more difficult for the people of Cuba and has perversely handed Fidel Castro a convenient excuse for the failures of his socialist experiment. Cuba does trade with Canada and Western Europe but potential trade with the United States would be far greater the U.S. government could more effectively promote political and civil freedom in Cuba by allowing more trade and travel . The folly of imposing trade sanctions in the name of promoting human rights abroad is that sanctions deprive people in the target countries of the technological tools and economic opportunities that nurture political freedom. In Central America negotiations for a free trade agreement between the United States and Central America could be completed and a final agreement considered by Congress as early as 2004 Central America was convulsed by civil strife internal repression and violent communist insurgencies. Today all five CAFTA countries are democracies that have progressively opened themselves to trade with the United States trade agreement would institutionalize trade reform in the region and with it reinforce the region’s trend toward more stable democracy and full respect for human rights</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Climate change arguably represents the largest challenge humankind has ever faced. The predicted and observable impacts of climate change are frightening. The scientific consensus about these projections expressed by the IPCC among others has shifted the debate away from the question of whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening toward debates about what is to be done by whom when and how. It seems that support for ‘extreme’ and exceptional measures is growing in many quarters. We need carbon taxes nuclear power GMOs and population control because we have no time to wait for more socially complicated alternatives. As in most crisis situations (such as in times of war) critical reflection on the unjust human relationships that may have led to the crisis and the intellectual tools that are used to interpret the impacts and devise potential solutions is dismissed as a luxury that we can’t afford. Understanding the gender politics of climate change is clearly not an urgent enough priority for it to be on the agenda. </source> [/INST] <claim>Climate crisis necessitates immediate solutions and social interpretations of human relationships must come after that. </claim> <psg>Climate change represents the largest challenge humankind has ever faced. no time to wait for more socially complicated alternatives. As in most crisis situations (such as in times of war) critical reflection on the unjust human relationships that may have led to the crisis and the intellectual tools that are used to interpret the impacts and devise potential solutions is dismissed as a luxury that we can’t afford. Understanding the gender politics of climate change is clearly not an urgent enough priority for it to be on the agenda.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> First a number of doubts arise from the case study evidence. As Mounira Charrad points out elsewhere in this special issue the choice of illustrative case studies is inevitably somewhat selective and different paired comparisons of countries such as contrasts between Morocco and Tunisia can generate alternative interpretations. If the resource curse is defined more broadly than oil and gas production —as it should be— then of course the comparison would have to account for cases such as South Africa an economy founded upon gold and diamonds—and yet one where women have always made their voices felt effectively through engagement in the antiapartheid struggles as well as by currently representing more than 43.5% of all members of parliament. Alternatively it might have been more persuasive to select cases from non-Muslim petroleum- and gas-rich states outside of the Middle East such as Venezuela or Russia although both of these societies fail to provide a good fit for the thesis and energy-rich Norway and Canada (and Scotland?) are obviously even more extreme outliers. Ross’s discussion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) as an illustration of the way that industrialization and women’s entry into the workforce has opened doors to political representation is somewhat unconvincing. The country currently ranks 87th worldwide in the proportion of women in parliament well below the world average. Instead a detailed discussion of particular historical cases showing how patriarchy has been strengthened or weakened in economies that became more or less dependent upon mineral resources would also have greatly strengthened the argument. Patriarchal cultures in Arab states did not spring up overnight in the mid-nineteenth century as the result of the discovery and commercial exploitation of refined petroleum. they have enduring historical roots that predate the discovery and production of oil. In the extreme cases of states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates where women continue to lack the legal right to vote and to stand for office it also remains unclear theoretically how any amount of female participation in the labor force will eventually facilitate women’s representation in decision making. Moreover closer scrutiny of the data presented as evidence in the descriptive Figures 3–6 contained in the Ross study quickly reveals that any statistical relationship between oil rents and the economic and political status of women in the Middle East is due primarily to three main outliers – Qatar Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia). From observing the descriptive scatter-plots in most other Arab states once these countries are excluded there appears to be almost no linear relationship between oil rents per capita and any of the dependent variables including female participation in the nonagricultural labor force. the year of female suffrage (where Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are coded curiously as allowing women to vote although this has not yet occurred). the proportion of parliamentary seats held by women. and gender rights. By contrast the scatter-grams highlight that substantial variation needs to be explained in all of these indicators of gender equality among those Arab states that have few or no revenues from oil rents. As we shall demonstrate later a worldwide comparison demonstrates even weaker relationships between petroleum and patriarchy. </source> [/INST] <claim>No link - Ross’s study is flawed and the results are due to extreme outliers. </claim> <psg>number of doubts arise from the case study evidence. If the resource curse is defined more broadly than oil and gas production —as it should be— then of course the comparison would have to account for cases such as South Africa an economy founded upon gold and diamonds—and yet one where women have always made their voices felt effectively through engagement in the antiapartheid struggles as well as by currently representing more than 43.5% of all members of parliament. Alternatively it might have been more persuasive to select cases from non-Muslim petroleum- and gas-rich states outside of the Middle East such as Venezuela or Russia Patriarchal cultures in Arab states did not spring up overnight in the mid-nineteenth century as the result of the discovery and commercial exploitation of refined petroleum. they have enduring historical roots that predate the discovery and production of oil. From observing the descriptive scatter-plots in most other Arab states once these countries are excluded there appears to be almost no linear relationship between oil rents per capita and any of the dependent variables including female participation in the nonagricultural labor force. the year of female suffrage ). the proportion of parliamentary seats held by women. and gender rights.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Secondly questions can also be raised about the econometric models that Ross uses to account for the proportion of women in parliament. From an institutional perspective the suspicion remains that the controls that he incorporates into his models may be misspecified in one important regard. As Alice Kang emphasizes (in this issue) Ross controls for the impact of proportional representation in electoral systems with closed lists but he does not examine the role of different types of affirmative action used for women in elected office. Reserved seats have long been used in Muslim-majority countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh (Norris 2007). Researchers also need to consider the contemporary popularity of voluntary and legal gender quotas for parliamentary candidates as well as the interaction between the type of electoral system and the quota system (Dahlerup 2006. International IDEA 2008. Krook 2009. Norris 2004). Elsewhere in this issue Kang presents clear evidence that where quotas are introduced in mineral-rich nations the effects on women’s representation are indeterminate. Ross theorizes that oil rents per capita should have 1) a direct role in shaping female labor force participation and they should thereby also have 2) an additional indirect effect on women’s representation in parliament. This suggests that properly specified cross-national regression models should include an interaction effect in order to monitor the impact of oil rents combined with female labor force participation on women’s representation. It also remains unclear theoretically from his arguments why the value of oil production is expected to have any direct impact on women’s parliamentary representation. Some plausible reasons could always be constructed for example concerning the way that the resource curse depresses the process of democratization and as a result this may in turn limit the expansion of human rights including women’s equality. Torbin Iversen and Frances Rosenbluth (2008) present the argument that low levels of female labor force participation contribute to female underrepresentation in democratic polities by reinforcing traditional voter attitudes toward women (a demand-side feature) and by constraining the supply of women with professional experience and resources who are capable of mounting credible electoral campaigns. Whatever the precise underlying reason the linkages in the argument presented in the Ross study remain underdeveloped. Interms ofmeasures there are also certain pros and cons associated with the use of oil rents per capita to examine the impact of the resource curse. Ideally a broader measure of nonrenewable natural resources would capture the underlying logic of the core argument more precisely. if the oil and gas extraction industries are overwhelmingly male dominated then so too is the workforce mining gold diamonds and copper. Since the extraction and distribution of natural commodities forms a critical part of the economy in many diverse regions of the world a measure that reflects a more comprehensive basket of these resources would also help to disentangle the complex effects of Muslim religious faith and oil. Moreover the theoretical link between the value of oil rents per capita and the structure of the labor market may also prove tenuous. In some cases such as Trinidad and Tobago energy production generates about 40% of the GDP and 80% of exports but only 5% of employment. It is also worth noting that even in economies heavily dependent on oil production for revenue this does not mean that manual work directly in this industry engages the largest sector of the workforce by any means. </source> [/INST] <claim>No link – Ross’s links between oil and gender problems are underdeveloped. Some oil-rich states like Canada and Norway </claim> <psg>questions can also be raised about the econometric models that Ross uses to account for the proportion of women in parliament . As Alice Kang emphasizes (in this issue) Ross controls for the impact of proportional representation in electoral systems with closed lists but he does not examine the role of different types of affirmative action used for women in elected office. Kang presents clear evidence that where quotas are introduced in mineral-rich nations the effects on women’s representation are indeterminate. . It also remains unclear theoretically from his arguments why the value of oil production is expected to have any direct impact on women’s parliamentary representation. Whatever the precise underlying reason the linkages in the argument presented in the Ross study remain underdeveloped</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> This study also has implications for our understand ing of the 'resource curse ' a term that refers to the political and economic ailments of mineral-producing states. Earlier studies found that oil-producing states tend to have more frequent civil wars (Collier and Hoeffler 2004. Fearon and Laitin 2003). less democ racy (Ross 2001a. Jensen and Wantchekon 2004). and possibly slower economic growth (Sachs and Warner 1995). This study suggests that the production of oil and gas?and potentially other minerals?also influences a country's social structure a topic that has received little attention.9 Oil not only hinders democracy. it also hinders more equitable gender relations. Of course oil wealth does not necessarily harm the status of women. Seven countries have produced significant quantities of oil and gas but still made faster progress on gender equality than we would ex pect based on their income: Norway New Zealand Australia Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Syria and Mexico. The first three countries are probably excep tions to the general pattern because of reasons implied by the model: since women already had a large pres ence in the nontraded sector (thanks to the size and diversification of these economies) rising oil exports did not crowd them out of the labor market. The two Central Asian states were strongly affected by many years of Soviet rule which promoted the role of women through administrative fiat. this may have inoculated them against oil-induced patriarchy. Perhaps the most interesting exceptions are Syria and Mexico: women in both states may have benefited from many years of rule by secular left-of-center par ties that showed an interest in women's rights. Mexico also gained from its proximity to the US. market which allowed it develop a large low-wage export-oriented manufacturing sector along the border?which pulled women into the labor market despite the flow of oil rents. These cases show that both good fortune and a committed government can sometimes counteract fortune and a committed government can sometimes counteract the perverse effects of oil on the status of women. </source> [/INST] <claim>No link- Your oil link is not true for Mexico</claim> <psg>that the production of oil and gas?and potentially other minerals?also influences a country's social structure a topic that has received little attention oil wealth does not necessarily harm the status of women. Seven countries have produced significant quantities of oil and gas but still made faster progress on gender equality than : Norway New Zealand Australia Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Syria and Mexico. . Perhaps the most interesting exceptions are Syria and Mexico: women in both states may have benefited from many years of rule by secular left-of-center par ties that showed an interest in women's rights. Mexico also gained from its proximity to the US. market which allowed it develop a large low-wage export-oriented manufacturing sector along the border?which pulled women into the labor market despite the flow of oil rents. These cases show that both good fortune and a committed government can sometimes counteract fortune and a committed government can sometimes counteract the perverse effects of oil on the status of women.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Lastly leaving aside these issues for the moment as legitimate questions where interpretations based on empirical issues of evidence methodology and measures can and do differ there is still one remaining major lacuna to the resource curse thesis representing the “dog which did not bark.” Although Ross’s argument is explicitly framed theoretically to reject cultural explanations in fact the study does not consider any direct evidence concerning attitudes and values. Thus the analysis is unable to test successive rival models that monitor how the public feels about women and men’s roles in the workforce family and public life moral values toward sexuality or any other direct measures about the strength of religiosity or religious identities and beliefs derived from public opinion. Asaproxymeasureofculture RosscontrolsfortheproportionofMuslim adherents in each society. This measure (usually based on fairly crude estimates) does not take into account important variations among Muslim societies in the type of regime levels of human development and the official role of religion in the state as well as contrasts between Sunni and Shi’a. For example Muslims are over 90% of the population in Egypt Saudi Arabia Mali and Indonesia yet according to Freedom House (2009) Egypt and Saudi Arabia are some of the most repressive autocracies around the world while today Mali and Indonesia are electoral democracies. H. Rizzo A. H. Abdel-Latif and K. Meyer (2007) have emphasized that the comparison of all Islamic societies may overlook important distinctions since attitudes towards gender equality and sexuality in Arab cultures are expected to be substantially more traditional than those of Asian Islamic cultures. </source> [/INST] <claim>Ross’s study is incomplete in that it does not take the culture of the areas he studies into account.</claim> <psg>Although Ross’s argument is explicitly framed theoretically to reject cultural explanations in fact the study does not consider any direct evidence concerning attitudes and values. Thus the analysis is unable to test successive rival models that monitor how the public feels about women and men’s roles in the workforce family and public life moral values toward sexuality or any other direct measures about the strength of religiosity or religious identities and beliefs derived from public opinion. This measure (usually based on fairly crude estimates) does not take into account important variations among Muslim societies in the type of regime levels of human development and the official role of religion in the state as well as contrasts between Sunni and Shi’a.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Ross concludesthat “[t]he persistence of patriarchy in the Middle East has relatively little to do with Islam but much to do with the region’s oil-based economy” (2008 120). Without any direct survey evidence however the more cautious approach would be to remain agnostic in estimating how much the resource curse matters compared with alternative cultural and institutional explanations in the literature. Therefore the research literature presents a wealth of evidence that the resource curse can probably be blamed fora multitude of ills from conflict and civil war to anemic economic growth corruption state capture and the contemporary push-back in Russia and Venezuela against the forces of democratization. But it has not yet been clearly established whether the resource curse at least petroleum is a major factor at the heart of the problems concerning the continuing gender disparities in elected office among Arab states. </source> [/INST] <claim>There are alt causes to patriarchy in oil-producing states.</claim> <psg>Without any direct survey evidence however the more cautious approach would be to remain agnostic in estimating how much the resource curse matters compared with alternative cultural and institutional explanations in the literature. But it has not yet been clearly established whether the resource curse at least petroleum is a major factor at the heart of the problems concerning the continuing gender disparities in elected office among Arab states.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> By delegative democracy O’Donnell meant a system in which leaders are elected but the institutions needed to hold them accountable for their performance in office are lacking above all a strong and effective legislature. He warned that delegative democracies would experience an endless cycle of crisis as presidents would be elected by making sweeping promises to save the country but once in office would unilaterally enact measures at variance with their promises and lacking public support or understanding. (At the time the new democracies in Latin America were under pressure to negotiate unpopular “stabilization packages” with international financial institutions.) Since these policies did not have buy-in from representative political parties and legislatures which didn’t exist in most new democracies the result would be a lot of squabbling and blame-placing a decline in the prestige and legitimacy of parties and politicians generally and public cynicism about democracy that populist demagogues would be able to exploit. The deficiencies of delegative democracy described by O’Donnell have been exacerbated in Latin America by two other problems – extremely high levels of economic inequality and alarming rates of criminal violence. These problems of course are not unrelated to each other since persisting high levels of inequality create vast pools of hopeless and excluded people who can be preyed upon by criminal networks and drug traffickers. The result has been an alarming epidemic of violence and killing in many Latin American countries. According to the FLACSO Secretary General Francisco Rojas Aravena 40% of the murders and 60% of the kidnappings in the world occur in Latin America even though the region contains only 8% of the world’s population. Four of the five countries in the world with homicide rates higher than 40 per 100 000 inhabitants are in Central America and the fifth country is Venezuela where independent observers place the current homicide rate at 70 per 100 000 the highest in the world after Honduras. </source> [/INST] <claim>We control UX---promoting democracy in Latin America now is necessary because inaction allows inequity and violence to continue. </claim> <psg>delegative democracies would experience an endless cycle of crisis as presidents would unilaterally enact measures at variance with their promises and lacking public support or understanding. the new democracies in Latin America were under pressure to negotiate unpopular “stabilization packages” with international financial institutions the result would be a lot of squabbling and blame-placing a decline in the prestige and legitimacy of democracy that populist demagogues would be able to exploit. The deficiencies of delegative democracy have been exacerbated in Latin America by two other problems – extremely high levels of economic inequality and alarming rates of criminal violence The result has been an alarming epidemic of violence and killing in many Latin American countries.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> This paper supports Parfit’s conclusion. Human extinction would likely condemn all sentience of terrestrial origin to extinction. We take extraordinary measures to protect some endangered species from extinction. It would be reasonable to take extraordinary measures to protect humanity from the same. If we survive the next few centuries we will probably survive long enough to colonize space and disperse ensuring the survival of sentient life for perhaps trillions of years. The next few centuries could be the most critical in our past or future.¶ ¶ The moral weight of human extinction does not mean we can ignore other moral problems. There is no conflict between helping to delay human extinction and for instance boycotting animal farms or consuming fewer natural resources. We can do both. But when instances of conflict arise as they do in cases of public funding we ought to prioritize projects that reduce extinction risks. Our primary goal in the next few centuries should be to survive long enough to colonize space. </source> [/INST] <claim>Preventing extinction is the primary objective</claim> <psg>Human extinction would likely condemn all sentience of terrestrial origin to extinction It would be reasonable to take extraordinary measures to protect humanity from the same. If we survive the next few centuries we will probably survive long enough to colonize space and disperse ensuring the survival of sentient life for perhaps trillions of years. The next few centuries could be the most critical in our past or future.¶ when instances of conflict arise we ought to prioritize projects that reduce extinction risks. Our primary goal in the next few centuries should be to survive long enough to colonize space.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> A Single Failure of Nuclear Deterrence could lead to:¶ The launching of 1000 U.S. and 1000 Russian strategic nuclear weapons which remain on launch-ready high-alert status capable of being launched with only a few minutes warning.¶ These 2000 weapons – each 7 to 85 times more powerful than the Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) weapons of India and Pakistan – would detonate in the United States and Russia and probably throughout the member states of NATO.¶ The detonation of some fraction of the remaining 7700 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads/weapons would then follow.¶ Hundreds of large cities in the U.S. Europe and Russia would be engulfed in massive firestorms . . . the explosion of each weapon would instantly ignite tens or hundreds of square miles or kilometers of the land and cities beneath it.¶ Many thousands of square miles of urban areas simultaneously burning would produce up to 150 million tons of thick black smoke.¶ The smoke would rise above cloud level and form an extremely dense stratospheric layer of smoke and soot which would quickly engulf the Earth.¶ The smoke layer would remain for at least 10 years and block and absorb sunlight heating the upper atmosphere and producing Ice Age weather on Earth.¶ The smoke would block up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere and up to 35% of the sunlight in the Southern Hemisphere producing a profound “nuclear darkness”.¶ In the absence of warming sunlight surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18 000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age.¶ There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia.¶ Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.¶ 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing every night for 1 to 3 years.¶ Nightly killing freezes and frosts would occur no crops could be grown.¶ Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for at least a decade.¶ Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur allowing intense levels of dangerous UV-B light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth. as the smoke cleared the UV-B would grow more intense.¶ Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase global radioactive fallout of long-lived isotopes such as Cesium-137.¶ Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires. enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.¶ It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation combined with drastic increases in UV light massive radioactive fallout and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.¶ Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.¶ Unable to grow food most humans would starve to death.¶ A mass extinction event would occur similar to what happened 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).¶ Political and military leaders living in underground shelters equipped with many years worth of food water energy and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment. </source> [/INST] <claim>A single failure of nuclear deterrence leads to massive destruction</claim> <psg>A Single Failure of Nuclear Deterrence could lead to:¶ Hundreds of large cities would be engulfed in massive firestorms Many thousands of square miles of urban areas simultaneously burning would produce up to 150 million tons of thick black smoke The smoke would block sunlight producing a profound “nuclear darkness”. surface temperatures on Earth become colder than they were at the height of the last Ice Age Nightly killing freezes and frosts would occur no crops could be grown Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would occur Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation combined with drastic increases in UV light massive radioactive fallout and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.¶ land and marine ecosystems would collapse humans would starve to death A mass extinction event would occur</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Most IR feminists would deny the assertion that women are morally superior to men. Indeed many of them have claimed that the association of women with peace and moral superiority has a long history of keeping women out of power going back to the debates about the merits of female suffrage in the early part of the century. The association of women with peace can play into unfortunate gender stereotypes that characterize men as active women as passive. men as agents women as victims. men as rational women as emotional. Not only are these stereotypes damaging to women particularly to their credibility as actors in matters of international politics and national security but they are also damaging to peace. As a concept peace will remain a “soft” issue utopian and unrealistic as long as it is associated with femininity and passivity.4 This entire debate about aggressive men and peaceful women frequently comes up when issues about women and world politics are on the table. Moreover it detracts from what feminists consider to be more pressing agendas such as striving to uncover and understand the disadvantaged socioeconomic position of many of the world’s women and why women are so poorly represented among the world’s policymakers. </source> [/INST] <claim>Using gender to associate masculinity with war and femininity with peace perpetuates dangerous stereotypes about women reduces the chances of peace and detracts from a broader understanding of gender IR.</claim> <psg>that the association of women with peace and moral superiority has a long history of keeping women out of power going back to the debates about the merits of female suffrage The association of women with peace can play into unfortunate gender stereotypes that characterize men as active women as passive. men as agents women as victims. men as rational women as emotional. Not only are these stereotypes damaging to women but they are also damaging to peace. As a concept peace will remain a “soft” issue utopian and unrealistic as long as it is associated with femininity and passivity This entire debate about aggressive men and peaceful women frequently comes up when issues about women and world politics are on the table. it detracts from what feminists consider to be more pressing agendas such as striving to uncover and understand the disadvantaged socioeconomic position of many of the world’s women and why women are so poorly represented among the world’s policymakers.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Most of the U.S. foreign policy community assumes that relations between the United States and Venezuela can only improve in the aftermath of Hugo Chavez's death. Exemplifying this optimism the Obama administration’s initial reaction was to note that as a 'new chapter' begins in Venezuela Washington reaffirms 'its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.' The U.S. response was based on the hope that any successor to Chavez will be interested in repairing the breach that opened up between the two nations during the almost 13 years of Chavez's tenure.¶ But nothing should be taken for granted. When other implacably anti-American leaders have died or passed from the scene their successors have not automatically sought to improve their relations with Washington -- Iran being a prominent example. Careful attention needs to be paid to separating Chavez's personal animosities toward Washington -- which might not be shared by his successor -- from the incentives embedded in the needs of Venezuela’s ruling system. Depending on who wins the election to finish Chavez's term of office the next Venezuelan president may not be interested in improving ties with the United States. more likely Chavez’s successor will have a far different standard as to what constitutes a rapprochement than most American officials. </source> [/INST] <claim>Our argument is historically true</claim> <psg>When other implacably anti-American leaders have died or passed from the scene their successors have not automatically sought to improve their relations with Washington the next Venezuelan president may not be interested in improving ties with the United States. more likely Chavez’s successor will have a far different standard as to what constitutes a rapprochement than most American officials</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Oil is a Global Commodity¶ Oil is a global market and therefore a globally priced commodity and so long as America consumes oil and abstains from protectionist policies self-sufficiency of oil would still mean buying and selling oil at the world price. Because oil is available from dozens of countries and hundreds of companies and because it is relatively easily shippable there is only a single global market for oil no matter where the consumer is located. Oil prices are set in open commodity markets and oil is traded globally which means that prices are affected by events around the world and decisions made by countries and companies unassociated with the United States.¶ The way the oil production supply chain functions means it would be impossible to separate domestic and foreign gasoline. William Nordhaus of Yale University illustrates the globally integrated oil market nicely as a “bathtub” that:¶ “…contains the world inventory of oil that has been extracted and is available for purchase. There are spigots from Saudi Arabia Russia the United States and other producers that introduce oil into the inventory. and there are drains from which the United States Japan Denmark and other consumers draw oil from the inventory. Nevertheless the price and quantity dynamics are determined by the sum of these demands and supplies and the level of total inventory and are independent of whether the faucets and drains are labeled “U.S. ” “Russia ” or “Denmark.”[3]¶ A useful example of how oil consumers are beholden to the global oil market is Europe’s experience in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina gas prices in Europe soared as a result of the damage to US refineries even though those facilities sent very little gas to Europe. Even if the US does not import one barrel of oil from the Middle East or any other region the price US consumers pay at the pump would still be a function of worldwide supply and demand just as it was for Europeans after Katrina.[4]¶ The extent of our vulnerability is not a function of how much oil we produce domestically. Britain produces more oil than it needs but its self-sufficiency does nothing to alter its gasoline prices or its vulnerability to global price volatility.[5] Likewise the US so long as it uses significant amounts of oil will be susceptible to the global oil market no matter how much of our consumption comes from domestically produced oil.¶ Both Canada and Norwaywere net oil exporters for the entire period of the 2003-2008 when global oil prices steadily increased and both nations remained net exporters through the price spike in 2011. In both cases domestic retail fuel prices tracked global oil prices almost perfectly. Adjusted in a common currency and excluding taxes retail fuel prices in Canada and Norway moved in lockstep with global crude and also with retail fuel prices in the US. In fact during this period gas prices were cheaper in the US than in either Canada or Norway.[6]¶ In 1973 the US imported just over a third of its petroleum yet the economy proved far more not less exposed to the shock of global oil prices than it was two years ago when prices soared again while dependence on foreign oil reached an all-time high.[7] Since 2005 production in the US has been steadily rising and we now produce about 1.5 million barrels more than we did six years ago. Over the same period of time however oil hit a record of $147 a barrel.[8] What is more it is largely because of these high prices that new American production is possible. low gas prices actually stifle American production and hurt that sector of the economy because US production costs make US oil less competitive at more affordable barrel prices. </source> [/INST] <claim>Oil prices are set globally – middle east oil independence won’t shield us from price spikes</claim> <psg>Oil is a global market and therefore a globally priced commodity sufficiency of oil would still mean buying and selling oil at the world price. Because oil is available from dozens of countries and hundreds of companies and because it is relatively easily shippable there is only a single global market for oil no matter where the consumer is located. Oil prices are set in open commodity markets and oil is traded globally which means that prices are affected by events around the world and decisions made by countries and companies unassociated with the United States. A useful example of how oil consumers are beholden to the global oil market is Europe’s experience in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina gas prices in Europe soared as a result of the damage to US refineries even though those facilities sent very little gas to Europe Even if the US does not import one barrel of oil from the Middle East or any other region the price US consumers pay at the pump would still be a function of worldwide supply and demand the US so long as it uses significant amounts of oil will be susceptible to the global oil market</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The International Energy Agency recently confirmed what market watchers have been saying for a year: oil and gas production in the United States is surging and is expected to continue to rise. This trend has led a parade of analysts and even the government’s National Intelligence Council to predict that after four decades of failed attempts America might soon become energy independent. This view if taken too far is not only wrong it is dangerous. The United States would remain entangled with the global oil market indefinitely even if it were to import no oil. Political leaders lulled into a false sense of security by rising domestic oil and gas output run the risk of making big mistakes.¶ There is no doubt that oil and gas production in the United States is growing strongly bringing with it important economic and security benefits. Indeed it is entirely plausible that within 10 years or so North America could produce as much oil as it consumes. (Canada and Mexico are typically grouped with the United States in oil analyses because the three markets are tightly integrated.) The resulting freedom from any need to import oil from overseas is what has led some analysts to herald a coming age of energy independence.¶ But this misreads our vulnerabilities. Since oil prices are set on world markets we would not be immune from volatility elsewhere — unless the United States decided to wall itself off an extreme measure that could inflict severe pain on the nation’s allies. The United States economy is perpetually at risk because spikes in oil prices can quickly strip consumers of cash at the gas pump. This sudden “tax” can knock the economy on its back regardless of where we buy oil.¶ Instability in the Middle East would still hit motorists in the Midwest and the United States would still be called on to provide stability there or to intervene. And the United States would still need to think twice before escalating any regional conflict. for example one with Iran which would likely push oil prices significantly higher.¶ The great danger though about predictions of energy independence is that policy makers who act on unreasonable optimism about the nation’s energy future could do major damage.¶ The United States is reconsidering its approach to military spending and strategy in the face of budget pressures. Policy makers who believe that the Middle East matters far less because of looming energy independence might end up dangerously neglecting the region. Some Middle Eastern leaders already fear such an outcome and may hedge their bets by cozying up with others. America’s Middle East strategy may be due for a change but the notion of energy independence should not drive those decisions.¶ Unjustified expectations about energy independence might also make lawmakers less interested in pursuing measures to reduce oil consumption. But the nation’s vulnerability to events overseas and to volatile oil prices still stems from the amount that Americans spend on oil. That is why government steps to reduce the demand for oil — whether through tougher fuel economy standards support for technological innovations or other means — remain essential regardless of where America’s oil comes from.¶ An exaggerated sense of independence could also lead policy makers to interfere with open trade in dangerous ways. People eager to keep the newfound bounty of shale gas at home have attacked plans to allow natural gas exports. Similar fights may arise over oil exports and foreign investment in the domestic oil industry. Blind faith in free trade is unwise. But the United States still depends on relatively open global markets which wrongheaded policies could undermine.¶ The benefits of the oil and gas boom — jobs wealth and in the case of natural gas reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — offer plenty of reasons to continue to develop these resources judiciously. But we should beware of turning this potential blessing into an unintended curse. </source> [/INST] <claim>Dependence on the Middle East will continue no matter what – prices set globally</claim> <psg>oil and gas production in the United States is surging and is expected to continue to rise. This trend has led a parade of analysts to predict that America might soon become energy independent. This view is not only wrong it is dangerous. The United States would remain entangled with the global oil market indefinitely even if it were to import no oil Since oil prices are set on world markets we would not be immune from volatility elsewhere The United States economy is perpetually at risk because spikes in oil prices can quickly strip consumers of cash at the gas pump. This sudden “tax” can knock the economy on its back regardless of where we buy oil. Instability in the Middle East would still hit motorists in the Midwest and the United States would still be called on to provide stability there or to intervene. And the United States would still need to think twice before escalating any regional conflict. for example one with Iran which would likely push oil prices significantly higher.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020 and will be energy independent 10 years later according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency.¶ The recent resurgence in oil and gas production and efforts to make the transport sector more efficient are radically reshaping the nation's energy market reported Paris-based IEA in its World Energy Outlook.¶ North America would become a net exporter of oil around 2030 the global organization said Monday.¶ 'The United States which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs becomes all but self sufficient in net terms -- a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy importing countries ' the IEA stated.¶ The U.S. is experiencing an oil boom in large part thanks to high world prices and new technologies including hydraulic fracking that have made the extraction of oil and gas from shale rock commercially viable.¶ From 2008 to 2011 U.S. crude oil production jumped 14% according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production is up by about 10% over the same period.¶ Related: the facts about oil and gas under Obama¶ According to the IEA U.S. natural gas prices will rise to $5.5 per million British thermal units (MBtu) in 2020 from around $3.5 per MBtu this year driven by rising domestic demand rather than a forecast increase in exports to Asia and other markets.¶ 'In our projections 93% of the natural gas produced in the United States remains available to meet domestic demand ' it said. 'Exports on the scale that we project would not play a large role in domestic price setting.'¶ North America's new role in the world energy markets will accelerate a change in the direction of international oil trade toward Asia and underscore the importance of securing supply routes from the Middle East to China and India.¶ The IEA said it expects global energy demand to increase by more than a third by 2035 with China India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the growth and more than outweighing reduced demand in developed economies.¶ That will push world average oil import prices up to $125 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2035 from around $100 per barrel at present but they could be much higher if Iraq fails to deliver on its production potential.¶ Iraq is set to become the second largest oil exporter by the 2030s as it expands output to take advantage of demand from fast growing Asian economies.¶ New fuel economy standards in the U.S. and efforts by China Japan and the European Union to reduce demand would help to make up for a disappointing decade for global energy efficiency.¶ 'But even with these and other new policies in place a significant share of the potential to improve energy efficiency -- four-fifths of the potential in the buildings sector and more than half in industry -- still remains untapped ' the IEA stated.¶ Policymakers are still missing out on potential benefits for energy security economic growth and the environment.¶ Growth in demand over the years to 2035 would be halved and oil demand would peak just before 2020 if governments took action to remove barriers preventing the implementation of energy efficiency measures that are already economically viable the global organization said. </source> [/INST] <claim>New extraction techniques have expanded domestic oil production - the US will be energy independent by the end of 2 decades</claim> <psg>The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020 and will be energy independent 10 years later according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency. North America would become a net exporter of oil around 2030 The United States which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs becomes all but self sufficient in net terms The U.S. is experiencing an oil boom in large part thanks to high world prices and new technologies including hydraulic fracking that have made the extraction of oil and gas from shale rock commercially viable. U.S. crude oil production jumped 14% according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production is up by about 10% North America's new role in the world energy markets will accelerate a change in the direction of international oil trade toward Asia and underscore the importance of securing supply routes from the Middle East to China and India.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> U.S. oil and gas production is evolving so rapidly—and demand is dropping so quickly—that in just five years the U.S. could no longer need to buy oil from any source but Canada according to Citigroup's global head of commodities research.¶ Citigroup's Edward Morse in a new report projects a dramatic reshaping of the global energy industry where the U.S. in a matter of years becomes an exporter of energy instead of one of the biggest importers.¶ The shift could sharply reduce the price of oil and therefore limit the revenues of the producing nations of OPEC as well as Russia and West Africa. Those nations face new challenges: not only are the U.S. and Canada increasing output but Iraq increasingly is realizing its potential as an oil producer adding 600 000 barrels a day of production annually for the next several years.¶ 'OPEC will find it challenging to survive another 60 years let alone another decade ' the report by Morse and other Citi analysts said. 'But not all of the consequences are positive for when it comes to the geopolitics of energy the likely outcomes are asymmetric with clear cut winner and losers.'¶ The U.S. is a winner in many ways. Its super power status could be prolonged because of this new growth in oil and shale gas production made possible by 'fracking' and other non-conventional drilling technologies.¶ Crude oil generated the largest single annual increase in liquids production in U.S. history last year with an increase of 1.16 million barrels per day. Oil production is booming in places like Texas and North Dakota which has the lowest unemployment in the country at just 3 percent last September compared to the national rate of 7.8 percent then.¶ Citi analysts also foresee a new era of U.S. industrialization fueled by cheaper power. They cite dozens of industrial projects across America that have already begun or are planned in such industries as auto chemicals and steel.¶ The oil producing nations of OPEC and others will have to adjust to a world of lower prices. Separately OPEC in its February report Tuesday commented about the U.S. noting it is the fastest growing producer this year among the non-OPEC nations. But it noted there are risks associated with these supply forecasts including weather and technical environmental and price factors as well as the heavy decline associated with shale drilling in the first year of production.¶ Citigroup's report predicts a price decline in crude oil that will impact all producers -— and consumers. Brent crude the international benchmark could trade in a new lower range of $70 to $90 per barrel by the end of the decade from its recent range of $90 to $120 per barrel Citi projects. That would be below the break-even levels required by many producing countries. The price required by Saudi Arabia is $71 and Kuwait is $44 per barrel but many other countries have break-even levels of $110 or greater.¶ 'This is a momentous year for what's happening and we're having almost two million barrels a day of pipeline capacity built out in the U.S. ' Morse said on 'Fast Money.' 'The U.S. is actually going to push out about 700 000 barrels a day of light sweet crude imports this year. We think as a result of that plus production elsewhere we think the price is going to average by the time you get to December $10 less than where it is right now.'¶ As the U.S. and Canada rise some oil producing countries could face the threat of becoming 'failed states' as their leadership grapples with greater pressure for economic and political reform while resource revenues decline the report said. Others especially China could make up for some of the demand but not all.¶ 'Nigeria the picture is fairly bleak. Venezuela is pretty bleak ' Morse said.¶ As for Russia 'If it is the case that what is now a $90 Brent floor price becomes a $90 Brent ceiling price given the dominance of hydrocarbon exports in Russian revenue there could be a three percent hit to GDP which is by no means insignificant over the next five years. because that's how critical hydrocarbons are ' he said. 'Here you have a country that requires on its own public record $117 per barrel Urals crude on average to balance their budget. If the price of oil collapses to only as low as $90 a barrel it does have that order-of-magnitude effect.'¶ At the same time Citi sees a big impact on the U.S. economy. The current account deficit is about 3.2 percent of GDP and the oil import bill is 1.7 percent of GDP. Citi expects that energy self-sufficiency combined with the impact of low natural gas prices could cut the current account deficit by up to 2.4 percent of GDP with an associated improvement in the dollar of 1.6 to 5.4 percent.¶ To realize this production boom the energy industry's near-term challenge is moving the U.S. and Canadian oil that is locked in the heart of the continent because of insufficient pipeline transportation. Citi expects that to improve but in the meantime the railroad industry is helping pick up the slack shipping U.S. crude across the continent and creating big demand for rail tanker cars.¶ The Citi report titled 'Energy 2020: Independence Day ' also projects a larger and quicker decline in demand for oil in the U.S. over the next decade or two due to efficiency and the shift to cheaper natural gas.¶ For instance Citi expects 30 percent of the U.S. heavy duty truck fleet to turn to natural gas-based fuel by 2015 well above the 10 percent it previously forecast. That would reduce diesel demand by an estimated 600 000 barrels per day. It also expects new automotive efficiency standards to reduce U.S. oil production by two million barrels per day up from the one million forecast last year.¶ 'Starting this year North American output as we indicate in this report should start to have tangible impacts both on global prices and trading patterns and will eventually turn the global geopolitics of energy on its head ' the report said.¶ Morse surprised markets a year ago with a report that envisioned the U.S. as part of an energy independent North America. Since then the view has become mainstream. The International Energy Agency forecast last fall that the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the top oil producer by 2017. The IEA also forecast that North America could become a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the U.S. could become nearly self-sufficient by 2035.¶ Morse's latest report released Tuesday has an even more aggressive view of the U.S. move to dominance as an energy producer.¶ If crude oil and field condensates natural gas liquids renewable fuels and refinery processing gains are counted the report put U.S. production at 11.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2012 making the U.S. the biggest oil producer already last year.¶ Canadian production is expected to increase to 6.5 million barrels per day and even Mexico is now expected to join the North America energy renaissance under a new government interested in exploiting its resources.¶ In the past six years oil imports into the United States have been cut in half after peaking in 2006.¶ 'The numbers are striking. The month of peak was 12.6 million barrels a day in October 2006 and ... now it's under six and by late 2012 totaled 6.8 million bpd ' Morse said in an interview.¶ Since 2006 U.S. oil field production of crude plus natural gas liquids and bio-fuels has grown by three million barrels a day about the same as the total output of Iran Iraq or Venezuela. In the same period Canadian production has grown by 510 000 barrels a day.¶ 'The impact of this extraordinary production growth is becoming increasingly apparent and even if the growth rate subsides in the years ahead the mushrooming impacts of this growth will have dramatic impacts ' the report said. 'A half decade from now combined US and Canadian output will be in surplus of projected needs. Over the next five years demand for natural gas in the US should catch up with supply opening up unexpected opportunities in transportation and igniting a re-industrialization of the country.'¶ Morse in an interview said the U.S. could in theory need to import only from Canada within five years. 'Our projection of U.S. supply growth and U.S. demand collapse is to levels where the U.S. will not need to import oil from any other country except for Canada ' he said.¶ He expects to see a fight for market share in the U.S. and the ultimate result will be that the U.S. could re-export some Canadian crude. 'But technically there should be no room for anyone else's crude ' he noted.¶ But this does not mean the U.S. will be immune to price spikes even with its growing supply. 'Disruptions actually affect the price of oil globally and the more integrated we are in the world oil economy the more we're going to be impacted by it. If there's a price spike we're going to feel the price spike but the weight of our production is going to make that prices pike come from a much lower base in the future than it is now ' Morse said on 'Fast Money.'¶ </source> [/INST] <claim>The US is set to become the dominant force in oil within the next decade – dependence will decline significantly</claim> <psg>U.S. oil and gas production is evolving so rapidly that in just five years the U.S. could no longer need to buy oil from any source but Canada The shift could sharply reduce the price of oil and therefore limit the revenues of the producing nations of OPEC as well as Russia and West Africa OPEC will find it challenging to survive another 60 years let alone another decade The U.S. super power status could be prolonged because of this new growth in oil and shale gas production made possible by 'fracking' and other non-conventional drilling technologies. Crude oil generated the largest single annual increase in liquids production in U.S. history last year with an increase of 1.16 million barrels per day. As the U.S. and Canada rise some oil producing countries could face the threat of becoming 'failed states' as their leadership grapples with greater pressure for economic and political reform while resource revenues decline North American output as we indicate in this report should start to have tangible impacts both on global prices and trading patterns and will eventually turn the global geopolitics of energy on its head The International Energy Agency forecast last fall that the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the top oil producer by 2017. North America could become a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the U.S. could become nearly self-sufficient by 2035. In the past six years oil imports into the United States have been cut in half Since 2006 U.S. oil field production of crude has grown by three million barrels a day about the same as the total output of Iran Iraq or Venezuela this does not mean the U.S. will be immune to price spikes even with its growing supply. 'Disruptions actually affect the price of oil globally and the more integrated we are in the world oil economy the more we're going to be impacted by it but the weight of our production is going to make that prices pike come from a much lower base in the future</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Soon after the onslaught of light sweet crude production in 2013 new ¶ pipeline capacity by 2014 could enable more than 1-m b/d of mostly sour ¶ Canadian crudes to reach the Gulf Coast as well. At more or less the same ¶ time US Gulf of Mexico production should reverse its slide that started in ¶ 2010 as the post-Macondo drilling moratorium has ended and new production ¶ growth should start in 2013. All of these developments start to challenge ¶ suppliers of sour crude to US Gulf Coast markets. Producers with ¶ downstream marketing operations in the US should literally find themselves ¶ swimming upstream against the tide to preserve market share. These ¶ producers include Venezuela Mexico and the Middle East. </source> [/INST] <claim>Increased access to Canadian oil and increased gulf production will push out Venezuela</claim> <psg>Soon after the onslaught of light sweet crude production in 2013 new pipeline capacity by 2014 could enable more than 1-m b/d of mostly sour Canadian crudes to reach the Gulf Coast US Gulf of Mexico production should reverse its slide that started in 2010 as the post-Macondo drilling moratorium has ended and new production growth should start in 2013. developments start to challenge suppliers of sour crude to US Gulf Coast markets These producers include Venezuela Mexico and the Middle East</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The International Energy Agency is out with its new World Energy Outlook a report which makes some extremely positive comments about the future of US energy.¶ In the factbook the IEA had this to say about US oil:¶ An energy renaissance in the United States is redrawing the global energy map with implications for energy markets and trade. The United States which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs becomes all but self‐sufficient in net terms by 2035 thanks to rising production of oil shale gas and bioenergy and improved fuel efficiency in transport. Falling US oil imports mean that North America becomes a net oil exporter by around 2030. This accelerates the ongoing shift in the international oil trade towards Asian markets putting greater focus on the security of strategic routes that link them to the Middle East.¶ ...¶ The United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer before 2020 exceeding Saudi Arabia until the mid‐2020s. At the same time new fuel‐efficiency measures in transport begin to curb US oil demand. The result is a continued fall in US oil imports to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030. This accelerates the switch in direction of international oil trade towards Asia putting a focus on the security of the strategic routes that bring Middle East oil to Asian markets. The United States which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs becomes all but self‐sufficient in net terms by 2035 – a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy‐importing countries.¶ This chart from the press presentation shows the trajectory of US oil production. </source> [/INST] <claim>US energy independence increasing – increased production and increased efficiency mean a decline in imports</claim> <psg>The International Energy Agency is out with its new World Energy Outlook a report which makes some extremely positive comments about the future of US energy. An energy renaissance in the United States is redrawing the global energy ma United States which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs becomes all but self‐sufficient in net terms by 2035 thanks to rising production of oil shale gas and bioenergy Falling US oil imports mean that North America becomes a net oil exporter by around 2030. The United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer before 2020 new fuel‐efficiency measures in transport begin to curb US oil demand. The result is a continued fall in US oil imports </psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Alarming as these scenarios are they disguise the true picture one that is really much more complicated and much more reassuring. While there are of course circumstances in which oil can exacerbate tensions and be a source of conflict it can also act as a peacemaker and source of stability. So to identify America's 'foreign oil dependency' as a source of vulnerability and weakness is just too neat and easy. This identification wholly ignores the dependency of foreign oil producers on their consumers above all on the world's largest single market -- the United States. Despite efforts to diversify their economies all of the world's key exporters are highly dependent on oil's proceeds and have always lived in fear of the moment that has now become real -- when global demand slackens and prices fall. The recent dramatic fall in price per barrel -- now standing at around $54 less than four months after peaking at $147 -- perfectly exemplifies the producers' predicament. So even if such a move were possible in today's global market no oil exporter is ever in a position to alienate its customers. Supposed threats of embargoes ring hollow because no producer can assume that its own economy will be damaged any less than that of any importing country. What's more a supply disruption would always seriously damp global demand. Even in the best of times a prolonged price spike could easily tip the world into economic recession prompt consumers to shake off their gasoline dependency or accelerate a scientific drive to find alternative fuels. Fearful of this 'demand destruction' when crude prices soared so spectacularly in the summer the Saudis pledged to pump their wells at full tilt. It seems that their worst fears were realized: Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in July this year compared with last according to the Department of Transportation. Instead the dependency of foreign oil producers on their customers plays straight into America's strategic hands. Washington is conceivably in a position to hold producers to ransom by threatening to accelerate a drive to develop or implement alternative fuels realizing the warning once uttered by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani the former Saudi oil minister who pointed out that 'the Stone Age did not end for lack of stone.' Back in 1973 as they protested at Washington's stance on the Arab-Israeli dispute Middle East producers were in a position to impose an oil embargo on the Western world. But a generation later technological advances and the strength of public and scientific concern about global warming have turned the tables. The United States has powerful political leverage over producers because it holds the key to future oil supply as well as market demand. The age of 'easy oil' is over and as fears grow that oil is becoming harder to get so too will the dependency of producers on increasingly sophisticated Western technology and expertise. Such skills will be particularly important in two key areas of oil production. One is finding and extracting offshore deposits like the massive reserves reckoned to be under the Caspian and Arctic seas or in Brazil's recently discovered Tupi field. The other is prolonging the lifespan of declining wells through enhanced 'tertiary' recovery. Because Western companies have a clear technological edge over their global competitors in these hugely demanding areas Washington exerts some powerful political leverage over exporters many of whom openly anticipate the moment when their production peaks before gradually starting to decline. Syria illustrates how this leverage can work. Although oil has been the primary source of national income for more than 40 years production has recently waned dramatically: Output is now nearly half of the peak it reached in the mid-1990s when a daily output of 600 000 barrels made up 60% of gross domestic product and can barely sustain rapidly growing domestic demand fueled by a very high rate of population growth. With enough foreign investment Syrian oil could be much more productive and enduring but Washington has sent foreign companies as well as American firms a tough message to steer well clear. It is not surprising then that the Damascus regime regards a rapprochement with the U.S. as a political lifeline and in recent months has shown signs of a new willingness to compromise. The same predicament confronted Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi who first offered to surrender weapons of mass destruction during secret negotiations with U.S. officials in May 1999. Facing a deepening economic crisis that he could not resolve without increasing the production of his main export oil Col. Gadhafi was prepared to bow to Washington's demands and eventually struck a path-breaking accord in December 2003. Col. Gadhafi had been the 'Mad Dog' of the Reagan years but oil's influence had initiated what President Bush hailed as 'the process of rejoining the community of nations.' Oil could also help the outside world frustrate the nuclear ambitions of Iran whose output is likely to steadily decline over the coming years unless it has access to the latest Western technology. Many wells are aging rapidly and the Iranians cannot improve recovery rates or exploit their new discoveries unless Washington lifts sanctions which have been highly successful in deterring international investment. Sometimes the markets will prove at least as effective as any American sanctions in keeping a tight political rein on oil producers. For example when Russian forces attacked South Ossetia and Georgia on Aug. 8 Russia's stock market -- of which energy stocks comprise 60% -- plunged by nearly 7% and within a week capital outflow reached a massive $16 billion suddenly squeezing domestic credit while the ruble collapsed in value. A month later the country was facing its worst crisis since the default of August 1998. But the future of the oil sector is so dependent on attracting massive foreign investment and the wider Russian economy so heavily dependent on petrodollars that the Kremlin simply can't afford to unnecessarily unnerve investors. Today the markets know that Russia needs at least $1 trillion in investment if it is to maintain let alone increase its oil production. Just five years ago output was increasing so fast -- energy giants Yukos and Sibneft were posting annual production gains of 20% -- that even the Saudis were worried about their own global dominance. But in the past year Russian oil production has started to wane. Leonid Fedun a top official at Lukoil Russia's No. 2 oil producer admitted back in April that national output had peaked and was unlikely to return to 2007 levels 'in my lifetime' and that 'the period of intense oil production [growth] is over.' Without foreign money and expertise to extract offshore oil and prolong the lifespan of existing wells Russian production will fall dramatically. Russia's oil in other words acted as peacemaker. This seems paradoxical for it has sometimes been said that the Kremlin's attack on South Ossetia and Georgia was prompted by an ambition to seize control of local pipelines. But although this was an aggravating factor it was not the primary cause because Russian leaders would have felt threatened -- reasonably or not -- by the presence of NATO in what they regard as their own backyard even if the region was not an energy hub. They were also reportedly eyeing Ukraine which has no petroleum deposits of its own and poses no threat to the dominance of their giant energy company Gazprom. Oil can also act as a peacemaker and source of stability because many conflicts in almost every part of the world can threaten a disruption of supply and instantly send crude prices spiraling. Despite the recent price falls the market is still vulnerable to sudden supply shocks and a sharp increase would massively affect the wider global economy. This would have potentially disastrous social and political results just as in the summer many countries including France Nepal and Indonesia were rocked by violent protests at dramatic price increases in gasoline. Haunted by the specter of higher oil prices at a time of such economic fragility many governments have a very strong incentive to use diplomacy not force to resolve their own disputes and to help heal other people's. This is true not just of oil consumers but producers which would also be keen not to watch global demand stifled by such price spikes. Consider the events of last fall when the Ankara government was set to retaliate against the Iraq-based Kurdish guerrillas who had killed 17 Turkish soldiers and taken others prisoner in a cross-border raid on Oct. 21 2007. Even the mere prospect of such an attack sent the price of a barrel surging to a then record high of $85 because the markets knew that the insurgents could respond by damaging a key pipeline which moves 750 000 barrels of oil across Turkish territory every day. Not surprisingly the Bush administration pushed very hard to prevent a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq -- State Department spokesman Sean McCormack aptly described the frenzy of diplomatic activity as a 'full-court press' -- not just to avoid shattering the vestiges of Iraq's political structure but also to stabilize oil prices. In the end it was American pressure that averted a major incursion allowing crude prices to quickly ease. And the Turks would also have been aware that any invasion could have prompted retaliatory damage on the oil pipeline losing them vast transit fees. In general oil is such a vital commodity for consumers producers and intermediaries alike that it represents a meeting point for all manner of different interests. Sometimes it offers an opportunity for competitors and rivals to resolve differences as in March 1995 when Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to break deadlock with Washington by offering a technically very demanding oil contract to Conoco. Today the symbiotic energy requirements of Europe and Russia allows scope to improve mutual relations not least if European governments act in unison to impose the rules of the European Union's energy charter on Moscow. Oil also gives consumers a chance to penalize or tempt international miscreants just as U.S. sanctions are forcing the Tehran regime to reassess its cost-benefit analysis of building the bomb. What cannot go unchallenged is a facile equation between oil on the one hand and war bloodshed and in America's particular case strategic vulnerability on the other. For oil fortunately can often be our guardian. </source> [/INST] <claim>Oil dependence is good – allows de-escalation of conflicts globally </claim> <psg>oil can exacerbate tensions and be a source of conflict it can also act as a peacemaker and source of stability. So to identify America's 'foreign oil dependency' as a source of vulnerability and weakness is just too neat and easy. This identification wholly ignores the dependency of foreign oil producers on their consumers above all on the world's largest single market -- the United States no oil exporter is ever in a position to alienate its customers. a supply disruption would always seriously damp global demand. Even in the best of times a prolonged price spike could easily tip the world into economic recession prompt consumers to shake off their gasoline dependency or accelerate a scientific drive to find alternative fuels dependency of foreign oil producers on their customers plays straight into America's strategic hands. Washington is conceivably in a position to hold producers to ransom by threatening to accelerate a drive to develop or implement alternative fuels Back in 1973 Middle East producers were in a position to impose an oil embargo on the Western world. But a generation later technological advances and the strength of public and scientific concern about global warming have turned the tables. The United States has powerful political leverage over producers because it holds the key to future oil supply as well as market demand. The age of 'easy oil' is over and as fears grow that oil is becoming harder to get so too will the dependency of producers on increasingly sophisticated Western technology and expertise. Such skills will be particularly important in two key areas of oil production. One is finding and extracting offshore deposits The other is prolonging the lifespan of declining wells through enhanced 'tertiary' recovery. Because Western companies have a clear technological edge over their global competitors in these hugely demanding areas Washington exerts some powerful political leverage over exporters many of whom openly anticipate the moment when their production peaks before gradually starting to decline. Syria illustrates how this leverage can work : Output is now nearly half of the peak it reached in the mid-1990s and can barely sustain rapidly growing domestic demand fueled by a very high rate of population growth. With enough foreign investment Syrian oil could be much more productive and enduring but Washington has sent foreign companies as well as American firms a tough message to steer well clear. It is not surprising then that the Damascus regime regards a rapprochement with the U.S. as a political lifeline and in recent months has shown signs of a new willingness to compromise. The same predicament confronted Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi who first offered to surrender weapons of mass destruction during secret negotiations with U.S. officials in May 1999. Facing a deepening economic crisis that he could not resolve without increasing the production of his main export oil Col. Gadhafi was prepared to bow to Washington's demands Oil can also act as a peacemaker and source of stability because many conflicts in almost every part of the world can threaten a disruption of supply and instantly send crude prices spiraling. Despite the recent price falls the market is still vulnerable to sudden supply shocks and a sharp increase would massively affect the wider global economy. oil is such a vital commodity for consumers producers and intermediaries alike that it represents a meeting point for all manner of different interests. Sometimes it offers an opportunity for competitors and rivals to resolve differences as in March 1995 when Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to break deadlock with Washington by offering a technically very demanding oil contract to Conoco. Today the symbiotic energy requirements of Europe and Russia allows scope to improve mutual relations Oil also gives consumers a chance to penalize or tempt international miscreants just as U.S. sanctions are forcing the Tehran regime to reassess its cost-benefit analysis of building the bomb. What cannot go unchallenged is a facile equation between oil on the one hand and war bloodshed and in America's particular case strategic vulnerability on the other. For oil fortunately can often be our guardian.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Should Venezuela cut off oil exports to the United States the American market would need to replace roughly one million barrels per day. Propitiously current supply and demand conditions are such that the market could easily adjust to prevent significant economic or political disruptions. With a daily surplus of roughly five million barrels the worldwide oil market vis-à-vis OPEC (which does not participate in member countries’ embargos) is more than capable of replacing Venezuelan exports to the US. This is especially true because spot demand for oil is zero-sum meaning that with one million extra barrels of Venezuelan oil flowing into the Chinese market daily China would need to purchase one million fewer barrels on the world market. This would free up supply for the United States and maintain the five million barrel surplus since global oil production and consumption would remain unchanged (PDVSA market adaptation issues notwithstanding). </source> [/INST] <claim>No impact --- market can quickly adjust</claim> <psg>Should Venezuela cut off oil exports to the U S the American market would need to replace roughly one million barrels per day. Propitiously current supply and demand conditions are such that the market could easily adjust to prevent significant economic or political disruptions. the worldwide oil market vis-à-vis OPEC is more than capable of replacing Venezuelan exports to the US. spot demand for oil is zero-sum meaning that with one million extra barrels of Venezuelan oil flowing into the Chinese market daily China would need to purchase one million fewer barrels on the world market. This would free up supply for the U S and maintain the five million barrel surplus since global oil production and consumption would remain unchanged</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> A perennial preoccupation of U.S. diplomacy has been the perceived need to reassure allies of our reliability. Throughout the Cold War U.S. leaders worried that any loss of credibility might cause dominoes to fall lead key allies to 'bandwagon' with the Soviet Union or result in some form of 'Finlandization.' Such concerns justified fighting so-called 'credibility wars' (including Vietnam) where the main concern was not the direct stakes of the contest but rather the need to retain a reputation for resolve and capability. Similar fears also led the United States to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons in Europe as a supposed counter to Soviet missiles targeted against our NATO allies. The possibility that key allies would abandon us was almost always exaggerated but U.S. leaders remain overly sensitive to the possibility. So Vice President Joe Biden has been out on the road this past week telling various U.S. allies that 'the United States isn't going anywhere.' (He wasn't suggesting we're stuck in a rut of course but saying that the imminent withdrawal from Iraq doesn't mean a retreat to isolationism or anything like that.) There's nothing really wrong with offering up this sort of comforting rhetoric but I've never really understood why USS.S. leaders were so worried about the credibility of our commitments to others. For starters given our remarkably secure geopolitical position whether U.S. pledges are credible is first and foremost a problem for those who are dependent on U.S. help. We should therefore take our allies' occasional hints about realignment or neutrality with some skepticism. they have every incentive to try to make us worry about it but in most cases little incentive to actually do it. </source> [/INST] <claim>No impact to credibility – allies won’t abandon us and adversaries can’t exploit it</claim> <psg>A perennial preoccupation of U.S. diplomacy has been the perceived need to reassure allies of our reliability U.S. leaders worried that any loss of credibility might cause dominoes to fall lead key allies to 'bandwagon' with the Soviet Union The possibility that key allies would abandon us was almost always exaggerated but U.S. leaders remain overly sensitive to the possibility the United States isn't going anywhere I've never really understood why USS.S. leaders were so worried about the credibility of our commitments to others given our remarkably secure geopolitical position whether U.S. pledges are credible is first and foremost a problem for those who are dependent on U.S. help We should take hints about realignment or neutrality they have every incentive to make us worry about it but in most cases little incentive to actually do it</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Since Vietnam scholars have been generally unable to identify cases in which high credibility helped the United States achieve its goals. The shortterm aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis for example did not include a string of Soviet reversals or the kind of benign bandwagoning with the West that deterrence theorists would have expected. In fact the perceived reversal in Cuba seemed to harden Soviet resolve. As the crisis was drawing to a close Soviet diplomat Vasily Kuznetsov angrily told his counterpart 'You Americans will never be able to do this to us again.'37 Kissinger commented in his memoirs that 'the Soviet Union thereupon launched itself on a determined systematic and long-term program of expanding all categories of its military power .... The 1962 Cuban crisis was thus a historic turning point-but not for the reason some Americans complacently supposed.'38 The reassertion of the credibility of the United States which was done at the brink of nuclear war had few long-lasting benefits. The Soviets seemed to learn the wrong lesson. There is actually scant evidence that other states ever learn the right lessons. Cold War history contains little reason to believe that the credibility of the superpowers had very much effect on their ability to influence others. Over the last decade a series of major scholarly studies have cast further doubt upon the fundamental assumption of interdependence across foreign policy actions. Employing methods borrowed from social psychology rather than the economics-based models commonly employed by deterrence theorists Jonathan Mercer argued that threats are far more independent than is commonly believed and therefore that reputations are not likely to be formed on the basis of individual actions.39 While policymakers may feel that their decisions send messages about their basic dispositions to others most of the evidence from social psychology suggests otherwise. Groups tend to interpret the actions of their rivals as situational dependent upon the constraints of place and time. Therefore they are not likely to form lasting impressions of irresolution from single independent events. Mercer argued that the interdependence assumption had been accepted on faith and rarely put to a coherent test. when it was it almost inevitably failed.40 </source> [/INST] <claim>Relations Resilient -- Single instances of action do not change international perceptions of the U.S.</claim> <psg>scholars have been generally unable to identify cases in which high credibility helped the U S achieve its goals. The shortterm aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis did not include Soviet reversals There is actually scant evidence that other states ever learn the right lessons. Cold War history contains little reason to believe that the credibility of the superpowers had very much effect on their ability to influence others a series of major scholarly studies have cast further doubt upon the fundamental assumption of interdependence across foreign policy actions Mercer argued that threats are far more independent than is commonly believed and that reputations are not likely to be formed on the basis of individual actions Groups tend to interpret the actions of their rivals as situational dependent upon the constraints of place and time they are not likely to form lasting impressions from single independent events</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Despite the strained relationship of the US and Venezuela due to ideological differences the two countries can’t help but keep their ties due to oil-trading.¶ To date the US is Venezuela’s largest importer with the US taking forty per cent of Venezuela’s crude oil exports. On the other hand Venezuela provides about 5.8 per cent of the US’ oil demands. </source> [/INST] <claim>Oil ties make relations resilient</claim> <psg>Despite the strained relationship of the US and Venezuela due to ideological differences the two countries can’t help but keep their ties due to oil-trading. To date the US is Venezuela’s largest importer</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The two countries ties used to be strong. However after taking office President Hugo Chávez accused the Bush administration of attempting a coup to oust him from his position and broke off diplomatic ties with the U.S. Furthermore Chavez reasserted sovereignty over Venezuela’s oil reserves and raised royalties for foreign firms which challenged the US’ economic position. More than that Chavez made his friendship with Fidel Castro public and made significant trade with Cuba which undermined the U.S. policy of isolating the said nation. Their relation was only reestablished in 2009 when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States though their ties has been strained since then.¶ But the tide has once again turned. With Chavez out of the picture due to his illness Venezuelan officials are trying to ally themselves with the US.¶ To amend their ties the Venezuelan government is reported to be considering US’ proposal for the return of anti-drug agents chased out of the Venezuela eight years ago by President Chavez.¶ On this issue Venezuela’s ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) Roy Chaderton said that both countries are trying to find a common ground.¶ He said: “There are things that are being done with a great deal of seriousness and a lot of caution ” and added “We are not obliged to have bad ties with governments which have different visions to ours … I hope pragmatism prevails and we reach a fair place of mutual interest.” </source> [/INST] <claim>Both countries are working to find common ground now on drugs</claim> <psg>With Chavez out of the picture Venezuelan officials are trying to ally themselves with the US To amend their ties the Venezuelan government is reported to be considering US’ proposal for the return of anti-drug agents chased out eight years ago by Chavez Venezuela’s ambassador to the OAS said that both countries are trying to find a common ground</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Obama Administration Policy¶ During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign Barack Obama maintained that his Administration would use principled bilateral diplomacy to engage with such adversaries in the region as Venezuela under populist President Hugo Chávez. Nevertheless tensions continued in U.S.- Venezuelan relations with President Chávez continuing “to define himself in opposition to the United States using incendiary rhetoric to insult the U.S. Government and U.S. influence in Latin America.”68 While in mid-2009 Ambassadors were returned in late 2010 the Chávez government revoked an agreement for U.S. Ambassador-designate Larry Palmer to be posted to Venezuela. The Obama Administration responded by revoking the diplomatic visa of the Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States. Despite tensions in relations the State Department maintains that the United States remains committed to seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela focusing on such areas as anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts. </source> [/INST] <claim>U.S. committed to relations despite recent diplomatic conflicts --- proves ties are resilient</claim> <psg>in late 2010 the Chávez government revoked an agreement for U.S. Ambassador-designate Larry Palmer to be posted to Venezuela Obama responded by revoking the diplomatic visa of the Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States. Despite tensions in relations the State Department maintains that the U S remains committed to seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela focusing on such areas as anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> US Reversals—Over the last decade the United States has suffered important setbacks in its regional and global standing. It has waged draining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has suffered the 2008 financial crisis brought on by a lack of fiscal discipline and poor economic management. It has seen a widening gap between its rich and its poor and more acute social problems. The country’s politics have become increasingly dysfunctional making it harder to develop sensible and effective foreign policies except in situations of great urgency.¶ Taken together these developments have serious implications for US-Latin American relations. There are ample opportunities for deeper engagement and more productive cooperation but before moving to anything resembling a genuine partnership it will be necessary to deal more effectively with the long-standing challenges on the inter-American agenda. That is the only way the United States will be able to establish full trust and credibility.¶ Agenda for a New Relationship¶ An end to the current distancing and distraction in US-Latin American relations will require Washington and other governments in the hemisphere to refocus and deal more effectively with an array of difficult issues. Three long unresolved problems that cause strain and frustration in inter-American affairs—immigration drugs and Cuba—demand especially urgent attention. Three other issues—economics and energy democratic governance and global and regional cooperation—stand out as opportunities for broader coordination among all nations of the hemisphere. To be sure the nature and relevance of these challenges vary from country to country. In an increasingly differentiated hemisphere it is risky to refer in general terms to relations between the United States and Latin America. </source> [/INST] <claim>Can’t solve relations without addressing immigration drugs and Cuba</claim> <psg>the U S has suffered important setbacks in its regional and global standing. It has waged draining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has suffered the 2008 financial crisis brought on by a lack of fiscal discipline and poor economic management. It has seen a widening gap between its rich and its poor and more acute social problems. The country’s politics have become increasingly dysfunctional making it harder to develop sensible and effective foreign policies these developments have serious implications for US-Latin American relations before moving to anything resembling a genuine partnership it will be necessary to deal more effectively with the long-standing challenges on the inter-American agenda. That is the only way the U S will be able to establish full trust and credibility. An end to the current distancing and distraction in US-Latin American relations will require Washington and other governments to refocus and deal more effectively with an array of difficult issues Three long unresolved problems that cause strain and frustration in inter-American affairs—immigration drugs and Cuba—demand especially urgent attention.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In the meantime China’s foothold in Venezuela remains on solid ground. China is already privy to 600 000 bpd from Venezuela in return for $42 billion in loans. Maduro is not likely to rock this boat with Beijing and according to the terms already in place Venezuelan exports are set to increase to one million bpd by 2015 though most of the loan money has already been spent. According to Southern Pulse Maduro will likely seek new loans from China but this will depend on the terms and stability in Venezuela. </source> [/INST] <claim>Maduro won’t cut ties with China</claim> <psg>China’s foothold in Venezuela remains on solid ground. China is already privy to 600 000 bpd from Venezuela in return for $42 billion in loans. Maduro is not likely to rock this boat with Beijing and according to the terms already in place Venezuelan exports are set to increase to one million bpd by 2015</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In recent years China’s relations with Latin America have been developing very rapidly attracting attention from around the world. There are three specific areas of rapid growth.¶ First high-level visits between the two sides are frequent. In the past decade for instance 74 Latin American heads of state members of the legislature and government leaders have visited China. and Chinese leaders have visited 19 Latin American countries. From November 11 to 23 2004 Chinese President Hu Jintao paid an official visit to Brazil Argentina Chile and Cuba. From January 23 to February 3 2005 Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong visited Mexico Peru Venezuela Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. Thus in a time span of just two months the country’s president and vice president both paid visits to Latin America. This was unprecedented in China’s international relations. Then in May 2005 Jia Qinglin Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) visited Mexico Cuba Colombia and Uruguay. In September 2005 Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Mexico during his tour of North America and the United Nations. This was Hu’s second trip to the Latin American region in less than one year.¶ The second area of rapid growth is in economic exchanges particularly bilateral trade with the region. In 2000 China’s trade with Latin America was only $12.6 billion. It reached $40 billion in 2004 $50 billion in 2005 and surpassed $70 billion in 2006. In addition bilateral investment has also been increasing though at a much slower pace compared with that of trade.¶ Third cooperation and exchanges in other areas are growing. The Communist Party of China has established relations with most of the political parties in Latin America. Since 1990 China has had 15 dialogues with the Rio Group at the ministerial level. Since 1997 China and Mercosur the South American Common Market have held five dialogues. On May 26 2004 the Organization of American States (OAS) accepted China as a permanent observer. Before obtaining OAS status China had already become an observer in the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean the Latin American Integration Association the Inter-American Development Bank and the Latin American Parliament.¶ People-to-people contacts have also been growing. Almost one hundred sister-city relationships have been established between Chinese cities or provinces and their counterparts in 15 countries in Latin America including Panama a Central American country that has no diplomatic tie with the People’s Republic. Moreover 17 Latin American countries have become tourist destinations for Chinese citizens.¶ In the area of science and technology the most notable example of cooperation was the joint launching of two satellites by China and Brazil. This has been considered one of the best success stories of South-South cooperation in science and technology. Other Sino-Latin American cooperation has included such areas as agriculture forestry fishery husbandry medicine earthquake prediction manufacturing information technology biology geology and space.¶ In discussing Sino-Latin American relations it is necessary to take into consideration three factors: 1) the Latin American factor in China’s development. 2) the China factor in Latin American development. and 3) the U.S. factor in Sino-Latin American relations. </source> [/INST] <claim>Aff doesn’t solve --- China is developing vast economic relations with several Latin American countries</claim> <psg>In recent years China’s relations with Latin America have been developing very rapidly There are three specific areas of rapid growth. First high-level visits between the two sides are frequent In the past decade for instance 74 Latin American heads of state members of the legislature and government leaders have visited China. and Chinese leaders have visited 19 Latin American countries. The second area of rapid growth is in economic exchanges particularly bilateral trade with the region. Third cooperation and exchanges in other areas are growing. The Communist Party of China has established relations with most of the political parties in Latin America. In the area of science and technology the most notable example of cooperation was the joint launching of two satellites by China and Brazil.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In the age of globalization there is a high priority on promoting South-South cooperation in all fields. China’s relations with Latin American countries are part of this cooperation. The strengthened cooperation between China and Latin America should benefit world peace and development. No less important is the fact that the development of Sino-Latin American relations will not harm the interests of the United States. </source> [/INST] <claim>Sino-Latin American cooperation benefits world peace and there is no threat to U.S.</claim> <psg>In the age of globalization there is a high priority on promoting South-South cooperation in all fields. China’s relations with Latin American countries are part of this cooperation. The strengthened cooperation between China and Latin America should benefit world peace that the development of Sino-Latin American relations will not harm the interests of the U S</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The strategic costs to China of a war with the United States are only part of the deterrence equation. China also possesses vital economic interests in stable relations with the United States. War would end China's quest for modernization by severely constraining its access to U.S. markets capital and technology and by requiring China to place its economy on permanent war-time footing. The resultant economic reversal would derail China's quest for 'comprehensive national power' and great power status. Serious economic instability would also destabilize China's political system on account of the resulting unemployment in key sectors of the economy and the breakdown of social order. Both would probably impose insurmountable challenges to party leadership. Moreover defeat in a war with the United States over Taiwan would impose devastating nationalist humiliation on the Chinese Communist Party. In all the survival of the party depends on preventing a Sino-American war. </source> [/INST] <claim>Chinese leadership will pull back</claim> <psg>China possesses vital economic interests in stable relations with the U S War would severely constrain access to U.S. markets capital and technology and by requiring China to place its economy on permanent war-time footing. The resultant economic reversal would derail China's quest for great power status In all the survival of the party depends on preventing a Sino-American war</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Chinese firms are assessing the risk that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s death poses to investments worth at least $50 billion after 14 years of closer ties between the two countries.¶ China Development Bank Corp. which has lent Venezuela more than $40 billion since 2008 has contingency plans in place Yao Zhongmin head of the bank’s supervisory board said in an interview today. State-owned conglomerate Citic Group Corp. is also weighing the risks Chairman Chang Zhenming said.¶ State-owned Chinese firms have won contracts to build railroads housing and power stations since Chavez took power in 1999 and nationalized more than 1 000 companies or their assets. The terms of some of the deals may face new scrutiny should Venezuela’s opposition wins elections required to be held within 30 days.¶ “If you do get an opposition candidate that wins there could be more information out there about previous deals that will be very uncomfortable ” said Matt Ferchen a scholar at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing. “That could be politically unnerving but also reason for leverage to rework some of the deals.”¶ Chavez died yesterday at age 58 of cancer. Since he announced his illness in June 2011 investors have speculated that his departure could pave the way for the opposition to win power and introduce more market-friendly policies.¶ Dollar Bonds¶ Chavez was a “great friend of China ” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a briefing today in Beijing adding that China’s top leaders sent their condolences over his death. “China cherishes the two countries’ friendship and would like to work with Venezuela to constantly develop their strategic partnership ” she said.¶ Moody’s Investors Service rates Venezuelan long-term foreign-currency debt B2 or five levels below investment grade the same as Honduras and Cambodia.¶ Led by China Development Bank the world’s largest policy lender China has made Venezuela the main focus of its global oil-for-loans program in which loans were repaid with oil shipments. Some of the biggest state-owned companies including Citic Group China Railway Group and Sinohydro Corp. won more than $11 billion in contracts to build and supply equipment for infrastructure according to data compiled by Bloomberg.¶ “As long as Venezuela maintains stable oil exports to China then the risks to China’s loans are small ” said Sun Hongbo an associate professor at the Institute of Latin American Studies part of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “No matter who wins the presidential election China will continue to be a strategic partner for Venezuela.” </source> [/INST] <claim>China is deeply invested in Venezuela as a strategic energy partnership</claim> <psg>China Development Bank Corp. which has lent Venezuela more than $40 billion since 2008 has contingency plans in place China cherishes the two countries’ friendship and would like to work with Venezuela to constantly develop their strategic partnership China Development Bank the world’s largest policy lender China has made Venezuela the main focus of its global oil-for-loans program in which loans were repaid with oil shipments China will continue to be a strategic partner for Venezuela.”</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The China Development Bank money has gone toward joint projects with state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. or CNPC in the Orinoco heavy oil belt as well as housing infrastructure and agriculture ventures entrusted to PDVSA under Chavez’s “21st century socialism.”¶ A CNPC spokesman didn’t return e-mails or phone calls seeking comment. CDB didn’t reply to faxed questions about Venezuelan loans and the country’s political risk.¶ “China is now our main oil partner ” Rafael Ramirez who as oil minister heads PDVSA told reporters in November. CNPC’s gross production in Venezuela tripled to 140 000 barrels per day between 2006 and 2012 he said.¶ In September Chavez said he asked Chinese President Hu Jintao for a new credit line as he boosted public spending ahead of the presidential elections on Oct. 7 that helped push last year’s budget deficit to 7.8 percent of GDP according to Bank of America Corp.¶ ‘Grown Frustrated’¶ China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting held since 2001 a survey of Venezuelan government statements shows. Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.¶ “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans ” Thomas O’Donnell a petroleum analyst affiliated with U.S.’ New School University said by telephone from Berlin Jan. 12. “The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez.”¶ While current political uncertainties in Venezuela are a concern for China cooperation between the two countries makes economic sense is protected by law and will continue said Sun Hongbo a Latin American studies associate professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.¶ China’s growing demand for oil will push the country to restart lending to PDVSA and then expand it as soon as Venezuela lays out a clear transition plan in case of Chavez’s death said Evan Ellis associate professor at the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies in Washington.¶ Protecting Legacy¶ That may not be necessary. Bolivian President Evo Morales said Jan. 22 that Chavez is preparing to return home a day after Venezuela’s foreign minister said the self-declared socialist joked and laughed during a meeting at his hospital bedside in Havana.¶ Chavez missed his Jan. 10 inauguration after beating Henrique Capriles in October’s presidential election by more than 10 percentage points. He said Dec. 8 that voters should elect Maduro to protect his legacy if his illness prevents him from remaining in office.¶ “Any government whether led by Maduro Capriles or anyone else is going to continue looking East ” David Voght managing director of IPD Latin America consultancy said by telephone from Miami. “An opposition government may review the lending contracts but with slowing U.S. oil market it makes sense to pursue continuity with China.”¶ Investment Delays¶ Chavez’s protracted health battle is slowing investment and lending from other major emerging markets executives said.¶ India’s Reliance Industries Ltd. has postponed by a few months an estimated $2 billion investment decision for four Venezuelan oilfields beyond the Jan. 31 deadline because it has not received geological data from PDVSA a person directly involved in the deal said from New Delhi asking not to be identified citing confidentiality terms.¶ “The new projects are suffering delays because there’s no- one in PDVSA who can make a decision ” Antero Alvarado Venezuela country manager for consultancy Gas Energy said by telephone on Jan. 11.¶ Russian President Vladimir Putin who like Chavez has governed since 1999 wished the South American strength to “take the helm again ” in a Dec. 31 statement.¶ OAO Rosneft Chief Executive Officer Igor Sechin who sported a Chavez-emblazoned T-shirt during a trip to Anzoategui state in September said Jan. 15 that Venezuela is “our number one overseas priority.” Rosneft agreed to spend $36 billion with PDVSA and fellow Russian partners on the Orinoco projects it entered in the last three years and lend Venezuela $6 billion together with state-run OAO Gazprom in 2011.¶ New Elections¶ While Russian energy projects will advance as long as Chavez’s party remains in charge they won’t be supported by the opposition a Gazprom Latin American manager who asked not to be named citing company policy said Jan. 12. Gazprom spokesman Vladimir Voevoda and Reliance spokesman Tushar Pania didn’t immediately reply to e-mail and telephone requests for comments.¶ OAO Surgutneftegas (SGGD) Russia’s fourth-largest producer decided to leave the Russian group developing the Junin-6 block in Orinoco according to a Nov. 7 filing. TNK-BP also sought to sell last year according to two people familiar with the matter until Rosneft’s agreement to buy Russia’s third-largest producer made the issue redundant.¶ That $55 billion deal probably will restrict Rosneft’s ability to make investments needed to boost Venezuelan projects said an official close to PetroMiranda as the Russian group at Junin-6 is called. The TNK-BP deal won’t affect the Venezuelan work schedule said a Rosneft spokeswoman who asked not to be named citing company policy. A press department official at Russia’s Energy Ministry who can’t be named due to policy said she wasn’t aware of suspension of oil investments in Venezuela.¶ While any government will need oil preservation of the current political system offers the best way for OAO Lukoil to carry out its contracts in Venezuela Andrei Kuzyaev head of the Russian company’s overseas arm said in Davos Jan. 23.¶ ‘Everybody Concerned’¶ The constitution requires new elections to be held within 30 days if Chavez is declared permanently absent. Although Chavez’s chosen successor is favored to win the opposition’s chances will grow as the economy slows Bank of America economist Francisco Rodriguez said by phone Jan. 3.¶ Beijing will be among the keenest observers.¶ “Everybody is concerned about the situation in Venezuela including China ” Wang Peng a Latin American scholar at Beijing’s CASS said by e-mail. “China has very large commercial interests there and wants to protect them from potential political risks from power transition or party rotation.” </source> [/INST] <claim>China is deeply invested in Venezuela—will protect interests</claim> <psg>The China Development Bank money has gone toward joint projects with state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. in the Orinoco heavy oil belt China is now our main oil partner Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008. The meeting did not go well The Chinese have grown frustrated China’s growing demand for oil will push the country to restart lending to PDVSA and then expand it as soon as Venezuela lays out a clear transition plan with slowing U.S. oil market it makes sense to pursue continuity with China Everybody is concerned about the situation in Venezuela including China China has very large commercial interests there and wants to protect them from potential political risks from power transition or party rotation</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Venezuela and Russia formed a joint venture to produce 120 000 barrels of oil a day by 2016 in two fields in the Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt.¶ Russia will loan Venezuela $1.5 billion to finance the development of the fields under the terms of the agreement and put up $1.1 billion for a 40 percent share in Petrovictoria.¶ The agreement establishing Petrovictoria was signed by the president of the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) Rafael Ramirez and the president of Russian state oil company Rosneft Igor Sechin.¶ PDVSA will sell to Russia 72 percent of the heavy and extra-heavy crude produced by the company which has a long-term goal of producing 400 000 barrels a day.¶ Three mixed capital companies are currently operating in the Orinoco Belt producing 230 000 barrels a day in a huge area of southeastern Venezuela.¶ The Belt has estimated reserves of 220 billion barrels of harder-to-refine heavy and extra-heavy oil the largest in the world. </source> [/INST] <claim>Russia is already investing in Venezuelan oil</claim> <psg>Venezuela and Russia formed a joint venture to produce 120 000 barrels of oil a day fields in the Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt. Russia will loan Venezuela $1.5 billion to finance the development of the fields under the terms of the agreement and put up $1.1 billion for a 40 percent share in Petrovictoria the president of Russian state oil company will sell to Russia 72 percent of the heavy and extra-heavy crude produced by the company which has a long-term goal of producing 400 000 barrels a day. the Orinoco Belt producing 230 000 barrels a day has estimated reserves of 220 billion barrels</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in Moscow late Tuesday that Russian investment in Venezuela had reached $21 billion as the countries signed new cooperation agreements including an offshore deal involving Rosneft and Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA.¶ Leading a Venezuelan government delegation to Moscow President Nicolás Maduro signed five agreements covering cooperation in several energy-related areas including oil and gas electrical generation and financing.¶ 'During the last 14 years both countries have built a roadmap for cooperation in energy matters ' Maduro said.¶ Maduro also noted that Russian-Venezuelan joint ventures in Venezuela had led to the production of 206 000 barrels per day while the goal remains to raise this to a million barrels per day within four years.¶ Meanwhile as part of the bilateral agreement between the two countries Russia's Rosneft announced Wednesday that it has signed a cooperation agreement with Petróleos de Venezuela. The deal which was signed between Rosneft President Igor Sechin and Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez will see Rosneft and PDVSA cooperate on offshore projects in Venezuela.¶ In particular the agreement covers joint studies for the technical and economic viability of offshore gas and condensate production in Venezuela gas liquefaction for export and domestic sales and the evaluation of prospects for joint ventures for the development of gas and gas condensate fields. </source> [/INST] <claim>Russia and Venezuela signed an agreement to ensure cooperation over oil projects</claim> <psg>Russian investment in Venezuela had reached $21 billion as the countries signed new cooperation agreements including an offshore deal Moscow signed five agreements covering cooperation in several energy-related areas including oil and gas electrical generation and financing Russian-Venezuelan joint ventures in Venezuela had led to the production of 206 000 barrels per day while the goal remains to raise this to a million barrels per day within four years The deal will see Rosneft and PDVSA cooperate on offshore projects in Venezuela the agreement covers technical and economic viability of offshore gas and condensate production in Venezuela gas liquefaction for export and domestic sales and the evaluation of prospects for joint ventures for the development of gas and gas condensate fields.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> ¶ Beyond the rhetoric….oil¶ The often vitriolic rhetoric exchanged between Caracas and Washington suggests a near complete and irreconcilable estrangement between the two countries. Although at a political level such an estrangement may exist beyond the rhetoric lays a very different reality—a connection as deep as Venezuela’s abundant oils wells.¶ As President Bush has noted the United States is addicted to oil.1111 One of the chief dealers feeding the addiction is none other than Chávez. Venezuela sits atop among the world’s largest oil reserves.12 Venezuela is the world’s eighth-largest exporter of crude oil.13 It is the fourth-largest supplier of oil and petroleum products to the United States trailing only Canada Saudi Arabia and Mexico.14¶ What’s more Venezuela has reliably provided oil to the United States since before 1960 making it one of the country’s longest standing and most stable sources of petroleum.15 The magnitude of the U.S. addiction to Venezuelan oil is perhaps best captured by these two facts: Venezuela is only the fourth-largest economy in Latin America with a 2005 Gross Domestic Product of approximately $13 0 billion 16 yet the United States’ sixth-largest trade deficit that year was with Venezuela totaling nearly $27 billion.17¶ Despite this dependence the physical properties of Venezuelan crude oil seriously impair Chávez’s ability to use the dependence to harm the United States. Most of the oil currently extracted in Venezuela is heavy sour crude oil that requires specialized and costly refinement.18 Not surprisingly most of the world’s refining capacity for such oil is found a three-to-four day tanker trip from Venezuela to its closest and largest customer—the United States. Petroleos de Venezuela S.A or PdVSA the Venezuelan state-owed oil company owns all or part of nine refineries serving the United States market from either inside the country or in the Caribbean. In combination the nine facilities have a capacity of more than 1.5 million barrels per day 19 which is equal to more than half of Venezuela’s daily export output.20¶ Any unilateral interruption of oil supply between Venezuela and the United States be it initiated by one or the other country would therefore impinge on the total refining capacity serving the United States market. Even if the U.S. government forced Venezuelan-owned refineries to continue operations during such an interruption the specialized refining capacity cannot function at peak efficiency with alternative grades of oil.21 This phenomenon would likely be exacerbated because there is very little untapped production capacity elsewhere in the world to provide replacement oil.22¶ Notwithstanding Chávez’s nascent efforts to generate it large-scale alternative refining capacity does not exist. Nor will efforts to develop such capacity in for example China or even Brazil ever replicate the unique blend of volume and proximity that shapes the U.S.-Venezuelan energy relationship.¶ The U.S.-Venezuela oil relationship is thus one of co-dependence. The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that a disruption of Venezuelan oil supply to the United States under current global market conditions would likely increase the per barrel price of oil by eight percent to 11 percent and the per gallon cost of gasoline by 1111 cents to 15 cents for the duration of any such disruption.23 Assuming Venezuela could still sell its oil on the world market such a disruption in sales to the United States would curtail Venezuelan oil revenues by approximately $3 billion to $4 billion per year.24 The complete removal of Venezuelan oil from the world market would have a far more profound impact on Venezuela’s finances and would lower U.S. GDP by at least $23 billion by significantly boosting the price of oil and gasoline even if it only lasted a relatively short period of time.25¶ In short neither the United States nor Venezuela is in a position to end their energy relationship with the other in the foreseeable future. That fact both mitigates the national security threat presented by a Chávez-led Venezuela and limits the levers available to U.S. policy makers in relation to the country. </source> [/INST] <claim>Venezuela won’t cut off oil supplies to U.S. --- mutual dependence guarantees future oil trade</claim> <psg>The often vitriolic rhetoric exchanged between Caracas and Washington suggests a near complete and irreconcilable estrangement beyond the rhetoric lays a very different reality—a connection as deep as Venezuela’s abundant oils wells The magnitude of the U.S. addiction to Venezuelan oil is perhaps best captured by these two facts: Venezuela is only the fourth-largest economy in Latin America yet the United States’ sixth-largest trade deficit that year was with Venezuela the physical properties of Venezuelan crude oil seriously impair Chávez’s ability to use the dependence to harm the U S Most of the oil currently extracted in Venezuela is heavy sour crude oil that requires specialized and costly refinement. most of the world’s refining capacity for such oil is the U S Any unilateral interruption of oil supply between Venezuela and the U S be it initiated by one or the other country would therefore impinge on the total refining capacity serving the U S market The U.S.-Venezuela oil relationship is thus one of co-dependence neither the U S nor Venezuela is in a position to end their energy relationship with the other in the foreseeable future. That fact both mitigates the national security threat presented by a Chávez-led Venezuela and limits the levers available to U.S. policy makers in relation to the country.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The likelihood of Venezuela cutting oil exports is highly unlikely. “Venezuela beleaguered by food shortages depends heavily on oil exports for about 90 percent of its export earnings and about half of the government revenue” (Mufson 2008 1). The United States is Venezuela’s biggest customer. Halting crude sales would affect CITGO. “Halting crude sales to the U.S. would divert heavy feed from CITGO which PDVSA owns and which has a total of 756 000 b/cd of deep-conversion capacity in three wholly owned U.S. refineries – 597 000 b/d of it on the Gulf Coast” (Oil & Gas Journal 2008 21). According to Oil & Gas Journal “If Chavez did lose his senses and halts sales of Venezuelan oil in the U.S. crude prices might jump in a trading panic but would quickly resettle as U.S. refineries found new sellers – probably the traders moving in to buy from PDSA” (Oil & Gas 2006 21). Also Venezuelans are importing more U.S. products such as construction machinery cars and computers. “Although it may be Chavez’s ultimate desire to end U.S.-Venezuelan interdependence such close economic linkages cannot be easily dismantled” (Lapper 2006 17).¶ Not only would the stopping of oil exports hurt Venezuela’s economy it would affect U.S. foreign aid being sent there. “According to the State Department’s fiscal year 2007 budget Venezuela will receive $1 million in Andean Counter Drug Initiative funds this year – a decrease of nearly $2 million since 2005 – and $1.5 million in Economic Support Funds to strengthen civil society and the rule of law” (Lapper 2006 23). </source> [/INST] <claim>Venezuela won’t cut imports and the impact would be quickly remedied </claim> <psg>The likelihood of Venezuela cutting oil exports is highly unlikely. Halting crude sales to the U.S. would divert heavy feed from CITGO which PDVSA owns “If Chavez did lose his senses and halts sales of Venezuelan oil in the U.S. crude prices might jump in a trading panic but would quickly resettle as U.S. refineries found new sellers – probably the traders moving in to buy from PDSA” Also Venezuelans are importing more U.S. products such as construction machinery cars and computers. “Although it may be Chavez’s ultimate desire to end U.S.-Venezuelan interdependence such close economic linkages cannot be easily dismantled” Not only would the stopping of oil exports hurt Venezuela’s economy it would affect U.S. foreign aid being sent there</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Not so long ago Hugo Chávez the leftist Venezuelan leader almost every month would threaten the US that he would shut down his country’s oil exports. Each time Washington took the threats seriously because of the importance of Caracas for US energy supplies.¶ Not any longer. The US dependence of Venezuelan net crude and oil products exports (including the US Virgin Islands which largely refined Venezuelan crude to export into the US) has dropped to levels last seen nearly 30 years ago.¶ The sharp drop is due to three factors. Overall US oil imports are down on the back of the shale boom. In addition the closure of a large refinery in the US Virgin Islands co-owned by Petróleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa) has further reduced imports of Venezuelan-origin oil products. And more recently Venezuela has started to import large amounts of US-made gasoline to offset a local shortage.¶ The reduction in US imports of Venezuelan-origin crude and oil products has been going on for the last five years. The new factor is the surge in US exports of oil products into Venezuela. In September US refiners shipped a record of 196 000 b/d of gasoline and other oil products to Caracas.¶ The International Energy Agency the western countries’ oil watchdog associates the surge in US exports to outages in Amuay and El Palito refineries in Venezuela.¶ The Amuay plant part of the 955 000 b/d giant Paraguana Refining Center – the world’s second largest after the Jamnagar refinery in India – suffered an explosion and fire in August that killed nearly 50 people and injured more than 150. Although Caracas has said several times the refinery is returning to full production the surge in oil products from the US suggests the contrary.¶ The jump in US gasoline exports to Venezuela means that for each 10 barrels of crude that Caracas ships to the US two return to Venezuela as products. The US oil product exports accounted in September for roughly 20 per cent of Venezuelan domestic oil consumption of about 1m b/d.¶ The combination of lower Venezuelan oil exports – both from the country itself and the US Virgin Islands – and higher US gasoline exports reduced in June US net imports of Venezuelan-origin oil to 685 000 barrels a day the lowest since March 1984 according to Financial Times’ estimates based on data from the US Energy Information Administration. US net imports of Venezuelan-origin oil recovered a bit in September – the last data available – reaching 839 000 b/d.¶ Mr Chávez who is undergoing cancer treatment in Cuba may threaten an oil embargo in the future as he did during the recent presidential elections. But his menace will no longer worry Washington. </source> [/INST] <claim>Venezuela won’t cut off the U.S. --- leverage is declining and it is importing U.S. gasoline</claim> <psg>Chávez almost every month would threaten the US that he would shut down his country’s oil exports. Each time Washington took the threats seriously Not any longer. The US dependence of Venezuelan net crude and oil products exports has dropped to levels last seen nearly 30 years ago The reduction in US imports of Venezuelan-origin crude and oil products has been going on for the last five years. The new factor is the surge in US exports of oil products into Venezuela. The jump in US gasoline exports to Venezuela means that for each 10 barrels of crude that Caracas ships to the US two return to Venezuela as products. The US oil product exports accounted in September for roughly 20 per cent of Venezuelan domestic oil consumption</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> With Hugo Chávez’s July 25 announcement that he would cease oil shipments to the United States in the event that Colombia and Venezuela go to war the potential implications for American energy security seem daunting. In 2009 Venezuela supplied 11.5 percent of the crude oil consumed in the United States and with Colombia and Venezuela’s recent break of diplomatic and economic ties the notion of armed confrontation in South America can’t be entirely overlooked. So what then would happen if Venezuela were to suddenly institute a petroleum embargo on the United States? Would the ensuing chaos be politically worthwhile for the Chávez administration or would it merely compound Venezuelan economic woes?¶ Venezuela exports just over one million barrels of crude oil to the United States per day most of which goes to refineries owned by Citgo the American arm of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). Shipments of oil and refined petroleum products to the United States constitute roughly 60 percent of Venezuela’s total petroleum exports and largely sustain Citgo’s operations. Over the past few years Chávez has been gradually diversifying Venezuela’s petroleum customers but the United States remains its most important market. An oil embargo implemented within the next few months would impact the Venezuelan economy much more acutely than it would that of the US because of Venezuela’s structural reliance on exports to the American market coupled with current supply and demand conditions.¶ The sudden cessation of oil exports to the United States would wreak havoc on several Venezuelan systems. First because Venezuela would have to modify its production for another market – probably China – PDVSA would be forced to drastically revamp its domestic production and transportation infrastructures. Different demand proportions chemistry and regulatory constraints would tie up PDVSA assets expose gross deficiencies in export refining capacity and slash oil shipments for months if not years. Meanwhile Citgo refineries and distribution networks in the United States would sit dormant leading to enormous investment losses for PDVSA and reductions in future operational capacity due to the loss of experienced employees.¶ With PDVSA feeling the financial brunt of an embargo the availability of government-backed social services in Venezuela would plummet. Recent structural reforms have placed responsibility for administrating many aspects of the government’s programs on PDVSA directly because it generates the majority of government revenue. If that revenue disappeared so would a large portion of PDVSA’s ability to subsidize groceries provide healthcare and maintain services for millions of people. Venezuelan citizens would be severely impacted by a measure meant to punish the United States. </source> [/INST] <claim>Venezuela can’t cut exports to U.S. --- would hurt its country far more</claim> <psg>what would happen if Venezuela were to suddenly institute a petroleum embargo on the U S Over the past few years Chávez has been gradually diversifying Venezuela’s petroleum customers but the U S remains its most important market An oil embargo would impact the Venezuelan economy much more acutely than it would that of the US because of Venezuela’s structural reliance on exports to the American market coupled with current supply and demand conditions. The sudden cessation of oil exports would wreak havoc on several Venezuelan systems the availability of government-backed social services in Venezuela would plummet Venezuelan citizens would be severely impacted by a measure meant to punish the U S</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Despite notable frictions in bilateral relations Venezuela has continued to be a major supplier of oil to the United States. On numerous past occasions however Chávez threatened to stop selling oil to the United States although Venezuelan officials maintained that Venezuela would only stop sending oil to the United States if attacked by the United States. Because of Chávez’s strong rhetoric however some observers raised questions about the security of Venezuela as a major supplier of foreign oil. In June 2006 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report requested by then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar on the issue of potential Venezuelan oil supply disruption. At the time the GAO report concluded that a sudden loss of all or most Venezuelan oil from the world market could raise world prices up to $11 per barrel and decrease U.S. gross domestic product by about $23 billion.116 </source> [/INST] <claim>Won’t cut off oil and would only raise world prices $11 a barrel</claim> <psg>Despite notable frictions in bilateral relations Venezuela has continued to be a major supplier of oil to the U S On numerous past occasions however Chávez threatened to stop selling oil to the U S although Venezuelan officials maintained that Venezuela would only stop sending oil if attacked by the U S the GAO report concluded that a sudden loss of all or most Venezuelan oil from the world market could raise world prices up to $11 per barrel and decrease U.S. gross domestic product by about $23 billion.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Suncor Energy Inc. Canada’s largest oil company is spending about $1-billion less on its oil sands projects this year compared with early expectations for 2012 while reviewing costs.¶ “We as a shop haven’t been bullish on oil sands for over a year. Part of the reason for that is that costs keep going up and the revenue is not following. This is an unusual situation from over the last 10 years ” said Samir Kayande an analyst and oil sands evaluation expert with research firm ITG Inc. “Over the last 10 years you would make investments in marginal projects and the commodity price would always bail you out.”¶ That seems like a distant memory. In the past half year the discount on Western Canada Select heavy blend crude versus benchmark West Texas intermediate (WTI) widened beyond $40 a barrel boomeranged back to as little as $12 and is now about $20.50 according to Net Energy Inc.¶ For new steam-driven oil sands projects the break-even WTI price is around $83 compared with $60 to $70 a barrel for light oil production in the fast-growing Permian Basin region of West Texas Mr. Kayande said. The heavy oil spread has to be layered on to the benchmark oil calculation showing just how efficient a project has to be in terms of the amount of steam companies must pump into the ground to get a barrel of bitumen out.¶ Even interests in producing mining projects have proven to be a tough sell especially after Ottawa restricted the ability of foreign state-owned enterprises to acquire oil sands assets in the wake of Chinese state-owned CNOOC Ltd.’s $15.1-billion bid for Nexen Inc. That essentially took away a category of customer. </source> [/INST] <claim>Oil sands investment and production declining --- costs outpacing returns</claim> <psg>Suncor Energy Inc. Canada’s largest oil company is spending about $1-billion less on its oil sands projects this year “We as a shop haven’t been bullish on oil sands for over a year. Part of the reason for that is that costs keep going up and the revenue is not following. This is an unusual situation from over the last 10 years ” said Kayande an analyst and oil sands evaluation expert with research firm ITG Inc. “Over the last 10 years you would make investments in marginal projects and the commodity price would always bail you out.” That seems like a distant memory.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Extracting Canada's huge deposits of oil sands in the next few years might not be economically viable without building the hotly contested Keystone XL pipeline into the U.S. according to new research that environmentalists said bolsters their view that blocking the project would shut off development of the energy source.¶ Environmentalists say producing Canadian oil sands releases more carbon dioxide than other kinds of oil and are pressing President Barack Obama to block the pipeline which would carry oil from Alberta and help it get to Gulf Coast refineries. The U.S. State Department industry officials and some analysts counter that burgeoning railroad capacity will eventually give Canadian crude a way to reach global markets even if Keystone is blocked.¶ 'The potential for Canadian heavy crude oil supply to remain trapped in the province of Alberta is a growing risk for the 2014-2017 period depending on the timing of new pipeline start-ups ' analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wrote in a research report this past week.¶ Without adequate pipeline capacity Canadian heavy crude will continue to trade at a steep discount to other grades of oil for the next few years which could weigh on the economics of developing Canadian oil sands according to the Goldman Sachs report and other analysts.¶ Environmentalists say Mr. Obama can help curb greenhouse gases by rejecting the pipeline and they want the State Department which is reviewing the pipeline to take into account the environmental impact.¶ 'The evidence shows that Keystone XL is the linchpin' for oil-sands production ' said Danielle Droitsch of the Natural Resources Defense Council an environmental advocacy group. Hundreds of activists called on Mr. Obama to block the project Thursday and Friday at fundraisers he held in California ahead of a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.¶ 'If that added capacity from Keystone XL isn't brought online there's potential for a gap between production and delivery ' said Grady Semmens a spokesman for TransCanada Corp. which is proposing to build the pipeline. 'But we don't necessarily view XL as a linchpin in oil production. The industry will look for other ways to get to market ' he said.¶ In a report this past week the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers projected oil-sands production capacity will more than double by 2030 to more than five million barrels a day. If the Keystone expansion is blocked production could exceed shipping capacity by as early as 2016—unless rail delivery takes up the slack.¶ 'We're very confident the market will respond ' said Greg Stringham CAPP vice president.¶ Keystone is just the highest profile among a spate of pipeline projects that would be needed to carry all of the growing Canadian oil production to distant markets. The CAPP report says that even if all proposed pipelines for Canadian crude are built on schedule oil-sands production will still fall short of the 2030 forecast by one million barrels a day.¶ Canada's RBC Capital Markets said blocking Keystone would likely defer about $9 billion in oil-sands investment to the end of the decade. </source> [/INST] <claim>Without Keystone oil sands won’t be economically viable</claim> <psg>Extracting Canada's huge deposits of oil sands in the next few years might not be economically viable without building the hotly contested Keystone XL pipeline Without adequate pipeline capacity Canadian heavy crude will continue to trade at a steep discount to other grades of oil for the next few years which could weigh on the economics of developing Canadian oil sands according to the Goldman Sachs report and other analysts. 'The evidence shows that Keystone XL is the linchpin' for oil-sands production ' said Droitsch of the Natural Resources Defense Council Keystone is just the highest profile among a spate of pipeline projects that would be needed to carry all of the growing Canadian oil production to distant markets. The CAPP report says that even if all proposed pipelines for Canadian crude are built on schedule oil-sands production will still fall short of the 2030 forecast by one million barrels a day. Canada's RBC Capital Markets said blocking Keystone would likely defer about $9 billion in oil-sands investment to the end of the decade.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> There’s a buyers’ strike in the oil sands.¶ At least a half dozen energy companies have come up dry in efforts to attract the rich bids they envisaged when they put oil sands assets on the auction block in the past year showing downward pricing pressure on a sector touted as the cornerstone of Canada’s economic growth.¶ Would-be buyers and joint venture partners are balking at deals amid a combination of wildly volatile Canadian crude prices rising development costs and weakening returns a situation that could force the industry to temper heady expectations for long-term oil sands production growth.¶ Marathon Oil Corp. Murphy Oil Corp. and Athabasca Oil Corp. had sought buyers and partners in the Northern Alberta oil sands but now have changed their minds – or in Athabasca’s case have told investors to hang tight after the company failed to clinch deals that had once appeared imminent.¶ Those companies join ConocoPhillips Co. Koch Industries Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC in being disappointed after putting properties up for sale that may have once attracted bids totalling in the billions of dollars. Those three say they have rethought their plans after offers failed to meet expectations.¶ Unsold assets are another indication that oil price uncertainty competition for limited pipeline capacity and high industry costs are turning away investment in the world’s third-largest crude reserves after those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.¶ The deals slowdown may also add to a pullback in the sector’s spending and development frenzy. </source> [/INST] <claim>Investment and production in Canadian Oil Sands already declining</claim> <psg>At least a half dozen energy companies have come up dry in efforts to attract the rich bids they envisaged when they put oil sands assets on the auction block in the past year showing downward pricing pressure on a sector touted as the cornerstone of Canada’s economic growth. Would-be buyers and joint venture partners are balking at deals amid a combination of wildly volatile Canadian crude prices rising development costs and weakening returns a situation that could force the industry to temper heady expectations for long-term oil sands production growth. Unsold assets are another indication that oil price uncertainty competition for limited pipeline capacity and high industry costs are turning away investment The deals slowdown may also add to a pullback in the sector’s spending and development frenzy.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Even if every American coal-fired power plant were to close that would not make up for the coal-based generators being built in developing countries like India and China. “Since 2000 the growth in coal has been 10 times that of renewables ” said Daniel Yergin chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.¶ Fatih Birol chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris points out that if civilization is to avoid catastrophic climate change only about one third of the 3 000 gigatons of CO2 contained in the world’s known reserves of oil gas and coal can be released into the atmosphere.¶ But the world economy does not work as if this were the case — not governments nor businesses nor consumers.¶ “In all my experience as an oil company manager not a single oil company took into the picture the problem of CO2 ” said Leonardo Maugeri an energy expert at Harvard who until 2010 was head of strategy and development for Italy’s state-owned oil company Eni. “They are all totally devoted to replacing the reserves they consume every year.” </source> [/INST] <claim>Developing countries lax regulation and profit maximization means warming is inevitable </claim> <psg>Even if every American coal-fired power plant were to close that would not make up for the coal-based generators being built in developing countries Since 2000 the growth in coal has been 10 times that of renewables if civilization is to avoid catastrophic climate change only about one third of the CO2 in known reserves of oil gas and coal can be released into the atmosphere the economy does not work as if this were the case In all my experience as an oil company manager not a single oil company took into the picture the problem of CO2 ” said ugeri an energy expert at Harvard They are all totally devoted to replacing the reserves they consume every year.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> ***Gary Doer is Canada’s U.S. ambassador ¶ Doer’s assertions respond to a major argument from Keystone XL’s critics who insist that the pipeline is essential to sustaining energy-intensive oil sands development in Canada that yields heavy crude that has a bigger carbon footprint — from its production to combustion — than alternatives.¶ Earlier this year the State Department concluded that the project was unlikely to dramatically boost demand for Canada’s oil sands or the amount of heavy crude oil processed in Gulf Coast refineries. According to the State Department analysis companies will turn to rail and other options to transport the product even if the government denies a permit for Keystone XL so there would be little change in greenhouse gas emissions tied to oil sands development.¶ But the issue isn’t settled. The Environmental Protection Agency which plays a secondary role reviewing the pipeline suggested that other pipelines and rail transport may not be inevitable and pushed the State Department for a better analysis.¶ Keystone XL critics say British Columbia’s move is a sign at least one alternative pipeline won’t be built undermining the State Department’s conclusion that greenhouse emissions will be the same with or without Keystone XL.¶ But supporters note that British Columbia’s opposition doesn’t put the Northern Gateway on ice. Canada’s federal government still plays a role evaluating the project.¶ And other pipelines are still in the works Doer noted including Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Separately TransCanada has proposed another project that would send oil sands crude to New Brunswick. </source> [/INST] <claim>Other transportation avenues will be sought so the impact is inevitable</claim> <psg>According to the State Department analysis companies will turn to rail and other options to transport the product even if the government denies a permit for Keystone XL so there would be little change in greenhouse gas emissions tied to oil sands development.¶ supporters note that British Columbia’s opposition doesn’t put the Northern Gateway on ice. Canada’s federal government still plays a role evaluating the project.¶ And other pipelines are still in the works including Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Separately TransCanada has proposed another project that would send oil sands crude to New Brunswick.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> But market experts said blocking Keystone would at most temporarily sidetrack Alberta's development plans. They said that just as rail capacity expanded in the U.S. to handle a boom in oil output alternative facilities will eventually handle the expected flood of Canadian crude.¶ 'Keystone is the preferred enabler' of Canada's oil sands 'but it isn't the only enabler. There's more than one way to skin the cat ' said Robert Johnston of the Eurasia Group a consultancy that has closely studied the economics of Canadian oil production. </source> [/INST] <claim>Keystone isn’t key to oil sands --- can be transported other ways</claim> <psg>market experts said blocking Keystone would at most temporarily sidetrack Alberta's development plans. They said that just as rail capacity expanded in the U.S. to handle a boom in oil output alternative facilities will eventually handle the expected flood of Canadian crude.¶ 'Keystone is the preferred enabler' of Canada's oil sands 'but it isn't the only enabler.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The new emphasis on economic initiatives between the United States and Latin American countries represents a welcome break in stale policies. As President Obama pointed out “the stronger the economies and the institutions for individuals seeking legitimate careers the less powerful those narco-trafficking organizations are going to be.” Furthermore economic initiatives need not eclipse security strategies but rather work in tandem. The White House must take steps to implement economic cooperation as swiftly as possible including the addition of including additional Latin American countries into the Trans-Pacific Partnership--a 2005 free trade agreement that includes more Asian countries--and encouraging more student exchange programs between the U.S. and Latin America. At present only 40 000 Latin Americans are studying in the U.S. a far cry from the 100 000 slots Obama promised to open this year. Since the George W. Bush administration the U.S. has seen its clout wane on the realms of diplomacy and Latin America’s decision-making as the leftist wave rose among several Latin American countries while the region sought to integrate more and more by way of economic and diplomatic blocs like UNASUR and CELAC. If Obama’s words are not consequent with immediate actions in the next couple of months or years and does not take Latin America as a serious trade partner (which hasn’t been the case in previous administrations due to the Latin America-is-our-backyard mentality) the U.S. will continue to lose leverage on important issues that concern Latin America and in turn Latin American countries will forge ahead with economic and security integration amongst themselves. </source> [/INST] <claim>Economic integration of Latin America is inevitable but the US will be locked out without an effective TPP conclusion</claim> <psg>The new emphasis on economic initiatives between the United States and Latin American countries represents a welcome break in stale policies economic initiatives need not eclipse security strategies but rather work in tandem The White House must take steps to implement economic cooperation as swiftly as possible including the addition of including additional Latin American countries into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Since the George W. Bush administration the U.S. has seen its clout wane on the realms of diplomacy and Latin America’s decision-making as the leftist wave rose among several Latin American countries while the region sought to integrate more and more by way of economic and diplomatic blocs like UNASUR and CELAC. If Obama’s words are not consequent with immediate actions in the next couple of months or years and does not take Latin America as a serious trade partner the U.S. will continue to lose leverage on important issues that concern Latin America and in turn Latin American countries will forge ahead with economic and security integration amongst themselves.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower China is gaining influence in its hemispheric 'backyard ' Secretary of State John Kerry's unintentionally insulting designation for Latin America. </source> [/INST] <claim>The current US negotiating stance in the TPP will cede Latin America to China – if the plan makes the TPP more credible they’ll regrow US influence</claim> <psg>As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower China is gaining influence in its hemispheric 'backyard ' Kerry's unintentionally insulting designation for Latin America.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> But Mexico’s attempts to pursue further integration with the U.S. have met lukewarm receptions north of the border. And now the Obama administration is signaling that its trade priorities lie in negotiating a deal with the European Union which would neatly skirt the trade union opposition that has historically sapped Washington’s enthusiasm for closer economic integration with Mexico. </source> [/INST] <claim>Economic integration with Mexico triggers trade union opposition</claim> <psg>Mexico’s attempts to pursue further integration with the U.S. have met lukewarm receptions north of the border. Obama is signaling that its trade priorities lie in negotiating a deal with the European Union which would neatly skirt the trade union opposition that has historically sapped Washington’s enthusiasm for closer economic integration with Mexico</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The lawmakers vowed to resist efforts to give Obama 'fast-track' trade promotion authority -- which would let his team negotiate a deal with Congress then voting up or down without the opportunity to make changes. 'Congress needs to work together to get American trade policy back on track -- not give away its authority to do so ' said the letter spearheaded by Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. 'Reducing our authority to ensure our trade agreements serve the public interest will undermine our efforts to create American jobs and to reform a misguided trade policy that has devastated our manufacturing base through the offshoring of American production and American jobs ' the letter said. </source> [/INST] <claim>Trade promotion authority links to politics</claim> <psg>The lawmakers vowed to resist efforts to give Obama 'fast-track' trade promotion authority -- which would let his team negotiate a deal Congress needs to work together to get American trade policy back on track -- not give away its authority to do so ' Reducing our authority to ensure our trade agreements serve the public interest will undermine our efforts to create American jobs and to reform a misguided trade policy that has devastated our manufacturing base through the offshoring of American production and American jobs ' the letter said.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Of particular note here has been the capacity of protectionist forces in the US Congress to deny the President a renewal of trade promotion authority and to signal that their opposition to agreements is so deep seated that the Administration refrains from placing them before the Senate for ratification (seen with the Korean and Colombian agreements under both the Bush and Obama administrations). Substantial opposition to the TPP was expressed in the US Congress even before the negotiations began. In particular the US trade deficit with China has increased domestic protectionist pressures and has led many to question the benefit of free trade with developing countries more generally (Aggarwal 2010). The TPP has become caught up in a more general tide of skepticism towards bilateral trade agreements and in a push by trade unionists and civil society groups more generally to see these agreements include provisions on labour rights and environmental protection. And it also attracted opposition specific to the proposed agreement itself in particular from dairy interests concerned at the potential competition from NZ’s efficient exporters (Fergusson and Vaughn 2010). The National Milk Producer’s Federation has sought to exclude the dairy industry in any trade agreement with NZ – in March 2010 30 US Senators wrote to the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk warning that opening the US market to NZ dairy products would pose a major threat to the US industry. But opposition to the proposed agreement was not confined to the dairy industry: in May 2010 20 groups representing agricultural producers wrote to the Obama administration requesting that market access schedules and accompanying ROOs in existing US PTAs not be changed as part of the TPP negotiations (TPP Digest 2010). Some sectors of US manufacturing have also opposed the TPP most notably the National Council of Textile Organizations which argues that Vietnam should be excluded from the negotiations. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP is unpopular</claim> <psg>the capacity of protectionist forces in the US Congress to deny the President a renewal of trade promotion authority and to signal that their opposition to agreements is so deep seated that the Administration refrains from placing them before the Senate for ratification Substantial opposition to the TPP was expressed in the US Congress even before the negotiations began the US trade deficit with China has increased domestic protectionist pressures and has led many to question the benefit of free trade with developing countries more generally The TPP has become caught up in a more general tide of skepticism towards bilateral trade agreements push by trade unionists and civil society groups more generally to see these agreements include provisions on labour rights and environmental protection opposition specific to the proposed agreement itself in particular from dairy interests concerned at the potential competition from NZ’s efficient exporters The National Milk Producer’s Federation has sought to exclude the dairy industry in any trade agreement with NZ – in March 2010 30 US Senators wrote to the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk warning that opening the US market to NZ dairy products would pose a major threat to the US industry. Some sectors of US manufacturing have also opposed the TPP most notably the National Council of Textile Organizations which argues that Vietnam should be excluded from the negotiations</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> On the Latin American side of the TPP since the last decade Brazil has been investing massively toward infrastructure programs designed to integrate the region and to facilitate the transport of goods and services among its neighbours. Regional integration is a priority in Brazilian foreign policy agenda. By providing promising trade alternatives in a wider Financial Trade Agreement (FTA) the TPP could also represent a challenge for Brazil as its neighbours still receive a considerable portion of Brazilian exports which represent an important tool for economic growth. Furthermore having other partners to assist in the regional development could also diminish Brazil’s role as the regional paymaster. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP would challenge Brazilian leadership</claim> <psg>On the Latin American side of the TPP since the last decade Brazil has been investing massively toward infrastructure programs designed to integrate the region and to facilitate the transport of goods and services among its neighbours Regional integration is a priority in Brazilian foreign policy agenda. the TPP could also represent a challenge for Brazil as its neighbours still receive a considerable portion of Brazilian exports which represent an important tool for economic growth. Furthermore having other partners to assist in the regional development could also diminish Brazil’s role as the regional paymaster.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Everything that the public knows about the TPP so far has come from various leaks and if the final agreement looks anything like the negotiating text the implications would be far reaching affecting everything from the cost of medicines to internet freedoms by broadening international copyright and intellectual property rights legislation in line with US law. Make no mistake – the TPP is a neoliberal wish list that would empower corporations to skirt national laws and courts while directly challenging health environmental and other public interest policies. What makes the TPP so alarming is that it aims to create judicial authorities higher than national governments in the form of extra-judicial tribunals overseen by the World Bank and UN. If multinationals feel that existing government policy has hindered their expected future profits national governments would be obliged to dole out compensation with taxpayer dollars. If the TPP were to be passed into law it would: create incentives for corporations to offshore millions of jobs & encourage bottom-of-the-barrel low wage conditions in participating countries prohibit bans on risky financial instruments speculation and derivatives. countries would be banned from enacting capital controls and banks would enjoy significantly less regulatory oversight impose strict intellectual property legislation that would undermine access to the internet and digital file-sharing as well as stymie the product of generic medicines that may violate US patents lower food safety regulations and flood markets with those products empowering corporations to decrease environmental and health safeguards make signatory countries accountable to international tribunals giving corporations the ability to demand compensation for any expected future profits that are hindered by existing national laws. Like NAFTA which dismantled the US manufacturing base and led to thousands of job losses the TPP promotes offshoring through incentives for corporations leading to wages being driven down and heightened inequality. Pharmaceutical giants would be allowed to increase drug prices and limit consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs which is bad news for many of the developing countries taking part. On the digital front ISPs could be required to scrutinize user activity while the creation and sharing of user-generated content would be stifled by drastic extensions of copyright protection. In the financial department the TPP imposes extreme deregulation policies that have contributed to the global economic crisis while prohibiting countries from enacting capital controls an essential policy tool to counter destabilizing speculative cash flows. While Chuck Hagel and the gang over at the Pentagon are busy repositioning US military muscle to the Asia-Pacific the Obama administration realizes that it must offer Pacific nations – who would otherwise have greater incentives in deepening economic ties with China – an attractive stake in the ailing US economy. The countries involved in the negotiations – Australia Brunei Chile Canada Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore Vietnam and now Japan – include major economic players in Southeast Asia. The TPP is clearly the economic arm of the ‘pivot to Asia’ policy roping strategic economies into a legally binding corporate-governance regime lured in by the promise of unfettered access to US markets. Many believe that the underlying purpose of Washington’s renewed interest in the Asia Pacific region is to counter the influence of China which will soon overtake the US as the world’s largest economy. Examining the Beijing-aphobia conjecture of US foreign policy theoreticians like Robert Kagan can provide a clearer understanding of the TPP. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP is a neoliberal wish that empowers corporations </claim> <psg>Everything that the public knows about the TPP so far has come from various leaks affecting everything from the cost of medicines to internet freedoms by broadening international copyright and intellectual property rights legislation in line with US law the TPP is a neoliberal wish list that would empower corporations to skirt national laws and courts while directly challenging health environmental and other public interest policies. the TPP so alarming is that it aims to create judicial authorities higher than national governments multinationals feel that existing government policy has hindered their expected future profits national governments would be obliged to dole out compensation with taxpayer dollars. If the TPP were to be passed into law it would: create incentives for corporations to offshore millions of jobs & encourage bottom-of-the-barrel low wage conditions in participating countries prohibit bans on risky financial instruments speculation and derivatives. countries would be banned from enacting capital controls and banks would enjoy significantly less regulatory oversight impose strict intellectual property legislation that would undermine access to the internet and digital file-sharing as well as stymie the product of generic medicines that may violate US patents lower food safety regulations and flood markets with those products empowering corporations to decrease environmental and health safeguards make signatory countries accountable to international tribunals giving corporations the ability to demand compensation for any expected future profits that are hindered by existing national laws. TPP promotes offshoring through incentives for corporations leading to wages being driven down and heightened inequality Pharmaceutical giants would be allowed to increase drug prices the TPP imposes extreme deregulation policies that have contributed to the global economic crisis TPP is clearly the economic arm of the ‘pivot to Asia’ policy roping strategic economies into a legally binding corporate-governance regime lured in by the promise of unfettered access to US markets.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive new trade and investment pact being pushed by the U.S. government at the behest of transnational corporations threatening the economy environment and public health both at home and abroad. The TPP is currently being negotiated behind closed doors by the United States Australia Brunei Darussalam Canada Chile Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam — but it is also specifically intended as a “docking agreement” that other Pacific Rim countries will join over time with Japan the Philippines Thailand South Korea and others already expressing some interest in doing so. Negotiations are scheduled to conclude in October 2013. International campaigners are fighting hard to prevent the deal from going through. The TPP is said to contain 29 separate chapters covering everything from food safety standards to banking regulations. Here are some of the many reasons activists are fighting the current direction of the TPP: 1. To stop big rollbacks in wages and working conditions. Many corporations are looking for ways to reduce labor costs and undercut worker power — not only in the United States but in countries like Mexico China and beyond. The TPP would grant corporations cheaper and more secure access to labor markets in countries such as Vietnam where workers are paid just a fraction of what Chinese sweatshop workers are paid. Whether or not corporations decide to move their production to these lower-paid countries the threat of moving there (or of being undercut by competitors who have already done so) can be used to suppress employee demands for compensation and other benefits virtually anywhere in the world. 2. To head off attacks on environmental protections. A wide range of transnational corporations including those in extractive industries have pushed for investment provisions in the TPP that would enable them to challenge virtually any new law regulation or even court decision that adversely affects their expectation of profits as an “indirect expropriation” or “regulatory taking” through international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems. Similar provisions under past trade pacts have already been used to weaken portions of the Clean Air Act Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States as well as the environmental and consumer safety protections of developing countries throughout the world. The TPP would vastly expand what is effectively an alternative court for the exclusive use of transnational corporations. 3. To maintain access to affordable medications. The leaked U.S. proposal for an intellectual property chapter within the TPP would have the effect of extending monopoly drug patents for big pharmaceutical companies making it harder for countries to produce or procure low-cost generic medications for people with HIV tuberculosis cancer and other life-threatening diseases. The TPP threatens to increase healthcare costs in developed countries effectively denying access to life-saving medicines for the poor. 4. To avoid further financial deregulation. Wall Street banks insurance companies and hedge funds want the financial services provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to handcuff the steps governments can take to protect against “too big to fail ” regulate trade in toxic assets erect firewalls between different financial service firms and control the flow of short-term capital into and out of national economies. 5. To prevent new caps on food safety protections. The so-called “life sciences” corporations that produce pesticides food additives and genetically-modified organisms have a history of using trade pacts like the TPP to erect barriers making it harder for countries to adopt and maintain strong food safety regulations based on the precautionary principle. Even consumer right-to-know rules requiring product labeling have been attacked and dismantled. 6. To deter concentration of global food supplies. Big agribusiness middlemen want the TPP to enable them to “buy low” and “sell high” throughout the Pacific Rim a practice that would help concentrate global food supplies in their hands undercutting family farmers forcing new waves of migration away from rural areas and potentially leading to wild fluctuations in food prices for consumers. 7. To protect local development policies. A range of corporations want the TPP’s procurement provisions to prevent governments from instituting public purchasing preferences designed to keep taxpayer funds circulating in and supporting local economies. They also want to prevent government contracts from being used to advance a variety of other environmental social and human rights goals. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP puts corporations on a pedestal giving them the ability to ignore key aspects of society </claim> <psg>The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive new trade and investment pact being pushed by the U.S. threatening the economy environment and public health both at home and abroad. The TPP is currently being negotiated behind closed doors by the United States Australia Brunei Darussalam Canada Chile Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam International campaigners are fighting hard to prevent the deal from going through. stop big rollbacks in wages and working conditions. Many corporations are looking for ways to reduce labor costs and undercut worker power The TPP would grant corporations cheaper and more secure access to labor markets in countries such as Vietnam where workers are paid just a fraction of what Chinese sweatshop workers are paid corporations decide to move their production to these lower-paid countries the threat of moving there can be used to suppress employee demands for compensation and other benefits virtually anywhere in the world. To head off attacks on environmental protections. A wide range of transnational corporations including those in extractive industries have pushed for investment provisions in the TPP that would enable them to challenge virtually any new law tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems. Similar provisions under past trade pacts have already been used to weaken portions of the Clean Air Act Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States as well as the environmental and consumer safety protections of developing countries throughout the world vastly expand what is effectively an alternative court for the exclusive use of transnational corporations. The leaked U.S. proposal for an intellectual property chapter within the TPP would have the effect of extending monopoly drug patents for big pharmaceutical companies making it harder for countries to produce or procure low-cost generic medications for people with HIV tuberculosis cancer and other life-threatening diseases Wall Street banks insurance companies and hedge funds want the financial services provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to handcuff the steps governments can take to protect against “too big to fail ” regulate trade in toxic assets erect firewalls between different financial service firms and control the flow of short-term capital into and out of national economies. The so-called “life sciences” corporations that produce pesticides food additives and genetically-modified organisms have a history of using trade pacts like the TPP to erect barriers making it harder for countries to adopt and maintain strong food safety regulations based on the precautionary principle. E Big agribusiness middlemen want the TPP to enable them to “buy low” and “sell high” throughout the Pacific Rim a practice that would help concentrate global food supplies in their hands undercutting family farmers forcing new waves of migration away from rural areas and potentially leading to wild fluctuations in food prices for consumers. 7. To protect local development policies. A range of corporations want the TPP’s procurement provisions to prevent governments from instituting public purchasing preferences designed to keep taxpayer funds circulating in and supporting local economies. They also want to prevent government contracts from being used to advance a variety of other environmental social and human rights goals.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Prior to her arrest Kilcher argued “The Trans Pacific Partnership would be devastating for people around the world and it is being negotiated in complete secrecy to hide the content… While hundreds of corporate advisors have access to the information contained within these documents the American public the media and even members of Congress do not.” </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will allow for corporate takeover</claim> <psg>The Trans Pacific Partnership would be devastating for people around the world and it is being negotiated in complete secrecy to hide the content… While hundreds of corporate advisors have access to the information contained within these documents the American public the media and even members of Congress do not.”</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> As closed-door negotiations concluded in Singapore on the Trans-Pacific Partnership opposition begins to build in many countries. At the urging of the United States Canada and Mexico have joined the nine countries in the talks and now Japan has announced it too wants to be part of this new free trade pact of Pacific rim countries described by its critics as “NAFTA on steroids” Going into its 17th round of negotiations the Obama administration aims to wrap up an agreement by October hoping to push ratification through the Senate on a fast- track basis. Called Trade Promotion Authority fast track would mean an up or down vote without amendments or even hearings on the agreement presented to it. It is a profoundly anti-democratic procedure because it shuts down debate. But from start to end TPP has been thoroughly anti-democratic. On the first day of the Singapore talks a broad range of civil society organizations issued an open letter to Congress calling for greater transparency in the proceedings. The agreement is being hammered out in secret discussions among trade ministers. Even Senators have been denied a look at its draft provisions. However some 600 transnational corporations are in the inner circle. They are writing the rules for trade in their own interests without any democratic input from the people whose lives will be profoundly affected. If adopted TPP will deny citizens their democratic rights to shape public policies on a host of domestic issues conceding those decisions to the large corporations. Some sections have been leaked. They reveal “an agreement that actually formalizes the priority of corporate power over government ” according to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Only 5 of the 29 chapters have to do with trade. Wallach says the rest of the draft “include[s] new rights for the big pharmaceutical companies to expand to raise medical prices expand monopoly patents limits on Internet freedom penalties for inadvertent noncommercial copying sending something to a friend. There are the same rules that promote off-shoring of jobs that were in NAFTA that are more robust that literally give privileges and protections if you leave. There is a ban on ‘buy American’ and ‘buy local’ or ‘green’ or sweat-free procurement. There are limits on domestic financial stability regulations. There are limits on imported food safety standards and product standards. There are limits on how we can regulate energy towards a more green future – all of these things are what they call ‘Behind the Borders’ agenda. And the operating clause of TPP is: ‘Each country shall ensure the conformity of its domestic laws regulations and administrative procedures with these agreements.’” Global Class War Free trade is about more than trade. It is about favoring corporations over the democratic rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nations. As the former Director-General of the WTO Renato Ruggiero said in 1995 “We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy.”# What is being created is a global governance order in which corporation are the citizens not flesh and blood humans like you and me. With free trade corporations are making an end run around democracy. TPP is the latest offensive in a global class war. For nearly 40 years now since the mid 1970s corporations have been rolling back the popular gains of the New Deal era and the 1960s. Democracy has been the target of a class war to restore the class power of capital. And there has been weak resistance at best by the popular classes. But the stakes have become increasingly clear to more and more. Indeed on the issue of free trade there is now a broad public sentiment against this aspect of the corporate offensive. The US has become the world advocate of “free trade ” promoting it through trade agreements like NAFTA and other bi-lateral agreements as well as through global governance institutions it has sponsored such as IMF World Bank and WTO. The US has promoted free trade for much the same reason Great Britain promoted it in the 19th century viz. the economically strongest country in the world benefits from free trade. It is the weaker countries that seek tariff protection for their infant industries protection from competition with cheaper and higher quality imports. That protection is what enabled the US to industrialize in the last half of the 19th century. But then when the US became economically strong enough to compete regionally and eventually globally it became an advocate of free trade and demanded that others abandon protectionism. The justification for free trade rests on the theory of comparative advantage. This is the view that if countries trade free of government impediments the market will tend to direct each to export that which they can produce most efficiently and import what can be produced more efficiently and thus more cheaply elsewhere. The invisible hand of the market will guide each to specialize in producing what they have a comparative advantage in. Thus a rational production and trading system will emerge that maximizes efficiency. Free trade agreements like NAFTA were sold to the US public by appealing to consumer’s interest in having access to cheaper goods imported from Mexico. What was deliberately soft-pedaled was their interest as workers in having jobs. Organized labor opposed NAFTA fearing it would pit US workers in competition with low wage Mexican workers. Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot warned of “a giant sucking sound” as jobs would be off-shored to Mexico. But the Clinton administration said US exports to Mexico would create new jobs. And so ignoring opposition from its traditional base in the unions new Democrat Clinton pushed ratification of NAFTA through the Senate as his first priority. Perot proved to be correct as US companies shifted production to low wage Mexico – until even lower wage Chinese workers were brought into play when China joined WTO. But Clinton was also right as cheaper consumer goods from abroad filled the shelves of Wal-Mart with bargains welcomed by US workers who found their wages reduced. Free trade proved to be a mixed blessing. Capital Becomes Global One important point about free trade that is often overlooked is that it is not only about the free frictionless movement of goods and services across borders unrestricted by tariffs quotas and regulations. It assures the free movement of capital as corporations are freed to invest abroad. The mobility of investment capital is of utmost importance with profound economic consequences and consequences for democracy. Unable to find sufficiently profitable venues for investment in the overdeveloped US economy large corporations have increasingly moved abroad. They sought not just new outlets to sell their commodities but low wage workforces that would decrease their production costs and thus boost their profits. Frequently that would involve locating different stages of the productive process in different countries so as to take optimal advantage of local conditions. The assembly lines of US industry were disaggregated and disbursed across the globe. Global assembly lines emerged. These global production chains have become a signature feature of contemporary capitalism. Components may be manufactured in Singapore transported to China for subassembly and then shipped to Mexico for final assembly before sale in the United States. Although global assembly lines are geographically dispersed they overcome the limitations of the fixed assembly lines of the Fordist era in that they no longer have to rely on a fixed labor force that can organize itself to effectively claim a share of the surplus they create. Instead the global assembly line gives capital the flexibility to seek out the lowest wage workforce and friendliest business environment available anywhere in the world. This has been made possible by the development of a global computerized network of instant communications via satellite. That and the computerization of banking have made money transfers and the movement of capital both easy and instantaneous. The communications network also allows the decentralization of technological development and design. Technicians can work at points distant from the processes of production to which they address themselves. And the entire process can be coordinated by management located anywhere on the globe. The limitations of space and time have been overcome by digital communications and cheap energy for transporting goods to their ultimate consumers. For such globalized production to be possible capital must be able to flow freely across national borders and products have to be able to move with minimum friction across those borders unhampered by tariffs or quotas or non-uniform standards. In other words there must be free trade for transnational capital to optimize accumulation.# But transnational corporations also need legal protection of their investments. They need protection from expropriation of their assets laws and governments that can ensure their property is secure. A crucial part of free trade agreements is protection of what are called investor rights. This involves more than just protection from expropriation as happens with revolutions. It also involves protection from governmental actions that might reduce the value of their property or potential profits by environmental and health regulations labor laws or other such measures even though they might be for the public good. What in US law is called “regulatory takings” are seen as tantamount to expropriation. When such governmental actions do occur free trade treaties give the foreign corporation the recourse to sue. The suit is not adjudicated in a national court but by a transnational body of experts operating in secret. States are expected to enforce its decisions on their own nation’s taxpayers and consumers. This favors investor rights (i.e. the interests of transnational corporations) over the democratic rights of a nation. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP and free trade place corporations above human beings</claim> <psg>new free trade pact of Pacific rim countries described by its critics as “NAFTA on steroids” Called Trade Promotion Authority fast track would mean an up or down vote without amendments or even hearings on the agreement presented to it. It is a profoundly anti-democratic procedure because it shuts down debate. But from start to end TPP has been thoroughly anti-democratic. On the first day of the Singapore talks a broad range of civil society organizations issued an open letter to Congress calling for greater transparency in the proceedings. The agreement is being hammered out in secret discussions among trade ministers. Even Senators have been denied a look at its draft provisions. an agreement that actually formalizes the priority of corporate power over government Wallach says the rest of the draft “include[s] new rights for the big pharmaceutical companies to expand to raise medical prices expand monopoly patents limits on Internet freedom penalties for inadvertent noncommercial copying sending something to a friend. There are limits on domestic financial stability regulations. There are limits on imported food safety standards and product standards. There are limits on how we can regulate energy towards a more green future – all of these things are what they call ‘Behind the Borders’ agenda. And the operating clause of TPP is: ‘Each country shall ensure the conformity of its domestic laws regulations and administrative procedures with these agreements.’” Free trade is about more than trade. It is about favoring corporations over the democratic rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nations What is being created is a global governance order in which corporation are the citizens not flesh and blood humans like you and me. With free trade corporations are making an end run around democracy. TPP is the latest offensive in a global class war For nearly 40 years now since the mid 1970s corporations have been rolling back the popular gains of the New Deal era and the 1960s. Democracy has been the target of a class war to restore the class power of capital. And there has been weak resistance at best by the popular classes. But the stakes have become increasingly clear to more and more. Indeed on the issue of free trade there is now a broad public sentiment against this aspect of the corporate offensive. The US has promoted free trade for much the same reason Great Britain promoted it in the 19th century viz. the economically strongest country in the world benefits from free trade. It is the weaker countries that seek tariff protection for their infant industries protection from competition with cheaper and higher quality imports. That protection is what enabled the US to industrialize in the last half of the 19th century. But then when the US became economically strong enough to compete regionally and eventually globally it became an advocate of free trade and demanded that others abandon protectionism. The justification for free trade rests on the theory of comparative advantage. This is the view that if countries trade free of government impediments the market will tend to direct each to export that which they can produce most efficiently and import what can be produced more efficiently and thus more cheaply elsewhere. The invisible hand of the market will guide each to specialize in producing what they have a comparative advantage in. Thus a rational production and trading system will emerge that maximizes efficiency. NAFTA were sold to the US public by appealing to consumer’s interest in having access to cheaper goods imported from Mexico Organized labor opposed NAFTA fearing it would pit US workers in competition with low wage Mexican workers. Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot warned of “a giant sucking sound” as jobs would be off-shored to Mexico. Perot proved to be correct as US companies shifted production to low wage Mexico – until even lower wage Chinese workers were brought into play when China joined WTO. But Clinton was also right as cheaper consumer goods from abroad filled the shelves of Wal-Mart with bargains welcomed by US workers who found their wages reduced. Free trade proved to be a mixed blessing. One important point about free trade that is often overlooked It assures the free movement of capital as corporations are freed to invest abroad. The mobility of investment capital is of utmost importance with profound economic consequences and consequences for democracy. large corporations have increasingly moved abroad. They sought not just new outlets to sell their commodities but low wage workforces that would decrease their production costs and thus boost their profits. The assembly lines of US industry were disaggregated and disbursed across the globe. they overcome the limitations of the fixed assembly lines of the Fordist era in that they no longer have to rely on a fixed labor force that can organize itself to effectively claim a share of the surplus they create. flexibility to seek out the lowest wage workforce and friendliest business environment available anywhere in the world Technicians can work at points distant from the processes of production to which they address themselves. And the entire process can be coordinated by management located anywhere on the globe. The limitations of space and time have been overcome by digital communications and cheap energy for transporting goods to their ultimate consumers. capital must be able to flow freely across national borders and products have to be able to move with minimum friction across those borders unhampered by tariffs or quotas or non-uniform standards. In other words there must be free trade for transnational capital to optimize accumulation.# corporations also need legal protection of their investments. They need protection from expropriation of their assets laws and governments that can ensure their property is secure. This involves more than just protection from expropriation as happens with revolutions. It also involves protection from governmental actions that might reduce the value of their property or potential profits by environmental and health regulations labor laws or other such measures even though they might be for the public good. What in US law is called “regulatory takings” are seen as tantamount to expropriation. foreign corporation the recourse to sue. The suit is not adjudicated in a national court but by a transnational body of experts operating in secret. States are expected to enforce its decisions on their own nation’s taxpayers and consumers. This favors investor rights (i.e. the interests of transnational corporations) over the democratic rights of a nation.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> What the TPP really means for Latin America Quieter is better. That seems to be the motto driving the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The trade deal was initially called the P2 and it was a two-way affair between New Zealand and Singapore. Chile and Brunei joined the negotiations which were renamed the P4. Then the US joined and the deal was re-branded as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP). Today negotiating countries are splayed across the globe like a constellation only a highly trained astronomer could recognize. In addition to the first five the TPP now includes Australia Malaysia Peru and Vietnam. Canada and Mexico recently joined the talks and Japan is vying to participate in the negotiations The next round of negotiations will take place in Lima Peru and proponents are pushing for a final agreement by fall. But the language of TPP promoters rings hollow for those who have tracked the progress of other trade agreements like NAFTA. “They’re saying that it’s going to open up opportunities for exporting more Mexican goods to other countries like to Asia… That Mexico will become more competitive in other markets ” said Manuel Pérez-Rocha associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and member of the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC). Pérez-Rocha pointed out there’s little concrete evidence that Mexican exports to Asia will increase as an outcome of the agreement. “Mexico has actually signed many Free Trade Agreements with other countries and its dependency to the US market hasn’t changed a bit ” he told the Americas Program. Since the US got on board the TPP has taken shape as a second generation of geographically-distributed multilateral negotiations after the collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks and the Free Trade Area of the Americas proposal. According to the Office of the US Trade Representative “This agreement will advance U.S. economic interests with some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. expand U.S. exports which are critical to the creation and retention of jobs in the United States. and serve as a potential platform for economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region.” During the negotiations concerns have been raised that the TPP will limit access to generic medications impact Internet access and affect local markets for textiles shoes milk and grains in negotiating countries. “[The TPP] is a way to isolate China it’s a way to do an end run around the WTO and to kind of pursue the US agenda which was not getting very far with countries that are willing to participate… it’s just an expansion of the general free trade architecture that was being contested to some extent ” said Stuart Trew trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians. With the TPP secrecy is the name of the game. So far “there’s been no text released the only text that’s come out is through leaks ” said Trew. One of the key areas of concern is with the investment protection segment of the TPP which was leaked in June 2012 to the US rights group Public Citizen. The TPP would bring in an augmented version of NAFTA’s controversial Chapter 11 an investment protection agreement by which companies can sue governments for imposing health and environmental legislation among other things applied across all countries involved. “The leaked text reveals a two-track legal system with foreign firms empowered to skirt domestic courts and laws to directly sue TPP governments in foreign tribunals ” according to an analysis prepared by Public Citizen. “They can demand compensation for domestic financial health environmental land use laws and other laws they claim undermine their new TPP privileges.” The fact that the TPP is being negotiated between countries that have already signed various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and multilateral trade agreements has shifted the nature of the concerns among activists in negotiating countries away from strictly market based concerns and towards issues of Intellectual Property (IP) and investment protection. Intellectual Property (IP) represents another area where the US is pursuing an aggressive agenda in TPP negotiations. “While the TPP has some similarities with the free trade agreement that Chile signed with the United States in 2004 but from what has come out through leaks of the negotiating text the TPP has intellectual property standards that are much higher than [the US-Chile FTA] which in the Chilean case could imply changes to laws which protect innovation and internet users ” according to Francisco Javier Vera Hott project director of Derechos Digitales an internet rights group based in Santiago de Chile. “Chile has commercial agreements with all parties of the TPP so this agreement doesn’t represent any economic or employment gains or [changes to] market access instead it represents losses as we are required to implement stricter norms with regards to intellectual property without any retribution.” IP is similarly a major concern in Peru and in Canada. “In the case of the TPP in Peru for example it’s not just another agreement with countries with which we already have [Free Trade Agreements] the threats go beyond commercial exchange strictly speaking… They’re more in the area of deepening institutional reforms in sensitive sectors like intellectual property ” Alejandra Alayza executive coordinator of the Peruvian Network for Globalization with Equity (redGE Perú) told the Americas Program from her office in Lima. “The US proposal [regarding intellectual property] has been on the table for more than a year and a half and regardless of the fact that the other countries have rejected the proposal the US is insisting on raising the standards and they haven’t pulled their proposal at the same time they’re seeking to wrap up negotiations in the next few months ” said Alayza. “This shows a clear intention to press for new intellectual property regulations on behalf of the pharmaceutical sector which would strengthen the transnational monopoly of the pharmaceutical companies weakening access to medicines and competition of internal markets and generic drugs.” Pharmaceutical drugs and the IP chapter in the TPP could also have an impact on the availability of generic drugs of other negotiating countries including Canada according to Trew who says drug prices in Canada will likely rise if the TPP is passed. “Proposed by U.S. negotiators the IP rules enhance patent and data protections for pharmaceutical companies dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and obstruct price-lowering generic competition for medicines ” reads a statement released last month by Doctors Without Borders (MSF). The stakes are a little different in Mexico which has an economy that is much more dependent on the US than the other Latin American nations involved. If anything the TPP will deepen Mexico’s dependence according to IPS’s Pérez-Rocha. Compared to Peru for example “Mexico is much more dependent on the United States more dependent to NAFTA in general Mexican producers are very concerned that the privileges Mexico has with the United States will be diluted that Asian companies will be able to come and assemble in Mexico and export to the United States affecting very strongly Mexican producers ” he said noting that the Mexican textile and shoemaking sector have shown opposition to the pact. “For example textiles they could import from Vietnam to name a country and they wouldn’t pay tariffs on the imports and then they could produce clothes to export to the United States from here in Mexico so basically that’s one of the gravest concerns of the textile associations.” In addition to the textile and shoemaking sectors Pérez-Rocha pointed out that Mexico’s milk coffee and basic grains sectors could all be negatively impacted through the passage of the TPP. Canada’s dairy sector could also take a hit if the TPP is passed. “Really its just another race to the bottom but no one wants to get left out no one wants their economy to be somehow damaged if they’re not part of the negotiations ” said Trew. Though Alayza said she isn’t expecting mass mobilizations in Peru during TPP negotiations there events are being organized in Peru and elsewhere to coincide with the talks. The TPPxBorder group has started compiling a list of events being organized against the TPP beginning with a day of action on May 11th. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will empower corporate control – specifically in Mexico</claim> <psg>What the TPP really means for Latin America Quieter is better. Today negotiating countries are splayed across the globe like a constellation only a highly trained astronomer could recognize. In addition to the first five the TPP now includes Australia Malaysia Peru and Vietnam. Canada and Mexico recently joined the talks and Japan is vying to participate in the negotiations But the language of TPP promoters rings hollow for those who have tracked the progress of other trade agreements like NAFTA. That Mexico will become more competitive in other markets Pérez-Rocha pointed out there’s little concrete evidence that Mexican exports to Asia will increase as an outcome of the agreement. “Mexico has actually signed many Free Trade Agreements with other countries and its dependency to the US market hasn’t changed a bit ” he told the Americas Program. the TPP has taken shape as a second generation of geographically-distributed multilateral negotiations after the collapse of the World Trade Organization ( .S. economic interests with some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. expand U.S. exports which are critical to the creation and retention of jobs in the United States. and serve as a potential platform for economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region.” During the negotiations concerns have been raised that the TPP will limit access to generic medications impact Internet access and affect local markets for textiles shoes milk and grains in negotiating countries. The TPP] is a way to isolate China it’s a way to do an end run around the WTO and to kind of pursue the US agenda which was not getting very far with countries that are willing to participate One of the key areas of concern is with the investment protection segment of the TPP which was leaked in June 2012 to the US rights group Public Citizen. The TPP would bring in an augmented version of NAFTA’s controversial Chapter 11 an investment protection agreement by which companies can sue governments for imposing health and environmental legislation among other things applied across all countries involved. The leaked text reveals a two-track legal system with foreign firms empowered to skirt domestic courts and laws to directly sue TPP governments in foreign tribunals They can demand compensation for domestic financial health environmental land use laws and other laws they claim undermine their new TPP privileges.” While the TPP has some similarities with the free trade agreement that Chile signed with the United States in 2004 but from what has come out through leaks of the negotiating text the TPP has intellectual property standards that are much higher than [the US-Chile FTA] which in the Chilean case could imply changes to laws which protect innovation and internet users ” so this agreement doesn’t represent any economic or employment gains or [changes to] market access instead it represents losses as we are required to implement stricter norms with regards to intellectual property without any retribution.” They’re more in the area of deepening institutional reforms in sensitive sectors like intellectual property ” Alejandra Alayza executive coordinator of the Peruvian Network for Globalization with Equity (redGE Perú) told the Americas Program from her office in Lima. The US proposal [regarding intellectual property] has been on the table for more than a year and a half and regardless of the fact that the other countries have rejected the proposal the US is insisting on raising the standards and they haven’t pulled their proposal at the same time they’re seeking to wrap up negotiations in the next few months ” Pharmaceutical drugs and the IP chapter in the TPP could also have an impact on the availability of generic drugs of other negotiating countries including Canada according to Trew who says drug prices in Canada will likely rise if the TPP is passed. “Proposed by U.S. negotiators the IP rules enhance patent and data protections for pharmaceutical companies dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and obstruct price-lowering generic competition for medicines The stakes are a little different in Mexico which has an economy that is much more dependent on the US the TPP will deepen Mexico’s dependence Mexico is much more dependent on the United States more dependent to NAFTA in general Mexican producers are very concerned that the privileges Mexico has with the United States will be diluted that Asian companies will be able to come and assemble in Mexico and export to the United States affecting very strongly Mexican producers noting that the Mexican textile and shoemaking sector have shown opposition to the pact For example textiles they could import from Vietnam to name a country and they wouldn’t pay tariffs on the imports and then they could produce clothes to export to the United States from here in Mexico so basically that’s one of the gravest concerns of the textile associations.” Mexico’s milk coffee and basic grains sectors could all be negatively impacted through the passage of the TPP. Canada’s dairy sector could also take a hit if the TPP is passed. Really its just another race to the bottom but no one wants to get left out no one wants their economy to be somehow damaged if they’re not part of the negotiations ” said Trew.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> This week negotiations begin again in Singapore on the Transpacific agreement a project hailed by its promoters as the biggest most ambitious trade agreement ever. Eleven countries participate: Australia Brunei Canada Chile United States Malaysia Mexico New Zeeland Peru Singapore and Vietnam. It’s billed as a tool for growth employment and prosperity but the reality will be quite different. The world economy has seen three decades of neoliberal trade agreements along with strong financial liberalization both domestically and in transborder flows. They have been accompanied by new rules on intellectual property government procurement sanitary and phytosanitary measures labor relations and the prohibition of performance requirements on international corporations. These agreements radically redefine any nation’s development strategy delivering it into the hands of transnationals and the “free market”. What has the result been? A semi-stagnant world economy high unemployment rapid environmental deterioration and the worst crisis in 80 years. One might think that with these “achievements” we would have stopped negotiating new trade agreements. But it’s exactly the opposite. The transnational corporations need to open up new terrain for making profits even if it goes against the rules of social and environmental ethics. And since these transnational corporations have taken control of the regulatory realm their servants in government are working overtime to invent new trade pacts. Mexico agreed to join negotiations on the TPP last year. By doing so it accepted two harmful conditions. The first to renounce any attempt to reopen negotiations on the terms already agreed on by the countries in the TPP–that is it agreed in principle that what was already agreed on should be accepted by any new partner seeking to join the process. The second is that it cannot request the inclusion of new issues on the agenda. So Mexico went into negotiations as always: on its knees and giving up everything before even entering into talks. One might think that with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) our country already handed over everything and there isn’t much left to lose. That is partially wrong. Mexico gave up everything to Mexico and Canada not to the other eight countries of Asia and Latin America. That’s why the TPP poses a new threat to Mexico. One of the characteristic traits of the TPP is that a foreign company can sue the governments when the company feels that its expected earnings have been affected. This part of the TPP is inspired by Chapter 11 of NAFTA which poses a particularly dangerous threat to public health consumer protection and the environment. In fact this instrument was already used by Metalclad in 1996. Now Monsanto could cite Ch. 11 of NAFTA to force the federal government to completely open the Mexican countryside to its harmful genetically modified corn. Will the Peña Nieto cabinet dare to reject with a clear NO the dangerous plans of the transationals or will it agree to play the role of subordinate? </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP gives corporations domination – specifically the TPP is a death sentence for Mexico</claim> <psg>It’s billed as a tool for growth employment and prosperity but the reality will be quite different. The world economy has seen three decades of neoliberal trade agreements along with strong financial liberalization both domestically and in transborder flows. They have been accompanied by new rules on intellectual property government procurement sanitary and phytosanitary measures labor relations and the prohibition of performance requirements on international corporations. might think that with these “achievements” we would have stopped negotiating new trade agreements. But it’s exactly the opposite. The transnational corporations need to open up new terrain for making profits even if it goes against the rules of social and environmental ethics. transnational corporations have taken control of the regulatory realm their servants in government are working overtime to invent new trade pacts. Mexico agreed to join negotiations on the TPP last year. By doing so it accepted two harmful conditions. renounce any attempt to reopen negotiations on the terms already agreed on by the countries in the TPP The second is that it cannot request the inclusion of new issues on the agenda. So Mexico went into negotiations as always: on its knees and giving up everything before even entering into talks. That is partially wrong. Mexico gave up everything to Mexico and Canada not to the other eight countries of Asia and Latin America. That’s why the TPP poses a new threat to Mexico. Now Monsanto could cite Ch. 11 of NAFTA to force the federal government to completely open the Mexican countryside to its harmful genetically modified corn. Will the Peña Nieto cabinet dare to reject with a clear NO the dangerous plans of the transationals or will it agree to play the role of subordinate?</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Because the TPP removes the host state of the foreign investors from litigation investors would be capable of exploiting loopholes such as Most Favored Nation (MFN) status or utilizing the broad definition of indirect expropriation to pick advantageous standards and dispute settlement mechanisms.[22] These investor-to-state negotiations will enable transnational corporations to reap profits from foreign citizens over policy in the countries where the corporations operate even when no international state-to-state disputes exist. Intellectual Property Chapter[23] The intellectual property chapter appears to carry with it the most substantive changes to international law to be found in the entire TPP. A leaked text available via House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) details a harsh copyright law mirroring that of the United States which has the potential to alter domestic laws throughout the region. This chapter driven primarily by the U.S. if adopted in its current state would enact the strongest intellectual property protection and enforcement standards in any FTA to date. The proposed document embraces the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and recalls the rejected Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) pushed by the powerful pharmaceutical and Hollywood-funded lobbying firms in Washington by altering the ability to access information and vital resources for developing countries. The primary issues in the intellectual property chapter surround the extension of copyright restriction of parallel importation the enforcement of new laws and the ramifications for such products as textbooks and medicine. The intellectual property chapter best exemplifies the maximalist stance Washington has taken in these negotiations which contradicts the development agenda proposed in more transparent multilateral agreements such as the 1994 WTO Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). In terms of copyright the TPP will dramatically expand its minimum international standards in scope and length many of which do not even reflect settled U.S. law. The treaty proposes to lengthen copyrights on published works. under the treaty they would expire 70 years after the death of the author or no less than 95 years from the first authorized publication. This would extend the length of copyright in a significant portion of signatory countries as well as annul the TRIPS standard of 50 years after death or 50 years after publication. Although this copyright period mirrors U.S. law the U.S. law sets 70 years post-mortem as a ceiling while the TPP denotes this as a minimum length. These extended laws go against economic rationality as the government cannot incentivize the creation of work that already exists under copyright thus it draws no additional economic benefits. Rather the extended laws would cut supply in the creative goods sector particularly in developing countries where the public domain plays an increasingly important role in information dissemination.[24] The intellectual property chapter further enables the patent or copyright holder to block parallel importation of copyrighted works. Parallel importation is the practice of importing a legitimate copyrighted good not an illegal reproduction at lower prices than what is available domestically without the permission of the copyright holder.[25] Many of the smaller TPP countries benefit from this practice because they lack the sufficient population or demand to attract a low market entry price. For example with the TPP in effect a school in Malaysia or Peru would be forced to purchase textbooks at higher domestic prices rather than contracting with a buyer who could purchase the textbooks at a lower price in a market such as the United States and then sell them to the school at the lower price. The restrictions on parallel imports remain unsettled or unenforced in every TPP signatory nation including the United States. The current international laws surrounding this practice denoted in TRIPS leave countries free to adopt their own policies based on their domestic intellectual property laws.[26]Another area where the proposed TPP text threatens domestic laws and the pre-existing international intellectual property framework involves the easing and expansion of patentability standards. The TRIPS provision only allows for additional patents on a product or process if the addition has industrial applicability or alters the function of the product.[27] The TPP however would allow additional patents for any new form use or method of utilizing an existing product even if no applicability or efficiency measure exists.[28] Where this technique known as evergreening is most applicable is within the competing pharmaceutical and generic medicine industries. As Doctors Without Borders argued evergreening allows major pharmaceutical companies to extend monopoly protection by making slight alterations to existing formulas delaying the arrival of a more affordable generic version.[29] The first generation of HIV antiretroviral drugs in 2000 shortly before the patent expired cost an average of $10 000 to $15 000 USD per person per year—far outside the means of an average person living in a developing country. However by 2011 the price of a similar generic drug combination had fallen to merely $60 USD per person annually.[30] Under the current intellectual property chapter of the TPP such a devaluation process would take far longer keeping these important innovations in health care out of developing countries in exchange for greater profits for the major pharmaceutical companies. This provision further contradicts President Obama’s position on refusing to negotiate trade agreements that “prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to lifesaving medications.”[31] The final area of concern in the proposed intellectual property chapter is the enforcement aspect of copyright infringement. The U.S. has proposed a multi-faceted scheme for patent violations that allows for prosecution based upon pre-existing or statutory damages a provision that appears in U.S. law but not in that of any other signatory nation. This part of the TPP proposal takes the ability to punish infringers one step further by allowing for the prosecution of every infringer rather than only willful ones.[32] This provision encourages a rent-seeking behavior on patent filing and deters innovation both of which could prevent advances beneficial to social and economic development. Environmental Regulations and Ramifications Many U.S. environmental groups in particular the Sierra Club have expressed both concerns and hopes over the potential ramifications of the TPP.[33] U.S. negotiators have allegedly been pushing for stronger environmental regulations in the agreement particularly regarding illegal logging wildlife protection and overfishing. But many other aspects of the TPP have the potential to damage the environment due to increased rights of corporations as well as the sweeping definition of investment. The TPP would likely allow for increased exports of liquid natural gas with fewer regulations. This would undoubtedly result in an increase in hydraulic fracturing a process that results in substantial environmental degradation in order to obtain more natural gas. Hydraulic fracking threatens the environment and human health through water and air contamination the migration of poisonous gases and chemicals to the surface and the mismanagement of hazardous waste.[34] Moreover the aforementioned investment chapter stipulates that under the TPP corporations will have the ability to sue governments over any piece of legislation or regulation that they perceive as damaging to their future profits. Many worry that this will allow corporations to challenge domestic laws protecting the environment. Under the U.S.-Peru FTA U.S. mining company Renco was able to sue the Peruvian government for $800 million USD in damages following the denial of their request for a third extension for their obligated chemical clean up.[35] Under the TPP lawsuits such as this one would likely become more common and would be resolved by foreign tribunals with rotating judges. The TPP may also allow for corporations to challenge “preferential” labeling because such stringent standards on labels could result in favoritism towards a certain country’s product therefore violating the FTA. This provision could result in more cases like the WTO ruling that forbid the U.S. from labeling tuna fished in a manner that prevented harm to marine mammals as “dolphin safe ” because it “unfairly discriminated” against Mexican tuna that was not required to feature this label.[36] In May 2007 due to concerns that FTAs were opening up the potential for multinational corporations to damage to the environment Congress arrived at a bipartisan consensus that all future trade agreements would include enforceable environmental chapters.[37] The TPP will undoubtedly include such a chapter. In FTAs with countries that are participating in the TPP the U.S. already has shown some commitment to strengthened environmental standards. For instance the U.S.-Peru FTA aimed to reduce illegal logging a leading cause of deforestation.[38] Although there is the potential to help the environment through free trade agreements such at the TPP profits often outweigh environmental concerns. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP gives corporations the ability to dominate citizens</claim> <psg>Because the TPP removes the host state of the foreign investors from litigation investors would be capable of exploiting loopholes such as Most Favored Nation (MFN) status or utilizing the broad definition of indirect expropriation to pick advantageous standards and dispute settlement mechanisms.[22] These investor-to-state negotiations will enable transnational corporations to reap profits from foreign citizens over policy in the countries where the corporations operate even when no international state-to-state disputes exist. under the TPP corporations will have the ability to sue governments over any piece of legislation or regulation that they perceive as damaging to their future profits. allow corporations to challenge domestic laws protecting the environment. Under the TPP lawsuits such as this one would likely become more common and would be resolved by foreign tribunals with rotating judges. The TPP may also allow for corporations to challenge “preferential” labeling because such stringent standards on labels could result in favoritism towards a certain country’s product therefore violating the FTA. This provision could result in more cases like the WTO ruling that forbid the U.S. from labeling tuna fished in a manner that prevented harm to marine mammals as “dolphin safe ” because it “unfairly discriminated” against Mexican tuna that was not required to feature this label.[36] The TPP will undoubtedly include such a chapter. In FTAs with countries that are participating in the TPP the U.S. already has shown some commitment to strengthened environmental standards. For instance the U.S.-Peru FTA aimed to reduce illegal logging a leading cause of deforestation.[</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Despite obvious benefits and opportunities the TPP is not a sure thing yet and unlikely a panacea for all Canadian problems. Despite a commitment to progress across all areas and consistency in the objectives of negotiations the TPP by its nature is 'an unbalanced composition' (Ibbitson 2012). In addition to the world's largest economy (the U.S.) the TPP includes poor communist-run Vietnam. small oil-rich Sultanate of Brunei. two smallish Andean nations of Chile and Peru. two developed economies (Australia and New Zealand) emerging Malaysia and rich but small city-state of Singapore in the South Pacific. and two newcomers from North America - Canada and Mexico. Taking into consideration differences in size sources of income living standards and political orientations of these nations it can be difficult for them to find common ground. The Americans are setting the terms for the deal and many countries don't like these terms. Negotiations could be stalled in a limbo-type situation analogous to the promising but overly-complex deal to complete the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP negotiations are likely to collapse because of US leadership</claim> <psg>the TPP is not a sure thing yet the TPP by its nature is 'an unbalanced composition' In addition to the world's largest economy ( the TPP includes poor communist-run Vietnam. small oil-rich Sultanate of Brunei. two smallish Andean nations of Chile and Peru. two developed economies emerging Malaysia and rich but small city-state of Singapore in the South Pacific. and two newcomers from North America - Canada and Mexico Taking into consideration differences in size sources of income living standards and political orientations of these nations it can be difficult for them to find common ground The Americans are setting the terms for the deal and many countries don't like these terms Negotiations could be stalled in a limbo-type situation</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> This is a huge complex negotiating agenda — and to achieve its goals the United States will have to make concessions to accommodate the equally urgent priorities of its 10 TPP negotiating partners. Thus in some cases for the first time ever the United States will have to tackle its own long-standing protectionist practices and rules. This means liberalising high tariffs (and low quotas) on textiles apparel and footwear. It will also mean loosening market-distorting rules of origin that drastically curtail supply chains by excluding parts and components from non-TPP members. Then there are the highly restrictive quotas and tariffs in key agricultural sectors such as sugar dairy products and cotton. </source> [/INST] <claim>Existing US protectionism will collapse TPP negotiations</claim> <psg>to achieve its goals the United States will have to make concessions to accommodate the equally urgent priorities of its 10 TPP negotiating partners This means liberalising high tariffs</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Second the TPP is attempting to create a major trade bloc without some of the biggest emerging economies. None from the BRICS group — Brazil Russia India China and South Africa — are part of the TPP. And while the countries negotiating the TPP are all members of APEC some major APEC economies — in particular the Chinese mainland Hong Kong Taiwan Indonesia Russia and Thailand — are not included in the negotiations. </source> [/INST] <claim>US dominance makes the TPP ineffective --- alternative trade regimes without the US are sufficient to solve</claim> <psg>the TPP is attempting to create a major trade bloc without some of the biggest emerging economies. None from the BRICS group — Brazil Russia India China and South Africa — are part of the TPP. And while the countries negotiating the TPP are all members of APEC some major APEC economies</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> Curiously the repeated calls for including a currency clause in the TPP fail to tell us the most important thing: what kind of clause? What behavior is to be proscribed? Who will be in charge of monitoring for transgressions? What types of sanctions would constitute a fair remedy? The silence of pundits on these crucial matters reflects the lack of consensus on what constitutes systematic currency manipulation. When countries maintain fixed exchange rates below their market value impose extensive controls on capital inflows and directly intervene in the market to defend a target exchange rate it is easier to sustain charges of currency manipulation. But beyond these textbook cases we enter a wide grey area. Take the argument that the buildup of excessive foreign exchange reserves constitutes currency manipulation. Where do we draw the line on what constitutes excessive and how can we determine that the objective is to obtain unfair competitive advantage and not the accomplishment of legitimate policy goals? Many Asian countries concluded from the havoc wrought by the Asian Financial Crisis that they needed to boost their forex reserves as an insurance mechanism. And many oil producing countries have channeled their foreign reserves into sovereign investment funds to diversify their economic portfolio. Recently Japan has been accused of unfairly cheapening the yen through its quantitative easing program but the actions of the Bank of Japan mimic what the Fed has done to combat the post 2008-recession. The important lesson here is that currency manipulation is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Critics read into these policies an attempt at competitive devaluation while proponents note their merit in terms of prudential financial management economic diversification and deflation abatement. Until we have a widely-accepted definition of what constitutes currency manipulation we don’t know what behavior to outlaw in a trade agreement. Unsuitable The TPP is not the right platform to embark on the quest for definitional clarity. Currency misalignment is a global issue one that falls largely outside the purview of this 12 member grouping. The country that generates the most concern in the United States for currency intervention―China―is not participating in the TPP and among current members only two (Malaysia and Singapore) are on the list of manipulators that according to a recent Peterson Institute study (using the foreign reserve criteria) merit a U.S. response. The problem is not that the TPP net will catch few currency manipulators but rather the folly of attempting to legislate in a trade agreement rules on crucial international financial matters such as currency intervention without developing first within the IMF a set of specific guidelines on proscribed behavior. The risk of incompatible rules is not minor if we keep in mind the recent worry that provisions on FTAs may disallow prudential capital controls that the IMF now deems can be useful to maintain global financial stability. In the rush to avail themselves of the trade sanction mechanism proponents of a currency clause in the TPP have not learnt this lesson and they insist on putting the cart ahead of the horse. These advocates should also be careful about what they wish for. The United States may introduce the issue of currency manipulation to the TPP talks but the final clause will be a negotiated outcome reflecting the views of the other parties to the agreement. And some of the ad hoc arguments made these days by pundits―that the Bank of Japan’s quantitative easing program counts as currency manipulation but not the actions by the Fed―will certainly not fly in the TPP deliberations. Trade penalties are a double-edged sword: while the United States may go after currency manipulators (and again we don’t know what actions would count as unfair intervention what the trigger points would be) its own actions will also be subject to legal challenge if target nations challenge the evidence that the United States uses in building its currency manipulation case. Counterproductive A currency clause in the TPP can do much harm and little good. For starters it will introduce a very divisive issue on already heated negotiations that are now reaching a delicate final stage. The deadline for completing the agreement has been postponed before and by overloading the negotiation agenda we risk negotiation drift. Moreover it can dim the possibilities of constructing an Asia-Pacific wide platform of high level economic integration. If a currency clause discourages China from joining the TPP in the future it will be a major lost opportunity as many of the disciplines on intellectual property protection and state-owned enterprises to name a few examples could provide impetus for the reform of Chinese trading practices. While the costs are high the benefits are in question. Currency realignment is not a magic pill to eliminate trade deficits. As several economists have pointed out shifts in the value of the Chinese yuan have had a marginal effect in the American trade deficit with China. Nor did the sizable depreciation of the dollar vis-à-vis the yen during the 2000s had any impact in reducing the bilateral trade deficit. This point is important because the auto caucus has used the argument of currency manipulation to oppose Japan’s admission to the TPP. The impact of said clause in the auto trade balance will be modest given that the majority of Japanese brand cars sold in the American market are manufactured on U.S. soil. Even before Japan sits at the TPP negotiation table American trade negotiators have substantially advanced the offensive and defensive interests of the Big Three car companies. The Japanese government has agreed to negotiate on non-tariff measures that hinder market access for foreign brands (such as emission standards and preferential tax schemes) and to accept a long phase out of American auto tariffs a snap back mechanism to reimpose higher duties if disputes arise and a special safeguard to prevent sudden surges in American imports of Japanese cars. The U.S. auto industry has been well served by the nation’s trade negotiators. It is now time to contemplate how their demand for a currency manipulation clause will be a disservice to American objectives in the TPP. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP fails – currency clause</claim> <psg>the repeated calls for including a currency clause in the TPP fail to tell us the most important thing: what kind of clause? Who will be in charge What types of sanctions would constitute a fair remedy When countries maintain fixed exchange rates below their market value impose extensive controls on capital inflows and directly intervene in the market to defend a target exchange rate it is easier to sustain charges of currency manipulation. But beyond these textbook cases we enter a wide grey area. the buildup of excessive foreign exchange reserves constitutes currency manipulation. draw the line on what constitutes excessive and how can we determine that the objective is to obtain unfair competitive advantage and not the accomplishment of legitimate policy goals Asian countries concluded from the havoc wrought by the Asian Financial Crisis oil producing countries have channeled their foreign reserves into sovereign investment funds to diversify their economic portfolio Critics read into these policies an attempt at competitive devaluation while proponents note their merit in terms of prudential financial management economic diversification and deflation abatement. Until we have a widely-accepted definition of what constitutes currency manipulation we don’t know what behavior to outlaw in a trade agreement. The TPP is not the right platform to embark on the quest for definitional clarity Currency misalignment is a global issue one that falls largely outside the purview of this 12 member grouping. The country that generates the most concern in the United States for currency intervention―China―is not participating in the TPP TPP net will catch few currency manipulators if we keep in mind the recent worry that provisions on FTAs may disallow prudential capital controls that the IMF now deems can be useful to maintain global financial stability. In the rush to avail themselves of the trade sanction mechanism proponents of a currency clause in the TPP have not learnt this lesson and they insist on putting the cart ahead of the horse. These advocates should also be careful about what they wish for. The United States may introduce the issue of currency manipulation to the TPP talks but the final clause will be a negotiated outcome reflecting the views of the other parties to the agreement. but not the actions by the Fed―will certainly not fly in the TPP deliberations. Trade penalties are a double-edged sword: while the United States may go after currency manipulators (and again we don’t know what actions would count as unfair intervention what the trigger points would be) its own actions will also be subject to legal challenge if target nations challenge the evidence that the United States uses in building its currency manipulation case. A currency clause in the TPP can do much harm and little good introduce a very divisive issue on already heated negotiations that are now reaching a delicate final stage. Moreover it can dim the possibilities of constructing an Asia-Pacific wide platform of high level economic integration. If a currency clause discourages China from joining the TPP in the future it will be a major lost opportunity as many of the disciplines on intellectual property protection and state-owned enterprises to name a few examples could provide impetus for the reform of Chinese trading practices. While the costs are high the benefits are in question. Currency realignment is not a magic pill to eliminate trade deficits The impact of said clause in the auto trade balance will be modest given that the majority of Japanese brand cars sold in the American market are manufactured on U.S. soil. Even before Japan sits at the TPP negotiation table American trade negotiators have substantially advanced the offensive and defensive interests of the Big Three car companies higher duties if disputes arise and a special safeguard to prevent sudden surges in American imports of Japanese cars. The U.S. auto industry has been well served by the nation’s trade negotiators. It is now time to contemplate how their demand for a currency manipulation clause will be a disservice to American objectives in the TPP.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> The United States recently announced that Canada and Mexico will join negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a secretive U.S.-led multinational trade and investment agreement currently being negotiated with eight other countries in the Pacific Rim region. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP won’t boost the economy – it just replicates the economic inequality of NAFTA</claim> <psg>Mexico will join negotiations for the TPP a secretive U.S.-led multinational trade and investment agreement currently being negotiated</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> In 2011 as in 2010 America was in a technical recovery but continued to suffer from disastrously high unemployment. And through most of 2011 as in 2010 almost all the conversation in Washington was about something else: the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit. This misplaced focus said a lot about our political culture in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering of ordinary Americans. But it also revealed something else: when people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least. Perhaps most obviously the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now! And while they’ve been waiting those rates have dropped to historical lows. You might think that this would make politicians question their choice of experts — that is you might think that if you didn’t know anything about our postmodern fact-free politics. But Washington isn’t just confused about the short run. it’s also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong and exaggerates the problem’s size. Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage and will have a hard time making the monthly payments. This is however a really bad analogy in at least two ways. First families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid. it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew and with it the income subject to taxation. Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else. U.S. debt is to a large extent money we owe to ourselves. This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger as a percentage of G.D.P. than debt today. but that debt was also owned by taxpayers such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history. But isn’t this time different? Not as much as you think. It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe low-yield assets America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction. Now the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest. And that’s why nations with stable responsible governments — that is governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain in particular has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today with the exception of Japan. Of course America with its rabidly antitax conservative movement may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt but in ourselves. So yes debt matters. But right now other things matter more. We need more not less government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way. </source> [/INST] <claim>No impact to debt – empirically proven assumes all their warrants and specifically indicts their authors </claim> <psg>through most of 2011 almost all the conversation in Washington was about the budget deficit This misplaced focus said a lot about our political culture in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering of ordinary Americans when people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least. the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now! For while debt can be a problem the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong and exaggerates the problem’s size. Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money This is however a really bad analogy in at least two ways. families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t The debt from World War II was never repaid. it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else. U.S. debt is to a large extent money we owe to ourselves This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese you’ve been misinformed costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest. nations with stable responsible governments have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. So yes debt matters. But right now other things matter more And the wrongheaded ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> If you believe what you hear from political campaigns China's government owns so much of the United States' government debt that it has leverage over us—and is waiting for the right moment to sell it and undermine the US economy. Relax. China doesn't own as much of our debt as you might think. To the extent that it does the problem is China's not ours. The bigger issue for America is the size of our fiscal deficit and its long term implications for our economy not the level of China's debt holdings. Consider the facts: as of September 2012 the United States had over $16 trillion in debt—that is how much the United States owes to creditors for overspending in budgets over the years. US government debt is financed in a variety of ways including through the sale of Treasury bills notes and bonds US savings bonds and other government-backed securities. All of these are essentially promissory notes with pre-determined payment due dates. Who buys these promissory notes? A wide variety of people and entities. About two-thirds of US debt is owned by Americans—local and state governments institutional investors like banks and mutual funds and individual investors. The remaining debt—about one third—is owned by foreign governments and investors. China is the largest foreign debt holder with about 21 percent of the foreign-owned debt. However this amounts to only about 7.2 percent of total US debt worth around $1 trillion. What does all of this mean? Most importantly it means the United States has a large fiscal deficit that continues to contribute to our debt. This is an issue that affects the US economy in a variety of ways few of them positively and it is something that we as a nation must address. Beyond that it also means that China is a stakeholder in the economic success of the United States. Like any investor China wants its assets to gain value not lose it. In other words it wants the US economy to get stronger and continue to prosper because that means China will be guaranteed a good return on its investments here. A decision by China to sell off its shares of US debt would do just the opposite: send the American economy into a downward spiral harming not only the value of China's investments but also China's sales of products to the United States as the economy faltered. The Pentagon did its own evaluation of the risks posed by China's ownership of US debt and came to the same conclusion: 'Attempting to use US Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China than to the United States.' Ultimately China has become proof of an old adage: When you owe your bank thousands of dollars it's your problem but when you owe your bank millions of dollars it's your bank's problem. We owe China around $1 trillion dollars so until we come to terms with balancing the US budget and paying down our debt China will continue to have a vested interest in America's prosperity. </source> [/INST] <claim>China won’t dump US debt – would hurt them more than us</claim> <psg>If you believe what you hear from political campaigns China's government owns so much of the United States' government debt that it has leverage over us Relax China doesn't own as much of our debt as you might think the problem is China's not ours. US government debt is financed in a variety of ways Who buys these promissory notes? A wide variety of people and entities two-thirds of US debt is owned by Americans China is the largest foreign debt holder with about 21 percent of the foreign-owned debt. However this amounts to only about 7.2 percent of total US debt China is a stakeholder in the economic success of the United States Like any investor China wants its assets to gain value not lose it. In other words it wants the US economy to get stronger and continue to prosper because that means China will be guaranteed a good return on its investments here. A decision by China to sell off its shares of US debt would do just the opposite: send the American economy into a downward spiral harming not only the value of China's investments but also China's sales of products to the United States as the economy faltered. The Pentagon did its own evaluation and came to the same conclusion Attempting to use US Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China than to the United States China has become proof of an old adage: When you owe your bank thousands of dollars it's your problem but when you owe your bank millions of dollars it's your bank's problem China will continue to have a vested interest in America's prosperity</psg></s>

<s>[INST] Construct an argument in XML format made of an argument claim (<claim>....</claim>) and selected passages from the source text (<psg>...</psg>). Use the source passage: <source> That 2013 should matter so much in trade policy is rather surprising. What has come to be known as the “bicycle theory” of trade liberalization holds that if countries are not moving forward to lower trade barriers they will tip over into protectionism. If so the past decade should have produced at least some painful bruises. The collapse of the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations which are effectively dead if not formally buried was the first failed round of world trade talks since the creation of the post-World War II trading system. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed produced the first steep decline in world trade since the Great Depression. Yet rather than falling down the United States and other countries have managed to swerve and keep going. </source> [/INST] <claim>The bicycle theory of trade protectionism is empirically false</claim> <psg>What has come to be known as the “bicycle theory” of trade liberalization holds that if countries are not moving forward to lower trade barriers they will tip over into protectionism. If so the past decade should have produced at least some painful bruises. The collapse of the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations which are effectively dead if not formally buried was the first failed round of world trade talks since the creation of the post-World War II trading system. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed produced the first steep decline in world trade since the Great Depression. Yet rather than falling down the United States and other countries have managed to swerve and keep going.</psg></s>